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!

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.