Can someone explain the difference(s) between 222 remington and 223 remington

quote:

Originally posted by whizzbang:
Can someone explain the difference(s) between 222 remington and 223 remington

The 223 case is .060" longer than the 222. The 223 has a shorter neck and a longer body giving it greater case capacity than the 222. Shoulder angles are the same, 23 degrees. If it makes sense, think of the 223 as a 222 RemMag with a short neck. Hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by whizzbang:
Can someone explain the difference(s) between 222 remington and 223 remington

About 200 ft/sec. roger

And as far as I'm concerned, 200 fps ain't sqaut when you come right down to it. The 222 will do just about anything the 223 will. Usually a bit better in the accuracy dept also, although many will argue that point. I can say this because I have 2 222's and no 223's, don't really see the need.

And...buying 223 milsurp brass for $20 per thousand.

Rich

Last I heard, the record benchrest accuracy record was still held by a 222. The 223 can also be very accurate. I'd say, as others have noted, the big advantage to the 223 is cheap ammo; in my opinion the extra power isn't that much of an advantage.

thanks guys
I saw that CZ chambers some rifles for both and was wondering if there was a big difference.
It seems that there isn't but I guess there must be a demand for both

quote:

Originally posted by whizzbang:
thanks guys
I saw that CZ chambers some rifles for both and was wondering if there was a big difference.
It seems that there isn't but I guess there must be a demand for both

I have a CZ 527 American in .222. From what I read on this forum it must be the only so-so CZ in the states. I just now got back from the range where I first shot my new Stevens Mod. 200 in .223.Looking at performance only the CZ doesn't hold a candle to the Stevens. Not even close, terrible trigger and all. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
Last I heard, the record benchrest accuracy record was still held by a 222. The 223 can also be very accurate. I'd say, as others have noted, the big advantage to the 223 is cheap ammo; in my opinion the extra power isn't that much of an advantage.

The next bench rest match the 223 wins will be it's first. In a match grade rifle the duece has a decided edge

quote:

Originally posted by whizzbang:
Can someone explain the difference(s) between 222 remington and 223 remington

Realistically for most people not enough to worry yourself about get on with life.

I must take a small exception here. The 223 shoots a bit faster and I agree it's small, but the fact that it's so much more popular means a lot of rifles are chambered for it and there's only a few chambered for the 222 anymore. The popularity is due to the ammo availability and thence the cost being milsurp brass available in buckets full.

In terms of accuracy there is no noticable difference to a varmint rifle between the two.

I have a friend in a state that has a minimum energy requirement for a deer hunting cartridge and the 223 makes the grade and the 222 don't.

The 222 frankly is slowly becoming an obsolete cartridge.

The only thing in my opinion that makes the .223 more popular is the cheap plentiful brass. I have both and I never give it much though which one comes out of the rack. Once I start thinking of shooting anything larger than PD's at over 300 yards the 22-250 or .220 Swift is going.

When it comes to the preference, there are valid issues on both sides, mainly brass. Compared to my .222 Rimmed Martini, they are both cheap and plentiful.