20-222rem

[maltbuck]

Good morning folks,

I have been considering a 20 vartarg, as a single shot (ejector) light varminter, but I have had slight concerns with the ejection side of things, apparently fireball based ejectors need to be in a slightly different place on the bolt face?

 

As a result have looked for simply "formed" alternatives, that do not involve considerable case prep, and as I already have a .223, want a cartridge case that is "considerably different" to the .223 case so as to avoid any possible confusion and hence safety issues. Also not wanting a .204 Ruger.

 

Hence the 20-222rem idea! Which should if I understand it fulfill my criteria, plus a little more velocity, and also give me an easy possibility for a repeater format.

 

Just wondering if anyone has any pearls of wisdom / experience of the calibre.

Having done a little bit of searching, it seems that customs dies will be one requirement for a start.

 

Many thanks,

 

MB

[visiter1]

why not just do a 20 223 ?

[BlueBoy69]

Guess it's to do with the amount of powder to get the same velocity.

 

A data example calculated using QuickLOAD.

 

To get 3,600 fps with a 32 gr V-Max in a 24" barrel.

.20 VarTag (.20-221 Fireball), 18.53 gr of N120, 48,364 PSI
.20-222 (.20 VarTag Turbo) 21.87 gr N130, 46,177 PSI
.20-223 (.20 Tactical), 23.26 gr N133, 45,175 PSI
.204 Ruger, 23.96 gr N133, 44,090 PSI

 

I didn't go the whole hog and use the software to calculate the best powder to get the maximum velocity with same cartridges, as that takes a bit longer.

 

So a bit cheaper to run and less wear if that's the bullet you want to use and the speed you want to run it at?

 

Obviously the bigger cases can push the bullets far faster than the small capacity ones, but they use far more powder and create greater barrel heating and wear, plus more recoil and more noise.

 

The thing is, do you need that bit of extra speed at the ranges you use the firearm at? All depends on the user.

[Sherlock]

why not just get a 204 ruger and save yourself a lot of fking about.

I believe it was based on the 222 mag case anyway.

[JabaliHunter]

why not just get a 204 ruger and save yourself a lot of fking about.

I believe it was based on the 222 mag case anyway.

No Lapua brass for a start...

[gbal]

Remington introduced the 222 in 1950.It was not based on any existing older case.It earned a reputation for excellent/superb accuracy and was the popular Bench Rest choice into the early seventies.

It also became popular with the growing number of varmint shooters for it's accuracy.

Remington were working with the US military in the mid '50s for a cartridge for the new M16 (AR15),and developed the 222Rem Mag to give the extra velocity over the 222 that was required,so the 222mag case was a tad longer.However the military went for the now familiar 223 case (5.6x45) so Remington introduced the 222mag as a sporting round in 1958,with maybe a 100fps/50 yard advantage over the 222;it has a small capacity advantage over the 223, being a bare tenth of an inch longer,but really pretty well indistinguishable in practice.

All have been extensively wildcatted,including to 20,though the 20 222 has never been 'popular'-the other two offer more (tho' the 222 mag is obsolete now,due tto the vast popularity of the 223.)

Ruger did base the 204 Ruger on the 222mag case,and the resulting 204Ruger has become an excellent factory no fuss performance cartridge.The wildcat 20 Practical has to be close,being a necked 223 (as is the slightly more fiddly 20 Tactical).Performance is likey to be field indistinguishable.

 

WRT the OP,the 223 can be fired in a 222mag chamber,but is not safe (headspace).It is very unlikely that a 204R can be so fired in a 223 chamber.....manufacturers of factory ammo tend to be pretty careful about such issues...

 

Sherlock sums it all up-why would you not opt for the best performer with the minimum hassle-the 204 Ruger. It's ulikely that it's somewhat superior performance (to the 20-222) would be embarrasssing,but it could be loaded down a bit,if that were so (and the Vartags are deemed unsuitable...)

 

The Triple Deuce (222) is a superb cartridge. There are no real reasona a 20-222 would not work well,but really....why?

That said,there are those who do not agree that golf is just a good walk,spoiled-as the Triple Twain put it! :-)

 

gbal

[mcpie]

I have two rifles based on the .222 rem case.

 

One is an out and out .222 rem with a Border barrel and it shoots like a dream with 40g Vmaxs and a case full of N130 in a Lapua case.

 

The other is a .17 Fireball also with a Border barrel with 20g Vmaxs in carefully prepped RP cases. Necking and trimming a Lapua .222 rem case down to that size would result in chunky necks.

 

Both use the BRNO Fox MkII action which is a Mini Mauser but with a closed action top. They're very stiff receivers and the controlled feed extractor prevents fumbling these smaller cases when feeding. I also like the removable box magazine and set triggers. You can pick up shot out Fox MkII actions for next to nothing and have them rebarrelled at reasonable cost.

 

The .222 rem is probably my favourite rifle, it can shoot varmints and Roe and is a very satisfying calibre to shoot at targets. As gbal states, it was stalwart of BR for a long time as the case inherently works. Huge increases in accuracy are possible with the better powders, cases, barrel and bullets now on offer. Don't rule it out..

[gbal]

Perhaps the standard 222rem would be an option. NO problem with a repeater,and still a decent choice of rifle.

Depending on the barrel twist etc of your current 223,the 222 might be overlapping at the short range end,but not beyond 250 yards-and any other cartridge considered,will do much the same.Should not be a chamber mix up either.

 

mcpie- I agree-I had my first 222 nearly 50 years ago-a Rem carbine,61/4 lb of sheer shooting pleasure-as you say,varmints through roe (Scotland). Even then,with only standard reloading,it was a 1/2 moa rifle,though limited to about 250yards.

Is yours rebarreled with the faster twists that have made the 223 so much more versatile (the 222 of course lacks a little capacity,so isn't ever going to compete fully with the 223).Better components and reloading gear/knowhow can only have made it better-my A1 Sako is a 1/4 moa rifle,and an absolute delight (short barrel,easy carry),but still a 250y number.I doubt that the 222 could consistently equal the PPCs,but as a field varminter it lacks nothing (to 250 yards).

 

gbal

[maltbuck]

The idea of the 20 vartarg or 20-222 Rem, was as a substitute for the .17HMR giving better performance than the .17hmr without the potential case issues that seem to plague the .17.

 

The 222 obviously as has an excellent reputation for accuracy and is a very sweet round, and a 20 neck down should be a very easy process. Similarly for the 20 vartarg from the 221 fireball.

 

In addition there is Lapua brass for both.

 

The difference in choice being a single shot format for the vartarg or potential easy repeater format for the 20-222.

 

And as GBal has said in a previous post to another thread, it is simply a fancy I may indulge.

 

Anyway thanks for the replies so far, and if anyone has got specific 20-222 experience or for that matter 20 vartarg I would appreciate the input.

 

MB

[gbal]

MB, all the mentioned cfs are of course in a quite differnt league to the 17HMR-considerably more energy and about another 100y reliable performance,and on larger varmints,so not really comparable 'substitutes'-more 'better' overall.

 

What shouls be included though,is the 17 222-the 222 case simply necked down with no other changes-and there is Lapua brass,though that merit can be overemphasised.It had a very good reputation for accuracy after it's appearance in 1957and Ackley thought it was about maximum optimum capacity for the 17 calibre,and others have rather agreed over the years.IT's not much diffferent in useable performance to the bigger 17rem (and that is another to consider-off the shelf factory number).

 

Actually,the nearest 17 cal 'replacement' cf was probably the 17 Mach IV,once available from Vern O'Brian in the Sako,and that makes for a delightful combo.It's an efficient round,giving 3850 fps with 25g bullets-and Berger did offer 17g bullets if sheer velocity is desired.It's 250 y capable. Muzzle blast and report are considerably lessened,probably barrel life increased. But it's a Fireball substitute-or vice versa-in a factory cartridge.

 

The 14 222 came in about 1988 and zips (11.4g bullet at 4400fps) but soon runs out of such steam.For the true enthusiast,who enjoys case formation. I suppose the 14 Fireball would be similarly challenging? The 12 cal though isn't an April1st idea.....:-)

g

[minkstone]

Why not a "20 practical"....Simply a .223 necked down to .20,...And using lapua brass.

[mcpie]

My .222 rem was rebarrelled with a 1:9 twist which makes it a good performer with even the 68g BTHP from Hornady.

 

The pet load is the 40g Vmax which nudges about 3500fps. It's very flat a very accurate.

 

The best accuracy seems to be from the 52g flat based match Berger at about 2900 fps.

 

R

[gbal]

Thanks R-those velocities compare to the 222Hornady 40 Vmax load @3600(and the 223 Hornady 40g@3800)

 

The 222 comes in around 3400 with the Fed 53 TNTload,(and the 223 Nosler 52 Comp @3400) .......all SAAMI.

 

So a bit below 223 velocity,as it has to be,but good to hear the 68g shoots OK. The 1/14 old barrels often struggled above 52g.

 

minkstone-20P (and 20T) were mentioned in post 6,maybe a bit close to 223 given the OP-I don't know if it would chamber in a 223,though-I suppose it might revert back if fired. Best avoided,though.

 

g