.222 vs .22 hornet

[kirbymagnum]

what would you rather have and why what is better .222 or a .22 hornet? what kinda damage and range do they both offer? wich one is louder and has more kick?

[Mike Irwin]

The .222 is significantly more powerful, operates at alot higher pressure, and drives the bullet much faster.

As such, it kicks a lot more and is a lot louder. It also has a much greater effective range.

[Dave R]

I don't have experience with either. I shoot a lot of .223, which is balistically fairly close to .222, and much more than the .22 Hornet.

What I've read says the Hornet has much lower sound and noticeably less recoil. I've also read it is a great 100 yard varmit cartridge, and pretty good at 150 yards. The .222 should be good out to 200 and beyond, depending on the rifle and rifleman.

Hmmm, I just reviewed Speer's reloading manual. It says the Hornet is good for varmits to 200 yards, and the .222 out to 250 yards, and more on a still day. I guess I'm as good as the editors ;-)

[Tom Matiska]

I have a Hornet, and have reloaded for a friend's 222 Sako

Hornet is a strong 150yd/ marginal 200+ yard varmint round, very polite, first choice for chucks when scaring the milk out of Smitty's dairy cows isn't an option. Win 46gr bullets can be had for under 7cents in bulk and one pound of powder gives 700 reloads. Modest velocities and pressures can give barrel life of tens of thousands of rounds. Ain't parting with mine anytime soon. If you don't reload you'd be happier with a magum rimfire.

222 is a strong 250yd round, marginal past 300+, louder but not too rude. Very accurate round, most accurate I've ever shot. Eats twice the powder, makes you want to buy Nosler 40gr Ballistice tips. Barrel life still reasonable. If you don't reload get a .223.

Both have slower twists that limit bullet choice. Heavy boat tails aren't an option, learning to master either on a windy day qualifies you for a marksmanship merit badge.

If I had to pick, the answer would be (C) both of the above.

[thejeanmachine16]

I have both a hornet and a .222. The .222 is a much more powerful round. You cant feel the recoil in either the .222 or the hornet.

[Dave Haven]

Love the .222!
Great varmint/target/plinking gun.... And it still holds the world record for a 100-yard 5-shot group. (.009" center-to-center shot by Gale McMillan in 1973.)
A pound of powder is good for around 250-300 rounds, whereas a .50BMG uses a pound of powder every 30 rounds or so...

[impact]

The 222 by far. The 222 is the most accurate round I have ever shot. Plus the 222 is much easer to reload for. I have had problems with the 22 Hornet and 218 Bee on the reloading bench. If you don't reload the 22 Hornet just right you will have accuracy problems. The 222 is more forgiving. I have taken everything from deer to bumblebees with my 222. Yes bumblebees! I shot bumblebees at 100 yards with my 222.

The 222 loves bullets from 40grs up to 55grs. I played around with 223s and could never get the 223 to shoot as good as the 222. When Stoner first came out with the M-16 the cartridge for the gun was called the 222 special. AKA 222. The military thought the 222 special needed more power so Stoner made the 222 a little longer and called it the 223 or 5.56. The 223 only has about 100 fps on the 222 and can use heaver bullets.

The 222 is one of the BR rounds that made it to the public as well as the 222 Mag. Most BR rounds pretty much stay in the bench rest community. But with the need for power the 222 and 222 mag pretty much fell to the side. I will take accuracy over power any day!

[kirbymagnum]

how much more power does the .223 have over the .222 what do you like better?

[Dave Haven]

Maybe 10% more power. At the expense of more powder. I'll take the .222. It's more accurate.

[PDshooter]

You must be looking at some used guns for sale ? The .222 died when the .223 came around!
I've own a Win70 in .223 for 15yrs. Great for PDs and coyote.I reload.
My favorite bullet is the sierra #1390 55gr HPBT.

[Dead-Nuts-Zero]

Many years ago, I hunted chucks every day. Early and again just before dark and hit plenty of them with my Hornet. I have had a few that get back into their hole after having guts splattered against the dirt mound. Mostly, they just die "right now"! I mastered my Hornet and shot plenty chucks at 150+ yds. It seemed like it took forever to hear the "thud" of the bullet hitting the chucks on those long range shots.

My best friend and neighbor hunted the same farm fields and we competed every season to see who got the most chucks. I almost always beat him but not by much. Here is maybe one reason why...We both test shot (many times) our guns at assorted steel plates of maybe 1/4 or 3/8 in. thick. We shot from same distance, with same ammo, but diferent brand gun. He had a bolt action w/3shot mag. nothing special, just basic gun. I had a single shot Savage break open single shot and a very very basic gun (maybe about 50-60bucks new back then). My Savage would drill a perfect hole in the steel, his would usually only dent it and not even crack or split the steel open. Not sure what this all means, but seems the brand of gun did make a big difference in such a small light cal. I think the barel twist may have been the reason.

I always wanted to go bigger with a .222 but really loved hunting and shooting my simple basic Hornet. I was surprised to see that now, some 40 years later, the .222 is a ghost. The .223 has taken it's place. I am also surprised to see how popular the Hornet has remained after all these years. FWIW

I agree with the others that the .222 is much larger with more recoil and more noise, but not a big deal IMO.

[radom]

What I like about the Hornet is it kicks less and has less bark than a Ruger .22lr 10/22. The down is its a old 1800s winchester BP round with a smokless load that has a really really flimsy case that needs kid gloves to not wreck in the loading press. You can dent the heck out of the case loading it im a magizine if not carefull and they tend to swell out primer pockets fast too.

[Tacoma]

.222 - inherantly more accurate than .22 hornet (or .223) due to neck/case design . (exceptions exist) . More versitile in bullet weight/type selection . Greater power / killing range. Easier to reload for due to case design. ( hornet cases can be tricky) Can be easily downloaded to .22 hornet ( or below) levels to reduce noise if you reload.

.22 hornet- factory ammo is cheaper. Quieter in factory loadings. Comes in 'nice sized' walking rifles.

Have had and enjoyed both . I now keep .223's due to the availability of cheap ammo and components but with most of the bennies noted for the .222.

p.s. If you want a hornet, and handload, consider a K hornet. Significant improvement over the basic round.

[hivel37]

For a reloader, the .222 will not die - as long as brass is available.

And as long as 223's are around we'll have brass.

[MADISON]

The .22 HORNET is a 150 yard gun that will bring down groundhog and other similar side game. The accuracy if most hornets is hard to obtain.
The standard hornet load with a 45 grain bullet is 11.5 grains of 4227. I use 9.7 grains of 2400.

The .222 Remmington is a 200 to 250 yard gun, that us large enough for fox.
The .222 has a reputation for accurachy.
If you reload:
19.0 grains of 4198
22.5 grains of Bal-C 2
are the old standards.

[Art Eatman]

At one time, the .222 was the King Kong of cartridges in benchrest competition...

Art

[Dave Haven]

Yup. Remington designed the cartridge for accuracy in 1950. And since 1973, NO ONE has broken Gale McMillan's 100-yard group record set with a .222.

[ME109]

To answer your question I would probably take the Hornet with several caveats, also knowing that I could have several .223's.

I have owned (3) Hornets, two of them Rugers and an Anschutz. None were accurate with the Anschutz being the worst. I kept one of the Rugers converting it to a 'K' and it became a different rifle. The flip side is my brother has three No. 1's and an 1885, and all shoot around 3/4's of MOA factory stock. That's my luck.

Converting to a 'K' though has helped reloading in that I dont have to trim cases now which was problem because of the thin necks. You can also get slightly higher velocities in the 'K' format. But the biggest boon to the Hornet has to be the newer powders now on the market. A few years ago you were stuck with using stuff like 2400 or maybe 296 which was probably the best. Alot of guys stashed away some discontinued 680 claiming it was the best. Enter Hodgdon's Lil'Gun a few years ago which really made it a new round. Combine that with some of the bullets now available like the 40gr V-Max and it is quite a potent round. With a 20" barrel I get over 3100 fps with the 40gr V-Max.

Lately though I have been shooting my Fireball over the 'K' Hornet because it is small enough that it can take advantage of Lil'Gun whereas the .222 is just too large. I get 3500 fps with a 22" barrel with the same 40gr bullet.

Again all of this is predicated on being able to own several .223's. If I had to have one or the other I would be hard pressed to decide.

[FirstFreedom]

Can anyone comment on...

.221 rem fireball vs. .222 rem?

the fireball round is quite popular it seems, and if you can't decide between .22 hornet and .222 rem, you might be best off splitting the difference and getting a fireball....??

[Tacoma]

.221 fireball is a shortened version of the .222 (origionally developed for Rem's bolt action handgun if memory serves.) Performance is between a hornet and the .222. FWIW, there is also the .218 bee which lies between the hornet and fireball. All very cool little .22 cal rounds. Still brass for the fireball and the Bee can be hard to find and expensive when you do. Not allot of rifles ( by comparison) chambered ( past/pressent) in these two rounds either. Remember, you can always download the .22/.223 to perform like the hornet, Khornet, Bee or fireball. You will be much more limited with performance and bullet weight choices when you try to go up teh other way.

[raktrak]

I found out a long time ago that 223 shooters are just 222 wanna be's. I have yet to see an awesome 223,but there must be some somewhere. I have seen a lot of 222 rifles that shoot in the .1's. I have one that gives less than 1" at 300 yards consistantly. It's an older 700 ADL Remington. Benchrest guns shoot below that in competition.Most people concede that 22ppc is inherently more accurate than the rest of the 22's . We must however remember that the ultimate accuracy 22 was the old 222 for 25 years.It still holds the world record for 100 yard group. The 223 was made to kill people and the 222 was for paper and varmints. MOST 22 caliber rounds like 221,223,22ppcand 222mag etc. were spin offs of the 222. In my 60 years I've owned alot of shooters and the old reliable 222 is one of the best around.

[guntotin_fool]

i have a Sako varmint hunter in 223 that is just plain awesome. a 1/2 inch group means i did something wrong.

i have a 721 remington that shoots 3/4 in groups in 222, the first real varmint grade rifle i ever shot. it works great, easy to reload, pleasant to shoot.

i have had three hornets, although all were decent shooters, i found that they were very hard to reload for. very touchy. only when i got very very careful with my reloading, wieghing every powder charge, trying several different seating depths, did i finally get a set up that was consistent.

[shero]

Kirby, what are you intending to use it for, that will help determine what to get.

jim

[kirbymagnum]

I would be using it on many things such as beaver coyote gophers crows animals like that. Now i think the .223 would be better what do you think?

[Dave Haven]

I think if you have any concern over the difference in energy between the .222 and .223, then, by all means, get the .223. I don't think you would be happy with the .222, knowing that it has a little less energy than the .223.

Oh, and WELCOME ABOARD, raktrak! It's always a pleasure to meet a fellow fan of the "Triple Deuce".