.222 vs .223 vs .22-250 vs .220 swift vs .243 for Range/Accuracy
COZZIE
best accuracy with the longest range? .222, .223, .22-250, .220 swift and
.243.
I realise that if a shooter reloads brass with various amounts of powder
and different grain projectiles both range and accuracy can be increased.
For the purpose of this post, I would like to know using standard factory
loads. Secondly, is .223 the calibre most law enforcement groups use for
sniper rifles? What advantages does this calibre have over any other?
Thanks
Paul
Bill Baker
icos...@info.curtin.edu.au (COZZIE ) wrote:
#
#I would like to know which of the following calibres is
#recommended for best accuracy with the longest range?
#.222, .223, .22-250, .220 swift and .243.
#I realise that if a shooter reloads brass with various
#amounts of powder and different grain projectiles both
#range and accuracy can be increased. For the purpose
#of this post, I would like to know using standard
#factory loads. Secondly, is .223 the calibre most law
#enforcement groups use for sniper rifles? What
#advantages does this calibre have over any other?
#
Paul,
Of your choices the .243 or 22-250 will provide you with the
flatest flight,
.308 Win is better but it all depends on what you plan to do
with it.
Yes, it is true *most* law enforcement groups use .223 but
don't mistake that for
accuracy... They use it more because of 1.) less chance of
over penatration 2.)
In most cases can get closer to the target then say a Marine
Sniper and 3.) Because Match
ammo is far more easy to come by.
Armed Forces use .308W, .300 Mag, and .50 Cal's - Their
spotter's use .223 "For Effect and
Support" fire..
Bill Baker
Kurt Cecil
#From: COZZIE <icos...@info.curtin.edu.au>
#Subject: .222 vs .223 vs .22-250 vs .220 swift vs .243 for Range/Accuracy
#Date: 1 Aug 1994 17:53:02 -0400
#I would like to know which of the following calibres is recommended for
#best accuracy with the longest range? .222, .223, .22-250, .220 swift and
#.243.
#I realise that if a shooter reloads brass with various amounts of powder
#and different grain projectiles both range and accuracy can be increased.
#For the purpose of this post, I would like to know using standard factory
#loads. Secondly, is .223 the calibre most law enforcement groups use for
#sniper rifles? What advantages does this calibre have over any other?
#Thanks
#Paul
I have been looking into this quite extensively recently, as I will be
purchasing a Heavy barrel prairie dog killer soon. Anyway, the .220 swift
will definately give you the least bullet drop because of the extreme
velocities. Also, with 60gr. bullets (or so) the .220 swift will also give
the least wind drift (.243 might be fractions of an inch less, but much more
bullet drop). Unfortunately, factory .220 swift ammo is the most rare of all
those. The .22-250 gives velocities 100 ft/s less than the swift, takes less
powder, and has more available factory ammo.
The advantages the .223 has are price and availability of cheap ammo. That
is what I currently use for prairie dogs, and it works very well out to 250
yards, and I have made shots over 300 yards. If you are not comfortable
shooting over 300 yards, it is the best choice because it is so affordable to
shoot. If you are going to be shooting varmints, it would be a good gun to
start with, and would always be a good second gun. I will not get rid of mine.
As for law enforcement sniper rifles, I would assume they use .308, but I do
not know for sure.
Hope this helps.
Kurt Cecil
Mailstop Guy
but it is really not in the same class as the .22 cartridges. This
is particularly so with the .222 and .223. No relative comparison
can be made in that aspect.
I dont know about whether most law enforcement agencies use the .223.
I would rather doubt it as this cartridge doesnt pack much punch and
the .308 far outclasses it in the longer ranges.
In my own opinion the 22-250 is the better choice among the long range
.22 calibers. The .220 Swift burns out barrels faster and is a little
more finicky.
Conrad
Robert Payne
: icos...@info.curtin.edu.au (COZZIE ) wrote:
: #
: #I would like to know which of the following calibres is
: #recommended for best accuracy with the longest range?
: #.222, .223, .22-250, .220 swift and .243.
: Paul,
: Of your choices the .243 or 22-250 will provide you with the
: flatest flight,
Actually, the .220 Swift is flatter with similar accuracy to the
.22-250. Brass life is a bit less, though.
If beyond 500 yds is needed, probably should get one of the
.30 caliber rifles.
--
Robert Payne NRA
Politically incorrect, and damn sure intend NRA/ILA
to stay that way! CRA
Gary Coffman
#best accuracy with the longest range? .222, .223, .22-250, .220 swift and
#.243.
The .243 will hold velocity and retain accuracy further than any of the
.22s. Under 600 yards, however, the .220 Swift is champ because of it's
flat trajectory. The best all around varmint cartridge though is the
.22-250. It's 100 fps slower, but barrels last a lot longer, and for
shots under 500 yards it is just as effective as the Swift.
Out past 600 yards, you're really in 7mm and .30 cal territory. They'll
outperform the .22s easily, and outperform the .243 as well for shots
at known range. At known ranges, rainbow trajectories aren't a hinderance.
Heavy bullets with good BC are better than light bullets with good BC
for retaining energy and velocity at extreme ranges. A .50 BMG would be
even better, but I wouldn't want to shoulder fire a lot of them in an
afternoon's varmint hunt.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Gary Coffman
#In article <31uho4$7...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
#Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
#
##Heavy bullets with good BC are better than light bullets with good BC
##for retaining energy and velocity at extreme ranges.
#
#Are you saying that a 70gr .224 with a .450BC started at 3000fps
#will lose more velocity than a 165gr .30 cal with a .450BC started
#at 3000fps? If not, what exactly are you saying?
Grumble. No I misspoke. What I *meant* to say was that for bullets with
equal *form drag*, the heavier bullet will lose less velocity than a
lighter one. Of course that's exactly what the ballistic coefficient
measures. And heavier bullets typically will have better BCs than light
bullets. That's why larger calibers are preferred at longer ranges,
because their mass goes up with the cube of caliber while their form
drag only increases with the square.
Tangled in that thought was another. Given two rounds starting with
equal energy, the one starting at the lower velocity will retain
more of it's energy down range. That's because drag is proportional
to the cube of velocity for a given form factor. Faster bullets
suffer more drag and slow quicker than slower bullets. But to have
equal energy at the start, the slower bullet has to have more mass,
and that doesn't decrease at increasing ranges. So for the best
striking energy at the target, you want the heaviest and slowest
bullet you can fire.
Now if what I said above is true, and it is, then one would expect
that a .45-70 would make a better varmint cartridge than a .220 Swift
(about the same ME). But of course it isn't, and the thing that makes
it less effective is subtle. It's called impulse. That's a measure of
energy dumped per unit time. The faster bullet dumps it's energy into
the target quicker than the slower bullet, and we get the explosive
results we observe when a small thin skinned varmint is hit with a Swift.
OTOH, because the dump is so rapid, we don't get the penetration we
need for larger animals.
Toby Bradshaw
Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
#Heavy bullets with good BC are better than light bullets with good BC
#for retaining energy and velocity at extreme ranges.
Are you saying that a 70gr .224 with a .450BC started at 3000fps
will lose more velocity than a 165gr .30 cal with a .450BC started
at 3000fps? If not, what exactly are you saying?
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
#Tangled in that thought was another. Given two rounds starting with
#equal energy, the one starting at the lower velocity will retain
#more of it's energy down range. That's because drag is proportional
#to the cube of velocity for a given form factor. Faster bullets
#suffer more drag and slow quicker than slower bullets. But to have
#equal energy at the start, the slower bullet has to have more mass,
#and that doesn't decrease at increasing ranges. So for the best
#striking energy at the target, you want the heaviest and slowest
#bullet you can fire.
#Now if what I said above is true, and it is, then one would expect
#that a .45-70 would make a better varmint cartridge than a .220 Swift
#(about the same ME). But of course it isn't, and the thing that makes
#it less effective is subtle. It's called impulse.
It's not subtle, and it's not impulse. It's trajectory. Since
the retained energy numbers are adequate for varmints out to
way past 500 yards with the .220 Swift, there's no reason to
compare this figure with a .45-70 in the first place.
#That's a measure of
#energy dumped per unit time. The faster bullet dumps it's energy into
#the target quicker than the slower bullet, and we get the explosive
#results we observe when a small thin skinned varmint is hit with a Swift.
#OTOH, because the dump is so rapid, we don't get the penetration we
#need for larger animals.
Depends partly on bullet construction. Penetration is a function
of velocity and sectional density. A suitably stout bullet from a
Swift will penetrate *better* than a bullet from a .45-70 with
equal striking energy. Of course, it won't make as big a hole
in a game animal even if it expands to twice its starting diameter.
For a graphic illustration see one or the other of Ackley's books,
where a test of Swift vs. armor is depicted. The Swift (ordinary
bullet) zipped through 1/2" armor plate while 100gr .270 and .30-06
*armor piercing* rounds did squat. Given that both the .270 and
.30-06 have more striking energy at any distance than the Swift
(or the .45-70) you may wish to reconsider your statements
on penetration, impulse,and their importance in deciding
whether to tote a Swift or a .45-70 to the gopher fields (or game
fields, for that matter).
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Robert Slugg
a lot of different factors. As has been pointed out, the heavier bullets
in larger (6mm, 25 cal) calibers have better BC's. In addition, there is
also the lateral effect of wind, and these heavier bullets are better at
bucking the wind. The real question though is when these effects become
significant. I use a 3x5 inch card as the effective area of a
groundhog. Anything which move the bullet out of that area at 300 yds is
significant. Since I shoot in the East, wind is usually insignificant.
For me, a flat shooter is most important as I find rough terrain more
difficult to range. I usually zero my 220 at 250 yds and pretty much
ignore the correct range issue. Were I shooting out west, then I think
I'd move up to a 25.06 since the factors of retained velocity and wind
bucking would become more important. Another important factor is noise.
It makes no sense to have an overly powerful cartridge if the range
doesn't justify it. If I'm shooting 200 yds or less, a .222 works very
well and it gets me invited back, as I've done my job and the cows aren't
off their milk.
Bob
--
Robert M. Slugg Meyer 5-109 Johns Hopkins Hospital fax (410) 955-1032
rsl...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
We're all here because we aren't all there
Steven Speer
: Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
: #Heavy bullets with good BC are better than light bullets with good BC
: #for retaining energy and velocity at extreme ranges.
: Are you saying that a 70gr .224 with a .450BC started at 3000fps
: will lose more velocity than a 165gr .30 cal with a .450BC started
: at 3000fps? If not, what exactly are you saying?
I agree with what I think you're getting at here, but...
won't a 220Swift push this .45BC bullet faster than the biggest .300 Mag
will push it's .45BC bullet? I don't have a manual here (I should get
one, we get into these once or twice a month) so I'm only going on gut
instinct here - which was wrong once. :-) If that's true, then as a
rule I would think light bullets with a good BC will perform better than
heavy bullets with a good BC because, as a rule, they'll be shot at higher
velocities.
-Steve
Gary Coffman
#In article <321mjs$b...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,##Now if what I said above is true, and it is, then one would expect
##that a .45-70 would make a better varmint cartridge than a .220 Swift
##(about the same ME). But of course it isn't, and the thing that makes
##it less effective is subtle. It's called impulse.
#
#It's not subtle, and it's not impulse. It's trajectory. Since
#the retained energy numbers are adequate for varmints out to
#way past 500 yards with the .220 Swift, there's no reason to
#compare this figure with a .45-70 in the first place.
It is impulse. Even with AP 5.56mm rounds, if they're pushed to
high velocity, it "blows'em up real good" while the .45-70 with
the same ME does not. It just makes a neat .45 cal hole. I have
empirical evidence. This has nothing to do with bullet construction,
or trajectory (directly), the terminal effects of a fast light
bullet are just spectacular on small game animals. However, the
terminal effects on large game are just dismal, no better than
an ice pick after the first couple of inches of penetration.
There's a big surface wound, and a tiny hole the rest of the
way through. Unless the shot is lucky enough to hit the CNS
or the heart, the animal runs away to die much later. The
impulse, the energy dump, is too quick, and too shallow, to be
effective.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us
Toby Bradshaw
Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
#In article <3240jp$e...@news.u.washington.edu> to...@u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
##In article <321mjs$b...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
##Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
##
###Now if what I said above is true, and it is, then one would expect
###that a .45-70 would make a better varmint cartridge than a .220 Swift
###(about the same ME). But of course it isn't, and the thing that makes
###it less effective is subtle. It's called impulse.
##
##It's not subtle, and it's not impulse. It's trajectory. Since
##the retained energy numbers are adequate for varmints out to
##way past 500 yards with the .220 Swift, there's no reason to
##compare this figure with a .45-70 in the first place.
#
#It is impulse.
So, you actually believe that the only reason to choose a .220
Swift over a .45-70 is "impulse"? Or, do you think it's the
main reason? I'd like to have this one for my files.
#Even with AP 5.56mm rounds, if they're pushed to
#high velocity, it "blows'em up real good" while the .45-70 with
#the same ME does not. It just makes a neat .45 cal hole. I have
#empirical evidence.
I have emprical evidence that the passage of time is independent
of velocity. Doesn't make it so. I've shot plenty of ground
squirrels with FMJ .223 and had the bullets .224 in-and-out.
IF they hit bone the explosive effect can be dramatic. Otherwise,
they make a bullet-diameter hole.
#This has nothing to do with bullet construction,
#or trajectory (directly), the terminal effects of a fast light
#bullet are just spectacular on small game animals. However, the
#terminal effects on large game are just dismal, no better than
#an ice pick after the first couple of inches of penetration.
Have you ever shot a big game animal with a .22CF? A properly-
contructed expanding bullet will go side to side on a big
mule deer with no problem. I never had one run off. Care
to discuss the physics of projectile penetration to support
your claim that a typical .45-70 bullet will penetrate better
than a .220 Swift? I'm skeptical, and willing to put money
on a demo. I'll bring the Swift :)
#There's a big surface wound, and a tiny hole the rest of the
#way through.
Is this from personal inspection of wound channels in big game?
If so, it runs counter to my experience. The entrance wound
is bullet diameter and the exit wound is much bigger, depending
on what the bullet hit going in and coming out.
#Unless the shot is lucky enough to hit the CNS
#or the heart, the animal runs away to die much later. The
#impulse, the energy dump, is too quick, and too shallow, to be
#effective.
I watched a friend of mine kill a bull elk with a lung shot with
a .22-250. Didn't appear "ineffective" judging from the 2" exit
wound. Do you contend that a bullet from a .220 Swift will
penetrate more poorly that one from a .45-70? I need this answer
for my archives, too.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
John W. Engel
of .22 cal. centerfires, .45-70 is one of the great loves of my life;
I like .30 cals., .35 cals., and any other cals. in rifle. I love to
shoot .32 ACP, .380, 9mm, and .45 ACP in pistol. Oh, and .22 l.r., and
.my .22 Mag. I've only tried 3" in cannon (so far), and 81mm mortar.
Where were we? Oh, yeah...
I've been hunting whitetail here in Texas for the last few years
using the .223 in a SAKO. It does an acceptable job out to 250 yds.,
and has one-shotted 'em to 300. But it *is* on the light side for
this work, and shot placement is critical. I've had several failures
to completely penetrate on side-to-sides, even at ranges under 100 yds.
The bullet my gun likes, and which is heavy enough is the Sierra 63 gr.
SMP over 25.5 gr. Win 748 powder. I would not hunt deer with the 55 gr.,
as I consider it to be too light, and too lightly constructed for big
game. I was surprised to hear that the Swift penetrated an elk. I
wouldn't count on it for such large game. The .45-70, with a 400-500
gr. bullet has a very great deal of penetration, even at BP (~1350 ft./sec.) levels. I would be surprised (but not for the first time) to learn
that the .220 Swift would out-penetrate it.
Since my hunting is tending towards longer ranges, and heavier game,
I'm moving up to that lesson in efficiency, the .30 Gibbs. This
blown-out .30-06 case (read blown out as far as possible with a 3/16"
neck) will push a 180 gr. bullet at 3000-3100 ft./sec. with 10-15
grs. less powder (61-64 gr. 4350) than the other .30 Magnums. While
I *have* heard of elk being killed with the .223; I'm not going to
do it.
Regards,
Whit
Toby Bradshaw
John W. Engel <wh...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
#The bullet my gun likes, and which is heavy enough is the Sierra 63 gr.
#SMP over 25.5 gr. Win 748 powder. I would not hunt deer with the 55 gr.,
#as I consider it to be too light, and too lightly constructed for big
#game.
Bullet contruction, not weight alone, is the key. Penetration is
a function of sectional density and velocity. If the sectional
density of the biggest piece of the bullet is too low, you get
"varmint bullet" performance. If the SD (after expansion) is
adequate, and there is ample velocity, penetration is assured.
Note that in Ackley's book Lester Womack has a rather detailed
explanation of his experience with the Swift on mule deer. With
*proper* big game bullets, the forerunners of Trophy Bonded,
end-to-end penetration of big mulies was the norm (not just
side-to-side). With varmint bullets, penetration was poor,
as expected, on big game. This parallels my experience with
.22s on big game precisely.
#I was surprised to hear that the Swift penetrated an elk. I
#wouldn't count on it for such large game.
It was a .22-250, but never mind. What about the physics of penetration
would lead you to believe that this is unusual, given adequate bullet
construction? Would you think that a bullet from a .22-250 would go
side-to-side on an animal 16" thick at point-blank range? I would. A few
chucks shot head on would tell you the same thing. After that, it's just
a matter of deciding at what range this is no longer the case.
#The .45-70, with a 400-500 >gr. bullet has a very great deal of
#penetration, even at BP (~1350 ft./sec.) levels. I would be surprised
#(but not for the first time) to learn >that the .220 Swift would
#out-penetrate it.
A 420gr .45-70 projectile has about twice the sectional density
of a 55gr .224. Of course, it is typically going *much* slower.
Penetration becomes a function of bullet construction because
the .224 is more likely to be deformed (lowering its SD) at the
higher impact velocities. Take a look at Ackley's book for visual
evidence of fast/light vs. heavy/slow.
# Since my hunting is tending towards longer ranges, and heavier game,
#I'm moving up to that lesson in efficiency, the .30 Gibbs. This
#blown-out .30-06 case (read blown out as far as possible with a 3/16"
#neck) will push a 180 gr. bullet at 3000-3100 ft./sec. with 10-15
#grs. less powder (61-64 gr. 4350) than the other .30 Magnums.
Let us know how it comes out -- the Gibbs I've seen were not as
speedy as expected from the published loads, which are themselves
pretty warm. For instance, a .240 Gibbs would give about 150 ft/sec
more than a max load in a 6mm Rem with 100gr bullets. The Gibbs
was lower than advertised and the Rem can be loaded hotter than
the books generally publish. These were chambered in the same
barrel, by the way, as a test.
#While
#I *have* heard of elk being killed with the .223; I'm not going to
#do it.
Me neither. Too much meat to pack out :) Of course, a .223 is just
a Swift with 100 yards taken off the range. If it's OK for a Swift
at 200, the .223 will do the same job, with more accuracy, at 100.
Not my choice for an elk rifle, though, should I ever be seized with
the urge to kill a horse with horns.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Robert Payne
: I watched a friend of mine kill a bull elk with a lung shot with
: a .22-250. Didn't appear "ineffective" judging from the 2" exit
: wound. Do you contend that a bullet from a .220 Swift will
: penetrate more poorly that one from a .45-70? I need this answer
: for my archives, too.
A two inch exit wound on a bull elk with a .22-250? What kind of
bullet? I find this difficult to believe, I have seen too many
others calibers shooting bullets with higher sectional density
that are designed for controlled expansion that fail to give
complete penetration on a heart/lung shot broadside. My brother
used a .25-06 with 120 gr. SP for elk hunting one year. He
delivered four rounds into the chest of the bull elk and NONE
exited. The range was around 100 yards. A friend of mine shot
a bull elk at about 75 yards with his .30-06 150 gr. SP and that
bullet was found lodged under the skin on the far side of the
carcass. My .338 Win mag has yet to fail to give complete
penetration and has always yielded one shot stops.
I shot a mule deer buck once with my .220 Swift, nice side shot into
the ear canal. The bullet did NOT exit the head, turned the brain
into something resembling strawberry jam. No meat on that buck was
wasted due to bloodshot meat.
What kinda bullets was your friend shooting, steel jackets?
Was that elk a calf? I've shot a lot of .220 Swift ammo,
rebarreled the rifle a couple of times. I find your claim
very difficult to believe.
James Warren
: In article <32k7lh$a...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
: Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
: #In article <3240jp$e...@news.u.washington.edu> to...@u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
: ##In article <321mjs$b...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
: ##Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
: #This has nothing to do with bullet construction,
: #or trajectory (directly), the terminal effects of a fast light
: #bullet are just spectacular on small game animals. However, the
: #terminal effects on large game are just dismal, no better than
: #an ice pick after the first couple of inches of penetration.
: Have you ever shot a big game animal with a .22CF? A properly-
: contructed expanding bullet will go side to side on a big
: mule deer with no problem. I never had one run off. Care
: to discuss the physics of projectile penetration to support
: your claim that a typical .45-70 bullet will penetrate better
: than a .220 Swift? I'm skeptical, and willing to put money
: on a demo. I'll bring the Swift :)
If you guys do have a demo, I'll put my money on the Swift, too. I can
bring along both a Swift and a .45/70.
The .45/70 is a great hunting round, and a lot of fun, but at short range
(<150 yds), there is no comparison; the Swift will drop deer sized game
much faster than the .45/70. At longer range, the Swift's velocity
begins to drop to where it is not a great deal more effective than the
.45/70, but it is sure a lot easier to place your shots at these
distances with the 220.
--JDW
Anthony M Kerschen
Toby Bradshaw <to...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
#Have you ever shot a big game animal with a .22CF? A properly-
#contructed expanding bullet will go side to side on a big
#mule deer with no problem. I never had one run off. Care
#to discuss the physics of projectile penetration to support
#your claim that a typical .45-70 bullet will penetrate better
#than a .220 Swift? I'm skeptical, and willing to put money
#on a demo. I'll bring the Swift :)
#
##There's a big surface wound, and a tiny hole the rest of the
##way through.
#
#Is this from personal inspection of wound channels in big game?
#If so, it runs counter to my experience. The entrance wound
#is bullet diameter and the exit wound is much bigger, depending
#on what the bullet hit going in and coming out.
I'm curious. What type of bullet did you use for such performance
on big game? I have considered using a .223Rem for deer this year,
but the tests I have done on wet newspaper bundles have shown massive
destruction for about 2 to 3 inches, then a small hole continuing
for another 3 or 4 inches. I admit I've only tried a couple of types
of bullets, they seem to be of such light construction as to be only
good for blowing up prairie dogs and such. I thought I might try
the 60 grain Nosler solid base, just because it has the word "solid"
in the name. Do you have a better recommendation?
---
Anthony Kerschen
a...@pine.cse.nau.edu
Frank Langham
ANYTHING LESS THAN A .25CAL/.6mm IN THE STATE OF TEXAS (.243 IS FINE)
...I AGREE THAT .223 WILL DO THE JOB DOWN HERE IN TEXAS (W/CORRECT BULLET)
...THIS, BECAUSE THE DEER DOWN HERE (IN THE HILL COUNTRY ANYWAY) ARE MUCH
SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN THEIR YANKEE COUNTERPARTS (SO THEY STAY COOLER)...
...THE EXEPTION IS THE SOUTH-TEXAS THICKET VARIETY WHICH HAVE TAKEN
SEVERAL BOONE & CROCKET TROPHIES AND THE WEST TEXAS MULE DEER...
...EVEN .243 IS TOO SMALL FOR ANYTHING BUT HEAD SHOTS ON THESE GUYS
OUT PAST 100 YARDS... NO JUDGEMENT HERE... JUST FYI...
...I THING THAT EVEN A .22WMR CAN BE EFFECTIVE ON THE DOG-SIZED VARIETY
IF IT IS A HEAD SHOT AT ARCHERY RANGES... THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL THOUGH
AND BUCK FEVER SOMETIMES AFFECTS OUR AIM... .308 IS PERFECT FOR ANY DEER
OUT TO 400 YARDS IF WELL PLACED. I HAVE SPOKEN.
=FRANKL=
John W. Engel
The 63 gr. Sierra performs well (i.e. stays in one piece, unless a large
bone is hit). At MV 3000, it just sometimes penetrates, sometimes doesn't.
The large, slow .45-70's will hold together without a jacket. I've shot
them through tree stumps with heavy loads in an 1886. I've read the
rag-writer's stuff since I was a kid, (Ackley, too), and rely on real
life experience these days.
BTW, the .30 Gibbs has already been chronographed, as Lonnie
has already made several of them for local customers. It performs
as described. Have you called yer Congresscritter?
Whit
Toby Bradshaw
#Toby Bradshaw (to...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
#
#: I watched a friend of mine kill a bull elk with a lung shot with
#: a .22-250. Didn't appear "ineffective" judging from the 2" exit
#: wound. Do you contend that a bullet from a .220 Swift will
#: penetrate more poorly that one from a .45-70? I need this answer
#: for my archives, too.
#
#A two inch exit wound on a bull elk with a .22-250? What kind of
#bullet?
53gr Hornady Match. Took a chunk of rib out on the far side, hit
no bone giong in.
#I find this difficult to believe, I have seen too many
#others calibers shooting bullets with higher sectional density
#that are designed for controlled expansion that fail to give
#complete penetration on a heart/lung shot broadside. My brother
#used a .25-06 with 120 gr. SP for elk hunting one year. He
#delivered four rounds into the chest of the bull elk and NONE
#exited. The range was around 100 yards. A friend of mine shot
#a bull elk at about 75 yards with his .30-06 150 gr. SP and that
#bullet was found lodged under the skin on the far side of the
#carcass. My .338 Win mag has yet to fail to give complete
#penetration and has always yielded one shot stops.
I guess the .22-250 is better on elk :) Anecdotal information,
which is all I have (not an elk hunter -- too much like work),
is pretty poor for deciding what to use. My lone (2nd hand)
experience on elk and .22CFs is that a lung shot with a
.22-250 works fine. It wouldn't be my first choice.
#I shot a mule deer buck once with my .220 Swift, nice side shot into
#the ear canal. The bullet did NOT exit the head, turned the brain
#into something resembling strawberry jam. No meat on that buck was
#wasted due to bloodshot meat.
I head shot an antelope last October with my .222 and had about a 1"
exit wound. I wouldn't want to claim that the .222 penetrates
better than the Swift on head shots based on two stories, would
you? I used 24gr H322 and a Bruno 52gr FB, range about 100 yards.
#What kinda bullets was your friend shooting, steel jackets?
Nope. See above.
#Was that elk a calf?
Spike.
#I've shot a lot of .220 Swift ammo,
#rebarreled the rifle a couple of times. I find your claim
#very difficult to believe.
I'm in no position to care what you believe.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
Anthony M Kerschen <a...@a1.cse.nau.edu> wrote:
[little bullets, big game]
#I'm curious. What type of bullet did you use for such performance
#on big game? I have considered using a .223Rem for deer this year,
#but the tests I have done on wet newspaper bundles have shown massive
#destruction for about 2 to 3 inches, then a small hole continuing
#for another 3 or 4 inches. I admit I've only tried a couple of types
#of bullets, they seem to be of such light construction as to be only
#good for blowing up prairie dogs and such. I thought I might try
#the 60 grain Nosler solid base, just because it has the word "solid"
#in the name. Do you have a better recommendation?
Trophy Bonded are among the sturdiest .224 bullets and are made
specifically for shooting deer-sized game. They are over $1 each,
though, so I wouldn't plan on doing a lot of plinking with them.
I posted their address a few days ago, but I'll mail it to you if
you don't have it.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
John W. Engel
.223 on the small Texas whitetails for me, but I cannot say they've
performed spectacularly. This calibre should probably only be used
on deer in a *very* accurate rifle. YMWV-
Whit
John W. Engel
This is incorrect. Among other things, I teach Hunter Education for
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. There is no minimum calibre for deer
hunting in Texas; it must be centerfire. (I *guess* you could use
one of those pipsqueak .17's legally). I called TPWD at 512/389-4800,
Law Enforcement Div. to verify, so I wouldn't post incorrect legal
information (MUCH more potentially damaging than incorrect Sock/Glig
info!)
Whit
Steven Speer
: It was a .22-250, but never mind. What about the physics of penetration
: would lead you to believe that this is unusual, given adequate bullet
: construction? Would you think that a bullet from a .22-250 would go
: side-to-side on an animal 16" thick at point-blank range? I would. A few
: chucks shot head on would tell you the same thing. After that, it's just
: a matter of deciding at what range this is no longer the case.
I just took a quick measurement. I'm 15" side to side on my chest. I'd
also be suprised if you could get any expanding .22 caliber bullet to
penetrate a mature bull elk (that was what you said before, right?) through
the chest. I've never seen one that was only 16" side to side.
-Steve
Toby Bradshaw
John W. Engel <wh...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
#Hi, Toby!
# The 63 gr. Sierra performs well (i.e. stays in one piece, unless a large
#bone is hit). At MV 3000, it just sometimes penetrates, sometimes doesn't.
#The large, slow .45-70's will hold together without a jacket. I've shot
#them through tree stumps with heavy loads in an 1886.
Well, you picked a target of about the right size :)
#I've read the
#rag-writer's stuff since I was a kid, (Ackley, too), and rely on real
#life experience these days.
A wise move. Try a FMJ .223 on your stumps and give us a report :)
I have shot Blitzes through a creosote 8x8, but so far I've let
stumps (and we have some big ones out here!) alone.
#BTW, the .30 Gibbs has already been chronographed, as Lonnie
#has already made several of them for local customers. It performs
#as described.
Now that IS a rarity!
#Have you called yer Congresscritter?
Well, I've called him a SOB :/
I will be tempted to do so to his face if the Crime Bill makes it
into law.
I've called and written. With Kreidler, it's hopeless, though.
He's sure he knows what's best for me, and he voted to put the
Crime Bill on the floor. "No sporting purpose" is the phrase I
remember from his last letter ...
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
Steven Speer <s...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> wrote:
#I just took a quick measurement. I'm 15" side to side on my chest. I'd
#also be suprised if you could get any expanding .22 caliber bullet to
#penetrate a mature bull elk (that was what you said before, right?) through
#the chest. I've never seen one that was only 16" side to side.
This one was a spike, and I didn't measure it, but it went in-and-
out. Have you never shot a coyote and had the bullet go end-to-end?
With a hard bullet, like a FMJ, this is pretty common.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
#Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
#the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
#(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
one piece? How about if I shoot my .222 at 100 yards and you shoot
your Swift at 300? You seem to be short a few parameters in your
analysis.
#By the way, your 63 gr. bullet has a sectional density of about
#.179, the .25 caliber 120 gr. has about .260.
^^^
0.253, actually.
The point being ... ? Sectional density scales as a linear function
of bore diameter if coefficient of form is held constant. A 175gr
7mm bullet has a SD of 0.310. If I drop it on my foot it still
won't penetrate, what with penetration depending on velocity and
all.
#I stand by my statement and I know the 53 gr Hornady match
#will NOT shoot through an elk I have shot LOTS of the
#Hornady although my rifle prefers the Noslers. They rarely
#even shoot through both sides of coyotes at the closer ranges.
Well, it's your opinion vs. my observation. What you believe
is up to you. I stopped caring 3 or 4 posts back.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Frank Langham
#
#Hi, Frank!
# This is incorrect. Among other things, I teach Hunter Education for
#Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. There is no minimum calibre for deer
#hunting in Texas; it must be centerfire. (I *guess* you could use
#one of those pipsqueak .17's legally). I called TPWD at 512/389-4800,
#Law Enforcement Div. to verify, so I wouldn't post incorrect legal
#information (MUCH more potentially damaging than incorrect Sock/Glig
#info!)
#Whit
#
Glad to hear it (I think)... Allow me, then, to modify my comments...
I am no great hunter... I do shoot and read a great deal and most
reloading Gurus write a great deal about OGW (Optimum Game Weight).
Practice is more telling than theory but I'll just say that no
consciencious (sp?) "authority" would advise your average "Joe"
to hunt Deer (in general) or larger sized game with a .22CF...
...If you say the TPWD told you it is alright, then I guess it is...
...What is the point of even trying to use a .22CF ifhumane and dependable calibre in your battery? (or is that the point?).
Robert Payne
: #Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
: #the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
: #(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
: ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
No, let qualify that with expanding bullet. Next you'll be telling
me those hollow points you're shoot aren't expanding hollow points.
: one piece? How about if I shoot my .222 at 100 yards and you shoot
: your Swift at 300? You seem to be short a few parameters in your
: analysis.
And let's assume at equal range and < 200 yds.
: #By the way, your 63 gr. bullet has a sectional density of about
: #.179, the .25 caliber 120 gr. has about .260.
: ^^^
: 0.253, actually.
I guess that depends on whose bullet and manual you are looking at,
mine says .260.
: The point being ... ? Sectional density scales as a linear function
: of bore diameter if coefficient of form is held constant. A 175gr
: 7mm bullet has a SD of 0.310. If I drop it on my foot it still
: won't penetrate, what with penetration depending on velocity and
: all.
: #I stand by my statement and I know the 53 gr Hornady match
: #will NOT shoot through an elk I have shot LOTS of the
: #Hornady although my rifle prefers the Noslers. They rarely
: #even shoot through both sides of coyotes at the closer ranges.
: Well, it's your opinion vs. my observation. What you believe
: is up to you. I stopped caring 3 or 4 posts back.
Yes, but my opinion is based on my observations of several thousand
rounds in each of the following: .223 Rem (close to a .222), .220 Swift,
.25-06 to only name three.
I base my opinion on significant (although unpublished) ballistic research
an associate and myself conducted over a two year period (1978-79).
You might note I stated I found it difficult to believe, but I would
not judge it impossible. I will assure you of this, it will not occur
reliably, not even in one of ten, maybe one in one hundred. This kind
of performance is not even close to acceptable. A .22 rimfire has
taken the largest game in the world, this does not make it acceptable.
A .22 centerfire offers unacceptable performance on big game period.
I don't care what bullet you use in it, it is still unacceptable for
general use on big game.
You take a .22-250 elk hunting, I'll stick to my .338 Win mag thankyou.
Toby Bradshaw
#Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
#the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
#(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
Let's take a look at the hoary old saw about rotational velocity
being the reason for rapid expansion. Perhaps we can agree that
the .338 Win will go through an elk; i.e., is a "good penetrator". The
rotational velocity of a .338 bullet at 2900fps from a 1-10 twist barrel
is 308 surface feet per second. The rotational velocity of the Swift at
4000fps from a 1-14 twist barrel is 201sfps. Since the rotational energy
scales as the square of the velocity, there is more than twice as much
centrifugal force ripping the .338 bullet apart as for the Swift. You
might want to consider the effect of bullet construction on expansion
before subscribing to an oft-repeated old wive's tale.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Gary Coffman
#In article <32k7lh$a...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
#Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
##It is impulse.
#
#So, you actually believe that the only reason to choose a .220
#Swift over a .45-70 is "impulse"? Or, do you think it's the
#main reason? I'd like to have this one for my files.
No, not at all. Impulse is why HV slugs cause small mostly fluid
targets to blow up violently, but in the field, having a flat
trajectory to partially compensate for range estimation error is
important too. They won't "blow up real good" if you don't hit
them. My point was that they won't blow up at all when hit by
the .45-70 despite it having comparable energy, but much less
velocity.
##Even with AP 5.56mm rounds, if they're pushed to
##high velocity, it "blows'em up real good" while the .45-70 with
##the same ME does not. It just makes a neat .45 cal hole. I have
##empirical evidence.
#
#I have emprical evidence that the passage of time is independent
#of velocity. Doesn't make it so. I've shot plenty of ground
#squirrels with FMJ .223 and had the bullets .224 in-and-out.
#IF they hit bone the explosive effect can be dramatic. Otherwise,
#they make a bullet-diameter hole.
Our evidence obviously differs. On 20 lb groundhogs, and gallon
jugs of water, I get explosive effects from a .22-250, even using
SS109 projectiles at about 3500 fps.
##This has nothing to do with bullet construction,
##or trajectory (directly), the terminal effects of a fast light
##bullet are just spectacular on small game animals. However, the
##terminal effects on large game are just dismal, no better than
##an ice pick after the first couple of inches of penetration.
#
#Have you ever shot a big game animal with a .22CF? A properly-
#contructed expanding bullet will go side to side on a big
#mule deer with no problem. I never had one run off. Care
#to discuss the physics of projectile penetration to support
#your claim that a typical .45-70 bullet will penetrate better
#than a .220 Swift? I'm skeptical, and willing to put money
#on a demo. I'll bring the Swift :)
I didn't say that a .45-70 would penetrate better than a .220 Swift.
Read what I said, "However the terminal effects are just dismal,
no better than an *ice pick* after the first couple of inches of
penetration." Sure it'll penetrate, but the big explosive wound is
on the entrance side, and shallow. The rest of the wound channel,
through the vitals, is small. The .45-70 makes a bigger wound channel
all the way through. If you hit the heart or spine with either, the
animal will drop, but a lung shot will cause the one hit with the .45-70
to bleed out and drop sooner as it runs away. I've trailed deer shot
with both, and never had to trail one hit with a .45-70 more than
half a mile. I've had to follow one shot by a hunting buddy's .223
for several hours, and miles, before it finally collapsed. Big wound
on the shoulder, little bitty hole through the lungs.
##There's a big surface wound, and a tiny hole the rest of the
##way through.
#
#Is this from personal inspection of wound channels in big game?
#If so, it runs counter to my experience. The entrance wound
#is bullet diameter and the exit wound is much bigger, depending
#on what the bullet hit going in and coming out.
It is from personal experience. On a heavy animal, light fast
bullets make a bigger entrance wound than exit wound, if they
exit at all. That's the exact opposite of the effects on smaller
game, where the whole animal almost literally explodes from the
sudden hydraulic pressure.
##Unless the shot is lucky enough to hit the CNS
##or the heart, the animal runs away to die much later. The
##impulse, the energy dump, is too quick, and too shallow, to be
##effective.
#
#I watched a friend of mine kill a bull elk with a lung shot with
#a .22-250. Didn't appear "ineffective" judging from the 2" exit
#wound. Do you contend that a bullet from a .220 Swift will
#penetrate more poorly that one from a .45-70? I need this answer
#for my archives, too.
See above. I'm making no claims about penetration as such, only about
the terminal wound channels the two bullets make in various media,
and to various depths. What I've seen on heavy animals is a shallow
explosive entrance wound and a small exit wound. On smaller animals,
I've seen the reverse, with a minimal caliber size entrance hole
and the whole other side of the animal blown out. Obviously the
hydraulic shock prefers to continue in the direction of the bullet
unless the resistance is too great in that direction. But when it
is, as with larger more heavily built animals, the pressure has to
go somewhere, and it comes out the entrance side as chunks blown off
the animal, a crater wound with a small central penetration.
Robert Payne
: #Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
: #the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
: #(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
: Let's take a look at the hoary old saw about rotational velocity
: being the reason for rapid expansion.
<stuff deleted>
: scales as the square of the velocity, there is more than twice as much
: centrifugal force ripping the .338 bullet apart as for the Swift. You
: might want to consider the effect of bullet construction on expansion
: before subscribing to an oft-repeated old wive's tale.
Of course there are more factors than the rotational velocity and bullet
construction has a lot to do with it. Just look at the poor performance
of bullets that were designed for use in calibers such as the .222 when
utilized in a Swift or .22-250. Many a bullet disintegrated before
reaching its target in a little cloud of grey "smoke". But the .22 cal
bullets don't have as strong of a jacket as the .338 and my guess is
that the core is comprised of a different alloy mix to aid in the
control of expansion.
Let me relate another event in which a .22-250 was utilized in an
attempt to dispatch a deer. A friend and I were stand hunting,
he with his .22-250 and me with my .25-06. Some deer wandered
into the meadow and I agreed to give him the first shot and I
would back him up. He attempted to shoot the buck in the group
but by some misfortune, missed the buck striking a doe in the
hindquarter. After a brief conversation, we decided he missed
the buck but hit the doe that was straggling and limping badly
as the herd attempted to disappear from sight. I was lucky
enough to dispatch the doe with my .25 with a shot through
the liver and lungs before she could escape. While skinning
the deer later, we decided to explore the wound left by the
.22-250, which only appeared to be a small entrance wound.
Upon examination, we discovered the bullet traveled about 1"
into the meat before creating a cavernous wound internally.
There was no bullet to be found and no exit wound, only small
fragments of guilding metal. The core had completely disintegrated.
Upon discovering this, we condemned that hindquarter due to
probable lead contamination. The thing that amazed us at
the time was that the bullet did not even reach the bone or
pass by it, the wound channel had stopped before that leaving
lots of bloodshot meat.
You might try to argue that this was a .22-250 and not a Swift
but the two are so close that I would argue the difference
in wounds created by the two would be imperceptable.
BTW, I am not trying to start/perpetuate a flame war with you,
you seem very knowledgable and civil. I am simply stating
that in my experiences with guns of this caliber, the
capability you describe does not exist. This is not to say
that you did not see what you saw, the bullet penetrating the
elk, simply that it was a fluke. I have been shooting a
Swift for 16 years, and it is an impressive gun, particularly
for prarie dogs, rock chucks and coyotes. But in my experience,
it is only a big game gun when the shot is carefully placed
into the head.
On another note, I am getting ready to acquire a new prarie dog
rifle, one that will be suitable for the annual Top Dog prarie
dog shoot in Nucla, Colo. I am seriously considering the 6mm
Rem. for the caliber in something like a 40XB. While this
caliber doesn't have quite the laser like trajectory of the
Swift, it is less susceptible to wind and may be a bit better
beyond 400 yds. Whatever I get, it must be capable of .3 - .4
MOA. What do ya think?
Toby Bradshaw
Gary Coffman <ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> wrote:
#In article <32lfdk$4...@news.u.washington.edu> to...@u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
#tb#So, you actually believe that the only reason to choose a .220
#tb#Swift over a .45-70 is "impulse"? Or, do you think it's the
#tb#main reason? I'd like to have this one for my files.
#
#No, not at all.
Here's why I thought so:
#gc#Now if what I said above is true, and it is, then one would expect
#gc#that a .45-70 would make a better varmint cartridge than a .220 Swift
#gc#(about the same ME). But of course it isn't, and the thing that makes
#gc#it less effective is subtle. It's called impulse.
Note, you said *the* thing making the Swift a better varmint
round is impulse. It was't, and isn't, IMO. Impulse is as much
a function of bullet construction as velocity, and is way
behind both trajectory, accuracy, and recoil in importance
(to the extent it matters at all).
#Our evidence obviously differs. On 20 lb groundhogs, and gallon
#jugs of water, I get explosive effects from a .22-250, even using
#SS109 projectiles at about 3500 fps.
On smaller targets it takes a fragile bullet to give good
action. Velocity alone isn't enough.
#It is from personal experience. On a heavy animal, light fast
#bullets make a bigger entrance wound than exit wound, if they
#exit at all. That's the exact opposite of the effects on smaller
#game, where the whole animal almost literally explodes from the
#sudden hydraulic pressure.
Having shot a lot of big game and varmints with my Krieger/Rem
.300 Wby with 125gr Nosler BTs, I can say with quite a bit
of photographic evidence that the exit wounds from light, fast
(3750 fps MV) bullets are bigger than the entrance wounds
(if an exit wound was made, as you say). With .224s the
exit wounds, when present, were usually small but always bigger
than the entrance wound. Let's swap pictures :)
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
#Toby Bradshaw (to...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
#
#: #Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
#: #the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
#: #(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
#
#: ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
#
#No, let qualify that with expanding bullet. Next you'll be telling
#me those hollow points you're shoot aren't expanding hollow points.
Are you a betting man? I'll wager a Hart .224 barrel blank that
an expanding Trophy Bonded bullet will penetrate to a greater
depth in the medium of your choice when fired at maximum velocity
from a Swift than from the same bullet fired from a .222 at its
maximum velocity at the same range. Well?
#Yes, but my opinion is based on my observations of several thousand
#rounds in each of the following: .223 Rem (close to a .222), .220 Swift,
#.25-06 to only name three.
Several thousand is about a half a season for me, so I wouldn't
look to experience as the difference.
#A .22 centerfire offers unacceptable performance on big game period.
#I don't care what bullet you use in it, it is still unacceptable for
#general use on big game.
So you claim. By what magic does an extra 0.019" transform a
.224 peashooter into a deer-killing 6mm, or do you think a
6mm is too little rifle for big game, as well?
#You take a .22-250 elk hunting, I'll stick to my .338 Win mag thankyou.
Never been elk hunting, just watched.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Toby Bradshaw
#I guess that depends on whose bullet and manual you are looking at,
#mine says .260.
Your book is right, mine was wrong. SD is bullet weight in pounds
divided by bore diameter^2 in inches, which works out to 0.2595
for a 120gr .257.
#: #Hornady although my rifle prefers the Noslers. They rarely
#: #even shoot through both sides of coyotes at the closer ranges.
[tb observation vs. rp opinion]
#I base my opinion on significant (although unpublished) ballistic research
#an associate and myself conducted over a two year period (1978-79).
#You might note I stated I found it difficult to believe, but I would
#not judge it impossible.
Really? Didn't you write the following? --
#: #I stand by my statement and I know the 53 gr Hornady match
^^^^^^
#: #will NOT shoot through an elk I have shot LOTS of the
^^^^^^^^
Well, which is it? Possible or impossible? I already know
it's possible, having seen it. We're back to what you believe.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Dennis Hagarty
In article <338unb$e...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, rpa...@rmii.com (Robert Payne) writes...
|Toby Bradshaw (to...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
|: In article <332opv$o...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Robert Payne <rpa...@rmii.com> wrote:
|
|: ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
|
|No, let qualify that with expanding bullet. Next you'll be telling
|me those hollow points you're shoot aren't expanding hollow points.
Since when is "expanding" a binary function?
Note, some hollow points don't expand very well.
|: #By the way, your 63 gr. bullet has a sectional density of about
|: #.179, the .25 caliber 120 gr. has about .260.
|: ^^^
|: 0.253, actually.
|
|I guess that depends on whose bullet and manual you are looking at,
|mine says .260.
Just how many MICROSECONDS do you think it would be before "sectional
density" means jack shit on entering a dense medium?
You are forgetting projectile construction, and what that does as it
strikes the medium. SD swiftly becomes meaningless...
|You take a .22-250 elk hunting, I'll stick to my .338 Win mag thankyou.
Interesting article in a late Precision Shooting mag from Ray Jourdan
about 400 yard deer rifles. He summarized by saying that he thinks
that 90% of people can't even handle a 30'06 let alone a big magnum.
Having kept my eyes open on the range over the past little while for
empirical evidence, I can only agree. People with all sorts of flash
kit that goes BOOOOM and they can't seem to hit a dinner plate with the
things...
=======================================================================
Dennis Hagarty Digital Equipment Corp (Aust)
haga...@snoc02.enet.dec.com Sydney, Australia
Opinions are solely those of the author, not Digital
=======================================================================
Robert Payne
: In article <338unb$e...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Robert Payne <rpa...@rmii.com> wrote:
: #: ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
: #
: #No, let qualify that with expanding bullet. Next you'll be telling
: #me those hollow points you're shoot aren't expanding hollow points.
: Are you a betting man? I'll wager a Hart .224 barrel blank that
: an expanding Trophy Bonded bullet will penetrate to a greater
: depth in the medium of your choice when fired at maximum velocity
: from a Swift than from the same bullet fired from a .222 at its
: maximum velocity at the same range. Well?
Those buck a pop bullets are a far cry from the 53 gr HP match Hornady
bullets your friend was shooting, I would not take that bet anymore than
you would bet that it will out penetrate my .338.
: #Yes, but my opinion is based on my observations of several thousand
: #rounds in each of the following: .223 Rem (close to a .222), .220 Swift,
: #.25-06 to only name three.
: Several thousand is about a half a season for me, so I wouldn't
: look to experience as the difference.
: #A .22 centerfire offers unacceptable performance on big game period.
: #I don't care what bullet you use in it, it is still unacceptable for
: #general use on big game.
: So you claim. By what magic does an extra 0.019" transform a
: .224 peashooter into a deer-killing 6mm, or do you think a
: 6mm is too little rifle for big game, as well?
I would not take a 6mm elk hunting, or for that matter, even a .25-06.
They will stop an elk, but not with a comfortable margin for error.
I refer you back to an earlier post describing my brothers experience
using the .25 on a bull.
Hunting elk isn't like shooting varmints or paper. On an average elk
hunt, you may or may not even see a bull that is within range. A bull
charging through the trees spooked by another hunter, for instance,
is a difficult target, but it may be the only bull you will see this
season. An offhand shot at a running animal is not an ideal circumstance
but ideal circumstances do not present themselves often while elk hunting.
A caliber with sufficient penetration and bone breaking ability should
be used, a mature bull elk is a large animal.
: #You take a .22-250 elk hunting, I'll stick to my .338 Win mag thankyou.
: Never been elk hunting, just watched.
Shame, they're good eating.
Toby Bradshaw
#Toby Bradshaw (to...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
#Of course there are more factors than the rotational velocity and bullet
#construction has a lot to do with it.
Finally, something other than a blanket generalization. If rotational
velocity were very important we would all be shooting 1-7
twist .223s, which spin much faster than the .220 Swift 1-14, to
blow up varmints. Bullet construction, placement, and impact velocity are
numbers 1, 2, and 3 in performance on varmints, IMO.
#Just look at the poor performance
#of bullets that were designed for use in calibers such as the .222 when
#utilized in a Swift or .22-250. Many a bullet disintegrated before
#reaching its target in a little cloud of grey "smoke".
Actually, the thinner-jacketed .224s can often be used at Swift
velocities if a high quality barrel is used. As long as the
bore is smooth the bullets will stay together. Also, bullets like the
Nosler BT will blow up just fine on small targets when fired from
a .222 but will also stand being driven at 4500+ from a .22-.284
(ask the folks at Nosler, who use the .22-.284 for .224 velocity
testing). Not all .222 bullets perform poorly in all .220 Swifts,
as you state above.
#But the .22 cal
#bullets don't have as strong of a jacket as the .338 and my guess is
#that the core is comprised of a different alloy mix to aid in the
#control of expansion.
Not all .224 bullets have thin jackets; not all are
even jacketed lead. Not all .224 bullets have pure lead cores
(though BR bullets do and they often perform worse in my .222
for vamints than do factory match bullets). Likewise, not all
.338 bullets are created equal, though I don't know of any
varmint bullets for them :)
#Let me relate another event in which a .22-250 was utilized in an
#attempt to dispatch a deer. A friend and I were stand hunting,
#he with his .22-250 and me with my .25-06. Some deer wandered
#into the meadow and I agreed to give him the first shot and I
#would back him up. He attempted to shoot the buck in the group
#but by some misfortune, missed the buck striking a doe in the
#hindquarter.
What caliber is preferred for shooting deer in the hindquarter,
and what bullet do you recommend?
[rest of story deleted, since to my way of thinking a deer
shot in the hams with a .22-250 tells us more about the
importance of proper bullet placement than the merits/drawbacks
of .224 for deer]
#On another note, I am getting ready to acquire a new prarie dog
#rifle, one that will be suitable for the annual Top Dog prarie
#dog shoot in Nucla, Colo. I am seriously considering the 6mm
#Rem. for the caliber in something like a 40XB. While this
#caliber doesn't have quite the laser like trajectory of the
#Swift, it is less susceptible to wind and may be a bit better
#beyond 400 yds. Whatever I get, it must be capable of .3 - .4
#MOA. What do ya think?
Since retained energy from any decent Swift bullet is sufficient
to dispatch a PD at way beyond 500 yards (>600 ft.-lbs. at that
range with typical 55gr .224s), nothing is gained by going to
a 6mm except increased recoil. The .220 Swift starting a 55gr
bullet (BC = 0.282) at 4000fps will drift 22.7" in a 10mph
direct crosswind at 500 yards. Let's be generous and say the
6mm can start a 100gr spitzer (BC = 0.381) at 3200fps. This
bullet will drift 21.8" under the same conditions. An inch at
500 yards in the PD field is way down in the noise. Meanwhile,
the Swift has dropped 17+" less than the 6mm. Unless the quarry
demands higher energy, you're better off with a big .22 out to
at least 600-700 yards in the real world of varmint shooting,
IMO. Beyond that you can still go to the VLD .224 bullets (BC
# 0.500) and have an edge over all but wildcat 6mm rounds (perhaps
excepting the .240 Wby). 6mm VLDs can also be used, but the
increased recoil from a 6mm doesn't pay off in the real world
for me. Fouling and bore erosion can be expected to be worse
in the big .22s than in the 6mm Rem, if it matters. For pure
target work higher BC (if bullet quality is equal, not an easy
thing with longer jackets) may be better, but in the gopher and PD
fields a flat trajectory will flip more of them in the air than
will reduced wind drift, in my experience. If there's to be a
lot of shooting and not much gun changing, I prefer something
like a .223 which can shoot well in long strings without fouling
too much or overheating as fast. It's easier to spot your own
misses with the reduced recoil, and hold appropriately for the
next shot.
I wouldn't buy a new 40X since for about the same money you can
put a BR-quality rig together if you're willing to do your own
stockwork, or willing to buy a used BR rifle as a platform. The
40X was and is a nice rifle, but it's been surpassed in quality
(and even value, IMO) by the custom actions.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
John W. Engel
info. I've been using a very accurate SAKO in .223 for about 5-7 yrs.
to shoot the Central Texas whitetails. They are not very large, and for one
to go further than about 25 yds. after being hit is rare. None have made
it past 50. I use the 63 gr. Sierra, or the 60 gr. Nosler, and there
is nothing inhumane about the way they kill. I would say the advantage
of a lighter calibre is that you can really concentrate on the shot, and
flinch is not a problem. It *does* have it's limitations (game size/range),
and for this reason, I think I'll move to a .30 cal., since one of the
ranches I hunt has some very large (800+ yds.) pastures, and the range
limitation can be a problem. For under about 200 yds., though it works.
Regards,
Whit
Toby Bradshaw
#Toby Bradshaw (to...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
#rp: #No, let qualify that with expanding bullet. Next you'll be telling
#rp: #me those hollow points you're shoot aren't expanding hollow points.
#
#tb: Are you a betting man? I'll wager a Hart .224 barrel blank that
#tb: an expanding Trophy Bonded bullet will penetrate to a greater
#tb: depth in the medium of your choice when fired at maximum velocity
#tb: from a Swift than from the same bullet fired from a .222 at its
#tb: maximum velocity at the same range. Well?
#
#Those buck a pop bullets are a far cry from the 53 gr HP match Hornady
#bullets your friend was shooting, I would not take that bet anymore than
#you would bet that it will out penetrate my .338.
So do you want to rephrase your claim that a .222 will penetrate better
than a .220 Swift with any expanding bullet?
#rp: #A .22 centerfire offers unacceptable performance on big game period.
#rp: #I don't care what bullet you use in it, it is still unacceptable for
#rp: #general use on big game.
#
#tb: So you claim. By what magic does an extra 0.019" transform a
#tb: .224 peashooter into a deer-killing 6mm, or do you think a
#tb: 6mm is too little rifle for big game, as well?
#I would not take a 6mm elk hunting, or for that matter, even a .25-06.
You said no .224s on big game, not "elk". The exchange is reprinted
above. So, are .224s EVER acceptable for use on big game, or not?
Are 6mms EVER acceptable for use on big game, or not? If the answer
is no/yes, then what makes the extra 0.019" so critical, given the
vagaries of shot placement, bullet construction, rifle accuracy,
range, size of animal, etc.? Inquiring minds want to know.
#They will stop an elk, but not with a comfortable margin for error.
A .50 Browning MG has more margin for error than your .338. Why not
use that? How about a .340 Wby, .378 Wby, or .460 Wby?
I'd rather that choice were left up to knowledgable
hunters. That some hunters are not knowledgable is regrettable,
but no cause to legislate to the lowest common denominator nor to
make sweeping generalizations about what is and what is not
appropriate.
#I refer you back to an earlier post describing my brothers experience
#using the .25 on a bull.
Anecdotes are fun to read but less than definitive. That goes for
my anecdotes, as well.
#Hunting elk isn't like shooting varmints or paper. On an average elk
#hunt, you may or may not even see a bull that is within range. A bull
#charging through the trees spooked by another hunter, for instance,
#is a difficult target, but it may be the only bull you will see this
#season. An offhand shot at a running animal is not an ideal circumstance
#but ideal circumstances do not present themselves often while elk hunting.
#A caliber with sufficient penetration and bone breaking ability should
#be used, a mature bull elk is a large animal.
One may also choose one's shots with appropriate care and discipline,
with due regard for all relevant factors.
#tb: Never been elk hunting, just watched.
#Shame, they're good eating.
I dind't say I'd never eaten one. They are tasty, alright. The last
I had was on a varmint hunt in eastern Oregon, with fresh morels.
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu
Steven Speer
: In article <3307m3$a...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
: Steven Speer <s...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> wrote:
: #I just took a quick measurement. I'm 15" side to side on my chest. I'd
: #also be suprised if you could get any expanding .22 caliber bullet to
: #penetrate a mature bull elk (that was what you said before, right?) through
: #the chest. I've never seen one that was only 16" side to side.
: This one was a spike, and I didn't measure it, but it went in-and-
: out.
Even a spike bull weighs about 3 times what I do. Just for laughs, I'm
going to see through how much water I can push a 53g Hornady match bullet
from a .22-250.
: Have you never shot a coyote and had the bullet go end-to-end?
: With a hard bullet, like a FMJ, this is pretty common.
No, I haven't. When I go into the field, it is with a specific purpose in
mind. That purpose is never to find the lower bound of possibilities in
the universe. To do so violates my ethical standards as a hunter. This is
why I won't be able to counter your 'anecdote' with what happened when I put
a 53gr .224 bullet into the side of a bull elk.
-Steve
Robert Payne
: Likewise, not all
: .338 bullets are created equal, though I don't know of any
: varmint bullets for them :)
The 200 gr. Speer at 3000 fps are good for this so long as the
range isn't excessive. The best prairie dog explosion I have
ever seen was with this combo at about 100 yds. Yea, I know,
too close for a rifle, I normally reserve these close ones for
the pistol, but I had the .338 with me and just wanted to give
it a try on it. I will spare everyone a description of the
result.
: What caliber is preferred for shooting deer in the hindquarter,
: and what bullet do you recommend?
Naw, can't recommend shooting them there but I believe a larger
caliber, say .270 Win. on up, would have broken the pelvis and
done serious damage in the abdomen. The entry into the ham
was from the rear and a little lower than the rectum.
: #On another note, I am getting ready to acquire a new prarie dog
: #rifle, one that will be suitable for the annual Top Dog prarie
: Since retained energy from any decent Swift bullet is sufficient
: to dispatch a PD at way beyond 500 yards (>600 ft.-lbs. at that
: range with typical 55gr .224s), nothing is gained by going to
: a 6mm except increased recoil.
Reduced bore wear is one of the considerations, Swifts erode
barrels very quickly if the loads are hot. The .22-250 isn't
out of the running either, it only gives up a little velocity
to the Swift and has what is IMO a better case. Decisions,
decisions...
On the recoil, by brother installed a KDF compensator on his .25-06
and it now recoils less than my 12 lb .220 Swift. Unfortunately,
muzzle blast is WAY more, so much more that it is rather unpleasant
to be in the near vicinity. The muzzle jump is reduced to the
point where the target remains visible in the scope. I was
impressed by this and the blast.
: I wouldn't buy a new 40X since for about the same money you can
: put a BR-quality rig together if you're willing to do your own
: stockwork, or willing to buy a used BR rifle as a platform. The
: 40X was and is a nice rifle, but it's been surpassed in quality
: (and even value, IMO) by the custom actions.
Certainly something worth considering.
J. Spencer
#In article <332opv$o...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Robert Payne <rpa...@rmii.com> wrote:
##Yes, I would argue that the .222 would penetrate deeper than does
##the Swift given similar bullets. Due to the extreme velocity
##(linear and rotational) the Swift expands VERY quickly.
#ANY bullet? How about FMJ? How about any bullet that stays in
#one piece? How about if I shoot my .222 at 100 yards and you shoot
#your Swift at 300? You seem to be short a few parameters in your
#analysis.
Ah, come on Toby, give the guy a break (even _if_ he is wrong). The
implication of his statement is to make fair comparision, you know,
that bit about "all other things being equal", "like for like"....
[snip]
#Well, it's your opinion vs. my observation. What you believe
#is up to you. I stopped caring 3 or 4 posts back.
Didn't stop you posting, though. :-)
--Jonathan
Toby Bradshaw
J. Spencer <J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
#Ah, come on Toby, give the guy a break (even _if_ he is wrong). The
#implication of his statement is to make fair comparision, you know,
#that bit about "all other things being equal", "like for like"....
Well, I offered to bet a new .224 Hart barrel blank that a Swift
will out-penetrate a .222 with the expanding bullet of my choice.
It was turned down. Pity ... I had my eye on a 1.250 untapered
for my Wichita cruiser :)
##Well, it's your opinion vs. my observation. What you believe
##is up to you. I stopped caring 3 or 4 posts back.
#
#Didn't stop you posting, though. :-)
No point in having the last word be wrong, eh?
-Toby Bradshaw
to...@u.washington.edu