I hаνе kіllеd a lot οf varmints wіth a Remington .222 wіth a 10X scope, аnd really see nοt dіffеrеnсе between іt аnd thе .223. Thе ages οf thе people whο аnѕwеr аrе pretty obvious аt times whеn thеу саn οnlу jump frοm .22lr tο .223, аѕ thеу don’t know аll thе grеаt calibers іn between thе two.
Kirsch уου wеrе doing grеаt until уου ѕаіd thе 22 WMR аnd 17 аrе more powerful thаn thе .22 hornet. I аѕk thіѕ qυеѕtіοn tο gеt thе interest οf young readers tο research аll thе οthеr options out thеrе instead οf always focusing οn thе AR аnd AK, lіkе thеу dο. de Witt gοοd аnѕwеr.
Kirsh аnd Connor аrе thе same person?
Gotcha Kirsch, mу apologies.
Tags: .222, ACTIVE, extinction, falling, Hornet, Into, still
The reasons that the . 22 Hornet is still kicking while the . 222 is fading are pretty simple. The Hornet fills a useful niche while the . 222 is ballistically identical to its cheaper cousin the . 223.
The Hornet fills the niche between a . 22 LR and most of the rest of the . 22 centerfires. Its a solid 150-200 yard gun for varmints and some small game animals. That niche is starting to get eaten into a bit by the hotter . 22 WMR and . 17HMR loads, but its still there. Add in the fact that the . 22 Hornet can be reloaded and that’s why its hanging on. . .
The . 222 was a great round, in its day. However as you pointed out in your question it delivers ballistics that are almost identical to the . 223. Additionally it has a smaller selection of bullet weights available and fewer commercial loading options and costs more to shoot since it doesn’t have the advantage of military surplus ammunition. Finally since the . 223/5. 56×45mm is a military round its better known and chambered in more guns. As a result it has eclipsed the . 222 and made it obsolete. Basically, with regards to the . 222 I think your question contained its own answer.
Edit:
I never said that the . 22 WMR (324 ft-lbs m. e. ) and . 17 HMR (250 ft-lbs m. e. ) were more powerful than the . 22 Hornet (700-860 ft-lbs m. e. ). I said that the hotter (high-velocity) loads for those two cartridges are starting to eat into the Hornet’s niche. The . 22 WMR is capable of 125-150 yard shots on varmints like prairie dogs or jackrabbits. The . 17 HMR can boost that out to around 150-200 yards for prairie dogs and a solid 150 yards for jackrabbits. That means both rounds are competing with the Hornet not just in the small game at longer than . 22LR range but also in the small varmint at longer than . 22LR range niche that has kept the Hornet alive.
Edit:
@ Connor F
[sarcasm]Way to copy what I said word for word. [/sarcasm]
Blame it on the Army. When they set the requirements that led to the development of the 223, they did so basically by making it just above the capabilities of the triple-deuce. There’s little enough difference in real life to make much difference, a little more velocity from the 223 and perhaps a little more accuracy from the 222, but military calibers are always popular because of the milsurp ammo.
There isn’t much business in 22 Hornet these days, either, but I suspect it holds on precisely because it’s the next step up from the rimfires, and you might as well rail against the lack of popularity of a large pile of other good 22’s, like the 218 Bee and 225 Winchester.
The triple deuce is still a great cartridge. However, it is very similar to the . 223 Remington, which is considerably cheaper to shoot. Which is why it is not as commercially available. Old time bench rest shooters still love it, as it was the most accurate cartridge around until the 6mm PPC came on to the scene. I always like the . 222 Remington Magnum too.
You anwsered your own question when you wrote ” I really see no difference between it (. 222) and the . 223. The . 222 is not chambered in very many, if no any new production firearms. It is competing with a cheaper caliber in the . 223/5. 56. In American history most of the highly seccessfull calibers originated with the military ie. 30′06, 7. 63×51 (. 308 win), 45acp, 9mm Parabellum, 5. 56 (. 223)
I don’t know of any gunshop that carry . 222, but all try to keep . 223 in stock.
The reasons that the . 22 Hornet is still kicking while the . 222 is fading are pretty simple. The Hornet fills a useful niche while the . 222 is ballistically identical to its cheaper cousin the . 223.
The Hornet fills the niche between a . 22 LR and most of the rest of the . 22 centerfires. Its a solid 150-200 yard gun for varmints and some small game animals. That niche is starting to get eaten into a bit by the hotter . 22 WMR and . 17HMR loads, but its still there. Add in the fact that the . 22 Hornet can be reloaded and that’s why its hanging on. . .
The . 222 was a great round, in its day. However as you pointed out in your question it delivers ballistics that are almost identical to the . 223. Additionally it has a smaller selection of bullet weights available and fewer commercial loading options and costs more to shoot since it doesn’t have the advantage of military surplus ammunition. Finally since the . 223/5. 56×45mm is a military round its better known and chambered in more guns. As a result it has eclipsed the . 222 and made it obsolete. Basically, with regards to the . 222 I think your question contained its own answer.