The .224 Weatherby? It's only a runner-up: 100 fps slower than the .22-250 in all bullet weights. I.e. 300 fps behind the Swift. There is some loading data, which gives the .224 Weatherby the same velocities as the .22-250, but I suspect that those loads develop more than 54.000 cup!{footnote}Copper Units of Pressure. The old copper-crusher method of determining breech pressure: the chamber wall of the test gun had a cylindrical hole drilled in it, into which a copper cylinder was inserted. On firing the cartridge, the pressure blew a disc out of the case wall and compressed the copper rod. The amount of compression was measured and used to calculate the pressure. In the old days it was believed (erroneously) that cup equalled psi. Since we have the piezoelectric method of taking pressure readings, we know different. For instance: the 7,62x51 NATO (.308 Win) cartridge develops 52.000 cup, but the piezoelectric measurement gives us 62.000 psi! Maximum permissible (safe) pressure is about 54.000 cup or 64.500 psi.{/footnote}
Since this was first written, the .204 Ruger has been added to the line of small, centre-fire varmint calibres. Factory ballistics, which are almost invariably optimistic, credit a 32gn .204 bullet with 4.225 fps, and a 40gn bullet with 3.900 fps muzzle velocity. But both these bullets are too light for long shots in windy conditions, and anyhow, my Swift launches 50 to 53gn bullets at a chronographed 3.900 fps, and could drive 45gn bullets at well over 4.100 fps, 40-grainers at 4.200 and a 32gn bullet (if one existed) at 4.400 or thereabouts. I say 'could', as what bullets there are available at those weights are not designed for Swift velocities. They're all meant for the .22 Hornet. So, anyhow, in my view the Swift has not yet been dethroned!
Oh, I can hear the screams: “What about the .22-250?” Well – I like it, have used it, helped others to develop loads for it – and it is a nice cartridge. It is as accurate as the Swift, practically as easy to reload as the Swift, and almost as fast. In fact, it nearly became the Swift! But it did not quite make it, and for valid reasons. However, let us start at the beginning:
HistoryIn 1885, Winchester introduced the .22 WCF, loading it with 13 gns of FFFg for 1.540 fps with a 45 gn bullet. A year or two later, the Europeans started to load this case with smokeless powder, getting over 2.600 fps with a 39 gn bullet, and calling it the 5,6x35 Rimmed.
Winchester finally developed their own smokeless version of the .22 WCF in the late 1920s and introduced it as the .22 Hornet (45 gn bullet at 2.690 fps) in 1930, chambering their single-shot rifles for it. In 1932/3 the Model 54 bolt action came on the scene and was chambered for the Hornet.
Unlikely as this may seem today, that little lot started the craze for high-speed pin shooters – or at least gave it official sanction! While the Hornet was instantly popular, it did not satisfy the long-range artists out West, who clamoured for, and/or experimented with, even faster .22 bunny busters.
There is a great deal of controversy as to who actually developed what from here on, but Grosvenor Wotkyns and John Sweany – then both at Frankford arsenal – seem to receive most of the credit today for developing the prototype of the high-speed .22, by necking down the .250 Savage (.250-3000) case to .22 and experimenting with high velocities from this in 1934/5. Harvey Donaldson, J.E.Gebby and J. Bushnell Smith all worked on similar versions either then, or later, after the official introduction of the Swift.
Winchester was watching all this activity and let it be known that they would bring out a super-speed .22, proposing to call it the Swift. They ran their own tests, but also stayed in contact with some of the experimenters, who favoured the use of the .250 Savage case for the Swift. This must have led some of those people to believe that Winchester would adopt their versions of the super-speed .22. Almost at the last minute, however, Winchester decided to use a modified (standard rim size, steeper shoulder and less tapered case) and strengthened version of the larger 6 mm Lee Navy case instead. This allowed them to get past that magical 4.000 fps mark, without exceeding 53.000 cup breech pressure.
It had been claimed that the .250 Savage-based version exceeded 4.000 fps with the lighter bullets, and Winchester had committed themselves to that figure. However, in running their own tests, using many different case designs including those of the 6 mm Lee Navy, .250 Savage and the 7x57, they found the latter to be overbore with then available powders, while the .250 Savage case developed too much pressure with 4.000 fps loads. So they settled on the Lee Navy case.
This apparently put some noses out of joint, and there was an immediate campaign against the .220 Winchester Swift in some gun magazines – almost before the new round hit the market. Of course, the poor lasting qualities of early Swift barrels did nothing to help its reputation. And there were other problems, which surfaced soon after the new rifle fell into the eager, but often inexperienced hands of Joe Average Shooter.
Anyway, Winchester introduced the .220 Swift in 1935, chambering the Model 54 for it. The Model 70 appeared in 1937 and was also chambered for the .220 Swift until 1963, the last year in which the Model 70 proper was made.{footnote}It is now being made again as the M 70 Classic.{/footnote}
AvailabilitySeveral makers offered the Swift at one time or another, but there was a gap from 1964 until 1973, when Ruger re-introduced it in the M77V bolt action, with 26” (66 cm) barrel. Savage joined the ranks a little later with their M112V, a bolt action single shot, also with 26” barrel. This was discontinued again somewhere around 1981/2. Then there was the Shilen DGA, with 25” (63,5 cm) barrel in .220 Swift, and Sako made standard and deluxe sporters and a heavy barrel model in this calibre. The Sakos all appear to have had 24” (61 cm) barrels. Ruger still supplies the Swift in their M77MkII with 24”, as well as in their No. 1B single shot with 26” barrel, Their No 1V with 24” barrel and, of course, in the M77VT, with 26” barrel. Besides Ruger, you can get a Swift from Ed Brown, Harris Gun Works, and even Remington chamber their M700VS and VSSF for the cartridge first introduced by their oldest rival. Sadly, Winchester, parent of the Swift, does not chamber a rifle for it.
My choice remains the Ruger M77VT: it is a tight bolt action (the falling block action allows a little more head stretch), has the large, reliable old Mauser extractor, a 26” barrel making full use of the Swift’s heavy powder charges, and it is a well made piece. Though it may need a little attention to the bedding initially, and possibly a Canjar, or similar trigger, at moderate cost.
Factory LoadsOriginal Swift loads were a 46 gn HP or a 48 gn SP, both at a claimed 4.140 fps, and 55gn HPs at 3.720 fps and 56 gn SPs at 3.690 fps were also available early on. Today, Norma loads a 50 gn SP at a claimed 4.110 fps. Nosler’s reloading manuals #s. 1 and 2 give 3.936 fps ‘by the clock’ for this round from a 26" barrel. My own testing of this ammunition resulted in velocities ranging from 3.915 to 4.042 fps, giving an average of 3.978 fps, also from a 26" barrel. However, it is only fair to add that my ammunition was about 20 years old when tested! (I had bought it for a friend, who was about to buy a Swift and then didn’t, and it sat in my safe all those years, as I had no use for 50 gn SPs.) And Hornady-Frontier offers 55 gn SPs and 60 gn HPs at 3.650 and 3.600 fps respectively. There is also a 40 gn load (make not specified) at an advertised 4.200 fps, listed on p 231 of the 2006 Gun Digest! Of course, to get the best out of such a varmint cartridge, one really has to reload for it.
Bad HabitsNow let us look at those persistent character assassinations the Swift still suffers from: ‘fastest barrel-burner this side of a blow torch, inaccurate, unexplained misses (I’ve always loved that one!), bullets disintegrating in mid-air, difficult – nay dangerous – to reload, erratic pressures’, etc, etc. Unless this is your first exposure to the Swift, you have read, or heard it all!
A case in point is an article by Edward A. Matunas in the 37th GUN DIGEST (1983), entitled ‘Troublesome Cartridges’. There, he states much of the above, adding that Winchester had so many law suits from owners of blown-up Swifts (eroded barrels I knew of, but lots of blow-ups?) that official policy was “never to supply that blankety-blank cartridge again, no matter how great the demand!”
I suspect that the people quoted must be the same who axed the Model 70 in 1963: accountants and sales personnel! Matunas speculates that barrel erosion coupled with overloads caused the blow-ups, and ends with this parting shot: “Today’s shooter desiring a very flat-shooting .22 calibre can turn to the .22-250. With only a modest decrease in velocity, the .22-250, loaded between 48.000 and 50.000 psi (sic, but these were cup measurements), can offer a very pleasing alternative.”
Now, Mr. Matunas worked for Winchester, so we must take him seriously. To add perspective to his statements, though – and I recommend that you read his article – I must add that he somewhat modifies his condemnation of the Swift by laying much of the blame for its troubles on careless reloading, especially overloads. So, what kind of logic is that? A guy who overloads the Swift will do the same to the .22-250. And if we really wanted to split hairs, we could say that the same amount of overload (of the let’s-add-another-grain-for-good-measure variety) would be more dangerous in the .22-250, due to its smaller case capacity.
Mr. Matunas also dismisses the .225 Winchester out of hand, saying that it gives horribly erratic pressures, without being able to give us a single reason for this feature. Not a very scientific attitude, but rather typical of the emotional discussions of calibres that we get from time to time.
PressuresFirst, let us examine his recommendation of the .22-250 vs. the Swift pressure-wise, as this will throw much light on the discussion to follow. Examination of the pressures listed in Du Pont’s HANDLOADER’s GUIDE{footnote}Copy in F.C. Barnes’ CARTRIDGES OF THE WORLD, 4th Edtn., p 348 ff.{/footnote} shows that the .22-250 and the Swift both operate at pressures of 51.000 to 53.000 cup. In fact, three out of four calibres listed there use pressures above 50.000 cup, most of them peaking at 53.000 cup, some at 54.000. All Weatherby cartridges and most continental calibres operate at similar pressures.
Why is it often claimed that the Swift develops too much pressure, when most modern cartridges, including the .22-250, operate at the same pressures without raising any eyebrows? Do some people still copy this sort of thing from diatribes written 60 or more years ago without checking their facts? Also, accepting Mr. Matunas’ suggestion of downloading the .22-250 to below 50.000 cup, we can do the same to the Swift and still be ahead of the .22-250. In fact, at 50.000 cup the Swift gives about the same velocities which the .22-250 gives at 53.000 cup!
If both cartridges produce the same pressures, they must obviously generate the same peak temperatures. Now, the Swift burns more powder than the .22-250, but there is less than 5% difference in maximum charges between the two calibres. I do not believe that this makes one a barrel burner, while the other is exempt from that problem!
And what about all those other accusations? What is it about the Swift that deserves all that vitriolic comment? If you own a Swift, the answer will come as no surprise: simply nothing! Such calamities as its detractors claim for the Swift can, and do befall people who reload and/or use any cartridge carelessly. Especially so, if it is a high-intensity, small-bore number. But they are not specific to the Swift. The Swift is no more difficult to reload, nor any less accurate than any other ‘big’ .22.
In fact, I do not believe that any current cartridge of reasonably modern design is either more, or less accurate because of some difference of its features. Provided that your rifle is a bolt action and has the correct rate of twist for the bullet weights and velocities used, accuracy primarily depends on quality. That is, the care with which your rifle, loading components and final rounds have been manufactured and assembled.
Barrel ErosionWhat about barrel erosion? We have already partially dealt with that above. It was a problem with early Swifts and, I bet, with every other hot .22, or other calibre wildcat. Winchester did make some of the early Model 70 Swifts with stainless barrels, to counter this problem, but later, when better barrel steels were available, went back to non-stainless. In 1935, barrel alloys were not what they are today, and some of our present barrel steels would probably have been classed ‘stainless’ in 1935. If you don’t believe that, try patching up some of the present chrome-moly barrels with ‘cold blue’.
Besides, any barrel, even a stainless one, will eventually become eroded. This process is accelerated if the barrel is fired hot: burning temperature of the powder gasses in the throat of the barrel exceeds the evaporation temperature of all barrel steels to a greater or lesser extent. The colder the barrel metal, the greater its ability to conduct heat away from the bore. Once the barrel is heating up, however, more and more metal will be evaporated during peak flash temperatures and depart via the spout. Those extra-heavy bench and varmint barrels are being used just as much for heat sinks, as to dampen barrel vibrations!
Some erosion, especially in the throat area, is also caused through friction by the powder grains blown out of the case, and especially by burnt powder residue, which is a hard, gritty ash.
Barrel erosion through heat had only become a problem with smokeless powders, though not too much so with the larger, low-intensity, early calibres. By the time the Swift came along, many single base powders had appeared, and advertising made good mileage out of their lower burning temperatures. (Lower than cordite, that is! Most modern double base ball powders have lower burning temperatures than most single base powders.) As a result, many shooters thought they no longer had to worry about shooting their barrels hot!
Add to this the fact that there were more Swifts about than all the .22 wildcats put together, because the Swift was a ‘mass-produced’ factory calibre, available much more readily and cheaply than wildcats (which were custom built at high cost and hence not usually ordered by the average shooter), plus the fact that America in those days still had much larger and less sophisticated varmint populations, tempting shooters to rapid-fire their rifles, and you will see how the Swift got its barrel-burning reputation.
Overloading, in the absence of extensively researched loading data, such as we have today, also appears to have been a problem. No average shooter had a chronograph, let alone access to a pressure testing facility, when developing loads.
I have fired close to 1.000 rounds through my Swift and have yet to detect any signs of barrel wear. I keep my loads a little under maximum and never shoot the barrel hot unnecessarily (I do this with all my rifles, not just the Swift). However, had I cooked my barrel with loads which flatten the weeds and kill all the bugs for 10 metres in front of the muzzle, I would probably have written it off by now.
Before we leave the subject of barrel erosion, let us briefly return to Mr. Matunas’ article: he states that many blow-ups could be explained by the onset of barrel erosion. He says he was shocked when he saw the first enlarged photographs of eroded barrels (bores), barrels which did not look eroded to the naked eye. The roughness present would have increased the friction between barrel and bullet to many times the normal friction. He also says that handloaders, believing that eroded barrels were larger than standard and hence lost pressure, would increase their charges to make up for lost pressure and velocity. The overloads, coupled with the extra high friction, then caused the blow-ups.
He neglects to tell us how these people knew that their barrels were eroding, if it could not be seen by the naked eye. Also, if he is correct that friction goes up during the early stages of erosion, then this condition would have increased pressure, if not velocity, with the normal warning signs appearing. So why would anyone ‘compensate’ for lower pressure at this stage? Presumably, once erosion could be seen, bores were sufficiently larger and lost pressure, so that extra charges were in order. At least I deduce that from the way he says that pressures could go up OR down, depending on the degree of erosion.
I do not believe that the onset of higher pressures due to extra friction in an eroding barrel (if indeed it does happen) would come about so quickly, that the normal warning signs could not be detected before the condition became terminal. That is: cratered primers, shiny areas on the cartridge head and difficult extraction of the fired case, sooty-ringed and, finally, blown primers, with gas-cutting of the bolt face. All these signs appear before the point is reached where brass starts to flow (about 65.000 cup) and there is any danger of the barrel letting go. Most people would take heed and reduce charges at the first such signs, rather than continue until the situation disintegrates!
In my opinion, where Winchester did have claims from owners of blown Swifts, it was a case of the bad workman blaming his tools! So where does that leave Mr. Matunas? Working for Remington?
Poor AccuracyThis also had reasons similar to some quoted above, i.e. misunderstanding of the significance of advancing technology. Smokeless powder, the then new non-corrosive primer, and the advent of copper-jacketed bullets convinced many shooters that there was no longer a need to clean their rifles! It was the benchrest fraternity, which proved that powder and metal fouling – often ‘ironed’ into the bore – quickly destroyed accuracy, especially in small-bore rifles, and made thorough cleaning after every 10-15 shots essential.
Additionally, bullet construction was not what it is today. A bullet fired from a Hornet at 2.690 fps and spinning at just over 121.000 rpm, may have been perfectly satisfactory. Now fire the same bullet from the Swift at 4.140 fps, spinning at nearly 213.000 rpm, and any small imperfections or weaknesses show up in a hurry! This explains some of the ‘unexplained misses’ of the early days: occasionally those projectiles blew up – pulled apart by centrifugal force – as soon as they left the barrel; if they did not already disintegrate inside it. But if they did hold together, they often wobbled so much that they couldn’t pursue their intended course.
This problem would have given the Swift more bad publicity than the .22 wildcats. Firstly, the Swift was just that much faster. Secondly, there were more Swifts than wildcats about, and the proportion of inexperienced reloaders – people who graduated from Hornets or 30-30s – would have been high for the Swift. Thirdly, wildcatters, being canny types, often loaded handmade bullets of better quality than the thin-jacketed commercial stuff. And finally, if you read the old gun magazines, you will see that much of the Swift’s bad press came from adherents of other .22 high-velocity cartridges.
I am certain that the latter would have had problems similar to those of the Swift, albeit to a lesser degree, but their owners were often better at dealing with those problems (see above) and besides, you do not run down your own pet, when you have a ready-made whipping boy. I think South Africans are particularly well placed to appreciate that phenomenon!
Georg Grohmann concludes the saga of the Swift next month, when he discusses reloading and field performance.
August Issue:Reloading problems? Erratic pressures? Indifferent accuracy? These are some of the questions raised by those who criticise the fastest .22 centrefire of all time, and Georg Grohmann answers them as he concludes the
SAGA OF THE SWIFT (
Magnum Ed. August '84)
As far as general reloading problems are concerned, I have not experienced any with my Swift. I think that the complainants created their own troubles: there are some things which happen more quickly in high-intensity ammo, especially if it is small-bore, than in less potent stuff.
Case stretch and neck thickening, though normal for all metallic cartridges, are perhaps the two biggest bugbears of high-power small-bores. Case stretch depends on pressure and headspacing, and in properly constructed rifles the absolute amount of stretch would be the same for the .22-250, as it would be for the Swift or any similar .22.
Neck thickening depends on the amount of extra brass getting into the neck area during resizing. This in turn depends on two factors: first, the amount of case stretch, and second, the reduction from case to neck circumference. If you have a lot of cartridge trying to flow into a .22 calibre neck, you will have thickening more quickly than if you are pushing the same amount of brass into a .270 neck, for instance.
This problem affects all hot .22s, including the .22-250. It has been my experience that the Swift needs neck turning (or reaming) one or two reloads later than the .22-250, if original neck thicknesses were the same for both cases. The reason is simple: both have high ratios of case body to neck circumference. But that of the Swift is about 1,55:1, while the .22-250’s is 1,64:1 (for comparison, the .270’s ratio is 1,43:1). In other words, about 6% more brass has to flow into the neck area of the .22-250 during resizing (full length) than is the case – no pun intended – for the Swift.
This bears out my observation that excess case length in the .22-250 must be attended to after three or four near-max reloads, while the Swift can go four to five, if both are being full-length resized (something which is best avoided). However, it is my firm belief that the majority of case stretch/neck thickness problems are the direct result of maladjusted full-length sizing dies, no matter what the calibre.
Neck turning (or reaming) becomes necessary between one and two case length corrections in either calibre. The fact that .22-250 cases tend to be thinner than the Swift’s to start with, makes up to some degree for the .22-250’s greater case-to-neck ratio. On the other hand, Swift cases, being stronger, usually can stand a couple more reloads. There is not really a great deal of choice between them in this area.
I neck-size my Swift cases as often as I can (neck-sized cases give better accuracy) and keep an eye on case length and neck thickness. By the time neck thickness becomes a problem, anywhere between four and eight reloads, internal case volumes vary by more than is good for accuracy, and I discard the cases anyway. Though at times I have trimmed and neck-turned them and used them once more for less critical, short-range work, with heavier bullets on game larger than foxes.
I also keep a careful check on internal stretch grooves, just ahead of the web, and sometimes cases must be discarded sooner than stated above. This is due to original irregularities in the wall thickness of new cases. Take a micrometer and measure the neck thickness of new cases – any calibre – around the perimeter, and you will find variations of .003” (0,08 mm) or more from side to side. Because of this I neck-turn after the first firing of Swift or other .22 CF cases (it is not so critical with larger calibres) to get uniform thickness. That way the bullet is centred better, and bullet ‘pull’ is more even all round, which helps accuracy.
Shoulder AnglesEven after Winchester’s introduction of the Swift, wildcatters continued to use the .250 Savage-based version, which was often called the .220 WOS,{footnote}Wotkyns’ Original Swift. Utter chutzpah, since the 'Swift' label belonged to Winchester, of course, even though they didn't copy-right it!{/footnote} when in its basic form with 26,5° shoulder. It has been stated that J.E. Gebby got the .22-250 off the ground in 1937 (his version was made ‘official’ by Remington in 1967) by giving it that 28° shoulder, thereby transforming it into a paragon of accuracy.
Now I ask you: a change of 1,5°? Sure, some of the arguments for a steep shoulder make sense. To wit: certainly better headspacing of cases which headspace on the shoulder, and possibly also less neck thickening, everything else being equal. Perhaps a steep shoulder also retains a little more powder in the case during ignition, rather than allowing it to be pushed out to burn in the bore.
But what is a steep shoulder: 20°? 30°? 45°? I suspect that there is little difference between 21° (Swift) and 28° (.22-250)! At least in my experience the .22-250 is no more accurate than the Swift (this sounds terrible – actually they are both very accurate indeed!) Also, if the 21° shoulder does make the Swift such a poor cartridge, what about the .270 Win? Everyone seems to agree that the .270 is an excellent round (mine - my son's now - always manages 1 MOA and has done better than 0.5 MOA on occasion) and it only has a 17,5° shoulder. What about the .375 H&H? (Mine usually does better better than 1 MOA) it only has a 12,75° shoulder, which makes it a lousy round, right?
Body TaperAnd if shoulder angles are so critical, what about body taper? A steeply tapered case suffers more setback – and hence stretch – and puts more load on the lock mechanism, than does a straight case. Here the positions are reversed, the Swift having the straighter case. Why is this fact always ignored when the Swift’s shoulder angle is being condemned? Why is a steep, angular, powder-stopping shoulder a virtue in the .22-250, while in the .224 Weatherby a rounded, ‘venturified’, flow-inducing shoulder is cited as an advantage? I suspect that most of these arguments are somewhat subjective, and I would like to see some X-ray photography of what goes on in a case during combustion, so that I can make up my mind.
As for Gebby’s ‘Varminter”, today’s .22-250 (the name ‘Varminter’ was never used by other gunsmiths, as Gebby had a copyright on it), I believe that it had more benefit from improvements in barrel steels and reloading components, many inspired by the Swift’s early problems, than it did from that 28° shoulder.
PressuresFinally, the Swift is supposed to generate erratic pressures. I have not found it so, getting very even velocities (3.900 +/- 20 fps max, with 50/53 gn bullets) over my chronograph. So pressures must also be even. I can only conclude that erratic pressures such as some people encountered, were caused by erratic qualities of some early components, or – much more likely – by careless reloading practices: undetected, slightly excess case lengths and neck thicknesses, carelessly measured powder charges and indiscriminate use of different powder lots, greatly differing internal case volumes (due to too many reloadings), uneven seating of primers, differential hardness and thickness of case necks, uneven bullet seating, mixed batches or even makes of cases – all would contribute to ‘erratic’ pressures. Many of these were only recognised – and publicised – as problem areas years after the introduction of the Swift.
It is my considered opinion that had the .22-250 been adopted by Winchester in 1935, and the Swift, as we know it today, been introduced some years later, when the problems of such cartridges were understood, and better materials and components were available, their positions of popularity would be reversed also!
Performance on GameThe Swift’s performance as a long-range pest shooting rifle really has to be experienced to be appreciated: once we get out past 250 m or so, the other .22s start feeling the pinch, with wind drift, trajectory and bullet performance (in that order) becoming ever increasing problems. Nor was this ever disputed by any .22-250 owner, who shot alongside my Swift! If you can hold steady, the Swift will get it for you. Using 50-55 gn HPs it kills fox-size pests like lightning, out to all practical distances. I have never lost a fox I hit with such bullets, and I have shot many at distances of 250 m and beyond.
The longest shot I estimated at 400 yards (365 m), though Bill Chant and Jim Newberry, who was driving us that night on his property (Ward’s Mistake, abt. 65km NNE of Armidale) both insisted that it was 500 yards (about 450 m). I'm sure it wasn't that far (unless I pulled the shot and it was a fluke) as for 500 yards I would have had to hold over some 2'6" (76 cm) in order to connect. But I only held about 9" (23 cm) over the reflection of his eyes, which was right for finding the chest with a 400-yard shot.
At any rate, one frontal chest shot did the trick, either a 50 gn Nosler HPSB, or a 52 gn Sierra HPBT (I was using both that night). Internal disruption was considerable in spite of the distance. Incidentally, we couldn’t pace off the distance because the fox, and a companion who decamped at the shot, had been on the hillside above a 30 m cliff with a creek at the bottom. We had to drive around more than a kilometre to collect the fox!
Now there is no free lunch, and at anything under about 130 m, even the hollow points go through a fox on side shots, blasting a fist-size, or larger hole out of the off-side. If you need the pelts, this is bad news. I tried everything, including downloading and solid bullets, but to no avail. I will not go into details; it is silly to get a Swift and then load it to Hornet velocities and below! (Contrary to myth, though, most of my reduced loads were very accurate). The point is that we must use the right bullet at the right speed for every job, and the Swift, .22-250 and other ‘big’ .22s all blow up pelts on side-shots at the shorter distances. Even the .222 Remington does that up to 50 m or so. The answer to that problem is a .17 calibre, or possibly a Hornet with Blitz-SX-type bullets.
Feral cats and rabbits are dispatched with aplomb, though if you want to eat your rabbit, you had better shoot him in the head! Results on crows are every bit as spectacular, as so often described by other authors.
Then we still have the controversy over shooting larger game with the Swift. In my opinion, any trouble encountered in this respect is entirely due to the use of unsuitable bullets, and bad shooting. I have shot roos with the Swift and seen many others shot with .22-250s, at distances of up to about 200 m, without any problems.{footnote}Contrary to conservationist’s claims, Australia has roos, especially ‘greys’, in plague proportions, and had them even before the – now lifted again – ban on roo shooting. Because of this, graziers were issued permits to shoot roos, to keep their numbers down, and all roos I saw shot or shot myself, were shot on the authority of such permits.{/footnote} Many of the .22-250s were using 50-55 gn HP fox-shooting loads, but I generally used the Sierra 63 gn SP. Occasionally, when I did not have any of the 'heavies' with me, I used the lighter HPs, on shots inside 100 m or so.
ABOVE LEFT: The tall, brown ones are males, the small grey ones females.
Only once did I have a problem with the HPs, and that was due to bad bullet placement: my friend Ken Gill and I were hunting foxes during the day and came across a small mob of ‘greys’ unexpectedly. They went off diagonally up the hill to gain another clump of scrub, and since we needed a roo for the dogs, I had a go at one huge old buck, quartering across my front. I twice hit him in his right upper arm at 30 and 40 m, misjudging his hop and the way he was swinging the arm. Those two shots had no effect, other than make him tack a little. At just inside 50 m I managed to slip the third 50 gn Nosler HPSB into his chest, and that produced the dog food.{footnote}Incidentally, roo meat is supposed to have the highest protein content in the World! It is dark red and lean, like ostrich meat. I have eaten it and found it very good. Of course, an old buck smells and tastes rank, so is best fed to the dogs. Interestingly, both our dog and cat preferred roo meat to anything else. When we first moved up to the New England area, I often fed them rabbit. Once I had fed them roo meat, however, they turned their noses up at rabbit and wouldn't touch it anymore!{/footnote}
One of the first two bullets had stopped on the bone of the upper arm; the other missed the bone and stopped under the skin on the opposite side. Both bullets were badly deformed and had lost more than half of their jackets and lead, and the arm muscle was pulp, shot through with shrapnel. But one cannot expect anything else! That muscle packet had a circumference of around 40 cm, and the bone was about 2,5 to 3 cm in diameter. The little HPs are not designed for this sort of thing, and at that short distance were probably still going at 3.700 fps. It is a wonder they did not blow up completely! The third bullet got into the lung cavity, and we did not bother to retrieve it.
The only ‘heavy’ bullet I used in my Swift is the 63 gn Sierra SP.{footnote}I am experimenting with Nosler 60 gn Partition bullets at the moment, but haven't shot any game with them yet. They are very well made bullets and very accurate.{/footnote} This performed well on all occasions, giving good accuracy and penetration. I never had any failures, so did not recover any bullets on purpose, though I found a few when cutting up meat: they held together well, but lost some of their jacket and lead on the closer shots - under 50 m, or so.
I do not recommend the use of light, hollow-point bullets on anything larger than jackal, but would not hesitate to use the Swift on springbuck, or game of similar size, using the heavier soft-points – 60 gn and up. In fact, I have shot an impala with the 63 gn Sierra SP bullet, since this article was first written. This was in the mopane scrub, near the Limpopo, and the distance was inside 70 m - estimated impact velocity about 3.400 fps. The bullet behaved perfectly. A neck shot, breaking the lower neck vertebra, exited on the far side, making an exit wound you could cover with a 10c piece. Meat damage was minimal.
Before I am accused of being a high-velocity small-bore freak, let me say that my rifles range from .17 to .458 cal., and that I have done most of my hunting, other than bird and varmint shooting, with a .270 or a .375. Having used the .270 on roos in Australia, with bullets ranging from 100 to 150 gns, I can compare the performance of the Swift, and it is more than adequate for roos. A big buck, like the one described above, will stand 2m tall, weigh 70 kg or more and is very heavily constructed. No wonder, then, that the Swift performs well on impala.
Articles 
