.22-250 vs. .222 hornet

[paratrooper]

Got 2 opinions from 2 folks that "know their stuff" about weapons but not this application . Coyote hunting in the praries . The .22-250 is supposed to be a flat trajectory for 300+ yards . The .222 is supposed to hit far targets as well . I guess I need input from varmint hunters . Any body home ?

 

[younggenious]

I don't think there is a such thing as a .222 hornet. There is the .22 Hornet, and the .222 Remington I believe. Anyways, I guiess you are talking about the .222 Rem. As far as I know, the .22-250 has more downrange energy. I know a frined who uses it as for coyote and mountain lion, and it has worked very well for both. Hope this helps.
-YG

 

[Archie]

Trooper

Check out a loading manual.

The .22-250 is faster in all bullet weights than a .222 Remington (or a 22 Hornet.) With 50 grain bullets, the difference is about 500 f/s. Therefore, the 22-250 will give much greater effective range, both in accuracy and power.

Your circumstance may not be able to take advantage of the extra range. The .222 Remington uses about .67 % of the powder charge of the 22-250, so it's cheaper to shoot.

By the way. The .22 Hornet and the .222 Remington are two different rounds. A good loading manual will describe both.

 

[swifter...]

You're talking about 3 different rounds...

.22 Hornet 35-45 gr. bullet at about 2800 fps.

.222 Remington 40-50 gr bullet at around 3200 fps.

.22-250 Remington 50-55 gr bullet at around 3650+ fps.

For flat-shooting at 300 yards and up, the .22-250 wins hands down. The .222 will surprise you, but long-range with it is better on rats than coyotes.

These are just average velocities, YMMV. I get near 3500 with a 40VMax in my .222, FWIW...

Tom

 

[Art Eatman]

The .222 Remington is about 10% below the .223 in performance, roughly.

The Hornet is just about perfect for hunting smaller varmints in built-up areas. Not a lot of noise. Range, roughly 150 yards on woodchucks and ground squirrels. Maybe a 75-yard or so coyote gun, for clear head ot reart shots.

The .22-250 can push 4,000 ft/sec with lighter bullets. It's a kissin' cousin to the .220 Swift.

Art

 

[paratrooper]

Sorry about the mix up on numbers . I take it that if you fellas would all be partial to the .22-250 . The reason I am looking for a flat trajectory is the time to get a shot off is not always as long as we want . By the time you figure "drop" the little dipstick is moving again . Thank you all .

 

[Bob Locke]

"Flat" is a pretty good term for describing the .22-250's trajectory all right!

The .220 Swift is in its league, as are some of the wildcats. But among the mass-produced rounds I'd say it's the best choice.

 

[radom]

If you want to shoot "flat" with a .22 go with the 22/250. The .222 can be a real good shooter but with the ease of finding .223 brass vs .222 brass and the price of plinking ammo the .223 wins out for me. Now if you plan on a gun with a mega X scope and want to hit past 300yds on a small target get the 22/250. The only down with the 22/250 is a lot of real hot 4000fps ammo well wear the bore in short order or so I keep reading in the loading manuals and gun rags and I bet they are right. They sure do make a 30-06 look like a mortor though.

 

[Tom Matiska]

You may want to think about twist rates and bullet weights before you commit. With some exception, most of the 22-250, 222Rem, and 22 Hornets offerings are 1-14". Most .223 offerings are 1-12" or faster.

If you want to buck crosswinds or maintain energy with heavier boatails, you may want to favor the .223. If you are going to push lightweight bullets into the "photon torpedo" range you will discover the ratio of fouling(and cleaning) to shooting is worse with the faster twists.

Tom

 

[Art Eatman]

Hunting coyotes shouldn't make for a barrel-burn problem. Really, there aren't that many coyotes; it just sounds that way. Now, if you're talkin' PDogs...

Art

 

[radom]

Tom has a good point on the bore twists. most are 1 in 14 except for the 1-16 hornet and the 1-7,1-9 and 1-12 for the .223. I would think though with the 22/250 and the .220 swift the higher speed probably will compensate for the slower twist with the heavy slugs. You have to keep in mind that a 22/250 launches a 60 or 63 grain slug 600fps faster than a .223 does.

 

[Zorro]

If you need to push a heavier 60 Grain bullet consider a .243 Winchester instead.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Isn't there also a now pretty much extinct .222 Remington Magnum?

 

[leej]

If you are going to do a lot of shooting stick with something like the .222 or .223. You can easily get 10 to 12,000 rounds of barrel life.

Remember rounds like the 22-250 kill like lightening but do not expect to much more than 2,000 rounds of barrel life.

If you are a good shot and can estimate range the .223 will kill just as many prarie dogs as the 22-250.

Someone mentioned the .222 magnum. Boy what a tragedy. This is probably one of the best calibers ever invented and the least known. The .223 killed it off and the .223 had less powder capacity, less velocity and a much shorter neck than the easier to load for accuracy .222 magnum. This is one caliber they should bring back. I would be the first to buy a new one in say a SAKO rifle.

 

[Hook_N_Bullet]

I can't remember what magazine I read this in, but I think it was Varmint Hunter. It was a nice article about the .22-250 and the .223. The jist of the article was if you are out west and shooting a lot (Prarie dog towns) use a .223 to save your barrel. If you are from the east and Ground Hog hunting, use a .22-250, since you rarely take more than 10 or 20 shots a day.

Dave

 

[Art Eatman]

I disremember: Did anybody chamber a factory rifle for the .222 Mag, or was it always a chamber-reaming?

Art

 

[leej]

To Art

Yes indeed they did. Remington did and my friend has a Sako in .222 mag. I have been trying to buy it from him for over 20 years. He did promise to leave me the Rifle in his will.

This winter I will pore plenty of water over his side walk and hope for the best. Just joking.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Art,

I think BSA may also have chambered the .222 Rem. Mag. at one time.

And, according to Cartridges of the World, Remington first introduced it in the 722, and later the 700, but none of the other American companies ever offered it.

Lee,

COTW is showing the .222 Mag. and .223 to have virtually identical performance, with only a very minimal edge to the .223.

Apparently the .222 Mag. was, in fact, one of the experimental military cartridges from aroudn the time the .223 was deveoped.

 

[Art Eatman]

Thanx for the update. I'm in Jawgia for Christmas, and all my reference library is in Terlingua.

, Art

 

[Bogie]

Okay - I own a .22-250. Nice flat shooting, and powerful. I also own a .22PPC and a .223...

If you handload, and are having the rifle made, get either .22PPC, .22 BR Remington, or .222 - You can get BETTER brass - You'll spend a little more, but accuracy costs. The .222 holds the world's record for smallest 5-shot group at 100 yards (some feller named Gale's brother...). I'd probably go with .222 or .223 Improved (not the regular chamber - less brass stretching with the improved version).

For under 300 yards, I'd go with the deuce (.222), or the .22PPC... For 300-400, I'd go with the .22 BR, or maybe the .22-250... Out to 500, a .22-250 Ackley... Over 500, go with a big six...