.22 Hornet 'V' .222

[Big Dog]

In N. Ireland it is highly likely, so I'm told, that if you apply for a .222 you may be ofered a Hornet. You can appeal it but this may take a long time. I will probably apply for a .222, at least that is may thinking now. However,

 

I have been reading some USA stuff on the .22 Hornet and it seems to have a lot going for it. Quite, low recoil, would do well for grows & foxes, nice name too.... Down side seem to be max 150 yrds, ammo same price as .222 over here, reloading not seamless.

 

The USA boy don't talk about moderators as its illegal there, so:

 

1. what is the feeling out there?

 

2. would it be better with a moderator?

 

3. if shooting at 150 yrs will you see the hit through the scope?

 

4. does it offer something more that just settling for it if I get turned down on

the .222?

 

Come on guys, lets make this informative for us all. I'll get Santa to bring the most informative post 2 Mars bars :(

[dunganick]

lets compare and let the figures talk for them selves

 

22 horent, does 3250 fps with a 35 grain hornady vmax (my home load) when zerod an inch high at 100 it is smack on at about 160, it is then good untill about 190 for a fox, and 250 if you can hit them for a rabbit

 

the 222 does 3300fps on a good load, with a 50grain nosler b/t (home load) when zerod an inch and 1/4 high at 100 it is smack on at about 190 and only 3-4 inches low at 300, it is good for foxes out to about 300 and good for rabbits further than you or me can shoot.

 

in my opinion it is a no brainer, put in for the 222 at least, its components are more often than not cheaper (cases esspecially).

 

the hornet is a fine round, it does have a little group of fans who love it and swear by it, but in my opinion it is a gun to take out becuase your bored of using your 222

 

as for recoil.....if either the hornet or the 222 had less recoil the gun would jump forwards

 

you will see the hit through the scope as long as its a good scope and its not turned up too high

 

a moderated hornet is a very nice gun to use, but ive found that a moderated 222 can be a bit sharper in sound

 

i would say go for 222 its a great little round, and is my fav non deer legal round

 

if you get turned down and get a 22 hornet you would also have a great round, but one that you will more than likely feel limited by.

 

****

 

reloading,

 

the hornet is a fine cartridge to reload, it does suffer from the bullets not seating straight, but this is 99% sorted by using forster dies which use a sleave to make sure the bullet locates properly

 

as for it not being a rimless cartridge, it dosent make a bit of difference in use, as long as the magazine is well designed you cant overlap them anyway, just think do you suffer with your rimfire, :(

 

just becuase it dosent look modern dosent mean it dosent work just as well

 

hope ive helped

Edited June 16, 2005 by dunganick

[hawkeye]

At this moment in time Nick is in the lead for the 2 MARS BARS :(

[Gemini]

I would say stick out for the .222, because as Nick has pointed out it is so much more versatile than the Hornet.

The other thing is that the Hornet can be very fickle with ammunition which is where hand-loading comes into its own. Unfortunately you can’t hand-load which means having to search for ammo’ that will suit your rifle.

The .222 was the first real bench-rest calibre due to the fact that it is inherently accurate with very little messing around from the user.

Read up and learn about this calibre before you apply, and then you can use that knowledge to try and persuade your firearms dept to issue the appropriate authorization.

Best of luck.

G.M.

[leon]

Dunganick,

How are you getting 3250fps out of a hornet? the most I have ever managed 2750 and that done the barrel no good only lasted about 2000 rounds....But have to agree with you on the .222 its a lovely round. :(

[Gemini]

30grn Calhoon DBL HP bullet

14grns Hodgdon H110

CCI 400 primer

3480 fps :(

G.M.

[dunganick]

35 grain hornady vmax

 

a bit of lilgun powder (i wish i could remeber how much)

 

a remington 6.5 primer (not a 6.5mm primer, but a specilist hornet primer)

 

and bobs your uncle 3250

 

the powder is amazing stuff, its actually a shotgun powder, but its used in smaller applications like the hornet, it develops next to no presure no matter how much you put in it, so you could fill it to the brim and run a compressed load and not be running as much pressure a SAMI spec load.

 

if you can get hold of it get some,

 

i think ive just given away my fathers secret hornet load :(

Edited June 17, 2005 by dunganick

[Frank]

Leon,

A freind of mine has had a Hornet for 22 years now and must of fired over 10,000 rounds threw it so far .

He uses mainly Winchester 46 grain hallow points, but the last 3 years, he has been using Hornady 35 grain v.maxes with no problem. His rifle, a CZ, still groups half an inch at 100yds. So Dont know where your coming from with only 2000 .

 

Big dog, I live in the south of Ireland and licencing problems are not easy here ither.

I went for a .223 at first but got refused. My firearms dealer suggested a .204.

I was a bit coutious at first, but have had the gun for 6 months now and love it

Have a look at my posts in the sporting picture section, of my 3 sucesses with foxes. The last fox I took with it was at 298yds .

Its an amazing caliber and easy to licence. It walks all over the .222 and has the same recoil too. You can see the shots no problem threw the scope :( .

Try this site for more info: www.204ruger.com

You wont be desapointed with a .204 Reloading is easy too, you live in the north, so reloading is allowed if you wish, as you probably already know.

[Hodmedod.one]

Dunga, you are indeed a knowledgable little ******!

[dunganick]

the 204 is a pet hate of mine im affraid mate, as are many of the newly branded rounds that have actually been around for ages.

 

im not saying its not good, but from what ive seen it wont walk all over the 222, it is an accurate round, but there are honestly very few rounds that can come close to the out the box accuracy of a 222, it is quite alot quicker which i will give you is a nice feature, but i have very rarely found the need to shoot a fox past 300, and if you know their might be a chance i take out the 6.5 which will knock them down as far as i can shoot accuratly.

 

my other reason for not liking it is that its not avaible in a whole load of rifles, where as 222 is one of the most popular non deer legal rounds you can buy and isin almost every model of rifle.

 

this is only my little rant at another case of a round being reborn for the sake of making a manufacteur some money on 'making' (actually finding an old) round.

 

i think your point is fair it is a good round, but i would certainly put my 222 up against any centerfire on the bench and fully expect it to walk over them.

 

the 222 should not be underestimated

 

rant over :(

 

Dunga, you are indeed a knowledgable little ******!

 

thanks, , love shooting and evertthing that goes with it, learning it all is just part of shooting better

Edited June 17, 2005 by dunganick

[Frank]

Make of rifle available for .204:

Remington, Savage, Ruger, cooper, CZ, Sako, Dekota arms, Browning,Les Bear, Kimber, New England Arms, Thompson Arms.

Models for each:

 

Ruger: 7 different models.

 

Remington: 5.

 

Savage: 7

 

Browning: 3

 

sako: 2

Ect.

 

Dunganick, no offence, but unless you try it you wont know.

The .222 is on its way out, more and more companys are droping this caliber

The .204 is on the increase and more conpanys are making them as we speak.

Barnes is bringing out a new bullet for reloading folk soon with very good controled expansion :(

Edited June 17, 2005 by Frank

[dunganick]

we will have to agree to disagree, in my experiance in a country where it is admitadly easier to get any gun, down at my club (im in the sporting section) we have more 222's than any other round excluding rimfire, it is a very popular round, closely followed by the 223, but in a sporting club 223 is not so popular, there has been a feeling in sporting men for years, if you like bunching paper (not bench rest) you get a 223, if you like going in the field or doing B/R you buy a 222.

 

dont ask me why its just the way, i cant explain it

 

i shant bother listing all the rifles the 222 is avalible in, i dont want to take up that much space on the forum (and too much of my time )

 

i have once tried a 204, and it did impress me, but i cant help but feel it is yet another case of a round which has been relaunched as a new round which does not fill any particular area of the market, if you want to do long range fox shooting the 22-250 can do that better, if you want to do mid range, the 222 or 223 can do that just as well and for less money if you want to do both, get a 243 and then have it for deer as well.

 

im not saying its not a good round, i just personally dislike the round mainly for the way its been re introduced just so another rich american company can make money out of innocent punters who would go and buy what ever the adverts tell them to (not suggesting this is you mate )

 

so i suppose i hate it from an ethical point of view, it in my mind forfills a gap that isnt there. enough said

 

*****

 

im out hunting for new permissions today on my bike, so i wont be able to counter argue the barage of arguments that are about to be posted :(

 

will let you know how i get on, i think ive secured 700 acres of everything land from last visit.

Edited June 17, 2005 by dunganick

[Gemini]

Nick the only load I can find with lil'gun powder is 13 grns, and that only pushes a 35 grn Vmax bullet at 3050fps.

G.M.

[Frank]

The .22-250 has a lot more recoil than the .204. Its harder on barrels, throat, and noisey, very noisey, compared to the .204.

The .204 can do everything a .22-250 does, but with a tad less energy.

Also, the .22-250 is much harder to licence than the .204 here in Ireland.

The .222 is a fine round and very accurate from my limited experience.

 

Accuracy would be the same Id think. I grouped 1 and a quarter inch at 300 yds a few times with my .204 and that was a windy day :( , wind speed was around 15 mph.

I have still to group on a calm day.

On the Ruger web site, if you ask a fella called Silver fox about a half inch group that was made at 500yds with handloads, he will prove it and show it to you.

Nuff said.

 

P.S I regularly shoot feral wild goats up to 250yds with my .204 and it does a fine humane job . Before anyone gets legal, it is permitted over here to cull wild goats that are cousing damage . Here is a .204 bullet 40 grain v.max and a .223 40 grain.vmax next to each other, not much of a difference. The .223 is on the left and the .204 is on right.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Frank

[Frank]

I would also add that the .22 Hornet, is a very good round out to 200 yds.

I have experinced this many times, as a lot of my freinds have them, they are very common down here in southern Ireland, becouse of caliber restrictions.

They are queit and have no recoil to speak of.

They are accurate too.

I have seen some amazing shots pulled off with the Hornet, never under estimate it

Feral goats and foxes are commonly taken with the Hornet here in southern Ireland, up to 200 yds.

Hornady v. maxes for the foxes and the winchester 46 grain hallow points for the goats :( .

[dunganick]

Nick the only load I can find with lil'gun powder is 13 grns, and that only pushes a 35 grn Vmax bullet at 3050fps.

G.M.

well im talking after having run it over a chrono, its the 2nd fastest rifle me and my dad have, and its only beat into 2nd by the 222 on the hot loads, our normal 222 only does 3200, so with regular rounds its actually our fastest round.

 

my dads home, so will question him about the powder charge.

 

i have to say ive never found a 22-250 that has any recoil, recoil is not an issue with any .224 rifle ive fired.

 

i will agree that it is a noisey piece, but then hot loads can be pushing silly velocities.

[Big Dog]

Guys this is good stuff for me. Hope others are enjoying it. Thank Nick and Frank.

 

Could you expand on the moderation issue?? .222 .204 Hornet etc. It add to the bill. I don't want to be cheap but I have a family and need to make my ££ count.

 

Frank can you moderate in the south??

 

Ps. On one of the other forums I was saying I couldn't find a good rifle range anywhere. Well to day I found that the URA shoot at a military range 30 mins from me, 10 yrs to 600 mtes range variation. Dont laugh but up until last Christmas I only lived 10 mins from this range and didnt know. Hopefully I am going to get into it soon, This has been a good day for me.

[dunganick]

moderating a rifle is in my opinion one of the best thigns you can do to a rifle, if the silencer is good then it will moderate it enough that you cancomfortbly listen to the rifle without deffenders. the hornet would be the best one to silence, i shoot along side a moderated hornet alot, and you cant hear it if its more than 600 yards away, it is very impressive.

 

ive never heard a moderated 204, but being such a quickround it is likely to have a sharp sonic crack, which you cannot get rid of, the same goes for the 222, i know that the 222 does not moderate as well as the hornet, and i would imagine the same is true of the 204.

 

however this is not to say its not worth doing, differences ive seen is that if your shooting bunnies at long range they are actually not bothered by a moderated centerfire, as opposed to when non moderated are used they run a mile.

 

moderators can be a bit of a messy buisness concerning thelaw (as your probably seeing) but once thats all sorted and its screwed on your gun you will never want to let it go.

[Gemini]

One other thing to think about is the effect that a moderator can have on accuracy.

Because it also acts as a muzzle brake, it will also help to keep the scope on target as you fire. This enables you to see the strike of the bullet

I fitted a muzzle brake onto my .243 and the difference was staggering. When I took the shot without the brake the scope lifted as the shot was fired, and I was never sure about the hit, especially if the fox was in cover and dropped into undergrowth. Once the brake was fitted the strike was seen through the scope, so no worries about the hit.

A moderator acts in the same manner, so as soon as I can raise the cash I’m fitting one, before I go completely deaf from this bloody muzzle brake.

G.M.

[Frank]

Hi Big Dog,

In order to get a Moderator for a rifle down south, you need to get a permit from your local Superrintendant. A lot of the time they are refused, but their is quiet a few people having one fitted.

Nick is probably right, a modareted .204 would be very simmilar to a .222.

I have a freind who has just got a Swift and got a permit to put a modarator on it, which he has. The sound off it is just like a .22 magnum going off.

My .204 is not modarated, but I feel as long as you have permision from the farmer to be their and dont shoot near houses, i see very little point in having one fitted.

Saying that, they are a fantastic bit of kit to have when shooting in an area that is a bit built up

Also If you lamp a lot for foxes ect, in the dead of the night, you dont want to wake up your farmer freind and for him to wonder what the hell is going on with all the banging , so a modarator would be handy for situations like that

[Frank]

I forgot to also say, it costs around 400 Euro to fit a sound moderator onto your centerfire rifle down south.

That includes, treading ect.

Have you decided which rifle to go for yet Big Dog?

[Big Dog]

Hi Frank. I probably faviour the .222. Ammo is the same as Hornet up here. I do like what I here about the Hornet; quiter even with moderator, low recoil and it seems range is better than I first though, but .222 gets about 70% of my vote at present.

 

I want to have some range but to be truthful I will shoot as more grey Back Crows as anything and if I get into this club I will really enjoy the range.

 

Nick talks about shooting rabbits with a .222 and distance, will it still be eatable??

 

The quest continues

[dunganick]

if you can hit their head, which with the right scope an accurate gun and some good eyes any round is capable of, and you can still eat it.

 

wouldnt eat a gut shot one though....not that ive ever found much to eat besides a few drumsticks and ears

Edited June 19, 2005 by dunganick

[Gemini]

If you are going to be shooting mainly crows , then have you considered the .17 Rem.

G.M.

[Frank]

Head shots are the best with centerfire rifles when your after the humble bunny.

If .222 ammo is cheaper up where you are and easy to get, then go for it.

If you get hassel trying to licence a .222, then the Hornet or .204 will be easeir to licence.

Talking of grey crows, I shot one a week ago with my .204 at 224yds.

.222 and .204 have same recoil and noise.

The Hornet far less noise.

The .17 Remington, as GM says, is worth looking at too.

Just keep that barrel cleaned after 15 shots.

Otherwise, it fires all over the place, dinner plate size for groups .

The wind plays havok too with the .17 caliber. I know, Iwas out a few times with people that have a .17, on windy nights. Made more foxes educated than Micheal Cain ever did with Rita .

Edited June 19, 2005 by Frank