Something I find a little odd.........

[Camel]

and confusing for the younger shooter/reloader. Why in this day and age do reloading supply companies keep pressure for the 222Rem so low ?
My ADI reloading manual gives a max pressure of around 43,000 to 44,000 psi, where as with the 223 Rem they regularly show loads with pressures up around the 55.000 psi using the same powder. I find it a bit weird they would do that, considering that most rifles chambered for the two cartridges are built to the exact same tolerances, good brass, like Lapua, are both made to the same standards using the exact same material. Primers are the same in both, projectiles are the same in both.

I know there are standards set by Saami, in particular, but surely even back when the 222 was invented, rifles, and brass were strong enough to contain the extra pressures.

I believe that in a good modern front locking action the 222, and for that matter the 223, could be safely loaded up to around the 60,000psi margin.

Any thoughts ??

[Waldo]

I was looking at some 275 Rigby data (well OK 7x57) and Nosler list the 160 accubond max with IMR4350 at 46g for 2622fps where as ADI with 2209 (same powder I believe) and 160g partition a max of 42.5g for 2399fps.

That is a massive difference!

I guess some are just over conservative

[Flash Gordon]

When I started reloading in the 1960‘s,there were backlockers.I had a Gevarm,my brother an Anshutz,probably the idea was to hold the loads to a modest level,probably a step up from the Hornet.WhenI saw Camel‘s data recently I was amazed,if things progress like this,in the future we will see Hornets up to .223 levels.

[trevort]

I may be wrong Camel, it has happened before once, but isn't the strength of the brass the limiting factor?

Doesn't matter how strong the action is, if the explosion isn't held inside the case, bad things will happen

[Tony Z]

This has come up before regarding 222 cases. The 17 and twenty cals done on Fireball brass routinely shows up faster velocities in manuals than those same two cals based off 222 brass. If you use 222 Lapua, Norma or Sako cases with either version in 17 or 20 cal, the numbers well exceed the Fireball based brass if you ignore the low pressure limits used from like 50 years ago. It is a hangover from way back with little relevance today.
Mark is doing what many have done and just kept on going with loads until the signs tell you to stop. My own Tikka T3 in 222 runs 3600 fps with 40 BTs and 23.5 grains of 2207 in Lapua match brass that need only neck sizing. You won't find that load in any manual. There is slight cratering with the Rem 7 1/2s, but i have yet to blank a primer.

[trevort]

Mark has a rather unique way of load development. When I was with him testing some loads he fired the highest charge first!

[Branxhunter]

Mark has a rather unique way of doing many things.....


.....sheepskin car seat cover on the camp chair

Marcus

[Camel]

I was looking at some 275 Rigby data (well OK 7x57) and Nosler list the 160 accubond max with IMR4350 at 46g for 2622fps where as ADI with 2209 (same powder I believe) and 160g partition a max of 42.5g for 2399fps.

That is a massive difference!

I guess some are just over conservative

Yet another fantastic cartridge being held back, I believe that the major reason for the 275Rig being so conservative is the amount of old clunkers out there that are chambered for that case. Sure, factory cartridges have to be kept to low levels, but I do not see any reason that reloading manuals cant "stoke 'em up" a bit more, in some reloading books you see warnings on some of the load data, "Not recommended for ........etc". I dont believe that the 222 falls into that category, unless maybe with a couple of rear locking actions.

When I started reloading in the 1960‘s,there were backlockers.I had a Gevarm,my brother an Anshutz,probably the idea was to hold the loads to a modest level,probably a step up from the Hornet.When I saw Camel‘s data recently I was amazed,if things progress like this,in the future we will see Hornets up to .223 levels.

Yeah, there were a few rear lockers around, but they were and still are chambered in 223 as well, take the Rem 788 as an example, only reason I do this is I have had first hand experience with one, another rear locking action, or kind of, nearly, I had no troubles pushing loads up with that 222 as well, didnt have a crono then, but am sure I was using 21 odd grains of reloader 7 under 50gn bullets back then, but it too was chambered in lot more powerful rounds than 222, and there weren't any problems that I remember.


Tony Z, I believe you know what I am on about, just a fair go for the poor old 222

[Camel]

I may be wrong Camel, it has happened before once, but isn't the strength of the brass the limiting factor?

Doesn't matter how strong the action is, if the explosion isn't held inside the case, bad things will happen

Yep, that was taken into consideration in my opening post Trev, do pay attention please, theres a good chappy. Oh, and being the nit picky picker that I am, it doesn't explode, just burns really really fucken fast.

Mark has a rather unique way of load development. When I was with him testing some loads he fired the highest charge first!

Well one has to be sure that it really is the highest load, usually not the case though.

Mark has a rather unique way of doing many things.....


.....sheepskin car seat cover on the camp chair

Marcus

I did notice there is a certain amount of jealousy around the camp fire when all you others were getting cold backs, and there certainly was no shortage of volunteers to test out the seat cover when I vacated my seat for a while.

[Ned Kelly]

G'day All,
it may be due to the strength/design of some of the factory actions that have been chambered for .222Rem.
Weaker designs will limit load data maximums.
In a modern action you should be able to go higher, within the usual pressure signs of course.
Food for thought.
Cheers Ned

[The Raven]

G'day All,
it may be due to the strength/design of some of the factory actions that have been chambered for .222Rem.
Weaker designs will limit load data maximums.
In a modern action you should be able to go higher, within the usual pressure signs of course.
Food for thought.
Cheers Ned

I was wondering if that was the case. Base it on the weakest 'original' designs.

[Camel]

G'day All,
it may be due to the strength/design of some of the factory actions that have been chambered for .222Rem.
Weaker designs will limit load data maximums.
In a modern action you should be able to go higher, within the usual pressure signs of course.
Food for thought.
Cheers Ned

I was wondering if that was the case. Base it on the weakest 'original' designs.

I can understand that for factory ammo, but not for recommendations in reloading manuals when they turn around and recommend higher pressures for the 223 that are chambered in the same rifles.

[MISSED]

ype Rifle
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1950
Production history
Manufacturer Remington
Specifications
Case type Rimless, bottleneck
Bullet diameter .224 in (5.7 mm)
Neck diameter .253 in (6.4 mm)
Shoulder diameter .357 in (9.1 mm)
Base diameter .376 in (9.6 mm)
Rim diameter .378 in (9.6 mm)
Rim thickness .045 in (1.1 mm)
Case length 1.700 in (43.2 mm)
Overall length 2.130 in (54.1 mm)
Case capacity 26.9 gr H2O (1.74 cm3)
Rifling twist 1 in 14 in (360 mm)
Primer type Small rifle
Maximum pressure 50,000 psi (340 MPa)
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
40 gr (3 g) HP 3,583 ft/s (1,092 m/s) 1,141 ft⋅lbf (1,547 J)
50 gr (3 g) SP 3,168 ft/s (966 m/s) 1,115 ft⋅lbf (1,512 J)
55 gr (4 g) SP 3,095 ft/s (943 m/s) 1,170 ft⋅lbf (1,590 J)
60 gr (4 g) VMax 2,937 ft/s (895 m/s) 1,150 ft⋅lbf (1,560 J)






Type Rifle
Place of origin United States
Production history
Designer Remington Arms
Designed 1962
Produced 1964–present
Variants .223 Ackley Improved, 5.56×45mm NATO
Specifications
Parent case .222 Remington
Case type Rimless, bottleneck
Bullet diameter 0.224 in (5.7 mm)
Neck diameter 0.253 in (6.4 mm)
Shoulder diameter 0.354 in (9.0 mm)
Base diameter 0.376 in (9.6 mm)
Rim diameter 0.378 in (9.6 mm)
Rim thickness 0.045 in (1.1 mm)
Case length 1.76 in (45 mm)
Overall length 2.26 in (57 mm)
Rifling twist 1 in 12 inch (military style rifles use 1:7 to 1:10 to stabilize longer bullets)
Primer type Small rifle
Maximum pressure (SAAMI) 55,000 psi (380 MPa)
Maximum pressure (CIP) 62,366 psi (430.00 MPa)
Maximum CUP 52000 CUP
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
36 gr (2 g) JHP 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) 1,124 ft⋅lbf (1,524 J)
55 (3.5 g) Nosler ballistic tip 3,240 ft/s (990 m/s) 1,282 ft⋅lbf (1,738 J)
60 (3.9 g) Nosler partition 3,160 ft/s (960 m/s) 1,330 ft⋅lbf (1,800 J)
69 (4.48 g) BTHP 2,950 ft/s (900 m/s) 1,333 ft⋅lbf (1,807 J)
77 (5 g) BTHP 2,750 ft/s (840 m/s) 1,293 ft⋅lbf (1,753 J)
Test barrel length: 24 inches (61 cm)

I ran some loads up for the 222 Donor and was 3 grains over Book max with no expansion of the case head, easy extraction and the the primers were still good

[220]

It is pretty simple, American manuals will list loads up to the maximum pressure set by saami. To do otherwise would leave them open to all sort of liability issues. As soon as you deviate from the specified saami data what you have is not technically any longer a 222 simply a wildcat using the 222 case. The pressure limit for 223 is higher so of course manual list loads to higher pressure than 222 loads.
You will find there are pressure limits set by saami for +P loads where they have been submitted and recognised. Obviously no one has seen the need to go to the bother of developing +P loads for the 222, makes perfect sense as most people wanting more velocity simply step up to a bigger case or go it alone with data.

[MISSED]

220 why are pressure limits higher for the 223 ?

I cut open a WW 223 and WW 222 same same no difference in web or wall thickness