Is .223 worth it?

[kindwarf]

In my opinion if you want to target shoot up to 100yds buy milsurp or cheap ammo on the market, if you want to shoot 200 to 600yds accurately reload using heavy bullets 75 80grn, but for that you will need a fast twist barrel 1 in 7 or 1 in 8.

[taz2]

I cannot believe people will settle for mediocre groups at any distance.
If you can't rely on the ammunition to produce the accuracy the rifle, what's the point? We are regularly pushing towards the limits of 223, and need reliable loads to do it. A reload can cost only a few pence more per shot than a rubbish factory or milsurp round. You wouldn't run a Supercar on kerosene would you?

[severnsider]

I've used several brands of ammunition in my Sako 85 (1:12 twist) but home loads have proved to be considerably more accurate at 300-400 yards. The brass seems to live forever, and I get good results with 52gr SMK or 52gr A-Max (but you cannot get these any more) and 23.5 - 23.8gr N133.
It is also OK with lighter (40gr V-Max) but didn't like the 69gr projectiles, which I believe are better-suited (as others have said above) to a faster twist.
Definitely worth giving it a go!

[Parabuteo]

I've used several brands of ammunition in my Sako 85 (1:12 twist) but home loads have proved to be considerably more accurate at 300-400 yards. The brass seems to live forever, and I get good results with 52gr SMK or 52gr A-Max (but you cannot get these any more) and 23.5 - 23.8gr N133.
It is also OK with lighter (40gr V-Max) but didn't like the 69gr projectiles, which I believe are better-suited (as others have said above) to a faster twist.
Definitely worth giving it a go!

Yea, most of ours are built to work with 77grainers. It helps a bit at the longer distances, then a lot of folk will use cheap stuff at 100. When you think that the standard for the L85 is 36mm at 30yds for acceptance.....I would be worried if I was that large at 100, mag rested with a 4x scope.

I dont spend ages chasing it to be honest, a reliable 1MOA is fine for our targets and you are stuck with mag length anyway, although I know some that have had excellent results at 1000yds with JLKs hand fed.

Actually I would say that a half decent handload is still cheaper than a lot of surplus, and dont forget that GGG 62gn is 5.56x45 NATO in effect, so the standards will be just that. 77s have jumped from near 21p to 30 odd, and the 75gn PPU came in at 14p and is now 19p......wish I had bought several thousand to be honest as they are still a better and cheaper proposition for practice.

[Ranyhyn]

It's a slippery slope to another addiction.
Don't do it.
Fair warning

[Black Beard]

Don't forget, military 5.56 is externally the same as .223 but is designed for a different chamber. It will give higher pressures in a .223 chamber than a military rifle. It will probably also be designed for maximum velocity at minimum cost, so expect pressures to be high anyway.

BB

[Parabuteo]

Don't forget, military 5.56 is externally the same as .223 but is designed for a different chamber. It will give higher pressures in a .223 chamber than a military rifle. It will probably also be designed for maximum velocity at minimum cost, so expect pressures to be high anyway.

BB

Our rifles are chambered/proofed accordingly by probably the most knowledgeable chap in the UK. You are smack on though. Many will get a couple through a bog .223 standard AR then wonder why it starts sticking when it gets warm.

Not all military ammo is SS109 in any event. MOD262 is also produced in brown boxes and used in matches and operations along with stacks of other variations.

[223AI]

Don't forget, military 5.56 is externally the same as .223 but is designed for a different chamber. It will give higher pressures in a .223 chamber than a military rifle. It will probably also be designed for maximum velocity at minimum cost, so expect pressures to be high anyway.

BB

I thought the chamber was identical but the leade is different?

[Dave74]

I cannot believe people will settle for mediocre groups at any distance.
If you can't rely on the ammunition to produce the accuracy the rifle, what's the point? We are regularly pushing towards the limits of 223, and need reliable loads to do it. A reload can cost only a few pence more per shot than a rubbish factory or milsurp round. You wouldn't run a Supercar on kerosene would you?

Hi do you mind if I ask what you would consider mediocre at 100yds?if any rifle is shooting out of the killzone at that range I’d give up
Also in my experience you can reload the best bullet for a rifle and have amazing groups benchrested,but when you’ve just did a couple hundred yard stalk on your stomach your not going to produce the same shot,but you are going to get it in the killzone if your a competent shooter

[taz2]

Hi do you mind if I ask what you would consider mediocre at 100yds?if any rifle is shooting out of the killzone at that range I’d give up
Also in my experience you can reload the best bullet for a rifle and have amazing groups benchrested,but when you’ve just did a couple hundred yard stalk on your stomach your not going to produce the same shot,but you are going to get it in the killzone if your a competent shooter

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Peoples' perceptions vary enormously as to what they're satisfied with. Personally, I reckon if you can't consistently put 5 shots into under an inch with a factory sporter, and under half that regularly with a half decent target rifle, you've got room to improve.
Most modern rifles are easily capable of doing it. Some even guarantee it nowadays.
A good reload will improve most rifles, I dare say even transform them.
I take your point about bench versus stalk, but if it's mediocre off the bench, it is for sure it will only get worse.
We all have had 'screamers', but doing it every time takes a bit more effort.
Of course, some guns will never do it---if all fails, time for a change.

[kennyc]

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Peoples' perceptions vary enormously as to what they're satisfied with. Personally, I reckon if you can't consistently put 5 shots into under an inch with a factory sporter, and under half that regularly with a half decent target rifle, you've got room to improve.
Most modern rifles are easily capable of doing it. Some even guarantee it nowadays.
A good reload will improve most rifles, I dare say even transform them.
I take your point about bench versus stalk, but if it's mediocre off the bench, it is for sure it will only get worse.
We all have had 'screamers', but doing it every time takes a bit more effort.
Of course, some guns will never do it---if all fails, time for a change.

I have always been slightly amused at the thought that target performance will dictate field performance, a rifle that can hold 1/2 MOA on a target will not neseccarilly shoot better on a live target than a 2MOA rifle, yes it is theoretically more accurate, but in practice the rifle accuracy is way down the list of factors when making a shot from sticks, freehand, off the side of a tree trunk etc,
the only real effect that 1/2MOA has in confidence, which admitted , is a definite positive for a lot of people, but its not the "be all,end all " for a hunting rifle, and I think this is where the apparent difference of opinion occurrs between those that demand ultimate accuracy, and those that realise "dead is dead" (humanely, I'm not talking about the poor thing hovering around for half an hour)

[taz2]

Well, I don't really have an answer to that. Quite clearly we are never going to agree over this. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I still stand by my views and original statement, and still can't understand why anyone would settle for a gun which shoots less accurately than it could with a bit of effort, be it targets OR hunting.
The prospect of shooting live quarry, a thing I have done and still do occasionally without a gun as accurate as I can make it fills me with self doubts--- but that's just my opinion.

[223AI]

Well, I don't really have an answer to that. Quite clearly we are never going to agree over this. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I still stand by my views and original statement, and still can't understand why anyone would settle for a gun which shoots less accurately than it could with a bit of effort, be it targets OR hunting.
The prospect of shooting live quarry, a thing I have done and still do occasionally without a gun as accurate as I can make it fills me with self doubts--- but that's just my opinion.

Time?

I shoot various quarry with various guns, reloading for a few calibres, 5 of which go into the field. Shots on vermin never really past 300, deer under 200. If I spent all my time chasing itsy bitsy groups with each rifle I'd never get over the 4000 acres or so I shoot in my spare time (with mr kennyC), <1" at 100 of of a bench (or roof of the truck) and I'm done with load development. I take the rifle out and use it for what it was made.....

On smaller game if you're not shooting for the table then all you have to worry about is being humane (apart from safety obviously), a 40 gr HP bullet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit from a .22LR will result in some runners, a 40 gr HP from a .22 Hornet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit is instant death, even if you're an inch off the heart. Energy can make up for some lack of accuracy or driver error.