I can't make up my mind so i'm still lookin for my next project and was wondering about this one. Has anyone tried it?

This is one I've pondered over the years but never got around to trying. There was one on e-bay, although for an Encore, several months ago, but it sold before I got back to the 'puter (the dreaded "buy it now" option). Your results -- if they will be as I imagine -- may just sway me to give it a whirl. I'd particularly like to try it in a 24" bull barrel.

Bobby,
I know you like the 24" barrels but I may get this in a 15" handgun or a 20" carbine. I'll see if Mike B. has any to offer anytime soon.
Last I heard...he was givin away Hart barrels

Jules
Thought about having my 223 done a while Back & asked Mike about it? Then was leaning more to the 222 Rem Mag Improved to try to increase speed & accuracy. Then a couple of others things got in the way of getting it done.
Rich Jake

I looked at that to Rich, but I don't really need more speed then the 223, just lookin for something different then the standerd 223. I would think the improved should be very accurate with a proper chamber.

Jules I think a 223AI would be as accurate as a standard 223. One of the four original Benchrest Hall of Fame shooters shot a 23-40 which is the same as 223AI. I shot a 23-40 myself in BR and it would do as well as any 222. Lots of people will tell you the 222 is more accurate than 223 or 222 Mag but it ain't so. Only one of the original four Br hall of fame shooters used the 222 and that was Warren Page. Ed Shilen shot 222/1/2, Tom Gillman used an improved 222 Mag and Red Corlislon shot a 23-40. Those are the ones. I have a Rem 700 with a blackstar barrel in 223AI and its a tackdriver. 4000fps with 40 gr bullets and 3700 fps with 45 gr starke molly. Just the worlds oldest hippys opinion. I have thought long and hard about getting a 223AI barrel and may do so yet.

I have to put my vote in with tommyn. From what I have seen, read and heard there is not enough gain over the 223AI from the standard 223 to really make it worth every thing involved.

???? I thought the AI cartridges were shorter than the parent round, thus you had to have a threaded barrel in order to set it back, head space?

Jules, if you want accuracy, why not stay with the standard 223, and get a barrel with all the whistles and bells, custom twist to digest whatever weight bullet you want to use.

I am waiting for one of you; (hint bobby) to get the 222 mag improved with a custom twist, 1-7", 1-8" twist to use the sierra 77 and 80 grain MK.

Jeff and Tommy,
Now ya really got me wanting one. I have a Bellm 222 and it's a tack driver indeed. If the 223 or 223imp would do better, that would really be smokin. My 222 is just under 15". Maybe i'll get one of the 223s in a 20 incher.

jsh On a rechamber the barrel does need to be set back as to get a crush fit on the standard case when fireforming. The lovely thing about a 223AI is firing factory 223 rounds without much lost vel and accuracy. Then you have fireformed cases. On my Remington 700 that I had rebarreled I used the old cases that I had shot out the barrel with for my new barrel and they are going great. Lapua brass is great. A 223AI in a contender barrel with a slow twist does sound interesting.

Points of fact.

Yes the barrel has to be set back to get the shorter headspace and crush fit at the neck shoulder junction for fireforming factory .223 Rem. cases in the sharp shouldered Imp. chamber.

You CAN rechamber the .223 Rem chambers to improved, BUT since the headspacing is too long for firing factory standard ammo in it, it is technically NOT an improved, but something else. This is by Ackley's definition, not mine.

You can fireform the shoulders forward by several different means, the slickest of which is the compressed powder charge/long bullet jammed hard into the rifling technique I explain on the website. Works like a champ.

AND, using fired cases from a Contender barrel chamber where the shoulder to headstamp distance becomes exaggerated due to frame stretch during the firing cycle MAY be enough to use those rounds in the recut, "improved" chamber. However, if that is your goal, then you had best provide the guy doing the chamber work with your fired cases to verify for you that it will work in the first place and to set the chamber depth at the correct point.

However, as most know, I approach rechambering primarily from the standpoint of getting rid of the existing throat, and to do this the new chamber MUST be longer, enough longer that the new chamber neck has cut out at least a major portion of the old throat.

From this standpoint, going to a standard .222 Rem. Mag. or .222 Rem. Mag. Imp. is the better way to go to get the longer chamber. Plus, you don't have to worry so much about getting the cases to headspace right for fireforming. You can have problems with any of the imps if the standard cases collapse too much at the neck shoulder junction when the firing pin hits the primer, but if the depth is set right, normally there is no problem. Just drop the standard round in and torch it off. Out comes the fireformed imp case.

On the online store, btw, I have CH-4D .223 Rem. Imp. dies listed, on hand, ready to ship or hold until I rechamber an individual's barrel for him. Bellm TCs main site home page.

Mike

Mike Are the 222 remington Mag and Mag improved SAFE pressure wise in the contender??
Might have a rechamber done on one of my 223 barrels.

Is this a Be careful and do not load max loads deal or just use common since?
fireball

Fireball-
While I can't give the detailed reasoning Mike can, I can give you a summation-type answer to your question: Yes, they are perfectly safe -- within common sense and standard "safe" reloading practices, of course. The small head size of these cases is of key importance here.

Exactly, Bobby.

It is the diameter of the case head/chamber mouth that limits the pressure that can be run in the Contender.

However, with the small cases like .223 Rem and .222 Rem. Mag, you can run pressures that will blow primer pockets and get away with it.

Ditto for the 5.6x50 R cases. I got carried away one time using fast powder and trying to get a sharp form of cases fireforming. I opened the primer pockets on an entire box of $1 each RWS cases! But there was no apparent damage to the frame.

So to answer your question, Lonnie, .222 Rem. Mag Imp. requires no more exercise of prudence than the standard .223 Rem. does. Case head diameters are the same, brass is essentially of the same strength, and you operate at the same acceptable pressure levels. The difference is that the Imp. case holds about 32 gr. plus of powder and lets you step down on burning rate while having enough case volume to stuff enough in to get some pretty outstanding velocities.

AA2520 is a top performer & you can hit the 3600 fps mark from carbine barrels with it, which is essentially what you get from .22-250 in bolt guns or the Encore.

As I recall, the 14" handguns were doing about 3400 fps with 50 gr. bullets.

For overall use with safety to the frame, the .222 Mag Imp. is just about "top drawer."

One can argue in favor of things like 5.6x50 R Bellm and wildcats based on .225 Win. but each has its drawbacks, and you give up very little if anything with the .222 Rem. Mag Imp. Nor do you have to go to the "proprietor" in order to get custom dies. .223 Rem. Imp. dies work just fine for the .222 Rem. Mag. Imp.

.223 Rem. Imp., the TCUs, and the .222 Rem. Mag Imp. all share the same .370" shoulder diameter and approx. .375-.376" base diameter. Only the body lengths are different, and the neck lengths don't matter at all.

If I did not want to get into things like the 5.6x50 R brass and difficult to obtain custom dies, such as those for the .225 Win based cases, and I wanted the optimum flat shooting .22 for the Contender, the .222 Mag. Imp. is the way I would go, hands down.

Mike

Back to the slow powder comments, recall that at Alliance, NE I loaded enough WW760 behind 80 gr. bullets to crater primers more than I would want to shoot on a regular basis.

Likewise for H-380, another slow powder.

AA2520 seems to be much cleaner than either of these and works super with the lighter bullets.

WW760 is too slow for the lighter bullets, but works great with the heavy ones.

Mike

If you're going to re-chamber a 223, why not rechamber to 219DW? Much more improvement, and you wouldn't have to do any machining to the exterior.
T.D.

TD,
There are a number of factors against the .219 Donaldson Wasp. This is not to say that it cannot be a fun and useful round. It certainly can. But in the process of keeping things pragmatic, which is what 90% of shooters, plus, want, potential users of the Wasp drop along the way like flies. Line up a hundred Contender shooters at a gunshow, explain the factors surrounding the choices, and you probably won't on any given day find more than 1 shooter, if any, who will go to the work and expense of the Wasp except some nostalgia buffs.

Here are the factors, and 1buba, this could be article material.

1) Case forming, which is pretty extensive and requires costly forming dies.
2) The diameter of the chamber, which in turn mandates operating at lower pressures. Less pressure translates into less velocity, even with a longish barrel and slow powders, and will probably not come up to what you can get from the .222 Mag Imp. case.
3) The thinner brass of the parent .30/30 cases contains less of the pressure load and places more thrust on the frame than thicker cases like .225 Win. which is only a few thous. larger in diameter.

Not much favors the Wasp. That is why I cannot even remember when I did the last one.... probably over 10 years ago! I know I have the reamers and have used them at least ONCE in the last 23 years, but I can't remember when.

Getting 20 people lined up for any one thing in the TC realm is difficult to do any time, but we did do 20 .222 Rem. Imps. via the guys on the TC-List, which usually has no more than about 400 people subscribed to it as I recall. It was a good deal extended to the group, but if the cartridge itself and what was entailed with it was a problem, we probably couldn't have given it away. If you were to try to do a group package price deal like that with the Wasp, it would not surprise me if no one took the bait.

Don't get me wrong..... In the back of my mind, I have thought seriously about barrelling up a Ruger No. 1 for .219 Zipper Imp., which with .22-250 Imp., .220 Swift standard and improved, etc. makes no sense. But I have a die set and a reamer I bought from our bud across the pond, Vince, and just want to do it. I can make up my own form dies and save that expense, but it still makes no sense. I just want to do it. Reason enough, I guess.

You mentioned doing machining to the exterior. There is no such machining necessary for either round. So that factors out to "a wash."

Mike

Hey Jules,
might want to see if this guy would sell his seperatly
http://pub6.bravenet.com/classified/show.php?usernum=466293398

Mike is right about more case cap in the 222 mag Improved rather than 223AI case but you can only get Remington 222 mag brass. The plus side to 223 AI is better quality brass such as Lapua, Norma. If your trying to get the most accuracy brass quality is just another one thing to try to improve on the way to one hole groups in a contender. Each little thing makes a difference in the over all accuracy. Great chambers with good brass and good loading practices with good scopes will make a difference. IMHO

OK that is enough talk about 222 REM MAG IMP.
I can't stand any more, I'm waiting on my carbine barell to come back from Mike just any day now
Mike still no rush, I'm still playin with the 308
and having more fun that allowed a grown man.

Mike, 3600 fps, wow, I'm not after a one hole target but I sure want to see what that does to a few Texas Yotes.

Ken,
The effects will be about the same as with a .22-250. BUT, you will be doing it with a much handier Contender carbine.

As for my schedule.... I had hoped to have all the rechambers done and gone by now... never ending scenario..... but have to stop for a day or two to get blanks turned down for new barrels. They will go out to be run through a centerless grinder and be gone for about a week, during which time I'll slip in some more rechambers..... Jules', too.

Tommy,
Remember that the .222 Rem. Mag. brass is the basis for the 6mmx47 and was used quite a bit for benchrest shooting before the PPC pretty much domintated the matches. I have not done thorough comparisons of various brands of brass, but for production brass, the .222 Mag. is better than much of the .223 Rem. stuff I have seen.... with the exceptions you note of course. .222 Mag. brass is not too bad in its own right and not too expensive. It offers a lot of bang for the buck in a Contender.

Mike

Yes Mike the 222 mag was the basis for the 6X47 which we had to use for sporter class in br and I have had several barrels chambered in it. We had a heck of a time finding brass with necks that were consistent, but we also had problems finding good necks on 222 and 223 cases. That was before Lapua brass was available to us. Have a great day.

Wes,
I know i'm gonna hate myself for this but the guy you told me about in your post above that has the new Bullberry .223 ACK 14" barrel with a new Burris 3x12 matt scope. He said he'll take $500. for the set. He also has some fire formed brass. I don't know about dies.

My wife wants a new house and i'm going to hold off for a little while. I don't really want a new home, but it would be nice to have a couple acres apposed to a couple footsteps

tommyn,
First off, you hail yourself as the world's oldest hippy. Taking a drive into Grants Pass, OR, just over the border from CA, might make you want to rethink your claim. Lotttss of old gray hippies runnin,' er, uh, shuffling around.

Since you have run in the BR circles, is it not pretty much the concensus that Remington brass in general is not as uniform as some other makes?

And, all BR guns to my knowledge are set up with tight chamber necks and require neck turning as a normal mode of operation anyway. Correct?

The question is, did you find the brass "competitive?" If it is/was competitive in BR, then it should satisfy discriminating TC shooters quite well, true?

My experience with .222 Mag brass at first back in the early 80s was not good. I found that the shoulders were apparently on the thin side, and would collapse some when the firing pin hit the primer..... so much so that 6mmx47 was one round I never was satisfied with and eventually declined to chamber for.

But while in Missouri and getting a good work over from ole Howard, all of my experiences from that point forward have been nothing but sterling.

I have not done any (or few if any) plain 6mmx47s since probably the mid 80s, but all of the standard .222 Mags, .222 Mag. Imps., and the 6mmx47 Imp. Howard has been shooting all summer have all been great. Of the 20 from the TC-List that got .222 Mag Imp. rechambers, I know of no problems whatever with the brass. Add those 20 as a group to the others before and after that, and it is a significant number of chambers using the .222 Rem. Mag. brass.

Overall, I think it is pretty good stuff for American production brass at nominal prices.

Mike

Thanks Mike,

Still no rush on mine, as I read the thread here I keep thinking I should have also sent out my 14" Hunter Barrel.

I guess I'll leave it a 223 so I can show up the AR15 group at the range with their varmit weight barrels

I sold my 22-250 bolt bun severl years ago so it will be nice to have a Lite replacement for it.

Mike -
Funny, the .222 RMI (RemMagImp) and the 6x50R Bellm are both making the rounds on the TC-L. Some good things last nigh on forever. :-)

.222,223,6x47, all fine and dandy. What I'd like to to know is where does the 22 Savage Hi-Power come into the mix? I have plans on having a carbine bbl turned out in this chambering, anyone have any experience with it?
Wes

KTS1 - We're right back to a case head the same size as a 30/30. The whole point that I get from this thread (and other previous discussions) is that a case head size of .376" is optimum for pressures in a contender. Anything bigger doesn't really gain you anything becuase you have to load to a lower maximum pressure to prevent frame stretching. That is why, I think, that Mike has been toying with the .222 Mag Improved. If we could get somebody to make good brass at a decent price for the 5.6x50R then that makes a lot of sense in a Contender.

Better yet, maybe somebody can make a cartridge that is 3" long with a case head size of .376". I know that is opposite of what current "bench resters" will tell you about short fat powder columns, but we just don't have that luxury in the Contender.

[ 10-10-2002, 18:43: Message edited by: B_Koes ]

B_,
My pea sized brain is thinking the same thing. I just went through my new Cartridges of the World book last night (HIGHLY overrated book IMHO). I was looking at the cartridges that we know work well in the contender and it seems that they are all 6mm with the head size you speak of (don't remember the size, assuming you have it right). That's not to say that the big bores don't work, just that for the flat shooters we seem to be limited. I like the idea of narrowing down the brass a bit... Would love to hear Mike's thoughts on this... Also Shawns... 'Cause I've been known to be camped WAY out in left field...

steve

Before you all get jazzed up on the 6X47 just remember that the reason that it fell out of favor in the benchrest circles is the fact that it is harder and more inconsistent to light a long collumn of powder than a short one. I believe the fact that the 6PPC stomped the life out of the skinny competition is the 220 Russian brass by QUALITY minded mfgs, however is is most certainly easier to light the short fat collumns of powder. I have a few 6X47 stainless and chromoly bbls left over from my benchrest days and that is the reason they are now orphaned. THEY WERE JUST NOT CONSISTENT. Shoot in the wee little ones and big zeros one day and in the same conditions would balloon into the threes and fours on another day. Probably why I have so little hair left these days. This is certainly not to say that this round could not be fun in the Contender where quarter to three eights inch groups are acceptable however in the benchrest world, that is unacceptable. Now that I think about it, I just might screw one into a Rem XP action and try some half size silhouette. Seems to me that I have about 15,000 benchrest 68 gn. bullets gathering dust in the shop. Maybe they are afraid of the dark........ Regards