Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What's the scoop on the new 22 ARC?

Seems to resemble the .22BR, although the case diameter must be different. Got nothing else to add, it'll join the long list of "other" .224" cartridges that aren't really needed or wanted, or just plain outdated.

Just the same trend that’s been happening the last decade. Designing more efficient cases that propel high BC bullets in chambers and barrels designed to launch high BC bullets.. .260 Rem vs 6.5 Creed, 264 Win vs 6.5 PRC, .243 win vs 6mm Creed, .270 WSM vs 6.8 Western, 7 mag vs 7 PRC… etc…

The .22 ARC makes less sense to me because of the .224 Valkyrie..

Todd

The 224 Valkyrie turned out to be finicky. I bet the 22 ARC won't be finicky. I think for varminting it checks alot of boxes.

It offers great performance in an AR 15 and would make a nice "mini" bolt" round. I wish them well on this one.

Tell me what makes any of them more efficient?

Efficient???? That is just advertising hyperbole.

Bullets come in varying levels of efficiency. Cases? Not so much.

How would you measure cartridge efficiency? Muzzle energy vs powder used. If you want to talk about cartridge efficiency, nothing beats the 22 short.

Otherwise, a cartridge's capability is purely a function of cubic inches volume.

Length of brass, shoulder angle, belted, not belted, length vs diameter of the brass.........none have any effect on efficiency.

Yes it does. You must not shoot much? Go shoot 1000 260 Rem and 1000 6.5 creed rounds using the same 100 brass of the same make and see how much more brass life you get out of a more efficient case design.

Plus, powder charges from the same book suggest one design might be a little more efficient than the other.





Of course your ignorant grievance doesn’t really have anything to do with the .22 ARC really.

Go ahead, get the last word in..

Todd

pretty much a 22 PPC at least as far as the case

I have no reference which gives the volume of 260 brass vs Creed. It remains a fact that the larger volumetric case can always drive an equal bullet faster at the same chamber pressure. While it might require a different powder to do so, there is no replacement for displacement.

Perhaps the mag of some 260s can not accept some bullets with the longest of ogives. Perhaps some rifles chambered in 260 do not have the twist rate to stabilize some bullets. These are problems with how the rifle was built rather than a problem with the cartridge.

Neither of those facts are relevant to "cartridge efficiency". Nor is brass life. Though I certainly have no complaints in that regard with the 260. I have been loading the same brass in the 260 for twenty years. This brass has been pushing 120 gr bullets to 3000 fps with H4350, and RL19. It has been loaded in excess of a dozen times and has not been annealed, nor trimmed.

We are all aware that AI 40 degree brass grows less than typical commercial brass. I have found the difference to be insignificant. But then I never shot a 220 Swift either.

Comparing the capability of the 260 vs 6.5 Creed: different manuals give different results

Nosler #8 gives entirely different results than those you present.

260 w/ 140 or 142 gr bullets
2830 fps w/ N560
2822 fps w/ IMR 7828
2820 fps w/ IMR 4831

6.5 Creedmoor w. 140 or 142 gr bullets
2731 fps w/ IMR 4350
2730 fps w/ Hunter
2699 fps w/ H4350

Looking at the slower burn rate powders used to reach top velocity in the 260, I would GUESS it has a bit more internal volume than the 6.5 Creed.

I, for one, just get sick and tired of the word "efficient" being misused in advertising copy to sell firearms. We saw it with the SAUM cartridges, we saw it with the WSM, and WSSM cartridges, the Ruger "Compact Magnums", Where are all these wondrous additions to the shooting world today? And dozens more since then, soon to fall by the wayside.

Some new designs might serve a purpose, such as designing a cartridge to fit in an AR 15 platform. The 300 WSM could fit in an AR 10 while the 300 Win mag certainly could not. The 300 WSM could certainly NOT perform in the field with a 300 Win mag, but that was the universal claim in the ad copy. When in reality it was slightly faster than a 30-06 loaded to 270 pressure.

Most cartridges designed over the last thirty years either serve a very narrow niche purpose. Or they are redundant with several older versions and serve only as a subject for new ad copy to attract rifle sales.

I guess, if that is what it takes to keep Remington, and Winchester, and Ruger, and Tikka, and Howa/Weatherby, etc in business, we will just have to learn to accept the state of the modern world. But I do not have to spend my money on it. And I can discourage any who will listen from spending their money there either.

^^^^ the post above is the way i see it also...

you guys are arguing over the little differences in these cartridges...

I shoot a Grendal in 6.5 bore... its a darn nice efficient little round...

I'd happily shoot a 6 mm version of it, and/or a 22 cal version of it...

downside is I am getting to the age, I need to get rid of the number of rifles I have versus adding more than do the same job, even if in a different way...

other downside is brass availability and cost... I'll stay with the 223, because with range pick up brass, it costs me nothing for brass and it's availability is endless...

I was wanting to try out the 6 ARC, but for economy I went with the 6 x 45 instead. I give up a 150 to 200 fps MV with the necked up 223, but then its available and I'll never have to spend a nickel on brass to feed it..it will ring steel with any bullet weight, even a 105 gr .. out to 300 and 400 yds... SO what if it takes a few more clicks on the elevation knob on top of the scope? It still rings steel with authority at those distances.

Is any of the ARC cartridges ( marketing dept name for them) better than the Remington BR cartridges? I doubt it...

All of these cartridges are just another tool in the tool box... you might like that hammer over this hammer... but each one is still a hammer...

Hell, I have a 22.250 with a one in 7 twist barrel on it.... that makes it a totally different rifle than a regular 22.250 with a one in 12 twist. This new 22 ARC, just will lead to development of newer bullets to get the most out of it.. which won't hurt what is available already for my 1 in 7 twist 22.250. it'll extend what I can do with that cartridge...


I also own several 260 Remington rifles, and I don't see a thing it gives up to the 6.5 Needmore. Yet I own 2 Needmores, that I've never even shot... Walmart and Bi Mart close outs... each one of those cost me $200 and $250 out the door. Just another tool in the tool box.. something that is fun to play with and chasing load development....

So many of you guys make all this more complicated than it has to be... Why make a contest out of ' this rifle is better than this rifle , or chambering...'... they all go bang and they all shoot bullets... pick what you like and go have fun with it...

I'm behind the 22 and 6 ARC all the way.. and neither are nothing but a different version of the old PPC cartridges...the only down side to new cartridges is the lack of brass availability, and the cost of it when you find it.... I LOVE the guys who leave their brass laying on the ground over at our local range...

I would tend to agree with Idaho Shooter, only to add that this is nothing new. It would seem to go back for as long as we’ve had cartridge rifles. We tend only to pay attention to the “survivors,” .45-70, .30-30, .45 Colt, etc, but in truth, there was a plethora of redundant contemporary cartridges that fell by the wayside. They were all promoted as having some great advantage at the time. It’s how the US firearms industry has always operated and always will. Churning….

The ARC cases are virtually identical to the PPC case.

You make a bunch of good points. What the factory rounds offer is convenience, since the majority of shooters don’t handload and also don’t build rifles, unless you count the assembly of ARs from parts.

I think this one will sell well enough to be viable. Hornady plans their offerings pretty well. They won’t sell one to me as I’m in the same old boat as you: too many rifles for this point in my life.

Really wanted a Howa Mini 6 Arc and then this comes along.....

That said, I really only want a .22 Arc in a Howa Mini. The perfect little brother to my .22BR built on a Bighorn Origin. I don't see the need for it on a full sized action (as I already have all the componentry for a .22BR and a .223).

If you're into long range varminting with an AR, the .22 Arc is gonna be REALLY tough to beat. By long range, I mean beyond 400 yards (not the 200 everyone thinks is in the next county). I have a 5.56 AR, but I'm just not crazy enough about AR's to build an ARC upper, but that's just me.

I could've killed 90 percent of everything I've ever shot with a REALLY GOOD "thutty-thutty" (or my .25-06, .45-70, 7x57, .45 Colt, .30-40, .223, .22BR). I could also quit fiddling with all this gun and hunting stuff and save a hell of a lot of time and money, along with 90% of the guys on here (were we honest with ourselves).

It’s overhyped and doesn’t do anything that wasn’t possible before. If you shoot light bullets 60 grains and below the 22 nosler has a bit more sauce. The 22 lbc and 22 Grendel has been around a long time. That is what the 22 arc is.

Want a lot more power in an ar 15. Get dti to make a wssm. NO the arc isn’t a br case. That case holds 40 grains. The arc 35, And no it’s not a 22-250 like hornaday claims. That case hold 44 grains. The whole thing is excitement about nothing.

I have read some of the comments that say it is just a 22 PPC or it can't hold it's own with a 22-250. If you watch Hornady's podcast they talk about the new cartridge and the new bullets. These are not 3 minute videos more like 45-50 minutes. I will try to summarize what went into it. They describe cartridges like the 22 PPC, 22-250 Rem, 223 Rem as legacy cartridges. These cartridges were designed with the idea of pushing bullets faster to gain performance, i.e. create less wind drift and drop. The new low drag varmint bullets that are accompanying this new cartridge will not work in the legacy cartridges. You will run into magazine limit restrictions and twists which are too slow. The 22 ARC and their new varmint bullet will fit in the case optimally and provide the perfect overall length to feed reliably in an AR 15.

New cartridge designs like the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6mm Creedmoor, 22 Creedmoor, 6.5 PRC, 7mm PRC, 300 PRC, 6mm ARC, etc. were designed with low drag (long) bullets used to provide better performance not velocity like older designs. So the 22 ARC in an AR with the new sleek bullet starts out slower, but has a similar trajectory to the 22-250 in a legacy type rifle. So, I think most people who hate these new ideas have fallen in love with a cartridge or firearm type. I think Hornady is looking at it from creating the perfect bullet for the task and then working back the other way. Am I making sense or have I lost my marbles?

Drinking the Kool-Aid? kidding

I know... I would make a great follower. Must be my German blood. Lol!