considering purchasing a 722 222 how accurate were they?

I'm sorry if i misquoted Mr Connor. Unfortunately, I have misplaced the book and have been unable to locate the quote. CRS is starting to set in. There are few "gunscribes" whom I take on faith. The man I paraphrased was one of the Icons.

I know that my favorite rifle is my 722. The stock trigger is not an issue. Any competent (I know how hard it is to find one of those folks) gunsmith can correct any deficiencies in the trigger for a minimal fee.
 
Last edited:
the only "problem" with 222 is if you handload you can't use heavier bullets or so I am told anyway.

over here it is truly a sniping round, almost verbatim as it is a long range bird hunting round:), I use my pops combo gun 222/16 gauge alot, and even that O/U gun shots better then me, 3 leafclovers at 100meters and can get them to touch at 300 sometimes.
 
Mr. O'Connor described the Model 722 rifle as being "...a real Plain Jane (and having) about as much sex appeal as Tug Boat Annie..."
Click to expand...

The plain janeness is what I find appealing. There was a B grade 721/722 that was made with select (b grade) walnut, and came checkered. Now that would look darn classic.


the only "problem" with 222 is if you handload you can't use heavier bullets or so I am told anyway.
Click to expand...

I bet I could get 55 grain flat base soft points to group well, Some of the early 223 rifles had a 1 in 14 twist and this was with a 55 gr bullet. However, I have no problem with 50 grainers. I shoot 45 gr with my 223's regularly, and for varmint it's plenty of bullet.
 
I perused the 1973 Gun Digest (your caveat "around" duly noted) but found no mention of the Remington Models 721 and/or 722 rifles.
Click to expand...
That's because the 721/722/725 rifles were long out of production by 1973. Remington phased out the 721/722 in 1963 and introduced the 700 in 1964,

FWIW, the 721/722 was essentially the same action as the later 700 (the 700 has an updated bolt and extracor and no sight boss on the barrel).
 
It's probably hard to find a rifle chambered for .222 that doesn't shoot. Cheap model 600's shoot this round well. The BR brothers didn't latch on to this for the heck of it. Un-tuned rifles shoot this round well. It's a perfect design.
 
Strafer Gott, I assume you mean bench rest. It won many of matches before the PPC 22 and 6m squeezed it out of the circuit. It has more accuracy potential than the 223.
 
Yes, bench rest used them for a good long run. It's just the nicest little round for walk about, and easy-peasey to reload. I can run surplus bullets, if I don't push them too hard, and it makes for inexpensive plinking.
 
I have a 1948 vintage Remington 721 (long action), in .270 Win with a 4X Weaver. Gramps bought it brand new. This gun has taken countless big game over the years. Just as accurate as my newer 700 BDL. Yes, the 721 has the Walker trigger (mine is just fine, no issues like MSNBC reports:rolleyes:), and it is one CRISP squeeze. I mean, the trigger pulls my finger.... WHAM! The old rifle was sighted in once, back in 48, and has remained zero'd in at 1" high at 100 yards ever since. I shot a doe with it at 140 yards last October. The 721/722 is a rugged, accurate rifle, not pretty, but it was designed to be hunted with, not hung up on a wall. Mr. Walker, who designed the 721 / 700 series, is in my mind, right up there with John Browning and Sam Colt.
 
Well, after lots of consideration, I believe I am gonna pick it up (722/222). I just can't resist anymore. I'll check for accuracy, and determine if it needs to be bedded. It needs sling swivel studs also. It has an old Bushnell Scope Chief fixed 4x. Looks nice, but not enough magnification for this caliber.
 
Quote:
I perused the 1973 Gun Digest (your caveat "around" duly noted) but found no mention of the Remington Models 721 and/or 722 rifles.

That's because the 721/722/725 rifles were long out of production by 1973. Remington phased out the 721/722 in 1963 and introduced the 700 in 1964,
Click to expand...

Every issue of The Gun Digest is full of articles dealing with everything from matchlocks to ray guns. It would not be at all unusual, for instance, for the latest 2012 edition of The Gun Digest to feature an article on the Remington 721/722 rifles. I looked at the 1973 edition of The Gun Digest only because that's the issue that poster Itc444 thought he might have read "Jack Conner" (I'm sure he meant to say Jack O'Connor) say that the "Remington Model 722 was the best commercial rifle ever built." Which, as I pointed out, simply wasn't true. No doubt Itc444 read this claim in some magazine or book somewhere along the line but, as he now says, he probably misplaced the book and is unable to find the source of his quote.
 
The article in Gun Digest was one of the major factors in my decision to purchase the 722 which was originally chambered in Remington 244. At one time I had a set of Gun Digest annuals from 1970 to 1975. Over the years they have dwindled do to people borrowing and never returning and have been misplaced during multiple moves.

Since the rifle was to be rebuilt into a long range varmint/antelope rifle my intent at the time was to:

1. Re barrel with a List 27 inch semi bull barrel in 257 Roberts.
2. Install a double set trigger with one List had designed.
3. Top with a Weaver K-12 scope.
4. Restock with a Bishop Laminated thumb hole stock. Mr. Bishop was still alive and as a friend of my fathers he had committed to do the restock himself. Unfortunately, he was unable to take on the project. It still sports the plain Jane stock which is not sexy but has remained stable in environments ranging from the swamps of Louisiana, to the deserts of Arizona by way of Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas and Colorado.

List suggested that the double set triggers were unnecessary. With about 5 minutes work he eliminated the trigger problems. (bad trigger was one of the OPs concerns)

Today, 35 years later, the rifle still does its job.

Irregardless, of who said or did not say something the 721 Remington is an outstanding rifle. Whomever the writer I quoted from memory was, he was not receiving any compensation for plugging a rifle which had been out of production over a decade.
 
Last edited:
The article in Gun Digest was one of the major factors in my decision to purchase the 722 which was originally chambered in Remington 244. At one time I had a set of Gun Digest annuals from 1970 to 1975.
Click to expand...

Because I have most editions of The Gun Digest in my inventory and because I had a little time on my hands (some people think "way too much" :o), I did a little looking to see what I could come up with re the Remington Models 721 and 722 (and 700 where applicable), especially involving comments by Jack O'Connor. From 1970 through 1975, the only articles having any relevancy to the subject at hand that I could locate were in the the 1971 issue. In an article written by John T. Amber (the editor at the time) entitled "New Remingtons", Mr. Amber quoted Jack O'Connor's remarks concerning his test results of the Model 700: "...This (25-06) Remington 700 rifle has shot more accurately for me than any other I can remember..." Later, in the same edition, author Jon Sundra, in an article entitled "Varmint Rifle Variables", wrote, "...Two of my favorites are a Douglas-barreled 6mm Mauser action and a Remington 722 action. Both of these rifles deliver constant MOA groups or better, some of which measure as small as 1/8". That's excellent accuracy for any kind of rifle..." This is all I could find from 1970 to 1975 in The Gun Digest concerning Remington 721s and 722s.

However, a little more searching revealed a relatively lengthy article entitled "Remington's 721-722: The Story of a Success", written by Stuart Otteson, found in the 1982 edition of The Gun Digest. I found Mr. Otteson's article very informative for those interested in learning more regarding the development and marketing of this interesting rifle series. He extolled the virtues and decried the foibles of the Models 721 and 722 in his evaluation and research. I found it amusing that he echoed O'Connor's criticism of the 721/722's general aesthetics (see my earlier post in this thread for the O'Connor quote) when he made the following observation: "...But the rifle's engineering virtues could sustain this level of sales only so long. Very plain and unexciting lines limited its ultimate sales potential. While it certainly wasn't ugly, neither could anyone ever accuse it of winning any beauty contests against the Model 70..."

I stopped looking for any further information regarding the Models 721 and 722 rifles after finding the above article in the 1982 edition, but there could well be more, from 1983 to date. I'll leave it up to someone else to finish the Gun Digest treasure hunt...:)
 
I had to dig up this old thread because I finally ended up buying the 722 222. It was made in April of 1955 and it looks almost out of the box! It has an old Scope Chief Bushnell 4x mounted on it. I used about 3" dots at 100 yrds, and I touched holes with 3 shots!! Anyway, I appreciate all the input to those who posted on this thread.
 
I had a 722 with a 4x12 Burris scope and a Harris bipod. Used to head shoot groundhogs at 300 yards. Kick myself for ever letting that gun go. 20 grains of IMR 4198 with a 50 grain spitzer was my load of choice.
 
Glad to see you guys appreciate the .222 Rem.

I've had one for many years. As already noted, it'll shoot a variety of bullets well.

My favorite is the 52 gr Berger over 19 gr IMR 4198 w/ Rem 7 1/2 BR primer.

Mine will stabilize a 63 gr Sierra which is a very accurate bullet, so you don't know until you try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top