Ruger Seems to have dropped .22 Creedmoor in favor of the .22 ARC. Any .22 ARC Feedback?

I've been looking for a Ruger American Rifle Gen II Predator in .22 Creedmoor, in the US for a few months, all of a sudden any supply just dried up. I was told that Ruger has apparently dropped the .22 Creedmoor in favor of the .22 ARC. There are now lots of .22 ARC models available in gun shops. Maybe there is some back story to this change in direction?

Anyone shooting the .22 ARC?

It seems that the 1:7 twist barrel is shooting Hornady 62 gn to 88 gn ammo well from online reviews. The ARC is apparently a development for semi auto type rifles and apparently has a lower pressure as its use is in a semi auto, by all accounts bolt action versions will take a higher pressure than the standard round pressure (not sure what the UK proof will be rated at as you will not see any semi autos!). From the initial feedback it looks like an interesting round when considering use beyond 300 yards with heavy bullets, it's being given a lot of positive comments for predator and varmint use at distance. Reloaders are apparently getting performance very similar to the .22 Creedmoor.

.22 ARC ammo is in stock in most large gun shops and is much cheaper than any .22 Creedmoor ammo, buying in bulk (500 rounds) any of the main 4 Hornady loads are available for about $1.15 a round (£0.87).

Is there a place in the market and for use for the .22 ARC? I shoot a lot of .223 bolt actions, including one in the UK for fox and small deer, I was looking at something economical for varmint (prairie dogs) and for plate shooting at 300 - 800 yards, the .22 ARC may be the answer for this. The heavier bullets seem to work well at distance.

Ruger certainly offer a low cost entry rifle that is well equipped without having to move up to a custom rifle. The Ruger American Rifle Gen II Predator is currently being sold at $650, under £500, it comes with a 22" threaded spiral fluted barrel, muzzle break, cerakote coating, adjustable trigger and a scope rail fitted. I'm thinking of buying one this week and fitting it with a range adjusting digital scope with LRF for a little fun at distance on a reasonable budget.

The main offerings for .22 ARC in bolt action are from Ruger and Howa (both are very affordable) , the bolt action availability is totally overshadowed by the massive AR style rifle uptake in .22 ARC. It seems that maybe .22 ARC will be here to stay and will surpass .22 Creedmoor. On Gunbroker there are 177 pages of .22 ARC listings compared to 11 pages of .22 Creedmoor today. I'm guessing that .22 Creedmore will stay at the higher price custom rifle type level and that the mainstream and more economical bolt action guns will be in .22 ARC.

The only constant is change.

I have a customer who crows constantly about the .22ARC, not used one myself.

From what I have seen, there’s not that many .22 ARC in uk yet but one or two on here have one and say very good things about them. Stats look really impressive.

I have 22 Creedmoor and .223 in 2 very different configurations. If money were no object I could easily convince myself that a nice light accurate 22ARC could replace both of them but have talked myself out of that for the time being!!

Let us know how you get on with it.

Penyard said:

From what I have seen, there’s not that many .22 ARC in uk yet but one or two on here have one and say very good things about them. Stats look really impressive.

I have 22 Creedmoor and .223 in 2 very different configurations. If money were no object I could easily convince myself that a nice light accurate 22ARC could replace both of them but have talked myself out of that for the time being!!

Let us know how you get on with it.

Click to expand...

I know the problem of too many rifles really well ...lol. I don't replace any rifles and just hang on to them.

I finally went and purchased the Ruger Predator in .22 ARC today, the guy at the store had never heard of the caliber, I had to show it to him online, saying it was available for pickup at that location, 5 minutes later they found it in the back. After a 5 minute background check, I was off out the door with it. My plan is to fit it with a Digital scope, DNT Zulus 4K to be able to get the automatic drop calculation for various ranges, this will be my first experiance of a digital non thermal scope for me. The barrel is a long 22" on the Predator version, long for me as I usually like the short barrel versions for use with a moderator.

I left the store with a box of Hornady 80gr Precision Hunter and ordered some 62 grain varmint rounds and 88 grain match rounds, it will be interesting to see how it shoots. I have a 16" short barrel version of the Ruger Gen II in .223 that I keep with a Pulsar thermal mounted for night use, it is a great rifle, a lot of value, but cannot really be used in daytime. I purchased an IR light for use with the Zulus which will allow the .22 ARC to be used for some night hunting, IR lights are new to me.

How do you like your .22 Creedmoor, do you hunt with it or just target?

Have built a couple
Insane cartridge IMO
27-30gr of powder to exceed what a 22-250 does with 5-7gr more powder

52-62gr at 3400-3500fps from a standard 22" barrel

It's a cartridge I have seriously considered.

What are the advantages over a 22 creed?

ColinBr said:

It's a cartridge I have seriously considered.

What are the advantages over a 22 creed?

Click to expand...

its much cooler

ColinBr said:

It's a cartridge I have seriously considered.

What are the advantages over a 22 creed?

Click to expand...

Here are my views on the advantages:

.22 ARC is available in lower cost, great value rifles, such as Ruger & Howa, most .22 Creedmoor rifles seem to be higher end rifles at significantly higher prices. .22 ARC ammo is significantly cheaper than .22 Creedmoor. Based on these facts the cost of entry for a .22 ARC shooter will be massively lower than a .22 Creedmoor shooter. I tried to buy a .22 Creedmoor not sure why Ruger dropped the cartridge.

If you are reloading you can get the .22 ARC to achieve ballistics that are nearly at the Creedmoor level. From reviews that I've read they both provide the ability for shooting heavy, high BC bullets at longer distances.

The .22 ARC was created as a black rifle / AR option, it is already hugely popular in the US and in my opinion will dwarf the .22 Creedmoor user base meaning that ammo / brass etc. will always be available and will always be cheaper.

.22 ARC is being hailed as a great longer range predator / varmint option without the need to step up to calibers like 22-250. In the UK most of my fox shooting was done with a .243 and 60 grain Sierra bullets, I've now dropped down to a .223 and 55 grain bullets which is fine for most of the shooting that I do. The current Hornady 80gn precision hunter ammunition seems like a great solution for Roe (Scotland), Muntjac and CWD, the optional Hornady 62 grain Varmint / Target load seems like a good option for foxes.

I'll be taking my new rifle out for a little fun and will be shooting metal plates out to 1,000 yards to see how it performs, it's a lot cheaper to run than a .338 Lapua magnum!

UpNorthMI said:

Here are my views on the advantages:

.22 ARC is available in lower cost, great value rifles, such as Ruger & Howa, most .22 Creedmoor rifles seem to be higher end rifles at significantly higher prices. .22 ARC ammo is significantly cheaper than .22 Creedmoor. Based on these facts the cost of entry for a .22 ARC shooter will be massively lower than a .22 Creedmoor shooter. I tried to buy a .22 Creedmoor not sure why Ruger dropped the cartridge.

If you are reloading you can get the .22 ARC to achieve ballistics that are nearly at the Creedmoor level. From reviews that I've read they both provide the ability for shooting heavy, high BC bullets at longer distances.

The .22 ARC was created as a black rifle / AR option, it is already hugely popular in the US and in my opinion will dwarf the .22 Creedmoor user base meaning that ammo / brass etc. will always be available and will always be cheaper.

.22 ARC is being hailed as a great longer range predator / varmint option without the need to step up to calibers like 22-250. In the UK most of my fox shooting was done with a .243 and 60 grain Sierra bullets, I've now dropped down to a .223 and 55 grain bullets which is fine for most of the shooting that I do. The current Hornady 80gn precision hunter ammunition seems like a great solution for Roe (Scotland), Muntjac and CWD, the optional Hornady 62 grain Varmint / Target load seems like a good option for foxes.

I'll be taking my new rifle out for a little fun and will be shooting metal plates out to 1,000 yards to see how it performs, it's a lot cheaper to run than a .338 Lapua magnum!

Click to expand...

Thanks for that

I would be building a rifle to go 22ARC if it came to it, and I would be reloading for it.

I don't do much foxing to be honest, and I currently have a 223 that shoots 69gr TMKs exceptionally well, and is also a great round for Roe deer.

I would likely re-chamber the 223 (it's only had around 100 rounds thru the new barrel).

Only issue being, is that if I go this route the bolt face would need opened up also and there is no going back from there, as it's not exactly a common bolt face dimension wise.

ColinBr said:

Thanks for that

I would be building a rifle to go 22ARC if it came to it, and I would be reloading for it.

I don't do much foxing to be honest, and I currently have a 223 that shoots 69gr TMKs exceptionally well, and is also a great round for Roe deer.

I would likely re-chamber the 223 (it's only had around 100 rounds thru the new barrel).

Only issue being, is that if I go this route the bolt face would need opened up also and there is no going back from there, as it's not exactly a common bolt face dimension wise.

Click to expand...

Colin,

Good luck with your project. I certainly don't think the .22 ARC is for everyone as a .223 is much more available and cheaper to run, I'm interested in that 300 - 800 yard shooting / hunting window, it will be interesting to see how they shoot and if they will grow in popularity with shooters.

ColinBr said:

It's a cartridge I have seriously considered.

What are the advantages over a 22 creed?

Click to expand...

There are two primary ARC upsides. First, as @UpNorthMI says, it can be used in the AR-15 platform thanks to its short COAL. That's not much of as plus here, but a huge one in the US and anywhere else that allows 'modern sporting rifles'. It's a small plus here in that it's a straight adaptation to ultra-short / light bolt-actions, primarily the nice little Howa 'Mini' 1500 and the old Cz527 (don't know about its successor though) that offer the 0.447" face. As you note it requires the intermediate size (0.447-inch) bolt-face dimensions for the 7.62X39 / Grendel / ARC family and so any such rifles probably need a new bolt for any subsequent change to the smaller diameter 223.

The second and IMO larger upside over the Creedmoor is the [bore] capacity value reduction. 22 Creedmoor has a bore ratio of ca. 1,310 which is the same as the 7mm Rem Magnum and 7mm WSM. This puts it into what is traditionally regarded as being 'over-bore capacity' requiring very slow burning powders, becomes more finicky on load combinations/charge weights, and produces short barrel life.

The same metric for the 22ARC is ca. 850, similar to that of 6.5X47mm Lapua, 7mm-08 Rem, 6BR. (For comparison, 223 Rem is ca. 780; 308 Win 750; mid-size 6.5s such as 6.5 Creedmoor / 260 Rem 1,000; the notorious barrel burning 223 WSSM is ca. 1,400.) So barrel heating is much reduced and life extended compared to the Creedmoor version and there are more powder choices if handloading. Despite the lower [capacity] bore-ratio value, 22 ARC ballistics are very good indeed for such a small cartridge as @Edinburgh Rifles points out. (Ballistically, its larger calibre 6mm sibling plus the slightly larger case 6mm Grendel are even more so.) These (ARC and Grendel) cartridges also have a reputation for outstanding consistency and precision, the 22 and 6mm Creedmoors less so.

Obviously, the performance vs barrel heat/life balance is determined by your use and round count. Shoot at long-distance foxes, but not often, and the Creedmoor might be the better choice.

('Bore-Ratio' values are calculated by dividing the case capacity in grains weight of water by the bore area in square-inches. 22 Creedmoor holds ca. 51gn water; 22ARC ca. 33gn. The area of a 0.224 hole is 0.039.)

Laurie said:

There are two primary ARC upsides. First, as @UpNorthMI says, it can be used in the AR-15 platform thanks to its short COAL. That's not much of as plus here, but a huge one in the US and anywhere else that allows 'modern sporting rifles'. It's a small plus here in that it's a straight adaptation to ultra-short / light bolt-actions, primarily the nice little Howa 'Mini' 1500 and the old Cz527 (don't know about its successor though) that offer the 0.447" face. As you note it requires the intermediate size (0.447-inch) bolt-face dimensions for the 7.62X39 / Grendel / ARC family and so any such rifles probably need a new bolt for any subsequent change to the smaller diameter 223.

The second and IMO larger upside over the Creedmoor is the [bore] capacity value reduction. 22 Creedmoor has a bore ratio of ca. 1,310 which is the same as the 7mm Rem Magnum and 7mm WSM. This puts it into what is traditionally regarded as being 'over-bore capacity' requiring very slow burning powders, becomes more finicky on load combinations/charge weights, and produces short barrel life.

The same metric for the 22ARC is ca. 850, similar to that of 6.5X47mm Lapua, 7mm-08 Rem, 6BR. (For comparison, 223 Rem is ca. 780; 308 Win 750; mid-size 6.5s such as 6.5 Creedmoor / 260 Rem 1,000; the notorious barrel burning 223 WSSM is ca. 1,400.) So barrel heating is much reduced and life extended compared to the Creedmoor version and there are more powder choices if handloading. Despite the lower [capacity] bore-ratio value, 22 ARC ballistics are very good indeed for such a small cartridge as @Edinburgh Rifles points out. (Ballistically, its larger calibre 6mm sibling plus the slightly larger case 6mm Grendel are even more so.) These (ARC and Grendel) cartridges also have a reputation for outstanding consistency and precision, the 22 and 6mm Creedmoors less so.

Obviously, the performance vs barrel heat/life balance is determined by your use and round count. Shoot at long-distance foxes, but not often, and the Creedmoor might be the better choice.

('Bore-Ratio' values are calculated by dividing the case capacity in grains weight of water by the bore area in square-inches. 22 Creedmoor holds ca. 51gn water; 22ARC ca. 33gn. The area of a 0.224 hole is 0.039.)

Click to expand...

Laurie,

Extended barrel life was something I picked up in many places as I researched the .22 ARC V's .22 Creedmoor but you have done an excellent job of explaining the science behind this, I appreciate the education. I have also started collecting reloading data and as you point out users are using a very wide range of powders.

As a Brit I am a little confused about the pressure statements depending on what type of rifle you are using, internet results are showing the following type of comments and quoting Guns & Ammo as the source:

The .22 ARC (Advanced Rifle Cartridge) is designed for optimized performance in AR-15 platforms, featuring a SAAMI-maximum average pressure of 52,000 psi. While standard factory ammo operates at this lower pressure for gas guns, bolt-action rifle loads can safely reach higher pressures, with Hornady data showing capabilities up to 62,000 psi.

Key Pressure and Performance Details:

• SAAMI Maximum Pressure: 52,000 psi (360 MPa).
• Gas Gun Pressure: 52,000 psi (optimized for AR-15 reliability).
• Bolt Action Pressure: Up to 62,000 psi (higher performance loads).
• Case Capacity:
  Approximately 34.6 grains
  
  Velocity: Achieves roughly 3,300 fps to 3,400 fps with lighter bullets (e.g., 55-62 grain) and around 2,700-2,800 fps with heavier (e.g., 88 grain) bullets.

Laurie said:

There are two primary ARC upsides. First, as @UpNorthMI says, it can be used in the AR-15 platform thanks to its short COAL. That's not much of as plus here, but a huge one in the US and anywhere else that allows 'modern sporting rifles'. It's a small plus here in that it's a straight adaptation to ultra-short / light bolt-actions, primarily the nice little Howa 'Mini' 1500 and the old Cz527 (don't know about its successor though) that offer the 0.447" face. As you note it requires the intermediate size (0.447-inch) bolt-face dimensions for the 7.62X39 / Grendel / ARC family and so any such rifles probably need a new bolt for any subsequent change to the smaller diameter 223.

The second and IMO larger upside over the Creedmoor is the [bore] capacity value reduction. 22 Creedmoor has a bore ratio of ca. 1,310 which is the same as the 7mm Rem Magnum and 7mm WSM. This puts it into what is traditionally regarded as being 'over-bore capacity' requiring very slow burning powders, becomes more finicky on load combinations/charge weights, and produces short barrel life.

The same metric for the 22ARC is ca. 850, similar to that of 6.5X47mm Lapua, 7mm-08 Rem, 6BR. (For comparison, 223 Rem is ca. 780; 308 Win 750; mid-size 6.5s such as 6.5 Creedmoor / 260 Rem 1,000; the notorious barrel burning 223 WSSM is ca. 1,400.) So barrel heating is much reduced and life extended compared to the Creedmoor version and there are more powder choices if handloading. Despite the lower [capacity] bore-ratio value, 22 ARC ballistics are very good indeed for such a small cartridge as @Edinburgh Rifles points out. (Ballistically, its larger calibre 6mm sibling plus the slightly larger case 6mm Grendel are even more so.) These (ARC and Grendel) cartridges also have a reputation for outstanding consistency and precision, the 22 and 6mm Creedmoors less so.

Obviously, the performance vs barrel heat/life balance is determined by your use and round count. Shoot at long-distance foxes, but not often, and the Creedmoor might be the better choice.

('Bore-Ratio' values are calculated by dividing the case capacity in grains weight of water by the bore area in square-inches. 22 Creedmoor holds ca. 51gn water; 22ARC ca. 33gn. The area of a 0.224 hole is 0.039.)

Click to expand...

Thanks again Laurie for the usual in depth reply.
Much appreciated

UpNorthMI said:

As a Brit I am a little confused about the pressure statements depending on what type of rifle you are using, internet results are showing the following type of comments and quoting Guns & Ammo as the source:

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the .22 version, but I researched the 6mm ARC when it was introduced a few years back as I considered rebarreling a 6.5 Grendel Howa 'Mini' rifle to it for target use. Two P-Max pressure standards and appropriate loads tables are being supplied in recent Hornady data and reloading manuals, as you note the 'bolt-gun' version being substantially higher pressure. I'd imagine .22 ARC data exactly mirrors those for its bigger brother in terms of pressure differentials.

The issue isn't gas operation vs manual working of the bolt, it's the AR-15 having been designed around the 222/223's 0.378" rim diameter and the corresponding if slightly smaller case-head diameter. Rearward case-thrust on the bolt-face is a combination of internal pressure and case-head diameter. Increase the case's diameter as you do moving from 223 to ARC/Grendel etc sees a considerable increase in pressure on the bolt face and its locking lugs. The AR's bolt-face diameter can be increased to accept the 7.62X39mm / ARC / Grendel diameter albeit with some thinning of the locking lugs, but the thrust issue means that at any given level of pressure inside the case the ARC punishes the bolt a LOT harder than 223 / 5.56. The US Army found this out some years back long before Hornady came up with the ARC through converting M16s / M4s to the Soviet 7.62X39 M43. It was found that there had to be bolt renewal after X number thousand rounds (9,000 IIRC, but my memory may be wrong here) otherwise the bolt could suddenly fail with all sorts of undesirable results. As a result, 7.62X39 conversions were discontinued for military use for widespread issue and the 6.8 Rem SPC's 0.422 dia case was as big as they'd go, and even there that was restricted to SOCOM forces, not general issue. (Not that the 6.8 SPC lasted long in the US military, but I think there were other performance issues in the field that led to its swift demise.)

White Oak Armament in the US is a major supplier of AR-15 barrels, 'uppers' etc to the civilian market, but wouldn't do you a Grendel / ARC version for some years. Their online blog explained why with a pic of a severely trashed bolt. I believe they will sell you the bits now, but don't know why the company changed its mind. I've tried to open its website / blog again, but just get '403 Forbidden'. However, if you Google

White Oak Armaments report on Grendel and ARC cases in the AR-15

and select 'Images', you'll see the bolt pic from the article.

Laurie said:

I can't comment on the .22 version, but I researched the 6mm ARC when it was introduced a few years back as I considered rebarreling a 6.5 Grendel Howa 'Mini' rifle to it for target use. Two P-Max pressure standards and appropriate loads tables are being supplied in recent Hornady data and reloading manuals, as you note the 'bolt-gun' version being substantially higher pressure. I'd imagine .22 ARC data exactly mirrors those for its bigger brother in terms of pressure differentials.

Click to expand...

Laurie,

Again you have quite a knowledge, thanks for sharing. So what does the UK proof house do on a bolt version, do they proof them differently? Do we just assume that every bolt action rifle is rated for the higher pressure standard of an ARC cartridge? In the US there is no proofing, how do I really know how far to go with my loads? I certainly know how to look for signs of over pressure but my .22 ARC will be the first caliber that I own that has 2 pressure standards. Just makes me slightly nervous.

I understand that all factory ammo will be loaded to the lower pressure standard meaning that if you want to get the real performance from the loads in a bolt action rifle, reloading will be the only option. This is certainly an interesting topic.

White Oak website works fine here, I'm guessing there is a reginal restriction, I will read their blog.

Not sure there’s much useful I can add here.

I have a 1:7, 22” barrel on a Tikka t3 action.

It’s fantastic. The most absurdly easy rifle to load for. @Edinburgh Rifles made an educated guess based on 22BR loads. 30gr of N135 as a starting point using necked down 6.5 Grendel brass. 52gr eldm.

First five shots went into a single ragged hole. 3640fps.

We stopped there and I’ve shot a bunch of roe with it, out to 220 metres. None of them have gone more than a few steps. Unbelievably easy to shoot.

Mungo said:

Not sure there’s much useful I can add here.

I have a 1:7, 22” barrel on a Tikka t3 action.

It’s fantastic. The most absurdly easy rifle to load for. @Edinburgh Rifles made an educated guess based on 22BR loads. 30gr of N135 as a starting point using necked down 6.5 Grendel brass. 52gr eldm.

First five shots went into a single ragged hole. 3640fps.

We stopped there and I’ve shot a bunch of roe with it, out to 220 metres. None of them have gone more than a few steps. Unbelievably easy to shoot.

Click to expand...

Are you not tempted to go heavier bullet wise?

I thought that was more the point with the ARC?

Don't get me wrong I like a light bullet zipping along like most of us

ColinBr said:

Are you not tempted to go heavier bullet wise?

I thought that was more the point with the ARC?

Don't get me wrong I like a light bullet zipping along like most of us

Click to expand...

The original plan was to go heavier. But the starting load worked so well that I didn’t feel the need to change.

At some point I’d like to try some heavier bullets. I’d also like to try some lead free. I did load a handful of 45gr Fox bullets, and they were just as accurate and made an absolutely savage dent in the gong! I imagine they’d be phenomenal on roe.

UpNorthMI said:

Again you have quite a knowledge, thanks for sharing. So what does the UK proof house do on a bolt version, do they proof them differently? Do we just assume that every bolt action rifle is rated for the higher pressure standard of an ARC cartridge? In the US there is no proofing, how do I really know how far to go with my loads? I certainly know how to look for signs of over pressure but my .22 ARC will be the first caliber that I own that has 2 pressure standards. Just makes me slightly nervous.

Click to expand...

European (i/c UK) proof houses will use the whatever pressure the CIP lists. If there isn't a CIP standard but there is a US SAAMI, I imagine they'll load to that. But, US and CIP pressure standards usually vary anyway. Although both bodies use Piezo crystal transducer devices, they apply the transducer to different parts of the case and also use different methodologies. Hence 223 Rem being 55,000 psi in SAAMI, but 430.0 MPa / 62,366 psi in CIP. (This is the pressure ceiling that NATO specifies for 5.56 on both sides of the Atlantic as NATO specifies CIP-spec transducers and methodology, not SAAMI.) As with 223, the CIP specifies pressure ceilings for the 22ARC's sibling 6 and 6.5mm Grendels that are much higher than SAAMI's, and that's what the proof houses work to.

If in doubt, adopt the lower manufacturer's quoted load in handloading. You may lose 100 fps MV but your brass and barrels will last for years! Multiple standards are not new, although mainstream ammunition manufacturers will normally use the base / lower pressure spec. .45-70 has three sets of tables in many manuals for different types of firearm. The base, very low, loads and pressures data are for the weaker 19th century designed firearms including modern reproductions and this level is usually headed '45-70 Trapdoor Springfield'. The mid (28,000 psi IIRC) loads are for the 1886 Winchester and 1895 model Marlin leverguns and equivalents, although that really means modern high-strength steel examples rather than hugely valuable originals. Finally, there is a hot high-pressure set of loads for custom rifles built around the M1898 Siamese Mauser military action and single-shot Ruger falling-blocks. Where manufacturers have made two grades, this usually caused problems thanks to people who ignored warnings on the box of the higher-pressure variant. In the early 20th Century, Winchester loaded factory .44WCF (.44-40) cartridges in two forms - a weak / low-pressure loading for original 19th century revolvers and the 1873 Winchester levergun; a MUCH higher-performance / pressure version for stronger Winchester 1892 lever-actions in good condition only. Needless to say lots of numpties used the latter in ancient single-action revolvers and similar and destroyed a fair few guns that would have become valuable antiques / prized family heirlooms in due course (and presumably also paid for their stupidity with injuries too). So, after a few years, Winchester withdrew the high-pressure version.