Author Topic: 22 hornet vs 222 (Read 10282 times)

BUCKDUSTER · « **on:** March 27, 2011, 03:55:40 PM »

Hello all. I have a couple questions. First, i'd like to know what a low wall is? I hear that used alot, but have no clue what it means. Just curious. Second, I'm looking for an accurate, light center fire cartridge that i can shoot varmits and predators with that isn't very loud, is accurate and I can let my son shoot without breaking his shoulder. I had a hornet in the past. It was a Ruger 77/22, grey w/ laminate. It shot terrible with just about everything. I have a 204 ruger that is accurate, but I'm honestly not that crazy about the caliber. So I'm thinking .222 or another hornet. I'm also intrested in the Remington model 799. Anyone have any experience with this gun, and in either of these two caliber's? And what are peoples takes on which cartridge. I'm all set to get into reloading, but I'm completly new at it. I'm looking to shoot at the range a bunch, and use the gun for predator hunting, from fox to coyotes. I appreciate any feedback. The people on this site are the friendliest and most informitive bunch I've met, so I'm confident y'all can help me.

Thank you, Craig

bobg · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2011, 01:05:18 AM »

I like you have never owned a Hornet that shot worth a darn. The last one was a Ruger like yours. That went down the road in a hurry. I am a big fan of the 222. Never shot a coyote or fox with any of mine but lots of woodchucks and crows. I think over the years i have owned 6 222's and never had one that wasn't a good shooter and easy to reload for. What don't you like about the 204? I have one but other than paper i have never had a chance to shoot anything with it.
As far as the low wall goes i don't have a clue on that. Be interesting to hear some answers.

tuck2 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2011, 02:49:54 AM »

Take a look at the 221 Fireball cartridge. The case is bigger than the Hornet and smaller than the 222 Rem. Go to the www.remington.com and you can compare the three cartridges. The low wall is a single shot rifle lever action.

dks7895 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2011, 03:08:09 AM »

When I select a chambering in a given weapon, I look at three things; ballistics, cost, and ammo availability. In the .22 caliber centerfire arena I prefer the .223 Remington.

Flynmoose · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2011, 06:39:12 PM »

In answer to your first question, a Low Wall is a model of 1885 Winchester. There is also a High Wall. The
configurations had to do with the power of cartridge cahmbered. There are reproductions available today,
beautiful single shot rifles designed by John Moses Browning. That is one rifle on my bucket list. I have several
22 Hornets, great round. They really shine when handloaded, Lil Gun powder and a ballistic tip in the 35 to 45 gr
range. A friend has loaded for and shot 222s for years, very successfully, I might add. The 222 was the choice of
benchrest shooters for quite a few years. Both Hornet and 222 will serve you well if you handload. Pick one and
ENJOY!!
FM

.22-5-40 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2011, 07:15:58 PM »

Hello, BuckDuster. Don't judge the fine little Hornet cartridge based on that Ruger. I have a Shillen barreled Sharps Borchardt Hornet that if fed with match bulleted handloads will shoot in the .300"s at 100yds. With cast bullets it will group under 1/2" at same distance. I also have a Ruger No.1 in .222Rem.
Funny thing about these two ctgs's. I also shoot cast in the Ruger. With the Hornet and 7.0gr. H4227, and a 50gr. cast bullet, I only need ear plugs..about like a .22 Mag. With the .222 & 10gr. H4227 & same weight cast..I always need muffs..only 3.0gr. more powder...must be due to the sharper shoulder building pressure. Best of luck!

Bigeasy · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2011, 07:37:00 PM »

Since you are going to reload, I would look at a .223. A lot more rifles are chambered for it then the 222 or the Hornet, and brass is plentiful and cheap. You can always load it down slightly to match a 222 or a Hornet's ballistics. I never owned a 22 Hornet, but seems its hard to find a really accurate one, from what people say.

The Remington 799 is a Mauser action based rifle, today's version of the old Interarms MK10. I have one of the long action versions, and they are a well made rifle. You MIGHT get slightly better accuracy with a modern bolt like a Remington 700 or a Savage, for example, as the Mauser style actions tend to have a lot longer lock times. I have also noticed the Remington's I have tried have had pretty rough trigger pulls, though replacement Mauser style triggers are inexpensive, and easily installed.

Larry

Drilling Man · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:22:11 PM »

I've owned several 22 Hornets, also several 222's. I never owned or loaded for a Hornet that shot as good as my 222's do. The Hornets are long gone as i really don't like the Hornet cases long weak neck.

It's true, there's a lot more rifles chambered for the .223, and ammo is also cheaper for them. .223 accuracy is also good, so it may be a better choise for someone just starting out.

Personally, i already have a very nice combo gun in 12ga./.222 Rem., so i make .222 brass out of .223's, so cheap .222 brass will never be a problem for me.

DM

ironglow · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:34:07 PM »

You really should get into reloading if you're going centerfire. I have owned 2 hornets, bot single shots an old Savage and a newer H&R. Both shoot well..my grandson now owning the old Savage. Case life can be a problem with the Hornet, but the new Hogdon Lil'gun powder has been a blessing for Hornet reloaders..high performance with lower pressures.
Choosing just one, I would go with the .223..you can load down for quiet if you wish..or you can go with reach-out loads. The .223 being the current military cartridge, some components are more economical than most other rounds.
Although some would frown upon it, by choosing my handloads, I would take my .223 out for deer, if I didn't have a couple other deer rifles already.
I have 2 @ .223s A Savage and an H&R..both shoot great. I've long been partial toward Savage in bolt guns and with the accu-trigger coming with them at no cost, only makes them more attractive.

wreckhog · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:35:34 PM »

.222 is an inherently accurate cartridge. That is what it is known for. Not cheap, not common, just accurate. Even in cheap guns.

The Hornet is known for efficiency. It does a LOT with very little powder. And now that everyone is subdividing lots, it is known for low noise. Look for a Hornet benchrest gun. You won't find one.

.223 is cheap to shoot. Look for one of these in a benchrest gun too. You still probably won't find one.

Now that you know, buy all 3.

Wyo. Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:39:08 PM »

For small varmits under 125 yards, I love the hornet...it isn't hard to figure why hornets are inacurate in Rugers, if you have used many Rugers...as for the .222 I have owned at least one since I was 15..for what you are asking, it is about perfect..I think you will find brass available and accuracy excellent..as for the 221..it is a neat caliber, but I really can see it lasting in todays market..the .223 has a bit more powder, blast and range..it is very popular today, but if I had not been given the stuff to start loading the .223, I would have stayed with my old .222's and never missed a thing...

1armoured · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2011, 03:20:50 PM »

Hi,

I'm fortunate,
I have all three calibres, .22H, .222, and .223 and reload for them all, plus use a bit of factory.
Savage M40, Anschutz 1730D, - Anschutz 1742D - and Weatherby Special Varmint.

I have more fun reloading and shooting the Hornets, but have had the .222 longest and put more rounds through it.
The .223 is basically a redundant closet queen !

The Hornets are quiet, with little recoil, and inexpensive to operate,
and importantly, as well, very accurate with today's powder and bullets.
My preference,.... Lil'Gun, small pistol primers and Nosler 40gr BT's. Consistent MOA groups.

The .222 is pretty forgiving. Very consistent MOA groups with H4895 and 40gr Ballistic Tips and 50gr HPBT projectiles.

The Hornet has an odd shaped 'bottlenecked' case, and can tend to stretch a little at times, with my rear lockers.
but it's great fun getting everything right and shooting good groups.
All the way out to 200mtrs.
Haven't had the opportunity or the desire to shoot any further.

Never heard much good said about the Rugers, I'm afraid !

cheers,
SS

BUCKDUSTER · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2011, 03:22:06 PM »

Thanx for the advise fellas. I'm not interested in a .223 only cause my buddy has a few that I can use whenever i want. Thats why I'm looking for something a little different. I'm just torn between those two rounds. I really wanted my last hornet to shoot well. I like the cartridge, but I've heard alot of good things about the .222. In fact, I haven't heard anything bad about it. I just know that the hornet is a relitivly quiet round, and I imagine in the right gun it should be accurate. I also know that the 222 is an accurate round and to me I get extreme enjoyment out of tight groups, as I get extremely frustrated when a gun won't shoot straight! Sorry for rambling. I think I'm gonna go with a hornet. It's a neat round and I saved my brass from when I had that last piece of junk Ruger. lol Such a pretty gun. What a shame.. Thank you for the low wall high wal info as well. Like always, the people on this site are informative and friendly!! Thanks again, Craig
P.S. I'll post back when I actually get the gun, and let Y'all know the outcome

mechanic · « **Reply #13 on:** March 29, 2011, 04:29:26 PM »

IMO there ain't a nickle's worth of difference in the 222 and 223 except one is more common. (223) I sold my 222 years ago because of the cheap surplus 223 available at that time. I haven't been able to tell a whit of difference in accuracy between the two, but then I'm not a benchrest shooter.

Ammo is still available in more configurations for the 223 than most any other 22 cal.

If you have made up your mind against it, I would go with the hornet.

Ben

wreckhog · « **Reply #14 on:** March 29, 2011, 04:33:19 PM »

The inexpensive to load thing bugs me about the Hornet. Hornet brass does not last as long as .222. You can pick up 100 pieces of .223 for free every time you stop at the range. Primers and good bullets cost the same regard of which .224 you are shooting. So it comes down to a couple of cents for powder vs a couple of cents for brass. You can buy great brass for .222 and probably .223. Not so for the Hornet.

Anyway, the Hornet costs as much as as any .224 to load. Even so, I shot my Hornet about 20 times a day last summer. I kept loading the same cases over and over again every night. Then bought more cases. Reason, I was shooting off my deck and did not want to annoy the neighbors. Could have loaded down .223, but my Hornet is so tiny, it was fun to shoot. This year, I am doing the same, except with a 30-06 and Trail Boss.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #15 on:** March 29, 2011, 04:50:39 PM »

Quote from: wreckhog on March 29, 2011, 04:33:19 PM

The inexpensive to load thing bugs me about the Hornet. Hornet brass does not last as long as .222. You can pick up 100 pieces of .223 for free every time you stop at the range. Primers and good bullets cost the same regard of which .224 you are shooting. So it comes down to a couple of cents for powder vs a couple of cents for brass. You can buy great brass for .222 and probably .223. Not so for the Hornet.

AMEN!

DM

Bigeasy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 29, 2011, 06:25:30 PM »

Ahh, something different. How about a cheap, "project" Remington 700. Have it blueprinted, replace the trigger with a Timney, if needed. Re-barrel with a short, stiff match chambered .22 Hornet barrel. Fire form new brass to the chamber, then neck size only. No reason a Hornet cant be accurate if its built right..

Larry

nomosendero · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:43:53 AM »

Quote from: mechanic on March 29, 2011, 04:29:26 PM

IMO there ain't a nickle's worth of difference in the 222 and 223 except one is more common. (223) I sold my 222 years ago because of the cheap surplus 223 available at that time. I haven't been able to tell a whit of difference in accuracy between the two, but then I'm not a benchrest shooter.

Ammo is still available in more configurations for the 223 than most any other 22 cal.

If you have made up your mind against it, I would go with the hornet.

Ben

Agreed, one would be hard pressed to prove the accuracy of one over the others, but some remember those old 222 articles. The 223 gives me everything that I could get with the lessor rounds & more when I want it, which is most of the time.

nomosendero · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:44:30 AM »

Quote from: Drilling Man on March 29, 2011, 04:50:39 PM

Quote from: wreckhog on March 29, 2011, 04:33:19 PM
The inexpensive to load thing bugs me about the Hornet. Hornet brass does not last as long as .222. You can pick up 100 pieces of .223 for free every time you stop at the range. Primers and good bullets cost the same regard of which .224 you are shooting. So it comes down to a couple of cents for powder vs a couple of cents for brass. You can buy great brass for .222 and probably .223. Not so for the Hornet.

AMEN!

DM

Ditto!!

OLDHandgunner · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:15:37 AM »

I'm a 222 fan.
Have owned & shot them for 45+ years. I own a 22 hornet & 22 K-hornet also. The Hornets are limited on killing power for coyotes at longer ranges. The Hornets are sweet too shoot & very accurate as is the 222. Also own 223 & 22-250's.
But still love the 222 overall.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2011, 09:48:41 PM »

Boys these are the fun rifles. Cheap to shoot and accurate as can be!!usually. Ruger made an initial run of 77/22hornets and the barrels were horrid. One could run a tught patch down and feel the variations in bore diameter. A Hornet is a great rifle but I'd not reccommend one for someone who doesn't enjoy playing around a bit. The 'K' variation doesn't add much to velocity but doubles or even triples case life.. The 223 is a problem child to get great accuracy from and I've had at least 4. Down to just 2 now a Rme 700 sporter and a CZ527 FS. The CZ as do most of these little rifles shoots scary good.. but I've also got the same rifle in 22 Hornet.. Now I've still got several other Hornets a M54 with a 20x lyman targetspot.. a Kimber (of Oregon) and a couple of others.. I love hornets but I love to place with them. To keep brass alive longer just partial size the case. This will usually double the reloads for a case.. Keep loads sane, it's not a 22-250 and ain't never gonna be.. But hands down to start out with buy a quality 222. Their even usually a bit cheaper as the dealers can't sell them as readily as the 223's.. Last count I've at least 6 222's. There an early M7 Remington several 722's but the most used is a stock Remington M700 Varmit special. Bught from an inlaw with ,most of the original 100 rounds of loaded ammo. With a K10 abourd the first three went under a 1/4 inch.. The load was a much fired case, 50 SX Hornaday(still a great choice in the 222) and a stiff charge of BlC-2. Primers appreared to be CCI. I've Hornt's, 222's, 223's, 22-250 (always a problem child for me) 220 Swift (both shot fairly well) I've even got a 224 Weatherby which is truly too much trouble.. and there little advantage over the 222.. For coyotes the 224's just don't work as well as I like. I switched to a 244 Remington M722 a few years back, one of the few with a slow twist barrel.. I load 75 grain flat base Sierras and it is truly poison..but the pelts can get a little ragged. But at $5-6 dollars I don't even bother.. My advice is go with the 222. It's a mucheasier round to work with and will usually get great acuracy with less fuss. Try those 50 grain hornadays SX's..

bobg · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2011, 12:20:18 AM »

Might be a little OT but the statement was made that Rugers just won't shoot. Could someone tell me why? I have owned 3 Rugers and the only one that wouldn't shoot worth a darn was the Hornet. My go to varmint rifle is my 25 year old Ruger in 22-250. It will shoot 5 shot groups off the bench well under 1 inch at 100 yds. any day of the week.

Wyo. Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:51:43 AM »

bob, years back from what I have been told Ruger bought their barrels as cheaply as they c ould...so they varied greatly in quality..one of my friends had one in a 06 that was sooooo loose it would barely make the required dia. for the cali ber...NOW, I have heard Ruger has their own barrel making machine, and the quality is definately better...Over the years I have had several 77's, and three or four number ones..the 77's were Swifts, the number 1's were a swift, 6mm and .270 ...none gave super accuracy but only the ..270 seemed un reliable ...Anyway, it seems the old way of just buying barrels from whoever, was not good business and Ruger is on the right track now...HOPEFULLY THIS IS CORRECT, as I am expecting a new number one in .300 H & H to be delivered this week....

wreckhog · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:11:21 AM »

Rugers are sensitive to screw tension. As Rems and Wins don't have the same sensitivity, Ruger just has a bad design. People have to use all sorts of tricks to get the same accuracy that is in a stock Savage 340. Silly right?

ironglow · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2011, 12:10:36 PM »

Quote from: Wyo. Coyote Hunter on March 31, 2011, 04:51:43 AM

bob, years back from what I have been told Ruger bought their barrels as cheaply as they c ould...so they varied greatly in quality..one of my friends had one in a 06 that was sooooo loose it would barely make the required dia. for the cali ber...NOW, I have heard Ruger has their own barrel making machine, and the quality is definately better...Over the years I have had several 77's, and three or four number ones..the 77's were Swifts, the number 1's were a swift, 6mm and .270 ...none gave super accuracy but only the ..270 seemed un reliable ...Anyway, it seems the old way of just buying barrels from whoever, was not good business and Ruger is on the right track now...HOPEFULLY THIS IS CORRECT, as I am expecting a new number one in .300 H & H to be delivered this week....

I think there is something to this ! I bought my first Ruger 10/22 in 1965, when I was serving in the Army in Germany. It was a 4 digit serial number from first year production. When I bought it brand new, with a cheap,little old Weaver C4 .22 scope, I took it to the local German civilian range and out shoty some classy single shot rifles wielded by the locals. It outshoots all the newer stock Rugers, and hangs right in there with the couple 'tricked out' numbers I have built.
I have been told that the first couple years the barrels were "farmed out" to barrel specialty makers..don't know, but this first year model really shoots !

BUCKDUSTER · « **Reply #25 on:** March 31, 2011, 01:34:24 PM »

Well I'm gonna go with a Hornet for now. Hopefully sometime in the near future I can get my hands on a .222. Too bad about Rugers, but I won't chance it. Savage's aren't as pretty, but they sure do shoot good. And remingtons offer a ton of variety and options, and they usually shoot pretty well also. And if they don't, they aren't too hard to fix or correct. I just want something quiet and accurate. 22 Hornet it is!!

Drilling Man · « **Reply #26 on:** March 31, 2011, 02:59:48 PM »

You can easily load a 222 down in velocity and noise level to a hornet, but you can't load a hornet up to 222 levels!

DM

Wyo. Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #27 on:** March 31, 2011, 03:02:47 PM »

While I like the Hornet and the .222, have you considered a good accurate .22 magnum.

? While loading down may be fine, I guess I would rather have the second rifle and load it as it was designed to be loaded...good excuse for a second rifle...

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:01:12 AM »

none of the small 22 cal rounds have any real recoil. The hornet is a bit quieter the 222 is going to be easier to deal with in finding accurate loads. Hornet needs .224 bullets which sometimes are tough to find. If i was going to make a recomendation id suggest you look hard at a .223. Brass is about free. Loaded ammo is much cheaper then the other two. Its no louder then a .222 and in most cases just as accurate. If you dont like the noise of the .222 or .223 is easy to download them to hornet ballistics.

1armoured · « **Reply #29 on:** April 02, 2011, 02:19:05 PM »

I don't know about downloading the .222 to match Hornet ballistics and decibels.
They are totally different animals !

To my mind, the Hornet was meant to shoot lighter bullets, and quieter, and does it well, although there is a bit of overlap between them.

Fortunately, I have both calibers, and they both shoot good with the 40gr Nosler BT and the Savage M40 Hornet the 50gr Hornady SPSX, (14" twist),
although I generally stop at 45grs with the Hornet, (as the Anschutz 1730D has a 15.7" twist) and just 50 and 52grs with the 14.2" twist Anschutz 1742D .222 .

I shoot both calibers at around 3,000fps,
(the Hornady factory 35gr V-Max Hornet round does 3,000+),
so the Hornet is just about up there with the .222 using the modern powder and projectiles available.

I generally get tighter groups with the Hornets at 100, and the low pressure Lil'Gun loads prolong case life.

I once loaded down the Hornet with lead cast 40gr, and around 5 grs of flake powder, just for fun,
and it shot horrible !!!
So won't go there again.

I'm no benchrester, and neither are the rifles.
They are all unmodified, out the box.
I shoot with RP, Win, S&B, Hornady and Highland brass, so nothing special there either.
I would guess that the best brass would be Norma, Sako, RWS or Lapua (if available !)

Good case preparation, loads, and projectiles is part of the answer, as is perseverance,
but I guess, as with everything, there are some rifles out there that just won't shoot.

I just neck size the Hornet when I can and use a Lee crimp die to get consistent neck tension on the projectile.
It all seems to work well as I am happy with groups from .25" up and within MOA unless I cock them up.

Killing power ?
I don't know if I'd want to shoot Coyote size animals with a Hornet though.
.222 would be better,.... but my choice would be a .243 ! (and lots of noise !!!)

cheers,
SS