For those of you that don't get Mike Bellms newsletter you should. Here is an interesting article on some of the various 22 cal centerfires and especially the 225 Winchester.



Newsletter: The best Encore .22 cal. varmint cartridge?

It is amazing sometimes what you find when you move.
Yesterday, sifting, sorting, pitching I turned up a copy of Rifle Magazine #119 from September-October 1988.

Interestingly, that copy was mailed out during the time I was moving my shop from Salt Lake City to Cleveland, UT. Now it pops up shortly after my move to Olathe, CO.

Interesting also is the front cover. While the main subject is a Ransom Rest, what is in it for accuracy testing is a TC Contender.

What really had me absorbed in this issue was an article about the .225 Winchester cartridge, first begging the question as to why the .225 Win. has all but died on the vine, then giving some very valid historical perspectives that explain much about it. This was 1988, darned close to 25 years ago. It was a good question then, and perhaps a better question now with more and better applications for the .225 Win. today than back then before the Encore was introduced.

But on to my point. My subject line may be a bit misleading. In truth, there is no absolute BEST cartridge, in my opinion. There are cartridges with attributes that make a particular cartridge most suited for an individual's shooting based on his needs, interests, and the mechanical parameters of the firearm and components he is using while at the same time there may be numerous other choices nearly as good, or maybe even better but sold out to personal prejudice and promotional hype.... ie, marketing.

Let's take a side trip for an example. Take the .222 Remington, which was revolutionary in its day. In many applications outside of rattle battle guns, it is actually a somewhat better choice than .223 Rem. But the old "military cartridge" rules apply when it comes to popularity. I could write a dissertation on this particular subject but will save it for now.

OK, "Right Turn Clyde." Turning to the point of what is rattling around my cranium is this. With the superior case construction of the .225 Win. and its ballistic performance, why are you folks shooting Encores not falling all over yourselves getting barrels for .225 Win.?

It will cost you $10 for a back issue copy of September-October Rifle Magazine, #119, but just for the educational perspective on how the shooting world turns, read "Requiem For The .225 Winchester" by Wilf E. Pyle. I'm not going to try to fully recap the article here, but briefly in a nutshell the 1964 inane decisions in high places downgrading the cosmetics of the M70 Winchester rifle at the time the .225 Win. was being introduced kind of gave it a double whammy, and Remington out-marketed Winchester. This may be old hat to some of you, but those less read may find it an eye opener.

Here is the link to the back issue page for that issue on the Wolfe Publishing site:
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri119partial.pdf

It is a very interesting read.

But back to the cartridge, briefly comparing .225 Win. to the antiquated and rather pitifully designed .22-250 with its thin brass originally designed for pressures around 45,000 psi and its excessive body taper, the .225 Win. is not only what the .22-250 is not, it also has a rim, albeit a faint one, one that is sufficient to be effective in a single shot.

Brass thickness......
There are two standard .22 cal. rounds that call for a .261" chamber neck diameter, .220 Swift AND .225 Win. All other standard (ruling out the wildcats) .22's call for a chamber neck diameter of .254" or smaller. Why?

Obviously, the brass in these two is thicker, thus the loaded case neck diameter is larger.

From a functional standpoint, .225 Win. brass is tougher, thicker, and simply stands up better to the stretchy Encore mechanism. .22-250 in bolt guns, in spite of the excessive body taper, has proven itself admirably, and in bolt guns and other fixed barrel guns, I won't attempt to steal the .22-250's thunder.


Body taper........
Less body taper in the .225 Win. would have been good right out of the gate when it was first designed, but it is good in standard form, nonetheless.

Having had P.O. Ackley as my mentor for 10 years, naturally I'm inclined to straighten cases out and put 40 degree shoulders on them, which I also of course do to the .225 Win.

What little difference in velocity there is between .225 Win. and .22-250 is pretty much dissolved by the added case capacity of the .225 Win. Imp. which very closely duplicates .22-250 ballistics.

OK, strong brass, less body taper, good ballistics, now the case rim.......
Since primarily only bolt guns were chambered for .225 Win. and bolt noses need something of a lip to hold the case on the bolt face for ejection purposes, the .225 Win. case rim was designed at .473" diameter to fit standard bolt faces. But the forward stopping point (aka headspace point) that supports the case against the impact of the firing pin is the case shoulder...... normally.

Along this line, as I recall, .225 Win. chamber reamers do not normally have a rim cut on them. At least mine does not, and I am not sure if it ever did have.

However, when chambering Encore barrels for anything rimmed, I lathe bore the rim counterbore in the end of the barrel. Of course with the TC barrels there HAS to be a rim counterbore. Cut to proper depth the rim counterbore and case rim are perfect headspace points for a positive support against the blow of the firing pin.

Thus you have the option to either fine tune headspace based on the case shoulder, or you can stay OFF the shoulder by pushing it back a bit and only headspacing on the case rim.

Because long tapers on shoulders tend to collapse more from the impact of the firing pin, with standard .225 Win. cases, I would lean toward using the rim instead of the shoulder for support against the firing pin strike.

With the Improved version and nearly zero tendency for the 40* shoulder to yield to the firing pin strike, I'd lean toward using the cases shoulder.

But in either case, I would take measurements to see which approach resulted in the most consistent measured headspace. Ie, how consistent case rim thicknesses are and how much or how consistently the size die expander ball pulls case shoulders forward pulling the case out of the size die...... something The Bellm Bunch should all be aware of by now.

With most rechambering propositions, I give first consideration to getting rid of the factory cut throat. Most all are larger in diameter than optimum for best accuracy, and too many are simply not aligned with the bore. They are either angled to the bore or parallel but offset from the bore. Rechambering to a longer cartridge cuts out all or most of the factory throat and permits cutting a new throat done as a separate, more precise operation than the factories think they have time for.

If you have a .223 Rem. for example that does not tickle the cockles of your heart and leave you all warm and fuzzy about it (OK, admit it. You DO love your guns, the good ones, right?), rechambering it to .225 Win. is a win-win.
You correct the throat issue and up the performance. And in the long run, what you pay extra for the brass you probably save if the economics of case life matters to you.

Availability of brass......
It appears that in spite of stupidity in high places, .225 Win. will be with us for a long time. J.D. Jones..... I might add his work with .225 Win. based Contender cartridges is among some of the brighter things he has done and a further endorsement & testament to the .225 Win. case......claimed years ago there were enough of his Contender barrels out and about alone to keep Winchester interested in continuing to make .225 Win. brass. I have nothing statistical to back that claim.

But on the other hand, using .357 Rem. Maximum as an example, there were likely far fewer guns made for it, yet it is getting enough interest fueled by the custom sector to keep it alive and well and getting better all the time.

My point is this. Just because .225 Win. seems like an obscure, rare duck, don't trip over it. If you want a good, solid, very functional long range .22 cal. to start with, do a .225 Win.

And if you have a less than exciting .223 Rem. in particular, rechamber it to .225 Win. Don't just hack it out to .225 Win., but do it right of course. Right also includes lathe boring the original chamber true BEFORE going in with the .225 Win. reamer. Most all factory chambers have some degree of runout, misalignment, upwards of .030" at the case head/mouth of the chamber.
Dial in off the bore where the throat will be recut, then lathe bore the body of the chamber true.

What about the smaller chambers like .22 Hornet and .222 Rem.? Especially in the Contender which should NOT be chambered for .225 Win., I would recommend .222 Rem. Mag. Improved. I have done a LOT of them over the years. Ballistics are not far behind the .225 Win. and .22-250, and as with most anything, chambered right, throated right, .222 Rem. Mag. Imp. turns in some really nice accuracy as well, and quite consistently!

Don't trip over the .225 Win. in the break open guns and when it comes to rechambering, don't ignore the warpage in the bores from turning the blank down and from the heat from welding.

Shoot smart!

Mike Bellm

I had a .223 rifle rechambered by SSK Industries to .222 JDJ Magnum; which is basically a .222 Rem Mag Improved. I use .204 Ruger brass, as it is better and stronger brass than the original .222 Rem Mag brass. (BTW the .204 Ruger brass is based on the .222 Rem Mag case.)

I have only played with it a bit; but it also will approach 22-250 ballistics.

Taked with mike about doing this to a 223 custom shop bull barrel that had a nasty chamber. Ended up selling it first and moving to the bolt gun world. Encores are great but tc chambers are sloppy from my experiance. Only "good" one i kept is my 7mm-08. But that 225 looks like the ticket for the Break opens

TC was notorious for having bad reamers from time to time.

Generally speaking, the Custom Shop barrels are cut to a higher standard and a little better barrel. FWIW.

Mike told me in one of their earliest catalogs there was a picture of them chambering a barrel on a drill press. I'm sure they are done on a lathe now but I have first hand experience with both T/C and Bergara barrels being drilled and chambered off center. It becomes real obvious when you thread one for a brake.

Regarding my above post, my point was that the .222 JDJ Mag is also a possible choice for a T/C.

Question here for Rod: Would the .222 JDJ Mag be safe in a Contender? If so, that might be worth considering since it sounds like the .225 Win is an Encore only choice?

I believe so but I'm not real familiar with it. I know the 222 Rem Mag improved which is what this basicly sounds like is safe in the Contender. With these smaller calibers it's not so much the pressure generated as it is the wall thickness of the barrel around the chamber. The 222 and 223 run at pressures similiar to alot of larger cases such as the 243 but the larger case diameter cuts into that wall thickness. You can actually find load data for the 308 in a Contender but no one will chamber one because of the liability if someone puts a factory or full pressure handload in it.

I look forward to, and enjoy reading Mike Bellm's emails. Very informative.

Rod,

Not to pick nits, but I thought the pressure issue was related to the back thrust at the breech face. Higher pressure in a larger case head equals higher backthrust and stretching of the frame. At least that was always how I understood it.

Craig

the back thrust is more of an issue with larger heavier projectiles ie recoil. There is no one size fits all answer with the T/C's you have to take into consideration not only pressure but case diameter, headspace, and projectile weight. If you think about it there are several small bores running higher pressures in the contender than the standard 45-70 trapdoor loads recommended in the Contender but the old govt has more back thrust. The 243 doesn't have a back thrust issue but a true pressure issue. I have never seen a Contender barrel fail and I've run some loads through them that shouldn't have been but that is part of the concern. I had a conversation with Mike about this several years ago when I considered chambering a Contender in 50-120 because the pressure levels are low but that's when he explained alot of this to me and suggested if I were going to do that to go with the Encore platform to avoid frame stretch from back thrust.

Rod,

Thanks. I surely did some pretty crazy things in my Contender years, but never managed to blow a barrel or stretch a frame. I also think the back thrust issue is related to the case design, i.e taper and headspace point as you noted.

I never had correspondace with Mike, mostly back then it was SSK, but he sure sounds like he knows his stuff.

Craig

It's been a long time since I've shot a Contender or Encore even, but thought the 225 Win. was the perfect high-volume varmint cartridge for prairie dogs right in between the 223 and 22-250. Case and barrel life oughtta' be excellent so I had this long-range 225 Win. put together for just that purpose though it hasn't even seen a PD yet. It has a 15" 8-T McGowen, and shoots the 80 SMK into .5" avg. at 2640 mv. Figured thanks to JD's 225 support the cartridge would still be around for awhile--



Often thought that it also would be great with a simple neck down to 20, for a single-shot coyote/chuck rig where high-volume isn't part of the fare.