Talk:.220 Swift

message: I corrected the case type from rimless to semi-rimmed. I corrected the rifling rate from 1 in 12 to 1 in 14 and 1 in 16. Added overall lengths for hollow points and spire point bullets.  Started, I hope this discussion page.  I've never had a lot of success photographing my own ammunition due to lighting difficulties.  The best photographs of cartridges usually come from copyrighted sources.Flatshooter (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: The current text here is not consistent with the history of the Swift.  The Swift was so immediately and positively accepted it was over hyped.  This resulted in less knowledgeable shooters trying to use a Varmint cartridge for much larger game.  The Swift was also being reloaded, as it's ammunition has always been quite expensive.  This lead in turn to problems with burning the throats of rifles.  Contrary to the number of rounds listed for a ruined barrel, the figure I heard was from 50 to 75 rounds, not 100 to 200 rounds. 
After problems with burned out barrels became widely known, this stigma affected sales from then on.  Even today some people think the Swift will burn out barrels quickly. A possible cause for this was using too much powder which was burning into the barrel instead of primarily combusting in the case.  But another cause that has been identified that is just as likely, perhaps more likely, is using too little powder.  When I was loading my Swift, I typically loaded a 55 grain Sierra Boat tailed bullet in from of 37 grains of IMR4064 for about 3700 feet per second.  This load provided less than .75" drop at 100 yards.
Some time later, about the time the short fat cartridges started to become popular it was noted that UNDER loading large capacity cartridges was likely to have been burning out the throats of the barrels.  Indeed even more recent information on light loading has shown a tendency to destroy the gun by explosion.  Smokeless powder, like other explosives, provides a strong consistent push only if it is confined and allowed to burn in a consistent manner.  Light loading is considered to be using less than 90% of case capacity.  Some of my loads were right at this level.
My first Ruger 77V in .220 Swift had a light stainless steel barrel.  I also had a heavy barreled 77V.  Neither gave me any problems in thousands of rounds fired.  I noticed that many of the rounds loaded commercially by Norma had crushed primers.  I never crushed a primer myself and never had any difficult with loading.  I always used Remington IMR 4064.
I reject totally the assertion that the .220 Swift is anywhere near the most controversial cartridge in the .22 centerfire category.  The .223 Remington has been since the US military started to use it. The .223 Remington was designed for Remington's IMR powder.  When the MRC corporation of Cockeysville Maryland developed their rotary cartridge loaders they used (Olin) Winchester ball powder. That boosted the cyclic rate beyond design specs.  It also deposited calcium carbonate in the chamber.  This was the source of the jamming problems that the .223 was suffering in the M-16 military rifle. Flatshooter (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance 

message: I don't agree with the idea that the Swifts high performance was a drawback. The high cost of ammunition, the loud report of the muzzle blast, and the semi-rimmed cases were all drawbacks.  I disliked the semi-rim design so much I was considering reaming out the chamber to accept the .220 Ackley Improved. 
It is widely thought by those of use who owned, handloaded, and shot the Swift that it was capable of heating up very quickly.  Even when it was getting a reputation for burning barrels it was thought to be mostly due to less well informed shooters heating the barrels too much.  At the range the Swift has to be allowed to cool more between shots that many other rifles.
A major drawback after Winchester cooled to the Swift was finding a decent rifle to shoot it in.  There were few chambered for it.  These included the Savage Model 112, the Ruger No. 1 and 77V, the Sako, and Remington recently.  I have no idea who chambers it now.
One drawback that is pretty major with regard to hunting is that the Swift can devastate a target.  I know some hunters who shot birds at ranges just over 150 yards and couldn't find any remnants.  Others who had hoped for some sort of "trophy" value found that close shots nearly vaporized and entire animal.  The Swift was supremely competent at 300 yards and more but was far too powerful for closer ranges.  Flatshooter (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawbacks 

message: I do not see any hunting controversy since those who misused the cartridge with the wrong types of bullets on game too large for it.  This was partly the result of the rifling being originally 1 in 16" and later 1 in 12".  Custom barreled rifles with twists such as 1 in 9" can handle the latest 77 grain .224 bullets which are suitable for deer.  The .224 bullets used in the decades by Swift fans that performed so badly were both too weak and too light to get good penetration.  They did EXACTLY what they should have done, which is to blow up very close to the surface, which is also exactly what is needed for Groundhogs and Prairie Dogs. Those who have unduly criticized the Swift have potentially done so due to their own lack of knowledge and skill.  Flatshooter (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting Controversy 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.varminthunter.org/issuepdfs/Issue41.pdf
** In .220 Swift on 2011-05-20 21:28:34, 404 Not Found
** In .220 Swift on 2011-05-31 04:43:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link