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else to add, it'll join the long list of "other" .224" cartridges that aren't really needed or wanted, or just plain outdated.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!

that is buying the hype. the BC of a bullet doesn't really matter much till you get to 400 ish yards. a 22-250 isn't considered a long range cartridge, its typical twist is 14, that means bullets 60 grains and less. just by twist rate alone its not a comparison to the 22 ARC. its apples and oranges. throat the 22-250 correctly and speed up the twist and its going to romp a 22 arc. The new cartridge designs, like the creed, and PRC etc. are made with heavy bullets and the rifles have barrel twists to handle it.

hornady acts like they figured something out that the rest of us don't already know. Probably pretty easy because its the seal team 6 wanna bee's who buy into this stuff. I could have predicted the valkerie would flop, for one that chopped off the 6.8 spc case and lessened its capacity. They put a throat in it a mile long to take those heavy bullets and twisted the crap out of the rifling. its ONLY going to shoot heavy bullets. at least hornady looked at this and thought lets use the PPC/grendel case that way we don't have to shorten it like the 6.8 case.

The reason for the hesitancy to go down this road and fully embrace the PPC/grendel case is because it was thought in the past there would be a problem with broken bolts. in the mean time we have lightweight AR 10's and WSSM ar 15's for those that want more power. Look I love powerful cartridges, I agree the 223 is weak and not full house, but the 22 ARC isn't anything special. ho hum.

In regards, to the 22-250 and your comments about it. Boat tail bullets have an advantage past 300 yards. The 22-250 is a long range varmint round capable of hits out past 400 yards. You are thinking cartridge first and not bullet/magazine length first. The majority of consumers don't handload or build custom rifles with special throats and twists. Think factory built rifles and uppers shooting factory ammo which are SAAMI spec.

And that is where I am. I have a 22-250, or it used to be. Then it became a 22-243AI. It is time for another resurrection. It can be anything on a .473 case head, heck it could be anything at all from a 222 to a 340 Wea mag with just a change of the bolt head. But I am not going there.

7.5 twist, 22-250, 22-250AI, 22 Creed-which is just another form of the 22-250AI. Probably going to be the Creed as, at this time brass is more available. Might have a 6mm-284 barrel built also and switch them out occasionally. I have a bunch of 6-284 rounds sitting around and dies, since I tossed that barrel and turned the rifle into a 7-08.

Varmint hunting occurs inside 400 yards for most situations.
Varmint hunting has been proven to be effective with fragmenting light jacket bullets that work with high velocity.
This is where the 22/250 220 swift cartridges came from.

If your ticket is to shoot at varmints at 500 yards plus, the cartridge will have little to do with your success imo.

It is becoming more and more target (live or not)shooting and less about hunting when it comes to cartridge design. But good for Hornady not sitting on their hands. It’s a terrific company regardless if it meets my needs or not.

The shoulder is too sloped to be a PPC. It more resembles the 220 Beggs Russian. Gene Beggs designed the 220 Russian to not need all the steps of fire forming and work that the PPC takes to load. It looks like Hornady have legitimized the Beggs version of the 220 Russian. It's a great little cartridge. I chambered one in a 12 tw. Shilen using a friend's Beggs reamer and Hornady supplied the dies.

If I was in the business of manufacturing and selling factory rifles, I'd be thanking my lucky stars for Hornady.

Yep, what it comes down to in the end is a way for manufacturers to make more money. One route would be to just use faster twist barrels on rifles in the current cartridges like the 22-250 and build factory ammo for those guns, but that's probably not going to sell as many new rifles as some hip new chambering. Plus folks who may not read so well would be back at the gun shop complaining about why the box of 88 ELDs won't hit the target straight in their 14 twist Remington 788. Instead, market the idea that a new chambering will fill some niche, whether real or imagined, and the boys at the gun shop will whip out their credit cards for a new rifle. Or at least that's the gun and ammo company's goal.

well being is the parent case of ppc is a 220 Russian....

Exactly.

Just published an article in Sports Afield about the recent "shortages" of ammo and brass. One of the major reasons is so many "niche" cartridges (many of which are basically duplicates of already existing rounds) have appeared. In fact since 2000 50+ new American factory cartridges ABOVE .22 caliber have appeared.

All are designed primarily to sell more rifles--but there's no way the ammo factories can supply enough brass (much less loaded ammo) to supply the customers who buy the rifles, especially since a lot of recent production is for military markets.

The .22 ARC is the same case as the 6mm ARC which is a improved 6mm PPC.

Basically the ARC cases are very similar to Grendel cases but have the shoulder moved back .030. Maybe because AA has tried to patent the 6.5 Grendel and Hornady choose skip any drama. Basically the same capacity.

All are based on the .220 Russian with sharper shoulder mover forward and less body taper on the 0.440 diameter case head.

I made quite a lot of a .22 Grendel, which we called the .22 WYO, and it works great in the AR-15 platform.

The G2 platform kind of made it unneeded for our customers.

For those wanting to shoe horn in a bit more "power" in the AR15 this is going to be a legit solution, much like the 6mm ARC is legit.

Right now the factory offerings are using a fast expanding VT bullet that would not be my choice for deer or antelope. For the handloader the .22 ARC with a 75/80 gr bullet is a better choice than 5.56mm for general deer/antelope hunting.

Down sides would be the limited factory loads now and no PMAGs.



Mulie @ 400yds

I've enjoyed listening to their long form podcasts. It's interesting to hear straight from the people who designed them what their thought process was and why they did what they did.

I agree. I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. I am tired of listening to a filter on information. Podcasts have really helped people tell their own story instead of someone else doing it with their prejudices.

Eh. The last thing I wanna do is listen to an engineer drone on for 45 minutes. Podcasts are primarily populated by self-centered wind bags turning oxygen into noise.

When you say this, I hear, "I don't like engineers. They think they know everything." That is your bias leaking into the conversation. Podcasts allow a message to get out which is not filtered by someone else.

I also agree not all podcasts are good ones.

Yeah Hornady had to change the 6 ARC because it was too close to the Grendel. You can make a Grendel out of a 7.62x39 brass case. It spawned the PPC and Beggs 220 R. All that family are decent cartridges.

Mule Deer could give a good account of the different variations and the history of the various cartridges spawned by the parent case. It's a longish list and they're all pretty good. My mention of the Beggs Russian was because the 22ARC isn't exactly new.

The parent case for the PPC's is the 220 Russian (220R). The Grendel cases came several decades later.

Engineers have a reputation for being linear thinking bores with poor communication skills. That's why I don't want to listen to them (or anyone, for that matter) talk for 45 minutes.

Interesting they'd bring this to market around the same time as they're working with SAAMI to bring out the 22 Creedmoor in January. I've seen boxes of factory loaded Hornady 22 Creedmoor floating around at shows and demos already.

I hear you. I think many engineers and physicians are borderline autistic. Brilliant minds with poor communication skills. You can still learn a great deal from them if you give them a chance.

I enjoy listening to engineers that are also enthusiasts much more than some promoter/user/Youtuber who simply thinks a new product is "sweet" or "badass" but has no depth of knowledge regarding what really makes it special, why it was created, or how the product went from concept to reality. Unfortunately, that side of the coin is prevalent all over the internet. The behind-the-scenes table of actual product creators is much more rare, even if it might be a bit dry at times.

I just don't want to listen to people talk or watch a video. I learn better and find more interest in reading.

Lots of wildcats out there. Until someone standardizes them and pays the way to get it through SAAMI we have a lot of misinformation (velocities and performance) we can't rely on. I remember when I got my 20 Vartarg and eagerly read online what it could do. It's a great cartridge, but people shoot it way over pressure. It was nice to see Accurate/Hodgdon develop some pressure tested loads for it.

Good for Hornady to put their money where their mouth is on this one. I hope it is a success for them.

I more of a visual learner as well. I find it difficult to gain as much information listening to people talk too.

Or salesmen trying to convince one to burn good money on the latest fad.

If I shoot two groundhogs, one with an ARC and another with a .223, which one is more dead?

I'm just grateful that the industry is active and continues to introduce new ideals on a consistent basis. It does not matter that A is just B, etc. If you are satisfied with A, great! If you like to try new things like B, it's your choice. Both are what makes this whole sharade meaningful...stick with what you know and like or try something different because you like change. Both fill the "need" or "void" .

Bugs4
The one shot with the ARC is deader....yes, deader. More dead. The one shot with the 223 is less dead. Why ? because the folks selling these things said so. And you should not be asking these kind of questions. Other folks will do your thinking for you.
Charlie

P.S.....how do you make a Bu$$[bleep] font ? Or is that an emoji?

I think this forum should be renamed “Curmudgeons Corner”

Just before this thread I ordered a Tikka Lite T3x SS 22-250 in 1-8 twist.

In my AR's I'm going to stick with the .223 because they shoot great.

I may resemble a curmudgeon.

Maybe!

Might mention that prairie_goat has spent plenty of time behind various rifles, partly because he was raised on a ranch in eastern Montana, where shooting coyotes was kinda essential, and also because he's guided big game hunters considerably. But he also spent considerable time in the Middle East as a U.S. Army sniper. Oh, and he's also developed several wildcats.

Met him in 2010 when he was in his mid-20s, so he's not exactly inexperienced--or old enough to be a curmudgeon.

Mule Deer;
Good evening to you John, I hope that you and Eileen are well on this Halloween night.

One of the interesting things for me personally when reading some of the threads here on the 'Fire is that I'm forced to look up some words - in this case "curmudgeon" - since often as not, I'm not entirely sure I've always used it correctly.

There was a line in The Princess Bride where one of the characters says to another, "You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means". Something like that anyways.

As it was a favorite of both our girls when they were growing up, we watched it many times and although it pains me greatly to admit this, there's been more than once when the girls have used that immortal line on me.

It has been an educational discussion for me however and I appreciate the folks who've posted on it. Coyote season will soon be upon us and if the old school .22-250AI barrel ever completely toasts out, it's good to have options.

Anyways I have nothing intelligent to add to the cartridge conversation other than that, but am grateful that I now know the true meaning of a word that I might have been not always using properly.

All the best to you both as we head into some cooler weather.

Dwayne

Amen, they done pretty good.

Hi Dwayne,

We are doing well. Hope you are the same!

Yeah, curmudgeon's "official" meaning doesn't mean old, or even "set in their ways." But I suspect that's the direction it's headed--and North American English (whether south of the medicine line or north) is far more flexible and evolving than many other languages.

Have been using the .22-250 for a long time myself, and been pleasantly surprised on how well the faster-twist rifles work--though never had any problem with "traditional" twist rifles either. Have told this story before, but the longest shot I've made (or attempted!) in Africa was right around 500 yards, on a springbok (about like pronghorn) with the Sako .22-250 belonging to my friend Rob Klemp--a part-time PH and full-time owner of a big sporting goods store in Kimberley, South Africa. He invited me and a friend to try it out for a day, since the safari was primarily a cull deal.

At the time Rob's rifle had taken over 12,000 big game animals, mostly springbok but also many others. It was on its 4th barrel, all 1-14" twist, and my hunting partner and I took several springbok with it, no problem, despite the "slow" twist. We used the standard Winchester Pointed Soft-Point 55-grain factory load, which is what Rob preferred for culling--and could get wholesale. (Quite a few cullers in South Africa--and some other countrie--use factory loads, because they don't have time to handload--and are paid by the animal.) It worked just fine.

The deer are just starting to think about rutting here--found a small whitetail scrape while hunting pheasants the other day--so we'll be out and about!

Good hunting,
John

now if they made it a .204, and Berger made the 55's an off the shelf item again......

Thanks John! I think "curmudgeon in training" may be more appropriate. Ha!

That sounds about right!

But also want to agree with SKane's comment: "If I was in the business of manufacturing and selling factory rifles, I'd be thanking my lucky stars for Hornady." It's been interesting at during this latest "shortage" of handloading components there have been plenty of Hornady bullets available, of all types, and some brass too. And over the last several years I've found Hornady brass to be among the best, very uniform in dimensions and pretty tough.

I am right there with you. I don't need used car grade sales hype or heavy metal music. I prefer just the facts.

PG no offense intended but how long has it been since you've had your hearing tested by a pro audiologist? I have a major profound high frequency hearing loss. Even with hearing aides, it is a struggle listening to long winded spiels about anything, it makes you struggle and get tired trying to keep up. Oh yeah I'd rather read the same myself. Have absolutely no use of trying to communicate with people who wave their hands around, utilize extreme facial expressions and body language to get their point across. Lotta stupid chit on the fire and wasted print of someone's snarky sarcasm while they use acronyms you've never heard. But I can hear everything that is said. You made a damn good point. But there is a reason you can't stand a long winded explanation that is verbal...mb

Good point, it's been.....11 years since a hearing test, and there was definitely some hearing loss found at that time!