In my younger days i always wanted a .220 Swift. Don't really know why I wanted it over a .22-250, guess the name Swift just hit it for me. I don't think anyone even chambers it anymore as the .22-250 pretty much killed it. Can anyone tell me why the .22-250 stood the test of time and the Swift fell by the wayside? Doesn't seem to be any real performance differences. Is it the case shape that has something to do w/it?
.220 Swift
- Thread starter publius
- Start date
BurkGlocker
New member
If memory serves me correctly the .220 swift was derived from the 6mm Navy cartridge, another old cartridge. The .220 got a bad rep for being a barrel burner, during a time before modern steels and rifling methods. the 22-250 also uses alot less powder to achieve similar velocities which has attributed to its success. Plus the remington name behind the numbers probably helped alot as well. But I shot the .220 exclusively for target and used it a few times to go deer hunting, taking quite a few deer in the process. I know Ruger still chambers the .220 Swift, but alot of the other rifle manufacturers have dropped it from their line. I love the .220, especially playing 'redneck golf'. Sweet shooting as heck, and when I used Hornady 40 gr V-Max Moly coats it shot within a dime at 100 yards for a ten shot string, no BS.
Hardtarget
New member
My cousin shot the 220 Swift. There wasn't a ground hog in Wilson Co. safe when he was behind the scope! I never got to shoot it...he thought I was too young.
Mark.
Mark.
CPTMurdoc30
New member
The 220 Swift got a bad name for many reasons.
1. Burning out the barrel. Because guys wanted to push it over 4000fps if you kept velocities down a little it would really add to barrel life. My 220 swift had well over 3000 rounds down the tube and still shot as good as the day my grandfather bought it.
2. People using it on large game animals. Gun Mag writers were trying to take deer, elk, and even some large african game with it. I am not sure where it was but I read a story of a guy that took a swift out for elaphant (Don't think he or the rifle made it back to camp). Guys were touting the spectacliur kills on deer and elk at 300 and 400 yards with the swift. When a normal guy went and tried to take a deer with it and lost it it was not their fault for making a bad shot it was the 220 swift faults because it did something wrong.
3. Remington backed the 22-250 more than the swift. PR can make or break anything. Look at the Tucker car safer, faster, better, and had more advanced safety options. but the PR guys in Detroit killed it with bad press.
The 220 Swift is a great cartridge it was the first to break the 4000fps mark. The 22-250 is slightly slower which added to barrel life. The brass could be made from many different kids of brass. The 22-250 has a .473" case head allowing you to take a 30-06 military rifle (Back in the 50's) and simply change the barrel to a 22-250. Not so with the 220 swift because it was based on the old semi-rimmed 6mm Lee Navy case.
1. Burning out the barrel. Because guys wanted to push it over 4000fps if you kept velocities down a little it would really add to barrel life. My 220 swift had well over 3000 rounds down the tube and still shot as good as the day my grandfather bought it.
2. People using it on large game animals. Gun Mag writers were trying to take deer, elk, and even some large african game with it. I am not sure where it was but I read a story of a guy that took a swift out for elaphant (Don't think he or the rifle made it back to camp). Guys were touting the spectacliur kills on deer and elk at 300 and 400 yards with the swift. When a normal guy went and tried to take a deer with it and lost it it was not their fault for making a bad shot it was the 220 swift faults because it did something wrong.
3. Remington backed the 22-250 more than the swift. PR can make or break anything. Look at the Tucker car safer, faster, better, and had more advanced safety options. but the PR guys in Detroit killed it with bad press.
The 220 Swift is a great cartridge it was the first to break the 4000fps mark. The 22-250 is slightly slower which added to barrel life. The brass could be made from many different kids of brass. The 22-250 has a .473" case head allowing you to take a 30-06 military rifle (Back in the 50's) and simply change the barrel to a 22-250. Not so with the 220 swift because it was based on the old semi-rimmed 6mm Lee Navy case.
Sidetracked
New member
Brass flow and neck splits were a big detractor, aside from barrel erosion, in its early years. The latter issue was often due to crappy steel (as noted), or just writer theory. It seemed like many of the gun writers of the time already had a favorite .22 caliber hot-rod round, and didn't want the Swift encroaching on their territory.
As for brass flow, it really is something that has to be watched even moreso than any other cartridge I have ever reloaded. However, it is very manageable. I trim every 3-5 reloadings (2-3 for Norma brass), and inside-turn the necks about every 4-5. I have re-annealed a few cases over the years to prevent neck splits, but usually get 10-12 reloadings from Winchester brass and 12-15 from Norma brass.
So... It is not as forgiving as other cartridges; it does eat brass, compared to other .22s; and it is a pretty funky cartridge design. (6mm Lee Navy... come on Winchester... 7x57 Mauser would have been a better parent design.)
However... it is damn fun to shoot.
.22-250 is great.
.220 Swift gives you bragging rights.
As for brass flow, it really is something that has to be watched even moreso than any other cartridge I have ever reloaded. However, it is very manageable. I trim every 3-5 reloadings (2-3 for Norma brass), and inside-turn the necks about every 4-5. I have re-annealed a few cases over the years to prevent neck splits, but usually get 10-12 reloadings from Winchester brass and 12-15 from Norma brass.
So... It is not as forgiving as other cartridges; it does eat brass, compared to other .22s; and it is a pretty funky cartridge design. (6mm Lee Navy... come on Winchester... 7x57 Mauser would have been a better parent design.)
However... it is damn fun to shoot.
.22-250 is great.
.220 Swift gives you bragging rights.
phil mcwilliam
New member
20 years ago I used to go hunting with a guy that owned a 220 Swift. I was always impressed with that rifle even though I had a 22-250. Well I met up with him again about 5 years ago & he had changed to a 22-250- He told me that he was always impressed with my rifle, and after rebarrelling his 220 swift twice, decided on a 22-250 & never looked back. Maybe its just a case of wanting something that you don't have, but in my opinion the Swift had it on the 22-250 with performance, but just wore out quicker.
I have a pre-64 Winchester model 70 in .220 Swift that I inherited in 1953. Had it re-barreled by Winchester in the early 60s. That barrel has 800 rounds through it with little sign of wear. This thread is a reminder to get the gun out of the back of the safe, dust it off and take it to the range.
The .220 Swift is a good cartridge whose day has passed.
The .220 Swift is a good cartridge whose day has passed.
CPTMurdoc30
New member
Oh yah it has been so long since I shot one i forgot about splitting case necks after about 3 or 4 reloadings. That is a drag there mainly because of the price of brass now.
Dearhunter61
New member
22-250 vs 220 Swift
I have heard all of the above and I own a 22-250. My father-in-law has a 220 Swift and as far as groups go at 100 yards both guns shoot very tight groups but I must say there is something about a 220 Swift that is just drawing me to it...It is on the list to purchase. I look for them all the time when I go to Cabela's and when I find one assuming it is in good shape I am definately going to buy it.
I have heard all of the above and I own a 22-250. My father-in-law has a 220 Swift and as far as groups go at 100 yards both guns shoot very tight groups but I must say there is something about a 220 Swift that is just drawing me to it...It is on the list to purchase. I look for them all the time when I go to Cabela's and when I find one assuming it is in good shape I am definately going to buy it.
The Swift has suffered a number of setbacks in its lifetime. Bad press early on, due to people loading 38 gr bullets at 4100 fps. When you add in the powders they had back then, it was hard on barrels. In 1963, Winchester dropped it as a chambering and replaced it with the 225 Winchester, another semi-rimmed cartridge (based on the 219 Zipper Improved) that was a little milder. Meanwhile, ammo makers quit making ammo and brass for the round, the last US manufacturer was Federal, and they dropped the round back in 1980. So if you wanted a Swift, you had to shoot Norma brass. At the same time, the 22-250 had been introduced as a factory round, and the rest is history.
Back in the mid-1970s, I used to shoot with a bunch of guys who had all kinds of varmint rifles, but the one to beat was always the 220 Swift. It was a Ruger 77 Varmint, and it would shoot 3/4" at 100 yds (I know, doesn't sound very impressive, but at that time that was pretty darn good for any rifle). Another guy had a Ruger 77 Varmint in 22-250, and it shot real good, too. Those two used to go back and forthe about which was better. So they decided to determine which round was better. They loaded 100 rounds of the same bullets, primers, powders, and hired a chronograph (at that time, that was a costly proposition, as the screens cost $1 each and were good for one shot). The upshot of the whole thing was that the Swift threw a 40 gr bullet 130 fps faster than the 22-250 (less with the 50-55 gr), but it had a 2" longer barrel, so they attributed it to that. Other than that, no major differences. So much for the 220 Swift mystique.
The 220 Swift is a neat round, and when loaded reasonably is no harder on barrels than a 22-250. Problem with that is there are lots of guys who look into the case and see there's still room for more powder and just can't resist.
Back in the mid-1970s, I used to shoot with a bunch of guys who had all kinds of varmint rifles, but the one to beat was always the 220 Swift. It was a Ruger 77 Varmint, and it would shoot 3/4" at 100 yds (I know, doesn't sound very impressive, but at that time that was pretty darn good for any rifle). Another guy had a Ruger 77 Varmint in 22-250, and it shot real good, too. Those two used to go back and forthe about which was better. So they decided to determine which round was better. They loaded 100 rounds of the same bullets, primers, powders, and hired a chronograph (at that time, that was a costly proposition, as the screens cost $1 each and were good for one shot). The upshot of the whole thing was that the Swift threw a 40 gr bullet 130 fps faster than the 22-250 (less with the 50-55 gr), but it had a 2" longer barrel, so they attributed it to that. Other than that, no major differences. So much for the 220 Swift mystique.
The 220 Swift is a neat round, and when loaded reasonably is no harder on barrels than a 22-250. Problem with that is there are lots of guys who look into the case and see there's still room for more powder and just can't resist.
BurkGlocker
New member
One of the older guys I used to shoot with would ask me to shoot my .220 Swift, Ruger Mk 77 bull-barreled rifle constantly, saying it took him back when he had one. He used to tell me that he would load it up so hot that the bullets would disintegrate as soon as they left the barrel, maybe to much powder or the bullets just werent up to the task. But I miss the days of shooting golf balls at 200-600 yards just for the heck of it. Even if we missed we still had fun, but you never know if you can make the shot if you dont try, well on golf balls at least!