All,

I need to get a bit of clarification. I am looking
through my reloading data books, and I
come across a .222 Remington, and a .222
Remington Magnum. I recall once asking about
the parent case, for the .204 Ruger, and being
told it was a .222 Remington. I was also told
that the .204 Ruger had more case capacity
than the .223 Remington... Since the .222
Remington is a smaller case than the .223,
I am questioning, is the .222 Remington,
that everyone calls the "Triple Deuce",
really the case my data book is calling
the .222 Remington Magnum????

Thanks in advance for any clarification
you may provide.

Squeeze

Squeeze,

It is my understanding the 204 is based on the 222 Rem. MAGNUM case.

Jim

The triple duece is the 222. The Magnum held about 5 grains more powder. Can't help you on the 204.

I was told you could use the 222 remington magnum cases but you had to neck them down to make them 204. I don't know if this is true though.

I have had several .222 Remington Magnums, still own two Steyrs and a Remington M700 BDL in that caliber. The .222 Remington Magnum was Remington's first attempt at what became the 5.56mm NATO. They chambered it in the M700 as a more powerful .222 varmint round, and it was moderately successful until the .223 moved into the seen and began to dominate the varmint business. Powder capacity is the same in the .222 Remington Magnum and the .223, so performance is essentially identical. Only "advantage" to the .222 Rem Mag is the longer neck vs the short neck of the .223 cartridge.

LLS
Mannlicher Collector

The 222 remington is the "triple duece" the 222 remington magnum is the parent case for the 204 ruger, the tactical 20 is the 20 cal offspring of the 223.

OK here goes nothing - mike walker was responsible for bringing out the 222 or triple deuce back in the early 50's. Mike was a benchrest shooter and the 222 was his creation as a benchrest round. When it became evident that most people liked it as a varmiter but wanted a bit more bullet weight and velocity, remington brought out the 222 mag. This is a longer case than the 222 and was loaded to about 200 FPS more and using a 55 gr bullet. the mag has a longer neck to still have a firm grasp on the bullet. When the military came out with interest in the smaller round the 222 mag was closely looked at and became the parent to the 223, which has a much shorter neck and slightely less powder capacity. The 204 ruger uses the 222 mag case but it has the shoulder blown out for even more case capacity. It is possible to make 204 cases from 222 mag, but because the round headspaces on the shoulder it would have to held firmly by the extractor to have the firing pin hit strong enough. i.e. - you might be able to make cases from a claw extractor bolt gun, but not from a ruger #1. The 223 has of course taken over popularity from both the 222 and the 222 mag because of its military use and the availability of military brass and ammo. Of the 3 the 222 mag is the superior round

Well, Butch is pretty close, but I disagree about there being any problem making .204's from .222 Mag brass (not that you'd want to as .204 brass is now much more readily available than the "parent" case). Wherever the .204 FL die stops as it squeezes down the larger neck, there's going to be a "shoulder" created by the difference in the diameters between the two necks. This shoulder is fully adequate for headspacing.

As to the origin of the .223, the .222 Magnum was an experimental military cartridge that Remington introduced as a commercial number while it was still under military development. Because the Armalite AR-15 magazine was just a tad too short for the .222 Magnum, the slightly shorter (and only very slightly less capacious) .223 was designed to work through that particular rifle's chamber. The AR-15 became the M-16, .223 brass and rifles flooded the market, and BOTH the .222 and longer .222 Magnum lost sales to the point that they have become rarities in the current market.

I have each caliber in virtually identical Sakos. They are so similar in performance as to be indistiguishable in practice -- the .222 will launch its 50 grain bullet at approximately the same velocity as either of the others will fire a 55 grainer. The two larger cases will handle the 60+ grain bullets a little better.

In my particular rifles, the .222 is very slightly the most accurate. While this is statistically insignificant, many people do regard the .222 as the easiest with which to get good accuracy, while others will argue that the .222 Magnum is the best choice. Most concede that the .223 doesn't lend itself as well to precision accuracy applications, but I really don't see much difference. I like them all.

Stonecreek is correct that the 222 REM MAG is a by-product of military experiments to develop a cartridge for the Armalite. But the 222 was originally a live varmint round developed by Mike Walker and Warren Page. It was intended to fill the gap between cartridges like the 22 Hornet and the 22 Varminter. Benchrest shooters immediately glommed onto it and the rest is history.

i tried and liked the 222 mag brass for my 204 , as it formed thru sizing , no fireforming nessessary , and i like the 204s longer case dimensions too , but only the body seems to be a little tiny bit foreward of the 222mags , but i use the 204s to make my 6-47 mm , seems to me they are all driectly related , and about interchangeable as long as all the rifles dont have long chambers . my 6-47 is a rem mohawl , the 204 is a #1 ruger , and the 222 mag is a 722 rem , maybe im just lucky i guess .

I also own both a .222Rem. and a .222Rem.Mag. Both are excellent woodchuck rifles, and also do very well at the bench. You can get an extra 200-250fps from the magnum round. My .222Rem. is a Rem. 40XBBR which shoots in the .2"s. The .222
Rem.Mag., a Sako action with a Hart SS barrel groups in the .3"s. Both of these calibers will really shoot well, and are a joy at the range or in the field. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal