Question is .223 or .222 ? I lknow .223's are all over the place and nearly every one makes them BUT im learning toward .222 Rem any reason i should'nt ?

Also i know both are very accurate but has one got the edge over the other ?

Considering a CZ in .222 who else makes rifles in .222 Rem ?

Englander

.223 is much more commom. Ammo is easy to find anywhere, and cheap. Your question, "who else makes a .222", might have provided your answer. I would go with the .223
Pete

[ 08-12-2002, 23:34: Message edited by: PJ ]

There are perfectly reasonable rationalizations for making the choice for either cartridge. They are so close to each other that I don't see how it really is an issue to choose one over the other. If you like the .222 then buy it and don't feel bad about it. Personally, I've got a Mini-14 & a Contender with a .223 barrel and I'd pick the 5.56mm round any ol' day. Brass is cheaper and easier to come by. I'm willing to bet that whatever is on the receiving end of one of those little .224" pills won't know the difference.

Who else makes them Rem., Sako, TC arms,Copper just to name a few I think the 222 is one of the better older Cals you can order brass for the 222 from many places at a price that will not break your bank account the older sako Vixen in 222 was a super rifle you might have luck finding a used one in one of your gun shops.

Yes the 223 is more common but that does not make it the only cal. out there I would ask you what are you going to use it on if this a fur gun you might want to look at a smaller Cal. like the new different 20 cal's out there the 19, or even the 17. there are a few new 17 cals that right out perform the older 224 with less powder and new and better bullets just an Idea have a good one>> Coyote Slayer

I have guns in both calibers (and also .222 Magnum) and have only good things to say about the .222 family.

While the .223 is certainly not an inaccurate round by any means, the .222 does seem a little easier to get guilt-edge performance from. The difference in the cost of brass is negligible (and you can make .222 from .223 anyway), so if you fancy a .222, then get one.

.222's have been selling for a little less than .223's in the same (used) gun, just because the .223 is more popular and because of the availability of ultra-cheap ammo. As the .222 chamberings are beginning to get a little scarcer, this seems to be turning around and guns so chambered are possibly more sought-after, although I haven't seen the .222 bring a premium yet. It probably depends on your local market, but you might pick up a used Remington 700 or even a Sako in .222 for a bit less than the same in .223. Shop around.

As far as practical range for small varmints, I can't tell any real difference in the two rounds.

When I have this type decision making problem I usually get both. Then later you can get a hornet, 22-250, 220 Swift, 22 Cheetah, and 22 PPC. That way you will be sure you have the "right" rifle. (Maybe this is the reason I'm still working at 64 years old.)

Englander: I'm kind of like stonecreek as I have both a 222 and 223. I also own a 223AI and 222AI. Now of the 4 calibers if I had to limit myself to one it would be the 222. Real easy to tune. Rem,Sako,and Cooper makes 222 plus CZ and I think you get a pretty good trigger with the CZ. Laupa makes good brass and if you can find any Federal match 222 brass thats good also. Untill the 6ppc came along the 222 was a pretty good BR round. I think people need to compare the 223 to the 222 Rem Mag as the 223 was picked over the mag by the army otherwise we would be talking about the 222 Rem Mag instead of the 223. Well good luck!
Tom