223 rem Foxing Rifle build

[maltbuck]

Looking for some thoughts please.

Plan to put a fast handling .223 rem together for Foxing. Max range will be 250 yards, 300 @absolute outside.

Use of sound moderator is a must.

My thoughts would be along the lines of a krieger No 5 profile, finished at 22 inches, using 50-55 V-max/A-max, with either Benchmark or Vit 133.

 

Any further thoughts much appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

MB

[Guest Stacka]

Why not a .222 for foxing? Better recoil, easier to moderate, much much more accurate than a .223 and only a fraction less speed.

 

For foxing I think .222 is by far the best round. Especially if your using NV.

[247sniper]

Why not a .222 for foxing? Better recoil, easier to moderate, much much more accurate than a .223 and only a fraction less speed.

For foxing I think .222 is by far the best round. Especially if your using NV.

OMG, I can't believe what you have just wrote!

 

The noise and recoil between a .222 and a .223 with the same mod, you could not tell the difference.

 

And to say a .222 is much much more accurate then a .223, what a load of rubbish. They are both very accurate rounds but I find my .223 shooting .2's at 100 yards easy and less then 1 inch groups at 400 yards is pretty hard to beat.

 

While the .222 is a great round, the .223 does all a .222 can do but does it better.

 

Steve

[247sniper]

You could say that a 204 is another great option. Less recoil then the 222 or 223, if you can notice the difference!, flat shooting, better in the wind and hits harder then a 222 or 223 shooting upto 65 grain bullets.

 

And as accurate as a 222 or 223 if the person loading know what they are doing?

[gbal]

222 or 223:the 223 can be configured to have more useable range,but both are well accurate enough for 250y fox.Recoil/noise etc close.If you had a 222,it would make little rational sense to 'upgrade' to a 223 ( there were probably a few more mediocre 223s than 222s at one time,but who knows now-they are equivalent.

222 is a delight,but so is 223 in equivalent rifle.Absolutely no need for anything other than a decent factory model- my preference is Sako,but Tikka are functionally the same.Heavy barrel-why-it's a one shot game,and I'd prefer manoeverabitity (and there a 22 inch barrel helps)in almost all likely foxing scenarios.It's actually quite difficult to think of a medium price band 223 that would not be a decent choice,and coud be tweaked to a good choice.

 

Put the Krieger on something where it will deliver a bit more that might be noticed/needed.

gbal

[Guest Stacka]

OMG, I can't believe what you have just wrote!

The noise and recoil between a .222 and a .223 with the same mod, you could not tell the difference.

And to say a .222 is much much more accurate then a .223, what a load of rubbish. They are both very accurate rounds but I find my .223 shooting .2's at 100 yards easy

My .222 is doing round on round at 100yards and its a old M595 with the same barrel, with a bit of wear and tear.....round on round was witnessed by some one on here.

 

I can hit a egg at 300 yards with it no dramas.

 

Suppose at the end of the day it depends on the fleshy end of the rifle hey

[pork chop]

you could lose 2/4" of barrel length without losing much performance downrange if it's going to be a 300 y max gun and get better handling

[gbal]

I have had two 18 inch barrels-a Remington 600,and a Sako A1 in 222. Both were quite a bit lighter and easier to handle than a Sako Varmint in 223.But the field performance from each was virtually indistinguishable-and satisfactory.

If I really had to choose,for the intended application the little Sako would get the nod-a box mag would have made it even better. It didn't need Varget or BT bullets either.

gbal

[Big Al]

I had a .223 with a 20" barrel and often thought that for a fox rifle/truck gun it may have handled that bit better at 18" with one of the shorter/lighter moderators that are out there. With 55gr bullets and a max range of 300yds would anyone see any noticeable performance difference with a 22" barrel over an 18" one?

[maltbuck]

Thank you for the replies.

I did consider the 20 Tactical, but when considering the max ranges I am talking about (250) the BC value for the 53 grain v-max would seem pretty good and at these shorter ranges the drop/wind age differences are pretty minimal.

Thus will stick with the .223, and probably look at a 20-22 inch barrel.

 

Regards,

 

MB

[baldie]

The .222 rem was an original benchrest cartridge for one very good reason. Its astoundingly accurate. Thats down mainly to its longer neck.

 

Ever seen anyone specifically build a .223 for benchrest Steve ?

 

I own 3 223.s and love them all, but the next will be a .222 because I want the most accuracy possible from a .224.

[andybrock]

The .222 rem was an original benchrest cartridge for one very good reason. Its astoundingly accurate. Thats down mainly to its longer neck.

 

Ever seen anyone specifically build a .223 for benchrest Steve ?

 

I own 3 223.s and love them all, but the next will be a .222 because I want the most accuracy possible from a .224.

Dave beat me to it, pre PPC the 222 was top dog in the accuracy world.

[247sniper]

Guys, I know the .222 rem is inherently accurate, i never said it wasn't. But stating that the .222 is much much more accurate then a .223 is utter rubbish.

 

Most people cant shoot the accuracy of a factory rifle never mind a fine tuned rifle

 

My mate has got a .222 and is also a competent reloader, his sako will shoot .2 and .3s all day long, but on the other hand my .223Ai will out shoot his .222 all day long,even with each other shooting each others rifle, mine is just more accurate, im sure there is other 222's that will out shoot my .223 at 100 and 200 yards in bench rest comps in ideal conditions, its just the way it goes.

 

But going back to the OP question, this level of accuracy is not needed.

[Big Al]

the next will be a .222 because I want the most accuracy possible from a .224.

 

Do you think the .222 would be a more accurate round than the 22PPC or 22BR Dave?

 

I was under the impression that these shorter fatter cartridges with the 30 degree shoulders were the way to go these days for ultimate accuracy?

[baldie]

You want to get your mate with his .2 and .3 gun all day to take up benchrest then Steve, as he will clean up !

 

A fox rifle should be every bit as accurate as the most accurate bench gun.

 

Why ?

 

Because you are shooting at a living creature.

[baldie]

 

Do you think the .222 would be a more accurate round than the 22PPC or 22BR Dave?

 

I was under the impression that these shorter fatter cartridges with the 30 degree shoulders were the way to go these days for ultimate accuracy?

 

I wouldn't put money on any one of those 3 at 100 yards Al.

 

Stretch it to 300 yards and the Br cases will have the edge.

 

The shoulder angle may or may not make a difference, but the long neck always does. All 3 have it.

[247sniper]

You want to get your mate with his .2 and .3 gun all day to take up benchrest then Steve, as he will clean up !

 

A fox rifle should be every bit as accurate as the most accurate bench gun.

 

Why ?

 

Because you are shooting at a living creature.

 

 

Thats another problem living on the IOM, there's no bench rest comps over here, but I suppose its a good job really, if you boys cant shoot .2's and .3's then we would clean up. We do have plenty of hand gun comps though

 

As for bench rest and foxing rifles in terms of accuracy, if everyone tried to achieve bench rest accuracy before they went out foxing, there wouldn't be many foxes being shot and nobody would be using factory ammunition either!

 

I just get the feeling your trying to pick on me Dave

 

 

Steve.

[baldie]

Not picking on you at all Steve.

 

If I had a quid for every time i.ve heard " my gun will shoot .2 and .3 ALL DAY LONG " I would be a rich man. No one ever steps up to the plate and proves it in front of witnesses.

 

When you tell people they are talking rubbish, they are going to reply. If you can't handle that in a grown up manner, then I would suggest you are in the wrong place.

[247sniper]

Not picking on you at all Steve.

 

 

 

 

Ok thats good then

[247sniper]

Not picking on you at all Steve.

 

 

 

 

Ok thats good then

 

 

When you tell people they are talking rubbish, they are going to reply. If you can't handle that in a grown up manner, then I would suggest you are in the wrong place.

 

Thats fine as I am grown up and can handle peoples reply's, even if they are different from mine. It nice sometimes to have a healthy debate on something is good for people. The problem is in this game is "mines better then yours, and your is crap, you want one like mine etc" I suppose its human nature.

 

Steve

[247sniper]

Not picking on you at all Steve.

 

 

 

 

Ok thats good then

 

 

When you tell people they are talking rubbish, they are going to reply. If you can't handle that in a grown up manner, then I would suggest you are in the wrong place.

 

Thats fine as I am grown up and can handle peoples reply's, even if they are different from mine

 

 

If I had a quid for every time i.ve heard " my gun will shoot .2 and .3 ALL DAY LONG " I would be a rich man. No one ever steps up to the plate and proves it in front of witnesses.

 

 

 

I also know the shooting industry is also full of bull shitters, and what you say above is very true. I may may not have shot such groups in from of your presents I know Dave, but I have in front of plenty of local shooters who have witnessed many times such groups.

[gbal]

In the very early sixties I read an game changing article by the great Warren Page,shooting editor of 'Field and Stream',an early accuracy nut in what became Bench Rest,and a great all round hunter.He could also write and think (Harvard)."The quarter minute rifle" was seminal,changed competition and sporting shooting toward accuracy. OK,I'd had known this at 25y with rf,but 200Yards....?wow!

The 'world record' group in1948 at 200y was .53 It's now way under .2 (IBSA,NBR etc). For other uses,.3 reduction is modest,note.There is no doubt at all about improvement,in every single component.Even the nut behind the but,but it is interesting to see just how many records from the 80s still stand-we're talking .0x groups here.Consistency is better.Probably factory rifles have shown more general improvement, 1moa is routine,not an aspiration,as it once was.

An 25 shot agg of .25 isn't shabby at all,short of World championships- and is somewhere between 'one .2 ish three shot group,once' (fluke) and ".2 groups,easy,all day long" (world champion-without the easy!)

 

OK,the 222 (1950 ) when picked up by BR was dominant by the early 70s ( so the 223,commercial rifles about 1965, has never figured in Bench Rest-though 222 wildcats were not unknown.Almost all cartridges tried were 224s. Not that BR is THE criterion for precision,necessarily,but it is a very good one and documented in detail with verified public performances.

In 1558 the NBRSA introduced "Sporter Class",minimum 6mm -so 6x47 variants were tried...Dr Lou Palmisano's careful work established that a small primer,smaller flash hole and short powder column worked well,and this culminated in the PPC,22PPC in '75,and then the 6PPC which carried over to 100/200 benchrest and dominates to this day.It is a rarity for a non 6PPC to figure (even some tweaked version) at national level.

 

OK it's good-very very good.How would the 222 compare if it was produced to similar standards -we don't know,but it will have been tried,and presumably did not do better. Maybe 223,but it has no form all on this kind of track. (Even the 6PPC give way in absolute score accuracy at 300 to the 30BR eg (bigger hole touches rings more often-a good example of why 'scores/records' etc per se need to be considered in some detail in other applications,where a couple of thou doesn't matter).

Steve,there are no doubt at all,extremely accurate 223s-probably fewer than some claim,but at one time the UK sporter BR records was held by a 22PPC Ruger.......

-I don't think anyone would want to generalise from that.(if they do,try the 222 Ruger ranch rifle).

In the early days (UK), many more 222s were premium rifles-Sako,Anschutz etc-than were the 223s coming along,often more mundane.Military performance didn't help (would the 222s reputation have survived thousands of mini 14s here?). But that is not a fair comparison.What can be done now is-as Dave says,if ten custom rifles were put together in each of 222 and 223,would there be a clear winner...?and would it be by more than a very small margin-(sub sub .1moa),and would there be much overlap?

For those that like/know them,there is something just very right about a properly proportioned 222-maybe it really is no more than 'legacy well earned',and the 222 as configured simply can't compete at distance with some 223s. It's top of it's -perhaps limited-class,though-dinky and dandy.Gosh,it was even made in proper sized actions,once-pure joy,in a box,no add ons,by design-thank you Sako.

Only one rifle-then 223 is more flexible -need not give away any useable field accuracy,has more performance,sometimes not needed,no panache,class,proper history.....well,you can't expect complete impartiality or objectivity,can you ...? :-)

 

gbal