.222 vs .223

[Star1pup]

Other than the easy availabilty of .223 ammo, which would you prefer for coyotes up to 200 yards?

[beemanbeme]

Either one.  I have both the .222 and .223 and while you can quote ballistics all day long, I find little if any difference in them.  The .222 is said to be more accurate than the .223 and perhaps it is in a highly specialized, single purpose, bench gun but in the sporters and such that I've shot, that statement would be hard to prove.  
Basically, if you have a .222, don't sell it to buy a .223.  If you have neither, buy the .223 because of the cheap and readidly available components or milsup ammo.  
A 55gr core lokt bullet will kill a 200 yard coyote very dead in either rifle.

[PaulS]

The 223 has more potential - more internal volume. When reaching out to two-hundred yards you want all the powder capacity you can have. It is a big plus that the rounds are easily available and CHEAP too.

[Redhawk1]

PaulS said it all.  

[roper]

The 222mag was in competition against the 223 for the military round which the 223 won.  Have a hard time trying to figure how the 222 compares to the 223 since the 223 hold appr 1.9 gr more powder  and would have an velocity advantage over the 222.  The one advantage the 222 has over the 223 is it's known as a Br round and has shot the smallest Br group on record.  The 223 has been around now 42yrs  it has done well in the x ring but not group.  There was a pretty good time line for the 223 to be developed as a Br case before the ppc.  You could build a tight neck 223 rifle and get some small groups but never what was needed to win a BR match.  Been their done that.   I'd take a good 222 over a 223 any day of the week for coyotes.  Just so you don't think I'm one sided in my varmit rifles I shoot a 222,222AI,223,223AI and 222mag.  Just my .02

[Don Fischer]

roper,

I don't shoot bench rest but read about it now and then. I don't think that the 222 group your talking about can be called a group. As I understand it, the offical measurement was .009", That's a hole! On top of that, I understand that measurement came about after it had been mailed around the country. I think it was Gail McMillian that shot it?

[Star1pup]

Since I already have dies for a .222, I am seriously considering staying with it.  Probably go with a CZ as it seems a great value and i hear a lot of good about them.

[Rogue Ram]

I think Don is right. The .222 is renowned for accuracy.  The .223 is so popular and accurate nothing else in its class makes sense. I'd post a picture of the first coyote I shot with one, but GB would ban me from the site.....  no coyotes since then have, well, "disintegrated" like the first one did (don't ask me why I don't know) but that experience endeared the .223 to me.  Sick aren't I?  :grin:

RR

[roper]

roper,

I don't shoot bench rest but read about it now and then. I don't think that the 222 group your talking about can be called a group. As I understand it, the offical measurement was .009", That's a hole! On top of that, I understand that measurement came about after it had been mailed around the country. I think it was Gail McMillian that shot it?

Alot of talk about McMillian's group but it stand as the offical record.  It's funny but about 12 yrs ago Mike Walker the father of the 222 shot in his last  BR match called the Catus he got small groups at 100 yds with his 222 group was in the .0's.   I think it was McMillians group that got the moving backers started up till that time was no way to dispute a groups size other than talk.  Gale McMillian was a nice guy he did alot for the shooting industry.  Myself I have no reason to doubt he didn't shoot that group.   They have come close to that record acouple times.  That's just my take on things.  Well good luck

[Star1pup]

One thing is certain: either caliber will shoot better than I can hold!