.223 opinion best option.

[Hendrix's rifle]

I've not said any of my rifles are the best lol. In fact I think I have only said about one, ands it's a workhorse and built like a tractor. But rusts badly and is shot out.

Not defended any rifle, just said that some rifles need work, some come out the box and shoot better than others without having to change this that or other.

 

I thought I was being very straight with the OP without barrel waggling lol.

 

Just out of interest. Is your howa as it comes out the box or have you changed any of it for the maqueens and which discipline. Only asking.

Out of interest why don't you like howa? Reason being I'm looking for a new rifle and was looking at the model 1500 in 223 as there isn't a lot more than suit my pocket

[team tractor]

 

Yep, thought so. Howa lol. Nothing wrong with a howa, someone has to buy them or life would be boring.lol

 

Again with the cars, no relevance.

 

.

Of course it's the same. Your labelling anything you can get spares for as rubbish

 

I competed in the past for 10 years on the FT scene and gun snobbery is a killer of new blood in the sport.

Sure I'd love a sauer , AI but my budget is spent on more important things and when competing I loved wiping the floor with expensive guns.

As said I also have a cz and a Brno and have recently sold my southern gun company but I don't never put down other people's choices.

 

Gun snobbery kills the sport

Edited January 15, 2017 by team tractor

[Scrumbag]

I love my CZ 527 American. From your list I'd go for a Tikka or the Browning.

[activeviii]

That's the beauty of the McQueen's, bung what you brung. Little bit of luck involved as well as not getting stressed. Up to 300 yards makes it a very open to anybody that wants a giggle and try their luck with any rifle. Very fair and sporting type of shooting that can put the £5k rifles to shame if one losses their head. Many shooting open sites that day.

[Albert 888]

Not one,I'm tempted but my open sighter is only capable of holding 7 rounds,I'm working on fitting more in.

[activeviii]

Out of interest why don't you like howa? Reason being I'm looking for a new rifle and was looking at the model 1500 in 223 as there isn't a lot more than suit my pocket

Nothing, nothing at all. I like howa's. Just I like fishing too and team tractor bites every time. Lol. Then he gets upset because he realises I have been pulling g his strings.

 

If it's what you can afford and you like it then buy it. It will do you proud. It's like cars, some like fords, I hate them, others like the vw, without the choice we would be all the same and nothing to wind each other up with. No matter what one picks, someone will say it's pants, like cz's

[team tractor]

Nothing, nothing at all. I like howa's. Just I like fishing too and team tractor bites every time. Lol. Then he gets upset because he realises I have been pulling g his strings.

 

If it's what you can afford and you like it then buy it. It will do you proud. It's like cars, some like fords, I hate them, others like the vw, without the choice we would be all the same and nothing to wind each other up with. No matter what one picks, someone will say it's pants, like cz's

cars have no relevance

All I do I help everyone that contacts me but idiots like yourself kill forums. Ever wondered where the regulars have gone. Try helping instead of spoiling things

Edited January 15, 2017 by team tractor

[activeviii]

cars have no relevance

All I do I help everyone that contacts me but idiots like yourself kill forums. Ever wondered where the regulars have gone. Try helping instead of spoiling things

Regular leave because, O I C, your fishing now. Hehe

[Savhmr]

CZ's are cheap, but don't write them off as rubbish. The older BRNOs were very solidly made and far from rusting away to nothing, many survive donkeys years later. The newer ones only rust if neglected. If you want a gun to throw in the truck, never clean, use in the rain and generally neglect, then a CZ is not for you, look elsewhere. Gamekeepers need not apply (and most probably don't given the choice. Mine was an ex-gamekeepers rifle and was horribly neglected, hardly ever cleaned and had a burnt out throat and a damaged crown). If, however, you are on a budget and want a reliable, accurate little rifle that shoots well and has no plastic **** on it, using metal mags, and having one of the sweetest mini Mauser actions out there, then the CZ is a good shout, BUT, they do need looking after. For the record, mine has only been rebarrelled because the original barrel was shot out, not because it was rubbish. The stock was only changed because I wanted something different on it. Yes, that only leaves the action, but if on a budget, I'd still consider a new one. The actions are bomb-proof, easy to strip and clean and very long lasting and strong. I prefer SAKOs, Tikkas, Shultz& Larsens and any other number of European marques but they're all more expensive to buy in the first place. The only really **** thing about CZs are the plastic stocks (best avoided) and the fact some have too short a LOP. There are plenty of inexpensive trigger upgrades and they can form the basis of a really nice little gun. My action shows no rust whatsoever anywhere. My old barrel showed no signs of rust. I look after my guns :-). I can afford a nicer rifle, but I'm happy with my crappy CZ, which after re-barrelling is good for sub moa (as it was when the original barrel was in good shape no doubt).

 

Would I buy a new one for target work? No, probably not as better tools exist for that job. Would I buy one if I had the budget for a T3 or Schultz? No, because they're both better rifles. Would I buy one for general use if on a budget and not worry about gun snobbery? Yes, without hesitation.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Savhmr

[snow white]

Got three cz not a bit of rust on them it all dependes how you look after them.

[masmiffy]

Look at it from another angle

 

An expensive set of golf clubs wont turn you into Tiger Woods (at his peak)

Edited January 16, 2017 by masmiffy

[Woodlander]

Would you consider .222? You'd lose out very little over the range you're looking at and dare I say it,probably more accurate.

[iain]

Looking at either a tika t3 or browning x bolt or a bolt. Or Remington 700 or howa 1500. 1-9 twist with jmc t12 scout mod. What would you recommend for a scope about £450-500 budget. Have aprox £1700- 2k for setting up. Or is it mad spending that on a 223 setup

Scope you wouldn't go far wrong with my Minox 3-15x 56 illuminated 30MM tube I've got it for sale in the other items section £550 delivered but make me a good offer and it's yours.

[Savhmr]

Would you consider .222? You'd lose out very little over the range you're looking at and dare I say it,probably more accurate.

 

Nice calibre...but more accurate?

 

Why would it be? Seems something of an urban myth, that one.

 

Both .223 and .222 are capable of superb accuracy.

 

Here's a .223 group 6 shot group. Please tell me by how much more that a .222 is more accurate than this.

 

[zipdog]

 

Nice calibre...but more accurate?

 

Why would it be? Seems something of an urban myth, that one.

 

Both .223 and .222 are capable of superb accuracy.

 

Here's a .223 group 6 shot group. Please tell me by how much more that a .222 is more accurate than this.

 

I don't think there is any argument that incredibly accurate 223's exist, but the 222 is an inheriently more accurate cartridge! By this i mean a 222 will shoot a wide range of ammuntion types with different bullet weights, types and powers and still perform with excellent results. The 223 has never been able to handle the same amounts of diversity to the standards set by the 222.

[Archie-fox]

I've had several rifles from howas to tikka to browning..

 

I've just picked up a Tikka T3x in 6.5x55 to go with my browning x-bolt in 243 both have meopta scopes sat on top in 3-9x50

[Savhmr]

I don't think there is any argument that incredibly accurate 223's exist, but the 222 is an inheriently more accurate cartridge! By this i mean a 222 will shoot a wide range of ammuntion types with different bullet weights, types and powers and still perform with excellent results. The 223 has never been able to handle the same amounts of diversity to the standards set by the 222.

 

I think that the opposite might be true. The .223 by virtue of the additional charge capacity will actually shoot a wider variety of bullet weights and ammunition types. I've never seen a .222 shoot 77 grain LR projectiles for example. Most .222's were produced in slow twist rates from 1/12 to 1/14, and due to the smaller case capacity are limited to faster burning powders, hence not suitable for the heavier projectiles. Many factory loads are 50g, with some as low as 40g. Home loaders tend to generally choose weights between 40 and 60g for the .222. This of course is looking at longer ranges, but there's no reason that you cannot load the .223 with the same projectiles as the .222 and have it perform as well.

 

It (the .222) gained its reputation for accuracy by virtue of being chambered in some very accurate Remington and Sako rifles of the day, shortly after its introduction, and many benchrest shooters took to it.

 

Whilst the .222 was a popular small game and vermin hunting round, and also adopted by bench rest shooters, it wasn't to have it all its own way for long. Following the US Ordinance Department's call from arms manufacturers in the very late 1950's to develop a military round capable of exceeding Mach1 at 500 yds, based on the .224 bullet, and the likes of Hutton and Stoner started developing the idea for the AR15 but it was MacNamara who officially developed it for the US Military and in 1964, Remington adopted the military round, producing the civilian .223 Remington.

 

Whilst both the .222 and .223 are really not overly suited for medium game where penetration is important, both are accurate and good enough for small deer and vermin control. Both make outstanding medium range target calibres, but the .223 has more reach, can shoot higher BC bullets and is the better of the 2 calibres when you want to reach out to longer distances for paper punching. Whilst the .222 generally speaking is produced in rifling twists that suit perhaps up to 60g bullets, the .223 can manage up to 90 grain bullets with a faster twist and utilise slower burning powders and longer barrels to make the most of the BC advantage for longer range target. For hunting, retained energy at beyond 250 yds from something like heavier A-max is far in excess of more traditional 45 to 55g varminting rounds.

 

I'd say that either will make very good 300 yards vermin control calibres with accuracy good enough to exploit things like neck shots. Both use varmint bullets that produce shallow but wide wound channels, so accuracy matters, and neither will disappoint, but the .223 starts coming into its own when distances exceeding 500 yards. By 500 or 600 yards it certainly has the advantage and much beyond 600 yards the 222 drops off the edge of a cliff, if loaded with 55g bullets whereas the 223 will still compete with say some of the better 77 to 90g bullets out to 1000 yds. This is on paper. Truth is when wind drift is taken into account, the accuracy of the .222 starts dropping off probably sooner, or at least the lighter, lower BC bullets will be blown around a lot more out past 300 yards.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Savhmr

[Woodlander]

I believe the .222 was the bench rest calibre of choice.

And I did say 'probably' as I knew this may prove a little contentious.

[Woodlander]

I have to say I'm thinking of selling my Sako 75 in .222 and replace it with a fast twist .223,for precisely the reasons you mention. I'm hoping to shoot the 75s out to 6-700 yds,certainly not do able with the .222,but for inside 250,I'd take my triple anytime.

[activeviii]

I believe the .222 was the bench rest calibre of choice.

And I did say 'probably' as I knew this may prove a little contentious.

yes the triple deuce was the bench rest rifle of choice and still holds many records.

 

 

Please don't get confused with an above post about distances and shooting. I think the bit that's been missed is the twist rate. Yes the 223 will fly past the 600 yard range but only in the 1:8 twist. Which are rather had to come across second hand and mostly a special order if new. Unless there's one on a shelf some where. The norm is 1:12 twist that a 69gn bullet will be about Max and around 500 yards its lost its edge.

.222 normally is 1:14 with max bullet weight of 52grain. Some get the 53vmax shooting but TS a little hit and miss if it will run. When you get out to 400 you soon know if its worked.

 

I run both calibre's. Theres been plenty of photos on what these two calibers will shoot and capable of on here.

It's down to what ammunition is available locally for the OP. Both very capable. Both are roe deer legle cross the wall and very capable on fox.

 

If you have the money then look for a new Shultz and Larkin as for the money, you probably will not find better. I'm not going any further that that as it upsets some and they go emotional and defensive.

[njc110381]

Well I'll throw in my thoughts.

 

I've had CZ, Brno, Tikka, Browning, Ruger and Sako. I've shot a lot of rounds through them all.

 

Out of your list if you must buy new I'd buy a T3. Great barrels, great triggers and reasonable stocks. All for sensible money. One I would not buy again is a Browning. Mine worked well enough but felt **** in my opinion and I didn't like the magazines. Toys R Us sell more realistic feeling guns.

 

Sako is good. I'd take a used 75 over a new 85 any time. In fact I'd take a 75 over pretty much anything. You can always have it rebarrelled with the change if it's shot out and it will always be a better gun. Modern ones are built by accountants.

 

Cz is agricultural. You will need to look after it but if you do they are nice guns. I also really like the mini Mauser type action and the all steel construction. No cheap **** plastic to be found here and they are very accurate too.

 

Howa I have very little experience of, but the ones I have handled felt heavy and unrefined. For the money the Tikka beats it. The trigger is better, the barrel is better and the stock is easily equal.

 

Last of all, Woodlander are you mad? Don't sell that 75 .222. Have it rebarrelled with what you want. If you do sell it, PM me first. Those actions are getting hard to find. Most folk won't sell them and those that do come up don't hang around for long - for good reason.

[activeviii]

******, I missed woodlander saying he was thinking of selling the sako.

 

How much woodlander. Hehe

[njc110381]

Get lost. I asked first! If you snooze you lose...

[swingit]

activevii

 

Just wondering how far you reach out with your .222 ?

[zipdog]

 

I think that the opposite might be true. The .223 by virtue of the additional charge capacity will actually shoot a wider variety of bullet weights and ammunition types. I've never seen a .222 shoot 77 grain LR projectiles for example. Most .222's were produced in slow twist rates from 1/12 to 1/14, and due to the smaller case capacity are limited to faster burning powders, hence not suitable for the heavier projectiles. Many factory loads are 50g, with some as low as 40g. Home loaders tend to generally choose weights between 40 and 60g for the .222. This of course is looking at longer ranges, but there's no reason that you cannot load the .223 with the same projectiles as the .222 and have it perform as well.

 

It (the .222) gained its reputation for accuracy by virtue of being chambered in some very accurate Remington and Sako rifles of the day, shortly after its introduction, and many benchrest shooters took to it.

 

Whilst the .222 was a popular small game and vermin hunting round, and also adopted by bench rest shooters, it wasn't to have it all its own way for long. Following the US Ordinance Department's call from arms manufacturers in the very late 1950's to develop a military round capable of exceeding Mach1 at 500 yds, based on the .224 bullet, and the likes of Hutton and Stoner started developing the idea for the AR15 but it was MacNamara who officially developed it for the US Military and in 1964, Remington adopted the military round, producing the civilian .223 Remington.

 

Whilst both the .222 and .223 are really not overly suited for medium game where penetration is important, both are accurate and good enough for small deer and vermin control. Both make outstanding medium range target calibres, but the .223 has more reach, can shoot higher BC bullets and is the better of the 2 calibres when you want to reach out to longer distances for paper punching. Whilst the .222 generally speaking is produced in rifling twists that suit perhaps up to 60g bullets, the .223 can manage up to 90 grain bullets with a faster twist and utilise slower burning powders and longer barrels to make the most of the BC advantage for longer range target. For hunting, retained energy at beyond 250 yds from something like heavier A-max is far in excess of more traditional 45 to 55g varminting rounds.

 

I'd say that either will make very good 300 yards vermin control calibres with accuracy good enough to exploit things like neck shots. Both use varmint bullets that produce shallow but wide wound channels, so accuracy matters, and neither will disappoint, but the .223 starts coming into its own when distances exceeding 500 yards. By 500 or 600 yards it certainly has the advantage and much beyond 600 yards the 222 drops off the edge of a cliff, if loaded with 55g bullets whereas the 223 will still compete with say some of the better 77 to 90g bullets out to 1000 yds. This is on paper. Truth is when wind drift is taken into account, the accuracy of the .222 starts dropping off probably sooner, or at least the lighter, lower BC bullets will be blown around a lot more out past 300 yards.

 

 

I understand the arguments for the 223, I could shoot either a 222 or 223 but i choose the 222 because for me it is the superior caliber. If you want to go out and shoot and not worry about ammo availability and cost buy a 223.

 

I would wager some serious money on a test where 10 random new 222 and 10 new 223 rifles where blind picked from a gun shop, and again 10 different suppliers of ammunition where chosen, that on average the 10 groups shot at a 200 yard distance being smaller for the 222 rifles then the 223’s.

Edited January 17, 2017 by zipdog