.222 Remington Magnum

About the time this is printed I’ll be celebrating the fortieth anniversary of buying my first and only .222 Remington Magnum rifle. It is a sporter weight Remington Model 700 ADL in pristine condition that was at a gun show in Great Falls, Montana, and it was a present to myself for my thirty-first birthday. At that time my shooting passion was to try every varmint cartridge from .222 Remington to .25-06 Remington – almost, but not quite accomplished.

With that mindset it would have been usual to give the .222 Remington Magnum a try then sell it to fund something else. That didn’t happen. After firing a few groups on paper at 100 yards it proved an obviously accurate rifle. Despite a sporter weight barrel, its groups were tighter than my heavy barrel .222 Remington Model 700V. Early on, hundreds of rounds were fired through it at ground squirrels and rock chucks with a few prairie dogs added in the mix.

After the steam leaked out of my varmint shooting obsession, all my smallbore centerfire rifles were sold in order to buy guns of a more historical type. The one “sticker” was the .222 Remington Magnum. In recent years it has been fired more like dozens of times instead of hundreds. Mostly it has been used on coyotes lurking about, hoping to abscond with one of our pets.

An obvious question is: “Why did Remington follow up with a magnum version of its already popular .222 Remington?” That first one was introduced in 1950. With the longer version of the .222 the company didn’t even bother with the magical belt around the case head so identified with rifle cartridges labeled “magnum.”

Here is a brief synopsis of how matters played out back in the 1950s. The

U.S. Government was well behind in the move to develop a select-fire infantry rifle. That genre of rifle was loosely classed with the now nefarious name “assault rifle.” As with so many military inventions, the German Wehrmacht pioneered this one with its 7.92x33mm Sturmgewehr (Stg44). That word translates literally into “storm rifle.” (Earlier the same rifle was named MP43 then MP44.)

At the end of World War II, the Soviet’s Red Army captured the Sturmgewehr’s designer, Hugo Schmeisser, and took him to Mother Russia for a full decade. In the late 1940s the Soviet Union then introduced its wood and steel, select-fire AK47 chambered for a full caliber (albeit shorter case) round named the 7.62x39mm. Firing from a 30-round, detachable, curved magazine, AK47s were certainly not light rifles at 9½ pounds. Soon manufacture segued to stamped steel, which reduced weight about one pound.

U.S. weapons designers decided to do the Soviets one better. Their idea was to reduce rifle weight with a synthetic stock and aluminum parts, and reduce ammunition weight by reducing caliber from 7.62mm (.308 inch) to 5.56mm (.224 inch). Initial tests were with the .222 Remington, but it was deemed under-powered. The military wanted to use a 55-grain FMJ bullet with which the standard .222 could hardly break 3,000 fps from 20-inch barrels as envisioned for the new rifle.

Next was an experimental round labeled “T65.” It was simply the .222 Remington stretched from 1.70 inches to 1.85 inches with most dimensions identical and shoulder angle remaining

23 degrees. The T65 added about 200 fps with 55-grain FMJs and was deemed powerful enough. At this point, cartridge history gets a little cloudy. Some prior writers have written that the T65 didn’t function as well in full auto as the ordnance people demanded.

Therefore, the case was remodeled to 1.76 inches in length; again with most other dimensions the same, including the 23-degree shoulder angle. Here is where most comes into play. Case neck length for the standard .222 was .313 inch; for the T65 it was reduced to .264 inch, and for the final version, the U.S. 5.56mm, neck length was shortened even more to .203 inch. Did that help with full auto functioning? Or was the shorter overall case length of 2.26 inches for 5.56mm compared to the T65’s 2.28 inches a factor? No matter, for the 5.56mm was chosen and with greatly different bullets is still standard for U.S. armed forces.

Back to the T65: Remington knew a good cartridge when it saw it and in 1958 added it to the company’s line-up as the .222

Remington Magnum. To the best of my knowledge, among major American rifle manufacturers only Remington chambered .222 Remington Magnum. In Europe it also gathered a following, with SAKO of Finland and perhaps other makers chambering it.

Then the roof collapsed on both the standard and magnum .222s. It has always been an American truth that a cartridge adopted by our armed forces automatically becomes popular in the civilian sector. In 1964 Remington introduced a civilian version of the 5.56mm, calling it the .223 Remington. It doomed both prior .222s.

After buying my .222 Remington Magnum, a friend came into a Remington Model 722 so chambered, but with a shortened barrel. Memory is dim, but I think its barrel was only 20 inches long. In the early 1980s I provided a comprehensive article for Handloader on the .222

Remington Magnum using both those rifles. Sadly, my copy of it is missing.

Actually it doesn’t matter, for the one thing definitely remembered is my favorite load. It consisted of Speer 52-grain HPs over 24.5 grains of Hodgdon H-322 with Remington 7½ Bench Rest primers. Velocity ran between 3,150 fps to 3,200 fps. A few years ago when loading .222 Remington Magnum ammunition, I discerned that most of my cases were failing. Many cases necks had split and most primer pockets were loose. I toyed with the idea of having the barrel set back and rechambered for .223 Remington. Fortune sometimes smiles on people. A friend for whom I’ve done favors came into a sizeable batch of once-fired .222 Remington Magnum cases, which he generously shared with me.

Another factor that has changed greatly since I wrote that first .222 Remington Magnum article early in the 1980s is propellant choices. I have a Lyman Reloading Handbook 45th Edition dating from the 1970s. Only 33 smokeless powders are listed in it. In the early 1980s Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 3rd Edition there are 37 selections. Now hold onto your hats! The most recently printed reloading manual I have is dated 2016. It’s Lyman’s 50th Edition Reloading Handbook and 127 smokeless powders are listed in it. For sure a bunch more have been introduced in the last three years.

The intention in writing this newer .222 Remington Magnum article was to focus on bullets and powders that were not on the market nearly 40 years ago. Perusing the component changes, especially propellants, nearly caused my eyes to blur. I consider it a practical impossibility to combine all the new powders and bullets in a single feature. Therefore, I scanned all the loading manuals on hand for new .222 Remington Magnum information and even took a look at what powders are popular in .223 Remington. From that I chose four newer ones that I considered most suited to the cartridge. Cheating a bit, the fifth powder used was my all time favorite for all three .22 centerfires based on Remington’s original .222 case head, H-322. Some handloaders might wonder in regard to Alliant’s Reloder 7, since the name itself is not new. Alliant’s Reloder 7 might be labeled the same as the Hercules’ offering from decades past. However, Alliant purchased the Hercules powder line in 1994, and in 1998 it contracted with Bofors of Sweden to manufacture all the Reloder series of propellants. Along with the two mentioned, added were Vihtavuori’s N130, Ramshot TAC and Hodgdon’s CFE 223.

It may sound like an oxymoron to say that varmint bullets have changed much and have not changed at all. What that means is the good, old hollowpoints are still very popular as are some lead-tipped bullets, but coming on strong are bullets with polymer tips. Included here are samples of all three variations ranging from 40 to 55 grains. What has not changed in my attitude specific to this cartridge is primer type. Remington’s 7½ Bench Rest has always done well, and of course Remington brass was always used.

My Original plan was to only shoot my own Model 700 for this project, but a friend then offered his heavy barrel SAKO Vixen topped with a Swarovski 3.5-18x scope. Both rifles have 24-inch barrels with 1:14 twist rates. My M700 wears a Weaver Tactical 3-15x scope.

At each outing both rifles were fired with the same loads to keep velocity readings as consistent as possible. However, shooting all 60 groups (30 each rifle) required several months because Montana’s 2019 spring weather was uniformly miserable. Shooting was done at temperatures as low as 32 degrees and up to 68 degrees. All group shooting was done in five-shot strings at 100 yards.

Looking back on the results, I’m glad we did include two rifles. From each rifle’s 30 groups a trend seems to appear. The SAKO on the whole gave a tad bit smaller groups than the Remington. However, if a load gave large groups with one rifle, it usually did so with both rifles. For instance, with Berger 40-grain HPs and Reloder 7 the Remington gave a 1.88-inch group and a 1.75-inch group from the SAKO. Conversely, with Berger 50-grain HPs and CFE 223 the group sizes were 1.00 and .75 in the same order.

Hornady’s 55-grain GMX was given an initial trial but grouped in the 2-inch-plus range. This I blame on the 1:14 twist rate. That Hornady 55-grain GMX bullet is .83 inch in length and obviously better suited to the faster twist rates commonly used in .22 centerfire rifles now. By comparison, the Sierra 55-grain Blitz and Berger 55-grain HP gave no surprises. What did surprise me is that the two rifles were sort of “topsy-turvy” in their chronograph readings. Sometimes the M700 provided significantly higher readings with a specific load, and other times the Sako’s velocities were higher. Remember, they were fired consecutively, so weather was not a factor.

Speaking of velocities, my helpful friend was surprised that on the whole the velocities given by all test loads were “low” in his opinion. For instance, the highest velocities with either rifle were in the 3,200- to 3,300-fps range, even with light 40-grain bullets. He asked why I didn’t increase charges. Mostly I could not because there was not enough room in the cases for more powder unless it was heavily compressed. My opinion is that extreme velocity is not paramount with a round the size of the .222 Remington Magnum. It’s a moderate-range varmint cartridge anyway. If a long-range varminter is required, a .22-250 Remington or .220 Swift would serve better. A moderate- range varmint shooter would be best served by tight groups.

After charting and examining all the chronograph notes and measuring each five-shot group, I can say that my old friend H-322 did not embarrass me, but Ramshot TAC was arguably the star performer.

There is no way the .222 Remington Magnum is going to undergo a resurrection. Waves of varmint shooters are not going to scream for reintroduction of factory loads or new rifles so chambered. But, for those of us who do own rifles for this fine old cartridge, there is no reason to let them sit dusty in racks.