What's new

Any experience here with the .221 fireball?

I picked up a new to me XP-100 in .221 a little while back. I went with new ammo because I needed the brass.
About the best I managed was two inch three shot groups yesterday. Brutal hot out there with a mirage running but still it wasn't great. Chronograph died, it was pretty old anyway. HSM ammo with 55grn v-max bullets.

I'm thinking about some 40 grn varmint type bullets and I have some IMR 4198. My thinking is it's not going to reach out there much past 250 anyway so I might as well shoot as flat and fast as I can until then. Ya or nay?

Anyone have any experience to share with this cartridge?
 
I have never seen a XP-100. Where did you find one?
It was just down the street from where I live. I see them fairly regular, but usually they are not in the caliber I was looking for or are over priced. It's my second one, I also have one in 250 Savage with a 16' barrel.
 
Not an ideal round for pistol length barrels. Performance is outstanding in rifle length barrels; sub-MOA groups are the norm; the round can be hard on barrels (throat & rifling) erosion. Personally, I prefer the 22-250 chambering over the fireball; lately, I am a .204 Ruger believer.
 

nortac

"Can't Raise an Eyebrow"
How heavily had your XP-100 been fired in the past, could the barrel be shot out? I always wanted an XP-100, but I found the Tompson Center Contender more readily available and more versatile with its ability to change barrels and calibers.
 
How heavily had your XP-100 been fired in the past, could the barrel be shot out? I always wanted an XP-100, but I found the Tompson Center Contender more readily available and more versatile with its ability to change barrels and calibers.
The rifling looked pretty good. I didn't see any erosion in the throat with a bore scope. I suspect it will probably shoot with some hand loads.
Did you have a .221 barrel for the contender?
 
Not an ideal round for pistol length barrels. Performance is outstanding in rifle length barrels; sub-MOA groups are the norm; the round can be hard on barrels (throat & rifling) erosion. Personally, I prefer the 22-250 chambering over the fireball; lately, I am a .204 Ruger believer.
Doesn't sound right. You might have it confused with another cartridge? The .221 burns about half as much powder as a 250 case. It was developed for the XP pistol. Still over bore in such a short barrel though.

I'm a big fan of the 22-250 also, and it's parent the 250. Sadly my 22-250 is now a .243. I will get another at some point but that 204 does look pretty interesting. What does the 204 do better than the 22-250?
 

nortac

"Can't Raise an Eyebrow"
No experience with the .221, I have a .223 barrel, I have not shot it in years, never really did any extensive load development.
Also have barrels in 7-30 Waters, .45 LC / .410, .22 LR, .22 Mag, .32 H&R mag.
 
Last edited:
Remington realized after release the .221 factory loads contained more powder than could be effectively burned off in shorter barrels. I prefer the 204 over just about anything else for 100-300 yard shots whenever winds are light. Zero recoil, sub MOA, reloading components readily available, great results on coyotes or smaller game where pelt damage isn’t a consideration. A downside is this round craters 50 BMG rated hardened steel plate targets at 200 yards or less, due to its velocity and wind drift in windy conditions.
 
I agree the 22-250 is inefficient by modern cartridge standards but it still does the job very well. The good thing is a wide variety powders work well and the barrel life is fairly good considering the velocities generated. Most factory barrels are rifled for light factory bullets which limits bullet selection since anything above 52 grains usually will not stabilize at distance.
 
Top Bottom