Ambivalent Skeptic

May 3, 2011

Comment: .22 LR vs. .223 Rem

Filed under: Ballistics,blogging,commenting comments,debate — Clint1911 @ 5:29 pm

Over at the Firearm’s Blog, they have a guest blogger who unfortunately proved to the world that you do not need to know what you are talking about to be a blogger.

The Guest Blogger (henceforth GB) writes an article about the difference between the 22LR and the 223 Rem.

His first mistake is opening with this:

So what exactly is the difference between the .22LR and .223 cartridges?

Seriously? It is his article. Why is he asking us? This is a cheap salesman trick to draw you in to a sales pitch. It is a very weak way to begin a speech or an article. My standard retort is: Are you asking me or telling me?

Then he includes this gem:

With rimfire, the firing pin impacts on the rim of the case. With centerfire, the firing pin impacts in the center of the case. Fairly self explanitory. But it doesn’t really explain the differences between the two cartridges very well.[emphasis added]

Then why bother telling us? If this info is not relevant to the topic, then don’t waste the reader’s time trying to make a minimum word count.

(BTW, it is “explanatory” not “explanitory”)

But GB really takes the cake with THIS:

Nearly a century separates the two cartridges, but what makes them different? Size-wise, the newer cartridge is slightly larger. The caliber of the cartridge measures the diameter (in inches). So the newer cartridge is 0.003″ larger in diameter — who cares? A human hair is from 0.003″ to 0.005″ in diameter. Is such a slight increase in diameter really going to make a difference?

Again; Are you asking me or telling me in some passive-aggressive way?

However, a commenter addressed the root issue best with:


So .22LR is actually .224 at the neck of the round. It’s all negligible, but, if your going to call out size difference, it works to do the research.[emphasis added]

Yes, the .223 Remington and the 22 long rifle both use .224 inch wide bullets.

Then there is ye olde bait ‘n switch:

The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge (maximum pressure 24,000 PSI for .22LR; maximum pressure 50,000 PSI for .223). The .223 bullet is a much heavier bullet, travelling at a higher velocity. This means that the .223 bullet has much more energy to deliver on its target.

Wait, GB mentions powder but then changes to pressure.

This would be like saying Car A has a bigger gas tank than Car B, because Car A gets 30 miles to the gallon while Car B gets only 20. Non sequitur.

GB is discussing topic X but then gives an example of Y.

[Why do people do that? That always puzzles me.]

It should read: The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge, 20-25 grains versus about 2 grains of smokeless propellant.

(BTW, it is “traveling” not “travelling “)
There also seems to be confusion that higher pressure results in higher energy of the bullet.

Higher pressure means that the ejected bullet has more energy to deliver on its target because its velocity is greater.

It totally boggles my mind how some people can actually believe that more pressure equals more energy of the bullet.

Then again GB obviously never took a college level physics class.

My comment:

Pressure does NOT directly relate to velocity.

The 308 win. has a pmax of 62,000 psi.
The 30-06 has a pmax of 60,000 psi.

The 30-06 STILL has higher velocities. It is the combination of pressure and case size that determines speed.

And “pressure” has nothing at all to do with down-range performance because the “pressure” is no longer acting on the bullet at that distance from the barrel.

Furthermore, penetration in one medium does NOT always translate to penetration in another medium.

A 22-250 penetrates steel better than a 30-06. But the 30 cal will go though the broad side of an elk.

The 223 Rem is better on steel than the 45-70. The 223 will barely go though the hide of a bison. The 45-70 will go completely though such an animal.

And the article has no conclusion.

After rattling off a hodgepodge of factoids the Guest Blogger just stops. No ending, no summation, he just stops writing and dumps several sets of photos of cardboard and metal hit with various bullets with no commentary whatsoever.

And the point was…….?

Here is the ultimate failure of the article: What was the point? What can I, the reader, take with me from this article?

Sadly, nothing.

1 Comment »

  1. “(BTW, it is “traveling” not “travelling “)”

    Actually, either form is correct. The double-L is is less common in American English, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    Explanitory, on the other hand, is nasty.

    Comment by Dan — February 26, 2012 @ 11:55 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: