Swift is the same as .223?

tomcat220t

MOD NOTE

Split off from this thread.

============================================================================================

thehound wrote: »

reason i as given was there balestic expert says 22 swift cant produce 1700 foot pounds

Hi thehound,the ballistic expert could be right......we are basing energy on advertised speeds which are border line at best .Not actual real figure speeds .Common sense would say its a varmint caliber, shooting small game .
Regards,Tomcat.

lakesider

The ballistics expert cant be right unless he checks the muzzle velocity, bullet weight from an individual rifle, the 220 swift with the correct twist rate and bullet weight can produce the required foot poundage to meet the requirements for Irish Deer..

tomcat220t

Hi lakesider,first of all im not saying .220 swift wont kill deer with the right type&weight of bullet
put in the right spot .Saying every .220 swift can meet the min requirements of energy is not accurate ,sorry! Take into account variable barrel lengths as one ...its a very marginal with its suggested speeds .
Not many bullets make the advertised speeds stated on their box for one reason or another .
Its primarily a varmint round been used on small to medium game !
Muzzle energy at that marginal figure is not where game are shot ....get a .243 and have a varmint and game caliber .

lakesider

Read my post again, what I said was that the 220 swift with the correct twist rate and bullet weight is more than capable of meeting the requirement for deer in Ireland, the verbal that you spin above has not gone anyway towards riposting my assertion on the attributes of the calibre..simply put the swift is capable of producing the required foot poundage, the generalism that it cant is wrong!..end off..if you want to take the arguement further then argue it with the likes of hornady or winchester who will refute your arguement..but then again maybe you know more than them.

tomcat220t

lakesider wrote: »

Read my post again, what I said was that the 220 swift with the correct twist rate and bullet weight is more than capable of meeting the requirement for deer in Ireland, the verbal that you spin above has not gone anyway towards riposting my assertion on the attributes of the calibre..simply put the swift is capable of producing the required foot poundage, the generalism that it cant is wrong!..end off..if you want to take the arguement further then argue it with the likes of hornady or winchester who will refute your arguement..but then again maybe you know more than them.

Hi lakesider,the .223 rem with the right combination could meet or exceed the 1700 ft/lbs .... :rolleyes: What .220swift round is designed & available in ireland for red stags of up to 250kg from either hornady or winchester ?Red stag been large game !

lakesider wrote: »

what I said was that the 220 swift with the correct twist rate and bullet weight is more than capable of meeting the requirement for deer in Ireland.

http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.220+Swift.html
Hunting licence wont state SIKA only just because you wanted a .220 swift.
On paper some .220 swifts may or may not make the min energy requirements of 1700 ft/ lbs weather you like it or not .
So hornady or winchester will stand by their advertised velocity(as min speeds) in every rifle ?Chrono hyper rounds and you will see for yourself .
Regards,Tomcat.

lakesider

Who mentioned a 223!!!

tomcat220 wrote:

tHunting licence wont state SIKA only just because you wanted a .220 swift.
On paper some .220 swifts may or may not make the min energy requirements of 1700 ft/ lbs weather you like it or not .
So hornady or winchester will stand by their advertised velocity(as min speeds) in every rifle ?Chrono hyper rounds and you will see for yourself .
Regards,Tomcat.

the piffle that you spew above means nothing..as said read my post!!..trhe 220 swift with the right twist and bullet weight will produce the required foot poundage..what part of that dont you understand??

tomcat220t

lakesider wrote: »

who mentioned a 223!!!


the piffle that you spew above means nothing..as said read my post!!..trhe 220 swift with the right twist and bullet weight will produce the required foot poundage..what part of that dont you understand??

Hi ,what exact .220 swift round makes min energy of 1700 ft lbs that you have checked with a chrono?I know 3 shooting buddys that use them on foxes and rabbits and one on deer and all are down on there expected speeds . Its not just .220 swifts ....204s .223 ect .Its a fact for most rifles and ammo .Imo,they are right not to have .220 swifts as a deer caliber .As for Hornady or Winchester ,they dont have any ammo on their site that even come close to your figures .Norma has a 55gr that by their ADVERTISED figures makes 39 ft/lbs over the min requirement.
Im not getting into a debate on bullet ballistics ect. with some one silly that wants to simply debate words all night and when all else fails revert to name calling.

lakesider

my sweet lord!!..to the above poster.. a 60grain bullet from a 220 swift will produce the required foot poundage @ 3600 ft/sec and above..now what part of that dont you understand?.Listen topcat..both hornady and winchester who designed the cartridge disagree with you..if you think your knowledge of ballistics tops theirs the take it up with them ..I think youll find your wrong..

The Aussie

Tomcat and Lakesider, could you please figure out how to use the button.

Either it's to early or I'm just being intolerant, but it just makes for painfull reading when you have to try and decipher the above posts.

tomcat220t

lakesider wrote: »

my sweet lord!!..to the above poster.. a 60grain bullet from a 220 swift will produce the required foot poundage @ 3600 ft/sec and above..now what part of that dont you understand?.Listen topcat..both hornady and winchester who designed the cartridge disagree with you..if you think your knowledge of ballistics tops theirs the take it up with them ..I think youll find your wrong..

Hi, Hornady had nothing to do with the designed of the .220 swift cartridge .Show me where Hornady or Winchester are making a factory round today that meets the min energy for deer in ireland ????
If you read back ......im saying only very few ON PAPER may make it over the line of the min requirement .Where have i said that NO SWIFT could make that min energy requirement for irish deer ?
Now, since you brought up Hornady & Winchester ...show me their figures ,please.
How many shooters have gone out and set their rifle @200 yards and based in ammo figures and ballistic programs clicked up to check drops at longer ranges to find the bullet hits low ??That comes from over inflated B/C values and mostly over inflated M/V !
Regards,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

The Aussie wrote: »

Tomcat and Lakesider, could you please figure out how to use the button.

Either it's to early or I'm just being intolerant, but it just makes for painfull reading when you have to try and decipher the above posts.

Hi Aussie,not sure why some of the posts ended up like that .
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi lakesider,the .223 rem with the right combination could meet or exceed the 1700 ft/lbs .... :rolleyes:

No it cannot.

A .223 Rem will NEVER make 1,700 ft/lb or in excess of it. The maximum it might achieve is around 1,350 ft/lb with the right bullet/barrel combo. Only the variant of the .223, the .223 wssm (Winchester Super Short Magnum), can. a 53 gr to 64 gr doing 3,800+fps can produce 1,740 - 1870 ft/lb.

The speeds needed to produce 1,700ft/lb or more are not achievable by the .223 Rem as the case simply cannot hold enough propellant. Even reloading wouldn't cut it.

lakesider

@ tomcat- I didnt say hornady designed the cartridge but that winchester did, stop nit picking please. My posts are pointing out that the 220 swift with a 60 grain bullet and with the proper twist rate will produce 1700 ft/lbs and could therefore be legal for deer in Ireland, im not saying its the best round for deer but am saying it has the ballistic capability to deliver the required amount of energy..

as for the 223 producing 1700 ft/lbs it cant!

hathcock

Very interesting debate about the ballistics re the 220. swift.Designed as what the yanks call a varmint round and therefore unsuitable as a humane deer calibre.The bullets are made to shatter on impact in order to maximise damage to varmints,to use this kind of bullet on deer is not humane regardless of the legalities.The typical deer round 243 6.5 308 etc are considerably slower and are made to penetrate and impart their energy in the body of the animal killing by hydrostatic shock.The swift round by virtue of its design doesn't do the job as cleanly as it explodes on impact due to its speed.Whether it reaches the 1700 foot pounds is really a moot point,why the npws allow such a calibre for deer escapes me.Before you reply extolling the virtues of the swift as a deer calibre,I would ask you to examine the origins of this small calibre squirrel and prairie dog round.

Cass

hathcock wrote: »

The bullets are made to shatter on impact in order to maximise damage to varmints,...............

Perhaps it was the bullet choice, but i stopped shooting with a mate of mine because his swift always left foxes running after they were shot. Never had an issue with the .308 on them, but only once out of every 9 or so foxes did he get a clean kill. I know the swift has it's vitrues and fans, but frankly i'm not one of them.

Before you reply extolling the virtues of the swift as a deer calibre,I would ask you to examine the origins of this small calibre squirrel and prairie dog round.

I've never been a supporter of the swift for deer. Not just the swift, but the sentiment of trying to find the smallest possible caliber to use on deer. From a while ago, when talking about can a .223 make the legal requirement for deer. While talking about the 223 i have said previously i mean any caliber that is "on the fringe" of legal.

lakesider

@ hathcock..no one is extolloing the virtues of the swift as a deer round, do you guys actually read the posts on a thread , what im saying is that it can deliver the foot poundage required by NPWS , and as for googling the history of the calibre ive no need, I owned one some 30 years ago..it has always been a contoversial calibre when deer hunting is mentioned as this thread is testament too, but consider this P.O Ackley used one for culling donkeys in the american west but what would he know??

hathcock

lakesider wrote: »

@ hathcock..no one is extolloing the virtues of the swift as a deer round, do you guys actually read the posts on a thread , what im saying is that it can deliver the foot poundage required by NPWS , and as for googling the history of the calibre ive no need, I owned one some 30 years ago..it has always been a contoversial calibre when deer hunting is mentioned as this thread is testament too, but consider this P.O Ackley used one for culling donkeys in the american west but what would he know??

Hope he didn't intend eating them!!!

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

No it cannot.

A .223 Rem will NEVER make 1,700 ft/lb or in excess of it. The maximum it might achieve is around 1,350 ft/lb with the right bullet/barrel combo. Only the variant of the .223, the .223 wssm (Winchester Super Short Magnum), can. a 53 gr to 64 gr doing 3,800+fps can produce 1,740 - 1870 ft/lb.

The speeds needed to produce 1,700ft/lb or more are not achievable by the .223 Rem as the case simply cannot hold enough propellant. Even reloading wouldn't cut it.

Hi cass, 90gr @2900+ ...let it be reloading for ft-r .
No difference to saying a .220 swift can make it with a 60gr at a given speed.
Its paper talk .....no difference really.
Regards,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

lakesider wrote: »

@ tomcat- I didnt say hornady designed the cartridge but that winchester did, stop nit picking please. My posts are pointing out that the 220 swift with a 60 grain bullet and with the proper twist rate will produce 1700 ft/lbs and could therefore be legal for deer in Ireland, im not saying its the best round for deer but am saying it has the ballistic capability to deliver the required amount of energy..

as for the 223 producing 1700 ft/lbs it cant!

What 60gr round?
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi cass, 90gr @2900+ ...let it be reloading for ft-r .

Three problems.

Firstly it's a 90 VLD suitable for target shooting ONLY,

Secondly it still falls short:

Independent Ballistic Program


Berger's Own Ballistics Program


Thirdly, even if it were somehow possible, it's an FTR round so it's being used in a 28 - 32" barreled rifle. Not hunting standards, but all academic as it's not possible.

lakesider

tomcat220t wrote: »

What 60gr round?
Regards,Tomcat.

hornadys number 2270 soft point..would do, not that that matters its a moot point about what bullet, the simple fact is the swift delivers the energy..no amount of your nit picking will refute that!

lakesider

hathcock wrote: »

Hope he didn't intend eating them!!!

That answer says more about you than it does about me..you talk about knowing the history around the cartridge and thats the best you can come up with..seriously !! its like debating with a 5 year old..

hathcock

lakesider wrote: »

That answer says more about you than it does about me..you talk about knowing the history around the cartridge and thats the best you can come up with..seriously !! its like debating with a 5 year old..

Don't be so serious all the time,lighten up,its not all doom and gloom you know.

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

Three problems.

Firstly it's a 90 VLD suitable for target shooting ONLY,

Secondly it still falls short:

Independent Ballistic Program


Berger's Own Ballistics Program


Thirdly, even if it were somehow possible, it's an FTR round so it's being used in a 28 - 32" barreled rifle. Not hunting standards, but all academic as it's not possible.

1st...I stated .223 rem ....neither calibers are suited for game ,imo.
2nd We are talking min Muzzle energy....Not 100 yards on your chart
3rd long vs short barrels puts both calibers on the side line on M/E.
I have a good friend in the uk that shoots f-tr with the .223 rem ...90 gr @ 2935 fps and that makes your min energy of 1700 ft/lbs .So in fact its not impossible !
Thats what i ment by the .223 rem been able to make the min muzzle energy ......No less unsuitable in my opinion than the .220 swift varmint round for deer .It was a point i was trying to make about the swift been license based on theoretical min muzzle energy capability .

tomcat220t

lakesider wrote: »

hornadys number 2270 soft point..would do, not that that matters its a moot point about what bullet, the simple fact is the swift delivers the energy..no amount of your nit picking will refute that!

Hi ,thats a 60gr head not round .
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Class,
1st...I stated .223 rem ....neither calibers are suited for game ,imo.

No you said .223 Rem can make the legal minimum. So i don't care about other calibers as we already know the swift can with no compromises on barrel length, no need for speciality/handloaded ammo.

2nd We are talking min Muzzle energy....Not 100 yards on your chart

You really cherry pick your comments.

The first chart clearly shows muzzle energy at 1,681 ft/lb. The Berger program does not give muzzle energy but as the energy at 100 yards is 1,492ft/lb, only 1 ft/lb out from the other program, it's safe to assume that the muzzle energy from Berger if it were given would be 1,681 or 1,682 ft/lb.

So you can cherry pick any fact you want, it's still not there.

3rd long vs short barrels puts both calibers on the side line on M/E.
I have a good friend in the uk that shoots f-tr with the .223 rem ...90 gr @ 2935 fps and that makes your min energy of 1700 ft/lbs .So in fact its not impossible !

Your "good friend" knows more than Berger, than Brian Litz, etc.?

Come one. Your better than that. Frankly you seem to be grasping at straws to try and validate a statement you made that simply cannot be proven with fact and only supposition that you know someone that claims it can be done.

Thats what i ment by the .223 rem been able to make the min muzzle energy ......No less unsuitable in my opinion than the .220 swift varmint round for deer .

I'll say this slowly for you. W-R-O-N-G.

Perhaps that will help. The swift not only makes the minimum, but can surpass it. The .223, no matter how much you wish it, simply canot even make the minimum let alone surpass it to the same extent that the Swift can.

It was a point i was trying to make about the swift been license based on theoretical min muzzle energy capability .
Regards,Tomcat.

Any BC i've used with 55 gr or 60 gr in Swift shows it makes a minimum of 1,741 ft/lb at the muzzle. Up to a of 1,814 ft/lb. All of them OVER the minimum. The .223 cannot make it any speed. The only fact you have shown to prove your point is ""my mate said so".

I've shown two charts to show the .223 falls short and one from the bullets manufacturer and you still argue they are wrong and you/your mate are right.

tomcat220t

Since when did berger start dictating max speeds for their bullets in any giving caliber ?

Cass

You gave the speed of 2,900fps using the 90gr.

However that is changing the subject. You are cherry picking parts of the above info and ignoring the other facts.

• That bullet is not a game bullet.
• That speed is on the very limit of the bullets achievable speed.
• It still doesn't make the necessary numbers.
• It requires handloading (not happening here).
• Every BC says the same.

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

You gave the speed of 2,900fps using the 90gr.

However that is changing the subject. You are cherry picking parts of the above info and ignoring the other facts.

• That bullet is not a game bullet.
• That speed is on the very limit of the bullets achievable speed.
• It still doesn't make the necessary numbers.
• It requires handloading (not happening here).
• Every BC says the same.

Hi class,post number 43 ......please read again!
Next time your at Blair Atholl or Bisley my friend says your welcome to bring a good chronograph and see for your self ,genuine offer by the way.
PM if you like.
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi class,post number 43 ......please read again!
.

Okay, let's go through it again so:

tomcat220t wrote: »

90gr @2900+

Check

...let it be reloading for ft-r .

Check

No difference to saying a .220 swift can make it with a 60gr at a given speed.
Its paper talk .....no difference really.

Not checked.

So point one and two are you giving a 90 gr bullet at 2,900+fps and saying it can be/is done for FTR under reloading?

Right?

You then say it's no different to a swift as it's all "paper talk". Well let's look at that. A Swift rifle with facotry ammo in 55 gr or 60 gr makes the legal limit and the bullets are game bullets.

You are suggesting a match grade bullet, that can only be used for FTR, and must be reloaded is the same, even though i've shown you multiple examples of how it still does not make it.


Maybe this will help you:

When I shot the .223 with 90 gr. bullets, the highest velocity I could attain with reliably safe chamber pressure in 30" barrels with a long-throat chamber was 2850 fps. Yes, like many others, I was able to make the bullet go a lot faster, but not with safe chamber pressures and it resulted in the type of case failures that are characteristic of excessive pressure and are completely unacceptable to me as a person who places a high value on safety and on the continued ability to use my eyes

The above is an excerpt from an article written by a TR shooter who was experimenting in .223 for TR/Long range stuff. At 2,850 fps (which only produces 1,661 ft/lb) he found alarming pressure signs to the extent that he had case failures.

I really don't see how you can try and defend your position that a .223 is no worse than a Swift. Even allowing for a moment that it might somehow make the minimum legal energy and it scraps in at 1,700 ft/lb. It would require so many other factors not necessary with a swift and factory ammo, that it would be refused.

lakesider

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi ,thats a 60gr head not round .
Regards,Tomcat.

yep so so right..put that head into a primed case wirth the requisite amount of powder and youve got a round..you do like splitting hairs dont you!..listen we can go round in circles all day but your still wrong!