.22 Hornet or .222?

[Tin Man Work]

Hi All,

 

I am looking to get a centrefire for foxing and am taken by both the .22 Hornet and the .222; anything over that will be more than what I need so am not looking at the popular .243 and .22-250 , just looking to seek advice about the Hornet and the .222 please.

 

I have been a .22LR shooter for a long time now and really like the calibre - especially the super quiet operation of my CZ452 Varmint with a Bowket moderator, but I now need to deal with foxes - so it's a centrefire.

 

The big factor for me between the calibres is minimising noise so am looking for the 'quietest' centrefire I can get that is good for foxes; yep there'll always be the crack of the bullet and I will be using a moderator, but I don't want a huge crack or rolling boom that some calibres and loads can produce.

 

I'll be looking to reload as well as use off the shelf ammo, and am not concerned about the Hornet being an obsolete calibre.

 

I'd much appreciate what the .22 Hornet and .222 shooters on the forum can advise.

 

Cheers

Edited January 15, 2010 by Tin Man Work

[SSS]

Why not .223? Its cheaper to shoot than a .222 or .22 Hornet and you have better ballistics. I was told in my local RFD that .222 is being discontinued and no major manufacturers are making guns chambered in .222. If you are reloading, the .222 will be fractionally cheaper because there is less powder charge.

Not a fan of either calibres you mention myself to be honest.

[codling99]

loves my .222, not a lot init for sound ,but accurate enough and does the job no probs,about a pound a shot for balistic tips and 60p for softpoints,which if it only for foxes ,aint going to cost the earth really.

[Dekers]

Always difficult this, I have a number of rifles that I use for fox so selecting just one is difficult.

 

Both the Hornet and .22 are perfectly capable, you make no mention of "General" range, but the Hornet is a fair bit closer than the .222.

 

As already mentioned, and I am not having a go at either calibre, but both are, in effect, obsolete! There is an arguement to say the Hornet may be enjoying a slight recovery but the .222 is on the way out! Now, if you are reloading this is no great issue and I would suggest the .222.

 

BUT, and the BIG but is, why not a .223???

 

Loads of choice of guns and factory ammo, no difference in noise to mention and easy to reload if you go that route!!

[codling99]

must disagree,cant see .222 ever going out of fashion,you ll allwyas get ammo in your life time mate.

[macca]

Hi,

not the hornet - rimmed cartridge, thin brass, sometimes headspace problems, older guns need 223 diameter pills. 222 was the choice of benchrest fraternity until the PPC came along. Very accurate, can be loaded back to hornet speeds, takes 224 pills. 223 originally developed as a military cartridge, extremely accurate and now more popular than 222 and cheaper to buy ammo for. Can be loaded back substantially. More variety of manufactures chambering 223.

Cheers

[Dekers]

must disagree,cant see .222 ever going out of fashion,you ll allwyas get ammo in your life time mate.

 

 

 

Yep...but I hear talk he will also be getting a Telegram from the Queen on his next Birthday!!! :thumbs:

[Paul223]

All the points put forward are valid, what you don't mention is range? Sound wise ask around see if you can accompany some one who has a hornet or .222 / .223, are you thinking of using a moderator?

[dunganick]

Both the Hornet and .222 are very nice rounds. But the Hornet is slightly more of a 'toy' whilst its a very capable foxing/vermin gun. It doesnt shoot anywhere near as flat as the .222 or .223 and doesnt carry as much energy down range.

 

The max foxing range for the hornet will be sub 200 yards. Where as the .222 or .223 would be 250+

 

Other things to consider:

 

Moderation, there isn't as big a difference as you might think. The hornet is a little quieter, but you can make just as big of a difference by buying a better moderator.

 

Reloading the Hornet (if you intend to ever reload) is a little more of a fiddle than the thicker brassed cartridges.

 

The .222 is being very much put on the back burner by alot of companies. For example Lapua don't make brass for the .222 anymore. Alot of manufactures are also removing the .222 from their calibre line up.

 

The .223 is nearly identical to the .222, but the availability of reloading components/rifles and the range of factory ammo held by many shops is considerably larger. Be warned alot of .223 rifles use a fast twist rate more suited to 60-70 grain projectiles, which you typically wouldnt want to use in the field.

 

In your shoes i would buy a .222, it seems to be one of those inherently accurate rounds, and its a bit different to the .223 that everyone has.

 

I own a .223 btw... But have shot/handloaded for all 3.

[whitehackle]

.222 was used by the bench rest shooters for about 20 years and is a nice smooth round to fire. I dont have any problems getting ammo and rifles are readily avalible although i now reload .Shooting out to 220 yards is no problem .Above that you need something more powerful.

[6br]

out of the 2, hornet v .222 the .222 win's hands down, better accuracy, better performance. I think the .222 still hold the record in 100 yards bench rest for light varmint but not 100% sure.

[Mr_Logic]

It all depends... 22 Hornet is about the quietest centrefire there is, and it's a very capable rifle for some roles. I use mine like most people use HMR, but it also gives me a good fox capability.

 

222 is in between but as I gather from my post the other day, noise is like a 223. So you may as well get a .223 - as a general purpose round it's about as good as it gets. It's moderately noisy, moderately powerful and moderately (250-300) ranged.

 

Rifles are generally horrifically accurate. Must disagree with those who would say get a 12 twist - it's OK, but a 9 twist is better - can go from 40gr right to about some 75gr, not much it can't do.

 

Personally I'd get a Tikka with a 1:8 twist, then you're on for basically anything you like. At 223 ranges, you won't have any problems with the fast twist and lighter rounds, either.

[sharpshot]

must disagree,cant see .222 ever going out of fashion,you ll allwyas get ammo in your life time mate.

 

 

definately :(

[njc110381]

The Hornet can be made to shoot very well. It's not so popular these days but only because people seem to think they need a rifle that will down a Fox at 400 yards. I know some poeple have the skill to do it, but most of us don't. I've shot loads of Foxes, but none have been that far away? As you've said you don't want .243 or .22-250 I get the impression you'd rather work with the minimum than a boomer?

 

The Hornet is very mild and cheap to load for. If noise is your key issue then unless you want to push your ranges you don't need anything bigger. It will do 200 yards on a Fox.

 

EDIT... For those of you who've never used a Hornet, lets not forget that before the .240 minimum calibre rule was introduced for Deer stalking, the .22 Hornet was a very popular calibre for the close range woodland Roe stalker. It develops over 600ft-lbs with the mildest factory ammo, 6x what a .22lr hands out. It's no lightweight!

Edited January 17, 2010 by njc110381

[Tin Man Work]

Many many thanks for everyone who answered the post – it has been a great help and much appreciated.

 

OK, .223 is cheaper to shoot than a .222 or .22 Hornet and there’ll be better ballistics with longer range, but I do not fancy one as just about everyone has them, it’s a bit close to the military calibers I shoot plus I do want something a little different.

 

Thanks for the pointers on reloading as this will bring costs down once kitted out, and thanks for the points that reloading the Hornet would be more fiddly than the thicker walled .222 cartridges, and that the .222 can be loaded back close to Hornet speeds. Very useful information.

 

You’re right that I would much rather work with the minimum necessary noise than a boomer as noise is quite a big thing for the me and for the landowner of my favourite permission (who lamps for me) so thanks for confirming that the Hornet is a little quieter, and also that a good moderator choice will make a big difference to the .222.

 

Point taken as well about the twist rates and bullet weights – it wasn’t something that I had thought about enough beforehand.

 

Range - on the permissions I have the Hornet out to 200 yards would be ideal (though I would admit that the extra reach of the .222 is attractive, as well as the pretty flat shooting and downrange energy compared to the Hornet). Then again when using my .22 rimfire I know the rifle/ammo combination and am used to holdovers so a Hornet rounds trajectory would not be much of a culture shock.

 

It’ll probably be a Hornet if I can find the right one as it still stands for me that it is about the quietest centrefire there is, it is a very capable rifle for my foxing needs, it is very mild and cheap (if not fiddly) to load for, and will reach out to 200 yards with the downrange energy to do the job. It certainly ticks the bit different box. :o

 

Don’t think though that if the right .222 came along that I would hesitate!

 

Thanks again for the advice.

[macca]

Hi,

if you are set on a hornet for the reasons you stated a far superior cartridge for you is a rifle chambered in 221 fireball. 35 grain projectile at around 3500fps - very flat and very quiet. Does not have the case problems that the hornet has. I use two rifles which use the fireball case as the parent - 17mkIV and the 300 whisper. Saying that the MK IV and its commercial equivalent the remington 17 fireball are far superior to the hornet and tick all the boxes you have indicated. My MKIV is set 1/2 inch high at 100 and will headshoot any fox that you can see in the light (240 lightforce)- no holdover.

Cheers

[Tin Man Work]

Blimey - that's interesting.

 

I'm going to have a look at this - sounds ideal (especially something tagged 'whisper').

 

Cheers

[macca]

Hi Tin man,

the whisper is not a fox gun - it is a 221 fireball case necked up to 30 calibre and pushes a 200 grain lead cast gas checked projectile at subsonic speeds. It can be made very very quiet. Very accurate. Interstingly with a small amount of modification to gas cycling system and a 30 calibre barrel it makes a very quiet wemi auto based on any box magazine semi auto 223. The round, with a 200 grain projectile is almost identical in size to a standard 223 military round.

The 17 mkIV or 17 remington fireball are the way to go for fox rounds. The Yanks use them out to 400 yards on prairie dogs.

Cheers

[casts_by_fly]

The 221 FB is a great little round if you reload. 225-250 yard dead on fur for fox. Reloaded 40 gr v-max at 3600 from a standard length barrel. Quieter than a 223 unmoderated. Only 15-16g powder to worry about. Can't beat that really. The CZ action is a good size for it and it feed just fine (some bigger actions don't as well). If you don't reload, I have no idea what ammo availability would be.

 

Thanks,

Rick

[Mr_Logic]

How does 221FB or 17FB compare to Hornet in terms of noise? This calibre interests me...

[al4x]

also have a look at a .204 they seem to get good reviews from users, I wouldn't bother with a hornet as if you're going centrefire you want something with a bit of poke

[njc110381]

.17AH is quiet and good for close stuff

 

Less of a barrel burner than the bigger .17s too. It will still do 3800fps with a 25grn bullet.

[macca]

Hi,

204 is noisier than a 223,it is based on the 222rem mag case, necked down to 20 calibre. The 17 Ackerly hornet will barely give 3100 with a 25 grain pill and has the problem that it head spaces off the rim and the shoulder - causes case stretching and cracking unless the chamber is matched exactly to the dies.

I use a mK IV (17 fireball) and only ever neck size. The 221 fireaball and the 17 remington fireball are extremely efficient cases - look very similar to scaled down ppc and 6 br cases. Noise wise they are a little louder than the hornet but with a good can on the front you will remove most of the blast noise. I use the same powder in my 223 and my MK IV and there is 6.5 grains difference in charge. The 25 grain pill out of the MK IV travels 500fps faster than the 55 gn 223 pill for 6.5 grains less powder. Remington make an SPS in 17 remington fireball, RCBS make a 3 die set. I use Hornady 25gn hollow points, benchrest primers and 18.5 grains of benchmark powder. Rifle is a Sako A1 heavy barrel varminter which was originally a 17 remington. My gunsmith removed 1/2 inch of barrel and recut the chamber to the MK IV - nothing was done to the magazine. Gun wears an 8x56 kahales. Trigger is set at 14 ounces-and it shoots. It kills far above its size.

Cheers

Edited January 18, 2010 by macca

[njc110381]

You are right Macca, I've got my numbers wrong. I was thinking 20grn bullets! The 25s will give 3500 though with the right load

[henry d]

CLICK HERE for one of the reasons I like a .222 and reloads. I hope to get a mod fitted soon too and even without I have had 3 shots at a group of roe 80yds or so into a field a few years ago before they ran off.