Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

.22 Hornet


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:07 am

If you fancy a .17 go for the .17 rem it is the daddy of the .17s  will kill foxes` @300 yards no problem, and is an easy round to reload for, and if anyone is in doubt about the accuracy of the .222, well it just happened to have held the world benchrest record for years, it is so easy to reload for and with that long neck, it is very difficult to load a bad round for, the .223 has the edge, just, on velocity, but in the real world, it makes not a jot of difference, power is nothing without accuracy, and the .222 has it in spades, the old scottish roe stalkers that use it call it the hand of god, with good reason.



#32 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:43 am

Interestingly, the new 53gr .223 ammo from Hornady claims to have superior ballistics to .222:

 

Less drop at all ranges.

 

http://www.hornady.c...-Superformance/

 

http://www.hornady.c...-Superformance/



#33 The greenkeeper

The greenkeeper

    Born Hunter

  • Donator
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire

Posted 05 November 2014 - 05:17 pm

Thanks for the info guys

#34 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 November 2014 - 05:23 pm

Hornady gives its .222 superformance ammo in 50 grain vmax as 3395fps and 1242 ftlbs the same in .223 with the 53 grain vmax is 3465fps, and 1413 ftlbs respectively so yes it is a little more powerful, but as I said in the real world that accounts for very little indeed, if you hit a fox @ 250 yards with either of these loads, the result will be the same, a dead fox :yes: I have yet to see a .222 shoot a bad group with factory ammo, and with handloads it is capable of tiny groups, I have however seen a .223 spray bullets like a shotgun with factory ammo it obviously did not like, what does this tell us? Nothing however I have a huge fondness for the .222 and personally would choose one over a .223 anyday.


  • Phil Win likes this

#35 Phil Win

Phil Win

    Born Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location:northampton

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:29 pm

.222 sounds a good bet. I have shot the .22 hornet as well and found it great for foxes out to 200yds and a bit, might consider a .222 in the future.


  • charlie caller likes this

#36 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:59 am

I have an American rifle builder acquaintance, who always says "if god chose a cartridge it would be the .222" get one you wont regret it :yes:


  • Phil Win likes this

#37 3175darren

3175darren

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,099 posts
  • Location:right where I want to be

Posted 06 November 2014 - 10:37 am

I agree with charlie caller,I too owned a 222 and through sheer stupidity sold it, traded it for a 223,after listening to biased one sided arguments on the differences between them, don t get me wrong,I kill with the 223 no problems,but I am not as accurate with the 223 as I was with the 222, I last yr bought a 22 hornet,a cz american same model as was my last 222,and it may be that I favour that model of gun, and its funny if I go foxing now, that's the rifle I pick out the cupboard now without hesitation,it seems to suit the land I shoot over, as generally I am not having to consider shots greater then 200 yds as a rule,having said that the 223 is a good gun but heavier its as remington 700 which I have had the barrel shortened , and I do reload for it, but the 222 was a personal favorite of mine,my advice would be to go around your local gun shops, and see what the availability of ammo is for either caliber, and make  your choice around that,as where I am factory ammo for 222 is a lot  less available than 223,           


  • charlie caller, The greenkeeper and Phil Win like this

#38 Rocky65

Rocky65

    Rookie Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Location:U.S. Ohio

Posted 06 November 2014 - 07:48 pm

I have wanted to get a .22 hornet for foxes and coyotes. But since the .17 hornet recently came out i have been thinking about going with that instead. For those of you that how used both, how would you compare them? I know what the ballistics are and what the advertisements for the .17 say. But, what about people that have experience with both under actual shooting conditions?



#39 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 November 2014 - 10:24 am

Why get a .17 hornet, when a .17 rem is much better, I love the .22 hornet, and I would imagine the .17 hornet is a good little round, but with the superb, blisteringly fast .17 rem available, that does not use a lot more powder, I cant really see the point, @250 yards the .17 rem has a drop of only 3 inches, so it really is just point and shoot at most foxing ranges.



#40 3175darren

3175darren

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,099 posts
  • Location:right where I want to be

Posted 07 November 2014 - 01:59 pm

maybe I am getting old don't know,but it seem 's everyone is getting excited about these new 17 hornets and to be fare they are capable,but to me its just the industry fueling there next 20 yr profits margins by creating a commercial need that's already been addressed,along with all the associated sales,as in brasses and dies and stuff truth is we have had the ability to take foxes out to 300 yd for donkies yrs, with 22/250 243 223 for that matter,and its when I see these new calibers and everyone clambering over them, the old mans words ring through my ears nearly 30 yr since when he said buy a f*****g gun, and learn to shoot it, it will do all you want its just a tool, when I spent two days trying to decide which 243 to buy,I have been a fool in the sense I have chopped and changed a little too much,

 

To me the benefit of the 17 is safety, as in the bullet is so frangible and likely to destroy itself rather than ricochet,that could be a advantage in some areas, but if you are like me, there's times when a fox is stood shoulder deep in grass, or peeping through Rushes and that's the last thing you want,and any rifle man worth his salt wont lift a gun,if its not safe to do so no matter what caliber it is,the 17 around me is hard to feed as in availability or components,both hornet and 17 rem,so I wont be venturing away from the 223 and 22 hornet for foxes now,why fix whats not broken,and I have grown out of buying for the sake of something new,the advantages are questionable to say the least,                      


  • charlie caller likes this

#41 IanB

IanB

    ------

  • Administrator
  • 11,139 posts
  • Location:Durham & North Yorks

Posted 07 November 2014 - 04:56 pm

For a nice little vermin gun, the .22 Hornet takes some beating, and its cheap to feed.



#42 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:30 pm

For a nice little vermin gun, the .22 Hornet takes some beating, and its cheap to feed.

Totally agree, but its only cheap to feed if you reload for it, or use rather pedestrian ppu factory ammo, assuming your rifle will group with it.



#43 Phil Win

Phil Win

    Born Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location:northampton

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:50 pm

I have an American rifle builder acquaintance, who always says "if god chose a cartridge it would be the .222" get one you wont regret it :yes:

 

 

I agree with charlie caller,I too owned a 222 and through sheer stupidity sold it, traded it for a 223,after listening to biased one sided arguments on the differences between them, don t get me wrong,I kill with the 223 no problems,but I am not as accurate with the 223 as I was with the 222, I last yr bought a 22 hornet,a cz american same model as was my last 222,and it may be that I favour that model of gun, and its funny if I go foxing now, that's the rifle I pick out the cupboard now without hesitation,it seems to suit the land I shoot over, as generally I am not having to consider shots greater then 200 yds as a rule,having said that the 223 is a good gun but heavier its as remington 700 which I have had the barrel shortened , and I do reload for it, but the 222 was a personal favorite of mine,my advice would be to go around your local gun shops, and see what the availability of ammo is for either caliber, and make  your choice around that,as where I am factory ammo for 222 is a lot  less available than 223,           

 

:thumbs:



#44 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 07 November 2014 - 11:14 pm

I have wanted to get a .22 hornet for foxes and coyotes. But since the .17 hornet recently came out i have been thinking about going with that instead. For those of you that how used both, how would you compare them? I know what the ballistics are and what the advertisements for the .17 say. But, what about people that have experience with both under actual shooting conditions?

 



#45 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 08 November 2014 - 11:14 am

     

 

 Enjoy, the awesome .17 rem.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users