22swift

ecr

Lads down my way are getting their licence with 22-250 and there 55grain I know a dealer selling swift rounds with 65 grains available so don't see why they would have a problem with that

Zxthinger

ecr wrote: »

Lads down my way are getting their licence with 22-250 and there 55grain I know a dealer selling swift rounds with 65 grains available so don't see why they would have a problem with that

Jesus PM the details of that dealer! I'd take those 65grain round. I'll need them after all the post number quoting going on here!

4200fps

The majority of swifts and 22-250s wont fire a 60 grain load accurately. Wrong twist

tomcat220t

4200fps wrote: »

The majority of swifts and 22-250s wont fire a 60 grain load accurately. Wrong twist

Whats accuracy got to do with shooting ...legal is legal ,keep up with the theme .:rolleyes:
Where in the legislation does it say otherwise? .:rolleyes:You ,Lapua,Sierra bullets&Norma.....are all wrong;)
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

...legal is legal
Regards, Cat.

Gee that didn't take half a weekend to sink in :rolleyes:

At long last we might have progress...


Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

The Aussie wrote: »

Gee that didn't take half a weekend to sink in :rolleyes:

At long last we might have progress...


Regards, The Aussie.

Aussie,what .220 swift ammo is designed for medium&large game ?;);)
Answer me that and we will have real progress.
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

Aussie,what .220 swift ammo is designed for medium/large game ?;);)
Answer me that and we will have real progress.
Regards,Tomcat.

Show me where in the Legislation it stipulates what it is designed for?


You can do it, that final hurdle in your education to shooting legally, come on say it with me out loud brother...

LEGAL IS LEGAL.

come on in the name of progress and redemption :pac:

Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

The Aussie wrote: »

Show me where in the Legislation it stipulates what it is designed for?


You can do it, that final hurdle in your education to shooting legally, come on say it with me out loud brother...

LEGAL IS LEGAL.

come on in the name of progress and redemption :pac:

Regards, The Aussie.

Its stipulates it on every box of ammo that ive ever seen the type of animal/game it designed/suitable for .
So are you saying that if it fits into the chamber and goes bang (legal of course)
all consideration to the game/animal are off.. LEGAL IS LEGAL as you put it?
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

Its stipulates it on every box of ammo that ive ever seen the type of animal/game it designed/suitable for .
So are you saying that if it fits into the chamber and goes bang (legal of course)
all consideration to the game/animal are off.. LEGAL IS LEGAL as you put it?
Regards,Tomcat.

I think you might find thats a recommendation on the box and has no legal standing, as I said in #48 (i like quoting post numbers as well )

The Aussie wrote: »

It is not in Legislation stipulating Small, Medium nor Large Game, it is ft/lbs so I just wrote off the above "Question"(lol) as nonsensical rubbish sorry, you seem fairly caught up with the whole "it's not designed for Large Game" (it's better if you say that in a Hellen Lovejoy " won't somebody please think of the children" voice)

If you want Legislation changed you should petition for it...

It might be right or wrong, but as long as it's legal no amount of public tantrums from you will change that fact, sorry to disappoint you once again

tomcat220t wrote: »

LEGAL IS LEGAL as you put it?

I didn't say that, you did 40 minutes ago in Post #65, I just quoted you... ain't that a brief insight into what we are dealing with, 40 minutes is not a long time ago...

Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

Legal is legal was a sarcastic remark hence :rolleyes:.
Would you have issue using the norma .220 55gr on deer if your were licence with that caliber?
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

Legal is legal was a sarcastic remark hence :rolleyes:.

So you do agree you made the remark first in Post #65?
Because I sure as soap didn't :pac:.....

tomcat220t wrote: »

Would you have issue using the norma .220 55gr on deer if your were licence with that caliber?
Regards,Tomcat.

How can I quantify an answer in a Caliber I've never owned nor shot???
And as you stated yourself in Post#35

tomcat220t wrote: »

Not all shooters put the time and research into their calibers ,ammo.ect ..as clearly you have .Fair play :cool:
Regards,Tomcat.

I will just go and take that as a "Fair Play" to me as well, thanks.
Do you know whether or not your coming or going???

Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

2 questions dodge ...post 67 & 71 .Why are they so hard to answer?
The answers will set you fee especially the first on :D.
Start with ...Hi, im Aussie and im a hunter....:).
Regrards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

2 questions dodge ...post 67 & 71 .Why are they so hard to answer?

I've answered your (Post #67 question) "Is it designed for Medium/Large Game" (must be said in a Hellen Lovejoy "won't somebody please think of the Children" type voice" about 15 times now...

If it ain't in the Legislation it does not matter how manny public tantrums you have, it does not matter, and for the 3rd time if you don't like it Petition to have it changed, blowing hot air behind a keyboard is a waste of your obvious talents :rolleyes:

As for your Post #71 query look at Post #72... It answered your laughable cutting question in full sorry... LOL.

Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

tomcat220t wrote: »

Aussie,what .220 swift ammo is designed for medium&large game ?;);)
Answer me that and we will have real progress.
Regards,Tomcat.

What so hard ?

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

What so hard ?

Ok for about the 16th time (when does it become Trolling?)

It does not matter what the Ammunition Manufactures recomend what the Ammunition is used for in Irish Law, as long as it meets ft/lbs, thats it. How many more times must I repeat this for you, I thought we had made positive steps, but alas...

"What so hard" to understand

Regards, The Aussie.

tomcat220t

The Aussie wrote: »

Ok for about the 16th time (when does it become Trolling?)

It does not matter what the Ammunition Manufactures recomend what the Ammunition is used for in Irish Law, as long as it meets ft/lbs, thats it. How many more times must I repeat this for you, I thought we had made positive steps, but alas...

"What so hard" to understand

Regards, The Aussie.

That statement about ammunition manufactures not mattering and other remarks by you and another poster sums up this thread.
All the legislation in the world cant cover some of the stupidity i read on this thread .Im out .....
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

tomcat220t wrote: »

That statement about ammunition manufactures not mattering and other remarks by you and another poster sums up this thread.
All the legislation in the world cant cover some of the stupidity i read on this thread .Im out .....
Regards,Tomcat.

Cool...

But cold hard facts are, it does not matter, not one bit, it won't matter if Legislation is passed stating the Minimum Caliber is .243 pushing 100gr (that some want), then that will be where the bar is set, and it won't matter then if people like using .243 90gr as then it won't be Legal, do you get the "it does not matter" bit now?

Regards, The Aussie.

Zxthinger

4200fps wrote: »

The majority of swifts and 22-250s wont fire a 60 grain load accurately. Wrong twist

Well to be fair you do get a considerable number of 22/250's in 1/12 twists and they handle 60gr bullets fine!
But I know my 220swift with 1/14 twist shoots horandy 60gr HP with 3/4moa. Maybe its the added velocity from a barrel that's two inches longer than horandy's test barrel or it's the fact that the mandrel used when hammer forging the barrel had a 1:13.6 twist- I measured it.

This thread is turning into a proverbial witchhunt!
The swift can kill deer all day long as long as you realise that it has limitation!
Its been well documented in it's ability and shooters accept it as being very efffective when used properly.
You can fond limiting factors with all ammunition. Such characteristics as bullet construction, velocity, bullet weight, SD, energy and BC.
To think that the swift or 22/250 are the only chamberings that have limiting factors is a little naive. Other limiting factors come from the shooters limited ability or confidence. Although the 220swift's energy is just marginally above the legal min, it must be reiterated that it still exceed the minimum and is legal.
Proponent of the 220swift cite it's superb killing power if limited to 150yards with bonded bullets. With extended range it's best to use varmint type bullets and limit shots to neck shot and never exceed 250yards.
I see the swift/22:250 as viable in farming land whereas a 308/30:06/7mmrem are all viable mountain-side rounds.
Horses for courses

Zxthinger

tomcat220t wrote: »

Its stipulates it on every box of ammo that ive ever seen the type of animal/game it designed/suitable for .
So are you saying that if it fits into the chamber and goes bang (legal of course)
all consideration to the game/animal are off.. LEGAL IS LEGAL as you put it?
Regards,Tomcat.

In fairness that specifications come from a country that doesn't have any real hang ups about calibre size nether do the restrain hunters by limiting what caliber they are allowed with stupid over thought guidelines!
There were tonnes of 22-250 that were licenced here when that's all you were allowed!

lakesider

Zxthinger wrote: »

In fairness that specifications come from a country that doesn't have any real hang ups about calibre size nether do the restrain hunters by limiting what caliber they are allowed with stupid over thought guidelines!
There were tonnes of 22-250 that were licenced here when that's all you were allowed!

Thats quite correct, and when I broached the subject one day with a man who had killed countless deer with a 22-250 he said that it was used by him out on the hill for stags and he never thought it a problem, the same guy knew where to place a bullet though..the swift and the 250 are ballistically similar with factory ammo so at the end of the day whats the big deal..the way were going we will be back with a 250 for deer!

tomcat220t

Zxthinger wrote: »

In fairness that specifications come from a country that doesn't have any real hang ups about calibre size nether do the restrain hunters by limiting what caliber they are allowed with stupid over thought guidelines!
There were tonnes of 22-250 that were licenced here when that's all you were allowed!

You mean the CXP scale ?
Regards,Tomcat.

Zxthinger

tomcat220t wrote: »

You mean the CXP scale ?
Regards,Tomcat.

I have seen the CXP scale quoted before! I don't purport to be au fait with the system.
But the application of common sense and independent testimonials are what I have based my opinions on. This controversial chambering will continue to draw heated debate irrelevant of my opinions or yours.

Have you ever read about PO Ackley's exploites in the mid west when he was culling Burros which afaik could weigh up to 350lbs. When he unveiled his chosen rifle/calibre for the cull he was laughed at! However he soon demonstrated the calibre's exceptional killing power that seemed disproportional relative to it's diminished stature. He conceded that this characteristic was a new factor that was a direct product of the super fast velocity of the calibre!
The chambering is well suited to reduced ranges as found in Ireland subdivided field system!
So it's capable of killing hoofed animals with weights up to 350-400kg with vigour as long as the range is limited to a sensible range! 
Similar limits might be stated for 6.5/55 being a low velocity round as a direct consequence of proliferation of older rifles in that chambering being unsuitable for high pressure rounds. Low velocity has be attributed to a lack of dramatic killing power by what should otherwise be an exemplary round! Other rounds/chamberings/bullet-types also suffer form diabolic accuracy yet proponents of such cite extended downrange energy as justification irrelevant of the ethics of super longrange hunting! 
There will always be those whom rebuff equipment that is marginal but otherwise practical and or legal. 
 You might be better served by attacking the Garda system of assessment that precludes access to certain calibres in excess of those deemed to be suitable for deer hunting thereby incentivising the proliferation of such marginal calibres. Surely a system that allows a hunter develop without the need to secure addition firearms would allow for an unbiased calibre selection.  If hunters can currently have 223's etc for foxes then surly it's no great leap of faith to allow them to have 243s or 260s or similar that can server a dual roll, especially if other factors are brought to bear when assessing suitability of the applicant. Characteristic such as age, social standing and previous experience should be sufficient criteria to warrant a centrefire chambering in the absence of a deer hunting permit sufficing to say that the current systems is at odds with that of target shooters who can claim any of a number of calibres without such rudimentary curtailment     The implementation of such a system might see hunters needing less firearms, as one suitable firearm would allow for several hunting disciplines and allow the hunter abilities and aspirations to be achievable with the hunters original firearm.
I dont purport to allowing anyone of any age and of limited experience being granted instant access to any large centrefire calibre based on the above aspirations.  As stated above, age experience and other attributes need assessing prior to the determination but some overlap and flexibility in cop rules would be of great help
    

tomcat220t

PO Ackley was a wildcatter/gunsmith in the US ,died 25 years ago an old man.Do you really think he used factory rifles with factory.220 swift ammo ?
The CXP scale is in used by some of the largest names in bullet manufacturing .
S/D ?What value is your norma 55gr ?A big factor to your game size when hunting.
Regards,Tomcat.

The Aussie

I thought you had picked up your Bat and Ball and stormed off in a huff :rolleyes:

tomcat220t wrote: »

Im out .....
Regards,Tomcat.

We might think and say different things about you there Tomcat, but calling you a man of your word is not one of them

Is this your latest reincarnation of your tired old line is it?
A restless night sleep, all day in front of the computer and this is the best you could do?

tomcat220t wrote: »

The CXP scale is in used by some of the largest names in bullet manufacturing .
S/D ?What value is your norma 55gr ?A big factor to your game size when hunting

tomcat220t wrote: »

That statement about ammunition manufactures not mattering and other remarks by you and another poster sums up this thread.

You do realise that the manufacturers of Ammunition are in the business of selling Ammunition don't you?
If they could worm it they would have a round for every species on gods* green earth, but I suppose some are gullible enough to buy into anything...
And yes, they still don't matter.


Regards, The Aussie





* May or may not exist

Zxthinger

tomcat220t wrote: »

PO Ackley was a wildcatter/gunsmith in the US ,died 25 years ago an old man.Do you really think he used factory rifles with factory.220 swift ammo ? 
The CXP  scale is in used by some of the largest names in bullet manufacturing .
S/D ?What value is your norma 55gr ?A big factor to your game size when hunting.
Regards,Tomcat.

More Micky measuring! It's a good job were not all students of the 'big hole school'. 
Fundamentally I accept the CPX scale, Taylor's knockdown power,  Marshals Stopping power and Thornily stopping power but they are only estimations with empirical data to confirm certain shooting conditions! There are many others all delivering differing results. 
Total subscription to such data manipulation is blinding one from the facts especially when explicit facts have demonstrated the efficiency with which the swift kills. 

Top Trumps, with calibres will undoubtedly see the swift lose on most  criteria save one or two, so it's practically a moot point as far I'm concerned as it is obvious that under current mathematic modelling with such theoretical formulae as above the swift will most likely fail to stack up. However the argument of suitability  remains rooted by the fact of its demonstrable killing power, manifesting in extensive harvesting of game all around the world for years.

PO Ackley said it was one of the best calibres he'd seen for killing large(medium)??) animals. It is also documented that he tested the rounds penetration on plate steal. In the tests he purged it's ability by pitting it head to head against iirc, a 270win and a 30-06. Only one round penetrated the steel, 220swift, he deliberated that the extreme velocity coupled with the intense rate of spin must surely have given the bullet incredulous properties thereby allowing it to out preform two well established calibres. In conclusion he wrote something to the effect that, super velocity rounds above or around 4000fps demonstrate amazing properties.

Did PO Ackley use factory ammo in his swift? I'm not too sure but the powders available today in factory offering would surely impress the legend himself. I would say that the factory loads of today would outstrip yesteryears high performance re-loads even if they were 220AI,?which btw he describes as being one of the few improved cartridges that gave negligible improvement in ballistics save for case-life longevity which show marked improvement. 

In all walks of life there exists exceptions to the rules and the swift is an exceptional and demonstrable example to which the reported facts endure.

PS If you are so keen as to cite the SD of Norma 55gr oryx ammunition then you know where such data is! Feel free to demonstrate the facts and quote the figures further if you feel this will serve your end, but as such, I too am guilty of addiction to my own dogmatic views as it seems ever man and jack is, I have formed my opinions on the subject and they will not be ousted easily.          

tomcat220t

Your getting your kinckers in a twist over been pointed out that the swift has no ammo designed for medium/large game .(irish deer)
Your norma S/D is .157 .... hence small game ammo as Norma states !Not Mickey measuring ..simply maths.
Regards,Tomcat.

Zxthinger

tomcat220t wrote: »

Your getting your kinckers in a twist over been pointed out that the swift has no ammo designed for medium/large game .(irish deer)
Your norma S/D is .157 .... hence small game ammo as Norma states !Not Mickey measuring ..simply maths.
Regards,Tomcat.

You keep your maths and I'll keep testing in the field. As soon as I get a bad shot or such I'll let ye know!

243 58 grain horandy has a lower SD of .140 and it deer legal too. Lol as soon as the goalposts might shift And 243 is the minimum you'll be up there quoting those figures in yer one line answers! Lol

tomcat220t

Zxthinger wrote: »

You keep your maths and I'll keep testing in the field. As soon as I get a bad shot or such I'll let ye know!

243 58 grain horandy has a lower SD of .140 and it deer legal too. Lol as soon as the goalposts might shift And 243 is the minimum you'll be up there quoting those figures in yer one line answers! Lol

Thats why the 58gr is classed by hornady as varmint .
Enjoy your field testing !
Regards,Tomcat.

Zxthinger

Are ye telling me that I shouldn't shoot deer with a 220swift! Even with a premium bonded bullet that smashes through bone and anchors deer to to the spot and leaves them DRT or wirhin feet.

Are ye trying to tell me I'm fundament in error and I need to bin the swift or do you accept that it work and it kills deer..

Also can you quote me the CXP weights fir small game

Sparks

Oh for feck's sakes. This topic's been done to death. First asked about here a decade ago and the answer civdef gave in 2006 is still correct:

civdef wrote: »

given more suitable calibres are available now, the question has to be asked why bother with a marginal one?

You can argue in the pub all you want about how with a certain load you could technically scrape past the legal minimums for hunting deer; but you just make yourself look like an asshat who has no respect for deer when you do that. The .22-250 wasn't used in Ireland for decades to hunt deer because it was better at the job; it was used because nothing else was available. That's not the case now and hasn't been the case for a decade. Who the hell uses a bad tool to do a job when a wealth of better tools are available? Especially while claiming that doing the job right is important to them?

Thread closed.