Swift is the same as .223?

tomcat220t

I think i know who wrote that quote in the uk and is a respected shooter .There are many shooter of this caliber and some are getting better results than others .You should know this been a target shooter .So one guys setup maxes @2850fps any one else just a few fps faster must to talking garbage .....

Cass

Again cherry picking.

All the facts i've supplied and your only come back is ""my mate said so". Getting back to the topic as i satisfied my argument on the ballistics end, the .223 cannot be used legally and never will make the requisite speed necessary to be a deer legal gun.


BTW my name is Cass, not Class (it's not a typo as you have to purposely type the L on the other side of the keyboard so why you are doing it beyond me), there is no need to keep quoting the posts just reply unless answering a specific or older post, and i know it's you responding so no need to sign off each post.

Thanks.

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

Again cherry picking.

All the facts i've supplied and your only come back is ""my mate said so". Getting back to the topic as i satisfied my argument on the ballistics end, the .223 cannot be used legally and never will make the requisite speed necessary to be a deer legal gun.


BTW my name is Cass, not Class (it's not a typo as you have to purposely type the L on the other side of the keyboard so why you are doing it beyond me), there is no need to keep quoting the posts just reply unless answering a specific or older post, and i know it's you responding so no need to sign off each post.

Thanks.

Hi Cass ,if you think im been in any way smart by inadvertenly placing a letter in your name your mistaken .Why you would make sure a remark ..?
As for your other remarks (my mate said so) i dont shoot a .223 rem but have no reason to disbelieve him.He is watching this thread as i spoke t him over the phone and has offed to have his rifle speeds checked by yourself .
I never said .223rem would never be suitable as a deer caliber ...only it was capable for reaching the min M/E of 1700 ft/lbs .
If my posting has upset you in any way i apologise.
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

just a few fps faster must to talking garbage .....

On this point. Just a few feet faster. According to you it's over 50 to 100 fps faster.

Any speed that can be gotten from a round/bullet is like a fast car. Goes from 0-60 very fast, but for every MPH over a set speed it requires more and more for less return. In terms i can discuss .308. At a certain, safe, load it'll do say 2,800 fps. With every extra 0.1 grain i may get between 20 - 30 fps more. However at a certain point i will start to only get 15fps, then 10 fps, etc. IOW at some point, when reloading, you reach a stage of diminishing returns, and all you are doing is creating a dangerous load that is more likely to result in catastrophic failure of the gun.

Again in terms of a .308 the case can holdup a maximum of approx 49 - 49.3 grains off propellant. The amount used must be relevant to the bullet. The lighter the bullet the more propellant you may use. The heavier the bullet the less. So in .308 terms the top speed i can achieve using the maximum safe charge would be 47.5 grains or so. Perhaps if someone doesn't mind the possible ramifications 48. This is with a heavy bullet such as a 210 gr. For a 230 it's be along the lines of 46 - 46.5.

My reason for saying all this is that the 90 gr in .223 is the 230gr of the .308 world. So in a case that can hold at most 30 grains of propellant and considering that you would only use such a huge charge on a lighter bullet it's safe to say the charge for a heavier bullet would be less. Perhaps in the 26 - 27 gr range and even then that's high. At this point there is only so much speed you can attain, and the only way to up the speed would be to change propellant. However using a faster burning, higher pressure propellant carries the same risks as using too much of the other propellant. The results are the same. Catastrophic failure or at best case head separation/failure.


So saying that 2,850 is not the top end speed may very well be true but to say that "your mate" is pushing his at over 2,900 and achieving the necessary speeds, hence energy, is reckless, stupid and still unverified/unproven. Yes the BC shows that at over 2927 fps it just makes the necessary 1700 ft/lb, but with the last 10 or so posts in mind that only solves one problem, and breats about 3 to 4 in it's place.

The problem it solves:

1. Making the necessary energy.

The problem it creates:

1. Reloading is a necessity, and as it's not done it's pointless.
2. The bullet is not suitable for hunting.
3. The gun necessary would be an FTR gun, not practical.
4. The charge/round would not be safe

So with all this talk of ballistics i think you've lost sight of the other main factors of why a .223 will NEVER be deer legal.

tomcat220t wrote:

if you think im been in any way smart by inadvertenly placing a letter in your name your mistaken .Why you would make sure a remark ..?

I don't know your reason for doing it, hence the reason i asked you to check. Seeing as the C, A and S key are on the left side of you keyboard i was wondering why you go ALL THE WAY over the to right to insert an L that is not necessary.

As for your other remarks (my mate said so) i dont shoot a .223 rem but have no reason to disbelieve him.

I'm not saying you should. I said i provideed data, facts, etc.You did nott, yet still claim it can be done. As said above let's not forget the topic of the thread, and the reason for this debate. Even if it can someone be done, and by done i mean barely done, it's still not going to be legal or possible for it to happen here so whether it can be proven to be done or not is irrelevant. A .223 will NEVER be a deer legal caliber in Ireland.

He is watching this thread as i spoke t him over the phone and has offed to have his rifle speeds checked by yourself .

How?

He is in the UK as you said above.

I never said .223rem would ever be suitable as a deer caliber ...only it was capable for reaching the min M/E of 1700 ft/lbs .

No you didn't. Suitablility is not the issue or the topic of the most recent posts on this thread. It's your assumption that the .223 is in no way different to the Swift because it can make the legal minimum energy. At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, only in a very rare set off circumstances MIGHT this be possible and none of which are available to the ordinary shooter/hunter hence the Swift is legal, and the .223 never will be.

If my posting has upset you in any way i apologise.
.

Not in the slightest.

Cannot remember the last time i had such a good debate on anything. Just keep getting my name right and we're golden.

tomcat220t

Hi Cass,
All this chat with came about with a : comment the .223rem with the right combination could meet or exceed the 1700ft/lbs .You have one quote from one shooter that claims he maxed out at 2850fps and i said my mate claims he maxed out at 85fps more .
You then brand him as reckless/ stupid and unverified .Every setup is different ...action, chamber ,bore ,barrel length ect .
How did you come up with such a branding of another shooter ?
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

All this chat with came about with a : comment the .223rem with the right combination could meet or exceed the 1700ft/lbs

You started on about reloading, FTR type set up, match grade bullets, and unsafe/unrealisitic and yes, unverified speeds. None of which applies or is available here.

You then brand him as reckless/ stupid and unverified .

I branded the act of overloading/overcharging as stupid and reckless.

Every setup is different ...action, chamber ,bore ,barrel length ect .

It might be, but there is still a threshold. Your mate's rifle may fire fine for one shot, hundred or a thousand. All it'll take is the one that was too much. And before you say that could happen to anyone the fact is no one else is putting 5-10% overchagre into their ammo.

How did you come up with such a branding of another shooter ?

/sigh.

You cannot/won't answer any off my questions, avoid the topic by making issues out off nothing while ignoring the core point of my posts, and seem to want to turn this into a row in order to avoid the fact that your comment was wrong, not thought out, and are now grasping at any possibility to prove it can be done and paying no heed to what can ACTUALLY be done or is legal. All you had to say was that under some conditions not available to us (ROI), and with a completely unusable rig (in hunting terms), and taking unnecessary risks the round might be made to do what you claim. Then leave it at that. You didn't. You continued to drag this out and compounded your error by trying to say the .220 Swift is no different to the .223. It's not. I've seen Swifts licensed for deer, never seen a .223.

So without giving you the row you are looking for i'll ask you to answer this questions and ONLY this question.

Which is legal in Ireland to hunt deer with:

1. A shop bought .220 Swift rifle, with factory 55 - 60 gr hunting bullets producing in excess of 1,700 ft/lb.
2. A custom made .223 FTR rig, with handloaded, match grade bullets, that may produce 1,700 ft/lb
3. A .223 shop bought rifle, with any factory hunting ammo producing between 1,150 - 1,300 ft/lb.

thehound

looks like i started a right debate on balstices lads thanks for all the comments.looking at a marlin sx7 243 tomorrow

Cass

Yeah, it's all your fault.

Sorry for derailing your thread lad. I'll look into splitting of the crap that has nothing to do with the topic to keep your thread more relevant.

tomcat220t

Hi Cass, why do you keep bring up any reference to the topic of the .223 been or not been deer legal ?
I have not said any thing about the .223 been deer legal ...ANYWHERE ???
All i stated was .223rem with certain setup meet the 1700ft/lbs energy .....not thing else . It was not said in any to suggest it should be used or was legal.
Why are you repeating yourself asking me about .223s been legal or not ?
I will answer your 3 questions if you show me where i said or suggested the .223 was legal or suitable for deer .
Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

Cherry picking & avoiding again.

Good luck, i'm out. It's not a debate/conversation when only one person provides data and answers.

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

Cherry picking & avoiding again.

Good luck, i'm out. It's not a debate/conversation when only one person provides data and answers.

Hi Cass, data on what exactly :rolleyes:
You first said impossible to the .223 making 1700ft/lbs .When i gave you figures you now agree (after your own research) may be possible you go on a switch about the .223 been deer legal or not .:o:oWhere have i said or suggested this ?You then rename the thread(swift the same as .223 ):D:D trying to be smart .Where have i said the swift is the same as .223?
As a mod you have this shooting site the way it is .....What difference to you does it make that i sign my user name below my replys ?
Regards,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

Cass wrote: »

Cherry picking & avoiding again.

Good luck, i'm out. It's not a debate/conversation when only one person provides data and answers.

Hi Cass,your editing and deleting of my posts is been well watched by other members Regards,Tomcat.

Cass

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Cass, data on what exactly :rolleyes:

The ballistics i posted earlier, and the comments from experienced reloaders and shooters. As you know nothing about reloading, other than what you read in a book, i explained it in detail to help you out.

You first said impossible to the .223 making 1700ft/lbs .

I still say that.

When i gave you figures you now agree (after your own research) may be possible

Anything is possible, but so far i only have your word or more specifically the word of "your mate". That is not proof. Saying he loads his ammo to exceed the speed necessary to reach the 1,700 ft/lb mark is still not proof.

you go on a switch about the .223 been deer legal or not .:o:oWhere have i said or suggested this ?

The point you have missed throughout is both topics are related. If you cannot make a .223 hit the minimum energy requirements then it's illegal to use. You said the Swift may not be able to make the figures stated, hence making it illegal to use. Then go on a 2 page defence of the .223 being made able to hit that marker. The other point is even if, and i have to stress if in case it's mistaken as capitulation, it could be done the process by which it can be done cannot be done in Ireland so therefore the point is moot. It's like saying you can hunt deer with shotgun and slugs because some state in America or country in Europe allow it.

You then rename the thread(swift the same as .223 ):D:D trying to be smart

As per the Pm i just sent you, i did not intend to be smart, and it was the only title i could think. Had you a better name you could have posted here or PMed me with it.

.Where have i said the swift is the same as .223?

See above.

As a mod you have this shooting site the way it is

Meaning what? I volunteer my time to this site free of charge. The shooting forum is one of over a thousand forums and if i'm seen to bee manipulating the forum to suit me own needs it'll be spotted by the other mods, and Admins and i'll face a loss of Mod-ship, and ban from the site.

.....What difference to you does it make that i sign my user name below my replys ?.

I've always thought it a very condescending/arrogant thing to do. Perhaps it's just me. Any post you quote will have the name of the person you are replying to, and each post you make has your username, and details right there beside it so i fail to see the need for "regards, best wishes, etc, etc" whenever you sign off.

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Cass,your editing and deleting of my posts is been well watched by other members Regards,Tomcat.

As per the same PM i mentioned above i edited your posts, and Lakesider's as the two of ye had started to quote each other's posts and at some point a mistake was made and the posts became intertangled and almost impossible to read as The Aussie pointed out. So i went back and edited all posts where you:

• Mis-quoted
• Mis-quoted the mis-quote of another
• Quoted the post directly above your reply to which you were replying to (unnecessary and makes for harder reading)

I did not edit any content and have deleted none of the content including the two accussational ones above, but i have closed the thread and as per the same PM, asked a Category Moderator to review this thread and see if any lines have been crossed.

I will have no part in that review and the CatMod will contact you or me directly if they have any concerns of questions. I will not know about anything you say as you will not know about anything i say. Both of us will find out what they are going to do when they do it.