225 winchester

When that rifle was built?

The Beatles were rocking America.Beach Boys were surfing USA, Goldwater was defeated,Tonkin Gulf was front page news. America was recovering from another presidential assassination.GTO was still on the drawing boards.Those were the days
 
I can assure you it's not the cartridge itself. It's also not a 22/250, which is what a lot of people want to make out of it!

Barrel, bullets, bedding!

BTW- What's Ed Matunas up to these days? I always enjoyed his writings.

Good luck with the project.:cool:
 
I have played with a couple of post '64 model 70s that had factory bedding issues. They were also trickier to get the bedding right on than a 700. After some bedding work, they both shot a whole lot better. From my experience on most factory rifles, looking for a load before bedding is usually a waste of time.
 
Ramshooter, I'm not turning my nose up at the .225 because it's old. It was introduced to compete against the .222 and it just couldn't do it was my point. And, as you pointed out, the cartridge lacked consistancy. You could pour an amazing variety of powder and bullets down a .222 and get some outstanding accuracy. That wasn't true of the .225.
I don't want to put words in his mouth but "I THINK" it was Ed Matunas that said in one of the load books I had way back when, "if you've never owned a .225, it's just as well".
As I said, all of my information is second handed but I think you'll agree that had the .225 been able to run with the .222 on the Bench circuit, it would still be around.
 
So what is about it that's bad

Why did it shoot so poorly and the 22/250 doesn't? This is why we should write our congressmen?
 
225

The way I understand the 225 was created for was to replace the 220 Swift,that winchester was having a lot of problems with. It ran in to two problems. One was the 22-250 came out and the other was the rimmed case. My experience loading and shooting it is. It has decent ballistics and is easy to load for. 4064-H380-BLC2 and Benchmark all work well. It is not a Benchrest cartridge although accuracy is very good. It falls just short of the 22-250 for speed and is a very good on varmints. It is just a good middle of the road cartridge that never became popular. :)Dave
 
Great Post!!

Dave Dowd said:
The way I understand the 225 was created for was to replace the 220 Swift,that winchester was having a lot of problems with. It ran in to two problems. One was the 22-250 came out and the other was the rimmed case. My experience loading and shooting it is. It has decent ballistics and is easy to load for. 4064-H380-BLC2 and Benchmark all work well. It is not a Benchrest cartridge although accuracy is very good. It falls just short of the 22-250 for speed and is a very good on varmints. It is just a good middle of the road cartridge that never became popular. :)Dave
Click to expand...

You are right on every point! Great post!
 
Beemanebeme,

beemanbeme said:
Ramshooter, I'm not turning my nose up at the .225 because it's old. It was introduced to compete against the .222 and it just couldn't do it was my point. And, as you pointed out, the cartridge lacked consistancy. You could pour an amazing variety of powder and bullets down a .222 and get some outstanding accuracy. That wasn't true of the .225.
I don't want to put words in his mouth but "I THINK" it was Ed Matunas that said in one of the load books I had way back when, "if you've never owned a .225, it's just as well".
As I said, all of my information is second handed but I think you'll agree that had the .225 been able to run with the .222 on the Bench circuit, it would still be around.
Click to expand...

I never heard that it was introduced to compete with the 222, that is funny by itself.

I have seen the 225 be put down many times, all I wanted to do was point out that it was not a bad round, it was actually pretty good.

My opinion is at the time, Winchester was gong thru some real quality issues, so it was a hit and miss on what you got.

The 225 is an old cartridge that has little or no value today other than nostalga or in a High Wall type receiver.

I would never go looking for one, but if I found one at the right price, I would just have to go play......

The statment in Ed Matunas book applies to alot of cartridges, 17's come to mind immediately for me, :D:D:D

Good discussion!

Randy
 
Ramsh00ter said:
I never heard that it was introduced to compete with the 222, that is funny by itself.
Click to expand...

It was not designed to compete with the 222. It was designed to REPLACE the 220 Swift, as someome else noted here.

It was intended as a varmint cartridge, not a benchrest round.
 
Ok somebody must be trying to tell me something I just found a 225 in a 70 varmiter 2 sets of dies and 500+ cases 400+ new
 
I bought a rifle back in the late 70's in 225, it was built on a modified mauser action that had a piece of metal soldered over the mag opening, a barrel that was 1.250" in dia. and 24" long, the stock was a "benchrest" style thumbhole that looked to have been made out of 1"x4" laminate , and it had a 24 power redfield scope on the thing. to say it was ugly would be an understatement but boy would it shoot.
To say a 225 isn't accurate is to be wrong, that gun would shoot in the .2" all day and while I didn't have a chony back then it seemed to be on par with my new fancy rem. 700 varmint( remember the skinny stock and fat barrel, ah those was the days).
I put many a 52 grain solid base bullet down the barrel of that 225 till a freind of mine wanted it a lot worse than I did. He keep it up till just a few years ago and regrets selling it.
 
One round that can run with a 225 and never discussed is the .219 Donaldson Wasp. It's a pain to form the brass but it is a very accurate round.
 
Wow, when I read this I was shocked, I own 2 of these fine rifles and they both shoot awesome. My first one was the 1964 model with a 22" bbl given to me by one of my dad's friends. At first it did not shoot well for me. After a summer of shooting I got it down to IMR 4064, 34.0 grains using a 50 grain VMax and extending the bullet just short of the ring and lands. The rifle shoots .400 all day long at nearly 3700 mvs. The other rifle is a 1965 24" varmint bbl, the bbl was shot out, I sent it to Douglas who made a duplicate XX bbl, my dad and I glass bedded it and pillar bedded it, our first by the way. Went thru the same process and got it down to 34.0 grains of H4895 with a 50 grain Vmax or a 52 grain siera bthp they both shoot .250". I say bring on your 22-250!!! These are well made great guns with a more efficient caliber than a 22-250!!!
 
Doug Kennedy said:
So far the rifle won't shoot. My best group so far is 1.250-1.500. I've tryed IMR 4064,3031 H380,H414 and H4895. I have used a 55gr nosler bt a sierra 52 gr match bullet and 50 gr hornady vmax. Thinking about making it into a "safe queen"
Click to expand...

Looks to me like average accuracy performance from a factory rife....
 
Just a 4 speed tri power car it was black on black. Like everything young people did. I sold it and bought a Ford Falcon.
Butch
 
I bought a Weatherby Varmintmaster in .22-250 a long time ago.

On hindsight I would rather have gotten a .224 Weatherby.

I would rather have that or a 6mm Tomcat over a .225 Winchester.

Glenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top