.222 vs .223

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • .222 vs .223

    I did not want to possibly derail someone elses thread. What is the real difference between .222 and .223 other than that last very small number. I'm asking simply because I don't know. Are these two different calibers? anybody know the realistic or technical difference.
    "He got the whole nine yards" - as it happens World War II (1939–1945) aircraft machine gun belts (US 50 cal) were nine yards long.

  • #2


    • #3
      .223 has a little more legs, can run heavier projectiles in faster twist barrels from 1:8~1:12, .222 runs 1;14 which limits it in most rifles to about 52 grain projectiles, although many (myself included) have had a lot of luck with 55 grains.

      .222 is a class act, the .223 is a Bogans wet dream


      Vive le triple deuce!


      • #4
        short answer =
        almost identical cartridges.
        both fire same diameter projectiles, just the 223 is slightly faster than the 222. (due to more powder stored in a slightly longer shell of the same diameter).
        that's it really,.
        nothing more nothing less.
        the rest are minor details.
        both are great little cartridges.


        • #5
          .222 has a longer neck which gives a bit more leeway for seating depths. Great cartridge to reload, heaps of info on line, not to hungry for powder, plenty of projies to chose from, very mild to shoot, great barrel live, arguably more inherently accurate than the .223, slightly less noise than the .223, still plenty of factory ammo offerings for same price as .223 (if you look around). I went for it for my 1st CF caliber because i it's a classic and .223 is just (as mentioned before) a bogan round. :P

          .223 pros are, you can throw a slightly heavier projy, has maybe 50 meters more reach, ammo is everywhere and there are many ammo makers who make .223 if you're not a reloader.


          • #6
            The diff is about 150-200fps - both kill stuff, I own both and both work. I shoot it, stuff falls over I'm happy. :lol: Don't fall for all that stuff about the 222 being more expensive to run, it cost's stuff all diff, maybe 10c a shot and if ya can't afford that, go and find another hobby! For general hunting type situations either will do the job fine, they have both been used for a long time in such situations and have proven to be capable of doing so.

            The 223 is more common these days but don't think for 1 min the 222 isn't popular there would be millions of the bloody things still being used around the world and a heap of em in this country too. Just about every farmer I know still has one and uses it, cheap to run, easy on barrels and ears, accurate and kills most things running around farms, what's not to like.
            Whacking Varmints is my passion!


            • #7
              yep not much in them Id imagine. The 223 just has a little more space for powder I think the 222 just carries some old sentimental value amongst the generations .


              • Guest's Avatar
                Guest commented
                Editing a comment
                I think the military looked at the .222 and liked it and called their version the .223, although I cant remember where I got that from!

            • #8
              At the time, the military looked at both 223, & the 222rem mag.(another sweet little round)
              Can't remember why they went with the 223.


              • #9
                Can't add anymore than what has been posted, but I can say that both are very effective cartridges. Really just splitting hairs between them, I would own either.


                • #10
                  Well thank you for that. Everybody gets a free laugh today. -I thought it was a typo- HEHEHEHEHE
                  There is a difference who new (other than you guys of course)
                  "He got the whole nine yards" - as it happens World War II (1939–1945) aircraft machine gun belts (US 50 cal) were nine yards long.


                  • #11
                    hi I have 1 of each in hunting rifles if I had the choice id go with the 222


                    • El-Skippo
                      Skip commented
                      Editing a comment
                      The triple deuce has got its fair share of benchrest records to its name.

                      I like the 222 but I am a .223 man

                  • #12
                    Is there any price Difference in factory ammo between 222 and 223 ???


                    • Guest's Avatar
                      Guest commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Bassically none.
                      It depends more on brand than Cal.

                      .222 actually works out just that tad cheaper to handload.

                      One thing I may be able to add to Chewtah's informative post is that I have also read, one of the big factors in the Military's choice was that the .222 with it's long neck did not feed well in an Auto.

                      The .223 may have become the modern day choice but around the Bar, the .222 wins hands down on cool factor.
                      No difference in the field but it is widely believed that the .222 is an "inherently accurate" cartridge. (maybe hear say, maybe not)
                      I tend to vouch for that having owned one for a 1/4 century that has always been a bloody tack driver.
                      Having spent heaps of time & some considerable coin on making my 308 as accurate as I can, I still find myself reaching for the .222 when things get tricky & especially when spotlighting.

                      Was a benchrest calibre of choice for many yrs for good reason. very easy to tune.
                      Another factor involving that long neck is that if you extend the conical shape created by the shoulders out until it intersects (Can't think of the name for this point ATM) the .222 intersects within the case neck where as the .223 intersects in the rifle throat.
                      The turbulence created at this point can cause throat erosion, hence the longer neck of the .222 does not erode throats like the .223 does. (minor difference but a difference none the less)

                      The .223 has only become popular due to the Americans love of Auto's.
                      I would say if not for that. .222 would still be regarded (& still is with many) as the best mid sized varmint cartridge.

                      It is also an original design.
                      Not a necked down version of anything.
                      First came the .222
                      then came the .222 mag
                      then the .223 & .17
                      & now the .204

                      All the bastard love childs of the .222 rem cartridge.

                      Shoot the cartridge with the pedigree!
                      Long live the triple deuce!


                  • #13
                    LGS has:

                    Winchester Super X 222 50gr box of 20 for $22.05
                    Winchester Super X 223 55gr box of 20 for $20.00


                    • #14
                      Just quietly 204 is better


                      • Guest's Avatar
                        Guest commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Originally posted by Cruiser Country " post=23023
                        Just quietly 204 is better
                        For Sparrows :P

                    • #15
                      I recall reading somewhere that 223 was chosen as the military round because the longer neck of the 222 didn't feed so well in automatics.

                      Personally I would rather a 222 than a 223 as its more accurate and easier to make more accurate.
                      “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

                      ― Albert Einstein