Thoughts of a Hornet Handloader

Bud Weisberg contributing writer

The threads of most forums concerned with the 22 Hornet often culminate in a velocity contest as successive contributors post their pet loads, ever inching towards .222 performance. I understand the impetus – the urge to get the most out of what you've got; to have the biggest, strongest, fastest – but I never subscribed to it, for a few good reasons.

I bought my Winchester 43 new over a half-century ago; it's since punched a lot of holes in paper, crows and woodchucks and I still shoot paper with it. I never load for maximum urge, only accuracy. As did everyone one else at the range, I long ago tried to put 3 or 5 shots in the same hole, but I quickly learned that wasn't going to happen with a lightweight sporter barrel and oversized rimfire action. So I went in a different direction. I'd try for the X-ring with the first round out of a cold, clean barrel. I would then put it aside to cool and spend some time with my pet 257R. Then back to the Hornet, making any sight corrections, then firing a small group to confirm the adjustments. In short time I had a hunting rifle that could, from a cold barrel with a load pruned for accuracy, hit a chuck in the head at 100 yards and hardly anyone would hear it. That's really the whole point of owning a Hornet!

I recently compiled a list -- certainly incomplete -- of commercial rifles that are/were factory chambered for the Hornet - about 30 - many of which were vintage guns like mine that were factory fitted with under-bore barrels, including the 23D, and yes, the early Win M70. My M43 barrel slugged at .2215" to .2219", hence my preference for .223" jacketed bullets and handload restrain t. I even tried .222" Jet bullets but found no obvious advantage.

The most compelling reason for avoiding hot loads is the brass - domestic Hornet brass is the thinnest I've ever handled. Even if head separations and neck splits while fireforming aren't common, they're not rare either. (Almost all of my failed cases were Super-X, which also weighs the least of the four brands I reload.) Because I don't like surprises at the range, I've taken to annealing the necks every 3d or 4th reload. Annealing, neck sizing, the sharp “K” shoulder and reasonable loads have minimized case-stretching & provided greater case life.

Another significant reason for restraint stems from a long-ago letter to me – in response to a related question – from Parker O. Ackley, who advised me that my Win 43, “Has the very bad failing of developing headspace with maximum loads”; he went on to advise that chambering for the K-Hornet and then using standard Hornet loads would diminish this problem. So it became a K-Hornet in the early 70's.

The SAAMI maximum pressure for the Hornet is 43,000 CUP, which I consider pretty reasonable, given some of the guns in use and the brass thinness. I suspect a number of published loads - in print & on i-net - exceed this handily. As I have no way of measuring pressure, I will start a new bullet/powder combination at a modest loading, which I establish by consensus of published loads, and then work upwards. In the process, should I find a combination of bullet & powder that produces notable groups, I stop there, regardless of the velocity attained.

If I ever yearn for heavier bullets and .222 performance, I'll finish the 22-250 I'm building and load down for it. In the meantime, I keep having fun with the little Hornet.

Bud Weisberg