In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

.222-.223-.222magnum

deerhidedeerhide Member Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
edited January 2016 in Ask the Experts
my .222 is an elderly Savage 340. If I rechamber to .223 or .222 magnum will my magazine have to be changed?
Jim

Comments

  • Options
    charliemeyer007charliemeyer007 Member Posts: 6,579 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    See if a 223 will fit in the magazine, the 222 RM isn't much longer. Some magazine have a spacer block for shorter cartridges in the same family. Twist rate in your barrel will be for like 55 gr bullets. Not a lot of 222 RM brass around, perhaps bumping 204 Ruger up.
  • Options
    deerhidedeerhide Member Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks 007,
    I need a new mag for whatever. The Savage 340 original equipment aren't real perfect..but then they weren't very expensive to buy in the 1st. place. I'll probably consider the .223.
  • Options
    MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Honestly, the Savage 340 platform isn't worth the cost of a rebarrel. Any of the low price point bolt actions in .223 will be a step up.
  • Options
    sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    deerhide,

    The magazine won't have to be changed if you rebarrel, but the loads will have to fit the existing magazine.
    Since the loads at that time were much more optimized for very short bullets, you'll simply have to accomodate it that way. There is only .060" difference in OAL between a .222 Rem case and a .223 Rem case. We have been able to accomodate as much as 77 gr. bullets in that mere extra .060". But, it is something to consider when changing this over and thinking you might be able to go with heavy bullets. You can't. But in standard .224 twists or even re-chambering to a .223/.222 Rem Mag, you can load short bullets hotter and have them perform better. Accuracy on those vintage .222 barrels was good but not great. My dad has one and it was my wish to rebarrel it to 6mm TCU.
  • Options
    nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    deerhide,

    Be aware that this design originated in the 50's and is reflected in the thinking of that time period since it was never updated.

    The bolt is a single lug design supplemented with the bolt handle...

    The design is optimized for the .222 Remington cartridge at 53,000 PSI approximately. It was meant to be used with the shorter, lighter bullets in the varmint fields.

    A change in cartridge to either the .223 Rem. or the .222 Rem. Mag. means that the original load pressure needs to be honored. You shouldn't be tempted to hot rod this design.

    I have two 340's in their original chambers; .222 Rem. and 30-30 Win. Both are remarkably accurate so I have no desire to change either in any way other that to keep them clean and enjoy them at the range and hunting when I get the chance.

    Best.
  • Options
    Sam06Sam06 Member Posts: 21,254 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nononsense
    deerhide,

    Be aware that this design originated in the 50's and is reflected in the thinking of that time period since it was never updated.

    The bolt is a single lug design supplemented with the bolt handle...

    The design is optimized for the .222 Remington cartridge at 53,000 PSI approximately. It was meant to be used with the shorter, lighter bullets in the varmint fields.

    A change in cartridge to either the .223 Rem. or the .222 Rem. Mag. means that the original load pressure needs to be honored. You shouldn't be tempted to hot rod this design.

    I have two 340's in their original chambers; .222 Rem. and 30-30 Win. Both are remarkably accurate so I have no desire to change either in any way other that to keep them clean and enjoy them at the range and hunting when I get the chance.

    Best.




    +1

    Also be advised that the rifling for a 222 is usually 1/14". This means that in 223 you would have to use shorter bullets 55gr or less and keep them at 222 velocity, so any advantage of re-chambering the rifle is lost.

    The only plus side to re-chambering to 223 would be availability of brass for reloading.


    I did the same thing to a Remington 788 in 222. I re-chambered it to 223, I regret it every time I take it out to shoot it. It was a tack-driver in 222, now it is adequately accurate[:(] YMMV but I would leave it alone.
    RLTW

  • Options
    mmppresmmppres Member Posts: 3,042 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    why change that 222 is a great varmit cartridge. brass is little hard to find but its out there for the relaoder
  • Options
    opso427opso427 Member Posts: 32 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I too would stick with the 222. It's usually a little more accurate than the 223 all else being equal. I have had a couple of 223's with 1 in 14 twist, and they will usually handle 60 grain bullets at 223 velocity without a problem. Will not handle 70 grain plus bullets as well as the lighter ones.
  • Options
    MG1890MG1890 Member Posts: 4,649
    edited November -1
    .222's are just flat frickin' awesome.

    To convert to .223 or .222 Magnum is pointless.

    That said, your original magazine would work fine as long as cartridge overall length is kept short enough to work thru the magazine. This will require deeper seated bullets in the .223 / .222 Mag, reducing powder capacity....

    Kinda negates the point of the rechamber, nes pas?
Sign In or Register to comment.