222 or 22 Hornet?

[nicholiath]

I have 22 rimmy for short/medium range vermin but i want something for longer range vermin and foxes. Ammunition availability will not be an issue as i will home load. I understand that the hornet will limit me to 200yds max so do i go for 222 for more range and higher velocity? I have done quite a bit of reading on both and there does not appear to be a HUGE difference between the ballistics so any advice/ experiences would be greatly appreciated.

With regard to home loading what do i need to ask for with regard to ammunition to buy and hold?

[jamie g]

222 will have more bullet choice going for it. i no someone that has a honet k ! so its even fast and stunning accuracy. he is selling it as he dont use it much because he gota 223 and 243 semi custom rifle. if your intrested let me no and i can sort some pics for you. and arange a visit

[njc110381]

It really does depend on how far you want to shoot. Take a look at something 250 yards away...It's a bloody long way! I went for a .223 to start with. It was great, but I never shot past 250 yards with it. When you go much past that the hold over/guestimate the wind lark goes out the window and you'll start missing unless you really know what you're doing. The advantage to a .222 would be that you are legal for Munties and CWD with the right conditions on your FAC, but will you ever want that?

 

I sold my .223 and got a .22 Hornet. It's much more pleasant to shoot, cheaper and plenty powerful enough for all but long range sniping. I hit a 250 yard bunny with mine some time ago and it lost most of its head. You can't really shoot heavy bullets with them but for Vermin and Fox you don't need to. For Rabbits a .222 is overkill unless you enjoy the splat factor. Dead is dead, and with a .222 or a Hornet it isn't going to be running far!

 

EDIT...Ask for buy 300 hold 400. That's plenty to reload with

Edited August 27, 2009 by njc110381

[markbivvy]

I understand that the hornet will limit me to 200yds

200 yds limited???:ermm:.

[cluais]

How about the .204 I have one and I love it

[nicholiath]

I think it will have to be the hornet as 35 to 45 grain ammo will be plenty for long range vermin and the odd fox. I am looking forward to getting into reloading also.

[MerseaDavid]

The .22 Hornet is a great gun and that is what I use for my fox gun and I have shot foxes over 200 yards with it.

The ammo is not too bad to get hold of in my area ( £1 a shot) loading them yourself might be cheaper but I have never bothered.

[plinker]

222,easier to load for ,more range and more punch for charlie.

[jamie g]

thhis hornet i was on about mate is auckley so its got alot of speed yet is not much loader then hmr. compare that to other centrefire rifles

[henry d]

222,easier to load for ,more range and more punch for charlie.

 

I`m with plinker, also with lighter ammo you will have more wind drift.

 

Home load work up below, excuse the flier.

[Frank]

Shot with .22 Hornet a good bit, sweet round for foxes out to 200yds max, under good conditions, zeroed an inch high at 100 yds.

Have not shot with .222, so can not comment, but shot with .223, reaches out further, max 300 for humane kills, cheap as chips, to reload and factory ammo, vast choice of bullets ect ect.

One thing i would say, which i did not bother with in the past, is if getting a .223, put a moderator on it, as its noisey, especially at night.

The .22 Hornet is much quieter and has no recoil to speak of, choice is yours.

Good luck.

 

Frank.

[sid the sniper]

everyone ive been speaking to about foxing either has a 243,223 or 6ppc. the people with the 243s and 223s seem to suggest 270 for some reason.

[garyb]

I'd have a .222 or .223 - that way you could shoot the smaller deer species too (CWD and Muntjac)

 

That said, there's nowt wrong with a 22 hornet for foxing, but you may find ammo hard-er to obtain than one of the above.

[nicholiath]

I dont understand the recommendation for .270?

Also if there are any moderators online i have a oproblem in that i am unable to 'QUOTE' in response to replies. When i click on quote it turns red, displays a minus symbol and does nothing else?

[monkeymagic1969]

I dont understand the recommendation for .270?

Also if there are any moderators online i have a oproblem in that i am unable to 'QUOTE' in response to replies. When i click on quote it turns red, displays a minus symbol and does nothing else?

click the quote button and it goes to minus, then click Add Reply (not fast reply) and the quoted text will appear in your reply

[sid the sniper]

I dont understand the recommendation for .270?

 

neither do i

[nicholiath]

click the quote button and it goes to minus, then click Add Reply (not fast reply) and the quoted text will appear in your reply

Thanks for that! I am a bit of a computer dummy

[Mr_Logic]

I have both Hornet and 223. My 22 Hornet is my rabbit gun, my 223 is the fox rifle.

 

I was out with the Hornet last night, meant to be 223, but, er, technical difficulties (!) ruled that out.

 

It was a nasty windy night, I would have preferred the 223. More grunt on Charlie, and I don't mind shooting rabbits with it either - I'm not eating them, I'm eradicating them!

 

Load cost difference between the 2 is nothing major unless you are shooting thousands and thousands of rounds.

 

If I could have just one it would be 223. It's much easier to load for, bullet variety is better, it's muntjac legal (and roe in Scotland too), rifle choice is much much better, it's more accurate (overall, but that could just be my picky Hornet!).

 

it flies flatter, hits harder and isn't much noisier. Anyone who talks about recoil on 223, I can't understand this - I have a 223 which without its accessories weighs less than 6lbs. With moderator and off a bipod I see bullet strikes no problem, there really isn't any noticeable recoil!

 

All that said, my Hornet is quieter, and I have it for a specific farm where I need to shoot Charlie but do it relatively quietly, and at ranges far too great for any rimfire. It also superseded my 17HMR as the mainstay bunny tool since it makes comparable levels of noise, works MUCH better on fox, and is comparable in cost.

 

So my advice would be this - do you want to shoot foxes well and annihilate bunnies, or do you want to be about right for long range bunnies, and have medium-range, fair conditions fox capability?

 

One thing I wouldn't do is buy a .222. They are on the way out, not quite as much poke as .223, and increasingly limited rifle choice. There is no situation that a .222 does that a .223 doesn't do as well or better, so why pick the triple?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Mr_Logic

[macca]

Hi,

222/223 either is a better choice than a hornet. Both are inherently more accurate than the hornet ( the 222 was the main benchrest cartidge out here until the ppc came along) as they rimless cases and head space on the shoulder. The hornet headspaces on the rim. Also with thin hornet rims you can get primer backing out of the pocket and case stretching. Also case necks are very thin. 222 and 223 cases are far more robust for reloading. Some older guns were produced with a rimfire bore diameter which also limits the projctiles that can be used.

If you want a firearm that is relatively quiet (much less than a 223 or 222) and will hold point of aim under a 240 Lightforce (say 200 yards) then the 17mach iv (17 remington fireball) is the way to go.

Cheers

[casts_by_fly]

I have both Hornet and 223. My 22 Hornet is my rabbit gun, my 223 is the fox rifle.

 

I was out with the Hornet last night, meant to be 223, but, er, technical difficulties (!) ruled that out.

 

It was a nasty windy night, I would have preferred the 223. More grunt on Charlie, and I don't mind shooting rabbits with it either - I'm not eating them, I'm eradicating them!

 

Load cost difference between the 2 is nothing major unless you are shooting thousands and thousands of rounds.

 

If I could have just one it would be 223. It's much easier to load for, bullet variety is better, it's muntjac legal (and roe in Scotland too), rifle choice is much much better, it's more accurate (overall, but that could just be my picky Hornet!).

 

it flies flatter, hits harder and isn't much noisier. Anyone who talks about recoil on 223, I can't understand this - I have a 223 which without its accessories weighs less than 6lbs. With moderator and off a bipod I see bullet strikes no problem, there really isn't any noticeable recoil!

 

All that said, my Hornet is quieter, and I have it for a specific farm where I need to shoot Charlie but do it relatively quietly, and at ranges far too great for any rimfire. It also superseded my 17HMR as the mainstay bunny tool since it makes comparable levels of noise, works MUCH better on fox, and is comparable in cost.

 

So my advice would be this - do you want to shoot foxes well and annihilate bunnies, or do you want to be about right for long range bunnies, and have medium-range, fair conditions fox capability?

 

One thing I wouldn't do is buy a .222. They are on the way out, not quite as much poke as .223, and increasingly limited rifle choice. There is no situation that a .222 does that a .223 doesn't do as well or better, so why pick the triple?

 

 

Using that logic, why would anyone pick the 221FB? The 222 and 223 can do anything that the 221 can do. There are limited rifles chambered for it and few factory rounds available?

 

Reason is, so a handloader the 221FB is a sweet little cartridge. Just a little more punch than the hornet, and with light bullets the same as a 222 or nearly a 223. All of that with 16 grains of powder. Recoil is non existent, same as muzzle blast. Much quieter than the 223 and very nearly the hornet. Push a 40 gr bullet nearly 3600 from a sporter barrel and 3700+ from a varmint barrel. And, it is just such a cute little cartridge.

 

If you can't decide between a hornet and a 222, then get the 221.

 

Thanks

Rick

[Mr_Logic]

Using that logic, why would anyone pick the 221FB? The 222 and 223 can do anything that the 221 can do. There are limited rifles chambered for it and few factory rounds available?

 

Reason is, so a handloader the 221FB is a sweet little cartridge. Just a little more punch than the hornet, and with light bullets the same as a 222 or nearly a 223. All of that with 16 grains of powder. Recoil is non existent, same as muzzle blast. Much quieter than the 223 and very nearly the hornet. Push a 40 gr bullet nearly 3600 from a sporter barrel and 3700+ from a varmint barrel. And, it is just such a cute little cartridge.

 

If you can't decide between a hornet and a 222, then get the 221.

 

Thanks

Rick

But the 223 and 222 can't do what the 221FB does - they don't do that with 16 grains of powder! In fact that sounds promising, I might look into one of those

[wymberley]

Hi,

Note your remark about reloading. I use 223 and re-load: The available alternative loads are endless and those for the super smooth shooting 222 are a little more restricted. My mate uses the hornet (Anschutz, an absolute cracker) but we've found reloading to be a bit of a nightmare with a very restricted range of possible loads such that he's virtually moved to factory rounds. From your 2 choices, I'd go for the 222 if you are going to re-load.

Goodluck

[casts_by_fly]

But the 223 and 222 can't do what the 221FB does - they don't do that with 16 grains of powder! In fact that sounds promising, I might look into one of those

 

 

Just keep in mind that the 221FB isn't designed to shoot anything bigger than 50 grains really. If you start going bigger you take up case capacity. I think the 40 gr v-max is about perfect for that cartridge.

 

Thanks,

Rick

[plinker]

I have both Hornet and 223. My 22 Hornet is my rabbit gun, my 223 is the fox rifle.

 

I was out with the Hornet last night, meant to be 223, but, er, technical difficulties (!) ruled that out.

 

It was a nasty windy night, I would have preferred the 223. More grunt on Charlie, and I don't mind shooting rabbits with it either - I'm not eating them, I'm eradicating them!

 

Load cost difference between the 2 is nothing major unless you are shooting thousands and thousands of rounds.

 

If I could have just one it would be 223. It's much easier to load for, bullet variety is better, it's muntjac legal (and roe in Scotland too), rifle choice is much much better, it's more accurate (overall, but that could just be my picky Hornet!).

 

it flies flatter, hits harder and isn't much noisier. Anyone who talks about recoil on 223, I can't understand this - I have a 223 which without its accessories weighs less than 6lbs. With moderator and off a bipod I see bullet strikes no problem, there really isn't any noticeable recoil!

 

All that said, my Hornet is quieter, and I have it for a specific farm where I need to shoot Charlie but do it relatively quietly, and at ranges far too great for any rimfire. It also superseded my 17HMR as the mainstay bunny tool since it makes comparable levels of noise, works MUCH better on fox, and is comparable in cost.

 

So my advice would be this - do you want to shoot foxes well and annihilate bunnies, or do you want to be about right for long range bunnies, and have medium-range, fair conditions fox capability?

 

One thing I wouldn't do is buy a .222. They are on the way out, not quite as much poke as .223, and increasingly limited rifle choice. There is no situation that a .222 does that a .223 doesn't do as well or better, so why pick the triple?

 

the 222 vs 223 been done to death on this and most forums so i am not going to bore you with it,do a search and you will find out why the triple is not quite 'on the way out' yet.

[jamie g]

270 can be used for fox all deer and boar if you have them. the chances of getting it just for fox are slim. 22/250 is best fox cal imo

 

flat as a pancake and at night that works well. add a good maod and its no louder then 222 and 223.