The Case for the .45 ACP

[thedrifter]

The Case for the .45 ACP
By Jim Higginbotham

The .45 ACP is not a very powerful cartridge. Now that may come as a shock to those who are thinking "if this is an argument in favor of the .45 auto then I'd hate to see the other side". It might come as even more of a shock for those who recognize me as a vocal - if not infamous - supporter of the cartridge for self defense. I start my treatment of this subject this way because too often we tend to exaggerate a bit when developing positions in the eternal debate of which cartridge is best for a given mission.

The mission, in our case, is obvious but, never the less, must be stated. The mission of the defensive pistol is to save the life of its user - or an innocent third party he is authorized to use lethal force to protect. In more specific terms it is to end a lethal attack as expeditiously as possible. Since it takes very little time for an attacker to strike a potentially mortal blow (either with a firearm, edged weapon or blunt instrument) then it is imperative that the cartridge chambered in your sidearm be as effective as practicable - for you may not have the luxury of more than one or two shots before the blow is struck.. In truth, no handgun round is effective enough on a determined human attacker to achieve this goal unless the central nervous system is disrupted (this does not mean just hit - it means serious damage must be done to the brain or spine). Unfortunately, these targets are extremely hard to locate on a three dimensional target in a dynamic situation and are next to impossible to hit reliably. That leaves us with disabling the adversary by causing a loss of blood pressure, and thereby, depriving the brain of oxygen which brings about gradual incapacitation. While no handgun round (and few rifle rounds) are effective instantly with this type of hit, some do a better job than others. Obviously, the faster we can drop blood pressure the quicker the incapacitation. The simple fact is, the bigger the hole(s) the faster the drop in blood pressure. I cannot find any evidence of some "force" or "energy" or any other property which causes rapid incapacitation (as opposed to relatively slow incapacitation due to clinical shock) in and of itself. Of course a simple way to increase the size of the hole is to shoot again, repeatedly and often. However, in trained hands, at normal defense ranges (about 10 feet or less) a .45 Auto can be fired as fast and accurately as a .22 auto. It is more a matter of training than of caliber choice up to a point. Depending on the shooter, and to some extent the weight of the gun, somewhere about the level of the .41 or .44 Magnum full power loads we get into recoil that is unmanageable in rapid fire for most people.

I see a hand raised at the back of the room. "What about ‘hydra-static shock’?" I do not mean to sound boastful or arrogant but I have been experimenting with firearms in the hunting field for over 30 years and I have been involved in law enforcement both as an officer and a trainer for over a quarter of a century. Does that make me the ultimate expert - absolutely not! What it does mean is that I have been searching for answers to terminal ballistic questions for a long time. In that time I have shot a lot of game, interviewed a lot of folks who have been shot, have been shot myself and seen dozens of films and videos of people actually being shot. I have shot critters from 10 to 400 pounds (and witnessed bigger stuff go down) with bullets from .22 to .70 caliber and velocities in excess of 4,000 fps. I have not noticed anything consistent that I could call "hydra-static shock" other than in vermin in the 10 to 30 pound weight range and shot with fragile bullets that impacted at 3000 fps or more. I have shot larger animals with bullets that impacted at well above 3,000 fps and, while the permanent wound cavities were impressive in some cases, I have not noticed any consistent "magic" instant incapacitation when bullets did not strike the Central Nervous System (CNS) or at least hit close. If a 150 gr. Rifle bullet at 3500 fps (.300 Weatherby) will not instantly take down a deer by virtue of its "hydrostatic shock" or "kinetic energy dump" with a lung or heart shot, then what chance does a 9mm have (or a .45) at 1/3 the velocity? Having studied terminal ballistics on both game and humans I have concluded that a 200 pound deer is much easier to incapacitate than a 200 pound determined attacker (note that there are many cases of "undetermined" attackers who have been stopped by warning shots, insignificant wounds or even threats).

Some advocates of small to medium calibers usually opine that shot placement is far more important than any considerations of caliber or "power". They are ALMOST right. The key to rapid incapacitation is, of course, what the bullet destroys. This is not exactly the same as "shot placement". Once the bullet strikes the surface of a target "shot placement" has run its course, what the bullet actually destroys inside the body is now subject to terminal ballistic properties. The .22 long rifle solid is noted for its tendency to tumble and change course after it impacts a large target. It is quite "lethal" though it is not noted to be a "stopper". No doubt, however, if a .22 bullet strikes the brain or the spinal cord (with enough force to damage it) rapid incapacitation would be a result. The trouble is a bullet that is placed perfectly, say on the sternum, may deflect or disintegrate and not reach the organ it was intended to destroy.

So, if what the bullet hits, and the amount of permanent damage done to vital organs is the key to stopping an attack then what is wrong with using medium bore cartridges like the 9mm or the .357 Magnum. In truth, IF one is willing to take the conservative approach with well constructed bullets which might expand a bit but will "stay the course" and penetrate to the vitals from all angles, there is little wrong with them. The trouble is that pundits and experts want to push the "shock" or "energy" properties to the maximum and that leads to light weight, fragile bullets which are less likely to penetrate to the back of the chest wall or to the spine. This does result in some spectacular wounds and in some cases of rapid incapacitation. But it also results in spectacular failures, exemplified by the failures of the 9mm silver-tip in the infamous "Miami Massacre" or the gunfight in which trooper Mark Coates shot his assailant 5 times center mass with a .357 Magnum, only to be killed with a .22 mini revolver.

Even modern technology does not completely overcome the laws of physics. This fall I shot two animals with the hot 9 X 23 cartridge. I used both the Winchester USA factory load – a 125 gr soft point at about 1525 fps from my 5" 1911 and a handload of a Speer 124 gr. Gold Dot at just under 1600 fps. This performance is at the upper end of the scale for medium bore defense loads. These loads both expanded a little (but not like the pictures in magazines) and held their weight fairly well and both penetrated about 10". While both hit ribs, neither hit major bone except the Gold Dot which bumped up against a leg bone on the off side with no damage, ending its travel. While neither bullet was by any means a failure neither was the damage done to the animals spectacular. Both produced holes in lung tissue about the size of your thumb. I have seen similar wounds with .45 ball bullets that tumbled (this happens in large targets as often as not).

One might logically ask "so why choose a .45 if a good 9mm produces equal wounds?" The simple answer is that, while the best (or worst depending on your point of view) 9mm wounds are about equal to the least effective .45s - and in some cases produce even larger diameter but shallower wounds - you pay for this by compromising the consistency of your cartridge performance. A 9mm hollowpoint that gives consistent 12 inch penetration in ordnance gelatin in the lab sometimes gives 8 – 10" penetration in real flesh and blood targets and sometimes it gives 3 or 4" penetration and I have seen as little as 1/2" penetration with 125 gr. .38 +P jhp (and no it did not disintegrate nor glance off - it just stopped). If you happen to be shooting the one that gives 3" penetration (and poor Mark Coates had 5 in a row with his Magnum) then it does not matter if you shoot well – you might as well be shooting spit wads.

So far we are comparing the best medium bores to the least spectacular larger bores. If you compare bullets of similar technology the larger bore shows proportional performance. A .45 230 gr. Ball round destroys about 1.7 times as much tissue as a 9mm ball round. A 230 gr. .45 jhp destroys about 1.7 time as much tissue as a 9mm 124 jhp that expands. The thing is, due to its mass the 230 grain .45 gives more consistent penetration. While it is difficult, you can make a .45 an inefficient performer. You do this by lightening the bullet and increasing the velocity. While some 185 gr. .45’s, reportedly, are well constructed and give fairly consistent penetration, some are not. I have had 185 gr. Winchester Silver-Tips fail to penetrate 8 pound ground hogs – this is not confidence inspiring.

continued...........

[thedrifter]

While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s, .357’s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber rounds. It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to stop the attacker - and have not encountered any with the .45, even with Ball. I have encountered several with 5, 6 or even more hits to the center of the chest with .38, .357, 9mm and .223 rifle rounds failing to stop. Almost every one could be traced to lack of penetration with a couple of exceptions that hit the heart but just did not cause enough damage to be effective quickly. Note I am not talking about "torso" hits. There is a lot of area in the torso in which a hit will seldom produce rapid incapacitation even if hit by a 12 ga. slug or a 30-06 - we simply cannot count such data if we are going to learn anything.

Please note that I am not saying you should avoid cartridge X because it has a track record of 50% "stops" and there are cartridges with better records - the information available in these data bases is simply unusable to predict what a cartridge will do in terms if incapacitation. It is thought by some analysts that in as many as 50% of recorded cases the subject stopped the fight for psychological reasons - and this is not a caliber issue - so we cannot use such data to support conclusions about power. Add to this that many data bases are polluted by inclusion of bad hits or a questionable definition of "incapacitation" and we get into very muddy water. What we can do is take note of the failures and try to figure out the cause.

So, do the medium bores lack "stopping power", "shocking power" or what ever term you choose to use. Yes they do. So do the .45 Auto and the .44 magnum and the .223 so that is not the defining issue. The issue is that they are less likely to drive their bullet - given equal placement - through an important target with adequate damage to the organ. In short, in the popular loads, they fail to reach or damage their intended target more often than the larger calibers. To be sure there is the issue of overpenetration but I feel that it is overblown. There are so many different types of tissue and bone in the human anatomy that one cannot precisely predict how much penetration he will need nor how much he will get. We have seen where bullets that give 14" of penetration consistently in ordnance gelatin can sometimes give 3" in the human body. We need a good bit more margin for error than this for rounds to be effective in their mission. Personally I want rounds that give 12 to 14 inches in gelatin as a minimum, not a maximum and frankly I really want 18 inches but there are few loads with give this and expand also.

In conclusion, having a reasonable amount of experience and study I have no doubt that the larger caliber handguns are more effective that the smaller ones, given exactly the same placement of bullets on the surface of the target, but not because of some energy, force or power which bowls people over or carries some sort of "shock". It is because they more consistently drill holes - larger holes - through the intended organs. Does that mean they are better for you. Perhaps, but if you do not shoot your weapon well it does not matter. On the other hand I have encountered cases in which people shot their medium bores well - extremely well - and still died because their bullet did not do their job. It is a dilemma of some import.

Perhaps the best advice I have heard on this matter is "shoot the biggest caliber you can handle". My admonition is, don’t settle for less if you don’t really have to. And if you do have to, use a bullet that will drive through to the vital organs from any angle and through simple barriers (like arms). There are many other factors to selecting a defense handgun, capacity, ergonomics, reliability, accuracy, concealability and so forth (not in that order). All are at least as important as the caliber you select but remember - failure in any one area means failure to carry out the mission. What I am saying is don’t get lulled into the idea that the choice of caliber is unimportant or that a medium bore is big enough if the weapon meets all the other requirements, because .... a .45 is not big enough!



Appendix 1: Ammunition
I don’t like to give recommendations as to specific loads. The main reason for this is that manufacturers change these loads at will, especially the composition of the bullet and they do not give notice. This can greatly effect the performance of the load. Still folks like to have some idea so I will offer the following as a general guideline:

1. Loads to avoid due to inconsistent penetration: Glaser Safety Slugs, Mag-Safe or other "pre-fragmented" bullets. Winchester 185 gr Silver-Tip. While I have no experience with the Federal 165 P.D. load I suspect it is also too light to give consistent penetration if bone is hit.

2. Loads which give 12 to 14 inches of penetration and good expansion (.70 to .80 caliber): Federal 230 gr. Hydra-Shok, Winchester 230 gr. Black Talon (or newer +P Ranger), Speer Lawman 230 gr. Gold Dot, Remington 230 gr. Golden Saber. This list is not all inclusive. Not doubt there are others that will work but I have used the ones listed.

3. Observations from the hunting field - not recommendations just a general report (handloads for defense are discouraged). The Winchester 230 gr. JHP handloaded to 1040 fps is an outstanding performer on deer and wild boar giving complete penetration on broadside shots and expanding to about .77 caliber. The 200 gr. Hornady XTP will disintegrate at about 1500 fps (from a .45 Win Mag.) and loses its jacket at about 1100 fps. The Sierra 185 gr Power Jacket expands to about .90 at 1150 fps but only penetrates about 8 to 10 inches and will break up on heavy bone. 230 gr. FMJ-RN often tumbles on game in the 200 pound range giving about 14 - 18 inches of penetration. A 260 gr. Keith bullet can be loaded to 1000 fps in a 5" .45 auto and can go lengthwise through a 200 pound deer - it is far less likely to tumble than RN.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/jh_45acp.htm


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Springfield M1 Garand .308


Quick Shoot

By Mike Venturino

Back in the June 2002 issue of Shooting Times I submitted a report on the Springfield M1 Garands. These rifles were based on newly manufactured receivers using original U.S. government specifications. Also newly manufactured were the barrels and stocks. The remaining internal parts were leftover originals from the various original suppliers of M1 Garand rifles such as Winchester, Springfield Armory, International Harvester, and Harrington & Richardson. I reported in that article that these M1 Garands were to be a special run of 10,000.

In the fall of 2002 I attended a seminar put on by Springfield Inc. where I learned many new facts. Two of which are of special interest to M1 Garand fans. First, the .30-06 version of newly manufactured M1 Garands has been so well received that Springfield Inc. is going to continue it as a catalog item. Second, the M1 Garand variation in .308 Winchester caliber is now a reality. During the seminar I was able to fire a sample M1 .308 at steel targets, and I requested that same rifle be sent to my home for more extensive shooting.


The History Of The M1 Garand
Before getting into those results, perhaps it would be appropriate to backtrack a little and give some M1 Garand history. The M1 Garand was designed by John C. Garand, a Canadian-born employee of the U.S. government's Springfield Armory. His rifle was officially adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, but because of monetary restrictions caused by the Great Depression it was not produced in significant numbers until 1941. For example, I own an original M1 Garand made by Springfield Armory in the 16,000 serial number range, and research shows it was produced in 1939. Some M1 Garands did see combat usage early in World War II, and favorable reports on them were sent from the Philippines in the fighting done there early in 1942.

During World War II M1 Garands were produced only by Springfield Armory and Winchester. Between the two facilities more than four million rifles were made. When the Korean conflict began in 1950, M1 Garand production was again initiated by Springfield Armory, and contracts were let to both International Harvester and Harrington & Richardson. The two privately owned firms ceased M1 production in 1955, and the Springfield Armory did likewise in 1957. Altogether between 1936 and 1957 over 5.5 million M1 Garands were made.

Something common to all those millions of rifles was the chambering of the venerable .30-06 cartridge. When the military adopted the M14 rifle in 1957, it was merely a modernized version of the M1 Garand. However, its cartridge was the 7.62 NATO round, which is interchangeable with the .308 Winchester. Introduced to the American public as early as 1952, the .308 Winchester is essentially a shortened version of the .30-06 using the exact same case head dimension and bullet diameter but in a cartridge case 2.015 inches long as opposed to 2.494 inches for the older .30-06. Therefore, there was no reason the .308 Winchester round could not be adapted to the M1 Garand's mechanism. The U.S. Navy did convert some M1 Garands to 7.62 NATO caliber by means of a chamber insert, but my understanding was that this conversion met with indifferent success because the inserts sometimes came loose.

Brand-New M1 Garands
The new Springfield Inc. M1 Garands in .308 Winchester certainly don't suffer from this problem because their barrels are made brand new and chambered as .308s.

Except for the chambering the new M1 Garands are dead ringers for original military rifles. Barrel length is 24 inches, and the oil-finished walnut stock's length of pull is 13 inches. All metal parts are given a Parkerized finish. The buttplate is checkered steel with a hinged door into which cleaning supplies can be stored. Sights on M1 Garands are perhaps the best ever put on an issue battle rifle. The front is a simple post .066 inch wide protected by two steel wings on each side. The rear peep sight is fully adjustable for windage and elevation. Knurled rotating knobs are click adjustable in one minute of angle increments; the one on the right side changes windage and the one on the left changes elevation. Clockwise movement on the windage knob moves the sight to the right, clockwise movement on the elevation knob moves the rear sight down.

An M1 Garand's safety is also one of the simplest ever put on a rifle. It consists of a tab in the front of the trigger guard. When the tab is pushed rearwards into the trigger guard the rifle is on "Safe." When it is pushed forwards out of the trigger guard the rifle is ready to fire. Like most military rifles, the M1 Garand comes with a two-stage trigger. There is about 1/8 inch of travel to the trigger before it begins its actual pull. My trigger pull scale measured this sample M1's pull, after the free travel, at 5.5 pounds.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_springfield01_225.jpg

All M1 Garands load by means of an en-bloc loader. Military ones hold eight cartridges, and the same ones that work for .30-06 also do so for these new .308s. It should be noted that in some locales autoloading rifles are limited to five rounds if used for hunting. Creedmoor Sports (Dept. ST, P.O. Box 1040, Oceanside, CA 92051; 800-273-3366; www.creedmoorsports.com) markets en-bloc loaders for M1 Garands that hold two and five rounds.

I got some surprising results with the various test loads. In a recent project with one of Springfield's M1A match-grade rifles, the very best groups came with competition-grade .308 Winchester factory loads carrying 168-grain bullets. Those same loads gave indifferent groups from this rifle while factory loads carrying lighter 147- to 150-grain bullets gave much better accuracy. The charts show the exact particulars, but this incident is a good example of why you should try a variety of ammunition in any given rifle. If I had judged this rifle's accuracy only by those 168-grain factory loads I would have been disappointed.

Shooting the .308 Winchester version of the M1 Garand was a pleasure. The gas-operating system of this rifle tones down recoil considerably, and this .308 was a real pussycat. Through the firing of well over 150 rounds at my benchrest in group shooting and steel target plinking afterwards, there was nary a hitch. I even tested the sights by moving the groups about on a large paper target, and the group centers followed the changes made in the sights perfectly.

For shooters who would like to combine interest in a finely made historical rifle with the popularity of the .308 Winchester cartridge, Springfield Inc. now offers that option.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_springfield02_225.jpg

The .308 Winchester cartridge (L) is almost one-half inch shorter than the .30-06 round, which the M1 Garand was originally designed for. However, the .308 still functions perfectly from regular M1 Garand en-bloc loaders.

SPECS




Springfield M1 Garand .308 Winchester Semiautomatic Rifle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer: Springfield
Model: M1 Garand
Operation: Gas-operated autoloader
Caliber: .308 Winchester; .30-06 also available
Barrel length: 24 inches
Overall length: 43.6 inches
Length of pull: 13 inches
Weight, empty: 9.5 pounds
Safety: Two position
Sights: Click adjustable rear; post front
Stock: American walnut
Rifling: 6 grooves, 1:11 RH twist
Finish: Parkerized steel; oil-finished wood
Price: $1061

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_springfield/


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Cream-Of-The-Crop: .22-250 & .220 Swift Varmint Rifles

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_creamofthe01_225.jpg


16-Load Report

By Layne Simpson


In addition to being two of the world's fastest .22-caliber centerfire cartridges, the .22-250 and .220 Swift rank among the oldest. Kimber's new Model 84 Varmint and Weatherby's new Super VarmintMaster are fitting vehicles for taking a close look at these classic varmint cartridges.

The .22-250 story begins back in the 1920s when Savage hired rifle and cartridge designer Charles Newton to come up with a .22-caliber big-game cartridge for the Model 99 lever-action rifle. Newton presented two different designs to Savage management, supposedly at different times. One, created by necking down the .30-30 Winchester case for .228-inch bullets, went on to be adopted by Savage around 1912 as the .22 Hi-Power. About a year later Savage introduced another Newton-designed cartridge the case of which was originally formed from .30-06 brass. It was called the .250-3000 Savage. While at work on that one, Newton also came up with another cartridge on the same case, one that used the same .228-inch bullet as the .22 Hi-Power. The .250-3000 took off like a rocket, but its .22-caliber mate was never introduced commercially by Savage.


During the late 1920s a gunsmith named Jerry Gebby was visiting Newton, and his eye was drawn to a cigar box full of oddball cartridges sitting on Newton's desk. One of those cartridges was the second high-velocity .22 Newton had designed for Savage, the one Savage had chosen not to chamber its rifles for. Gebby went home with one of those cartridges clutched tightly in his hand, and the rest is history. After necking the case on down for more commonly available .224-inch bullets, he decided to call the old Newton cartridge the .22 Varminter. In an effort to discourage other gunsmiths from chambering rifles for "his" new cartridge, Gebby had its name trademarked during the early 1930s. It didn't work. Since the cartridge was commonly formed by necking down the .250 Savage case, gunsmiths avoided infringement by simply stamping ".22-250" on the barrels of rifles they built. When Remington made the decision to domesticate the cartridge in 1965, the name became .22-250 Remington.

Like most rifles in .22-250 built during the '30s, '40s, and on into the '50s, the first one I owned was built on a war-surplus 1898 Mauser action. I formed cases not by necking down expensive .250-3000 Savage brass but by using a set of RCBS form dies to transform military-surplus .30-06 brass into .22-250 brass. The job was quite time-consuming, but since I had nothing else more important to do in those days, it really didn't matter. I later bought one of the first Remington Model 700s to arrive in my neck of the woods in that caliber, and while it was traded away years ago, I still own a Browning B78 single shot, which was also purchased in those days. Browning, by the way, started chambering its High Power bolt rifles to .22-250 around 1963 when the cartridge was still a wildcat.

When I built that first Mauser in .22-250, I had no idea what powder to use in handloads so I wrote to Bruce Hodgdon, founder of Hodgdon Powder Co. In those days owners of companies in the shooting industry were not above personally answering mail from customers, and Hodgdon was that way (as were Roy Weatherby, John Nosler, Joyce Hornady, Vernon Speer, and several other old-timers). Hodgdon wrote back to inform me that not only was his H380 an excellent choice for the .22-250, its name came from the fact that 38.0 grains was the charge to use behind bullets weighing anywhere from 50 to 53 grains. I ordered 10 pounds of the powder (at 75 cents per pound, if memory serves) and liked it so well it would be several years before I got around to trying anything else in the .22-250. The same went for the Sierra 50-grain spitzer. I completely shot out that first barrel with the Sierra bullet pushed along by 38.0 grains of H380. I didn't own a chronograph in those days, but Hodgdon had told me I should get around 3650 fps in the 26-inch barrel of my Mauser. Considering how flat the load shot, I had no doubt about his calculations.

I now own several rifles in .22-250, and while I continue to use H380, its burn rate has slowed down through the years. Whereas 38.0 grains was once considered enough to use with a 50-grain bullet, the maximum has been increased by Hodgdon to 41.0 grains. Velocity, however, remains about the same and usually averages 3650 to 3700 fps in a 26-inch barrel.

Another outstanding powder I use in this cartridge is Alliant Reloder 15. My Remington Model 700 Varmint averages close to half-minute-of-angle when fed 35.0 grains of that powder and the Nosler 55-grain Ballistic Tip. Hodgdon's Varget is also a dandy. The Kimber Model 84M Varmint featured in this report averaged 0.54 inch when fed 36.0 grains of that powder and the Berger 52-grain hollowpoint. Other outstanding choices are IMR-4064, AA 2700, Ramshot TAC, and VihtaVuori N150. If a rifle in .22-250 won't shoot accurately with one or more of the powders I have mentioned, it probably won't shoot accurately with anything.

Winchester Unleashes The Swift
The .220 Swift is another old-timer, and if not for the popularity of the .22-250 wildcat during the '30s, it might never have been developed. It was common knowledge at the time that Winchester was busy working on a new high-velocity varmint cartridge, and many who stayed abreast of that sort of thing were convinced the company would simply domesticate the .22-250 (as Remington finally got around to doing about 30 years later). Instead, Winchester modified the 6mm Lee Navy case a bit and introduced a cartridge of its own design called the .220 Swift. The new cartridge was loaded with a 48-grain bullet at the astounding velocity of 4110 fps.

I'll never forget seeing the .220 Swift in action for the first time at the ripe age of 12. I was shooting crows one day with a Savage 219 in .22 Hornet when I bumped into a chap who was doing the same thing. Only he was shooting a heavy-barrel Winchester Model 70 in .220 Swift equipped with a Unertl 15X Ultra Varmint scope. In those days I thought I was pretty hot stuff with the Hornet and seldom missed inside 200 paces, unless the wind caught me by surprise. But 200 yards to the fellow with the Swift meant just getting started. When he shot a crow at that range or closer, what had once been a songbird-destroying black bandit was transformed before my eyes into a misty shower of feathers, beak, and toenails, all headed in different directions at extremely high velocities. Now I realize that shots we made and saw made during our youth are almost always longer in our memories than they actually were, but I remain convinced to this day that several of the crows bumped off by that fellow stood at least 400 yards from the muzzle of his Model 70. I knew then and there that someday I would have a .220 Swift of my own.

The first rifle in .220 Swift I owned was a Winchester Model 70 with a Weaver 10X scope. Things were a bit tight at the Simpson household in those days, and I loaded Hodgdon's military-surplus H4831 in everything, including the .220 Swift. I burned 46.0 grains behind the 55-grain Sierra, which probably gave me a velocity of about 3600 fps. Even though the load was not terribly fast, it was extremely accurate--which was just as important in those days because a pound of H4831 went for 65 cents.

The second rifle in .220 Swift I bought actually started out in life chambered for another cartridge. It was one of the first Remington 40-X target rifles in .222 Remington to appear in my neck of the woods, but despite the best of my handloading efforts, I was never able to shrink its average accuracy below half-minute-of-angle on a consistent basis. Living at the time near Nashville, Tennessee, I had gunsmith Harry Creighton, who specialized in building varmint rifles in .220 Swift, rechamber and open up the boltface of the 40-X for that cartridge. I then equipped it with a Leupold 16X scope, an extremely popular scope among Tennessee rifleman in those days but unfortunately no longer available. I'll never forget the average measurement of the very first groups I fired with the rifle after Harry's rechambering job simply because the number is so easy to remember. After using three or four shots to zero the rifle at 100 yards, I fired five five-shot groups with the Sierra 50-grain spitzer seated atop 38.0 grains of IMR-4064. The average was 0.444 inch. I still own that old 40-X, and even though it has accounted for more groundhogs than you will ever see me admit to in print, it will still keep five bullets close to half an inch at 100 long paces.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_creamofthe04_225.jpg

Two of the powders Layne relies on for superior loads with the .22-250 are Alliant's Reloader 15 and Hodgdon's Varget.


continued........

[thedrifter]

same rifle in .22-250, I am even more sold on the design. I was shooting Winchester ammo loaded with the Nosler 50-grain Ballistic Tip, which averaged a rather speedy 4083 fps in the 26-inch barrel of the Kimber. For now, the Kimber Varmint is available only in .22-250 and only in a repeater version with five-round magazine, but I won't be surprised to see that change. Unless I miss my guess, a single-shot Varmint SS version of the same rifle with solid-bottom receiver in .22-250 and maybe even .220 Swift and .243 Winchester is in the works. The Varmint I have been shooting has a nicely figured claro walnut stock of standard shape with checkering cut at 22 lines per inch. It also has a steel grip cap, rubber buttpad, and quick-detach sling swivel posts. The stock of the upcoming Varmint SS should have a beavertail-style forearm, making it a bit more sandbag-friendly.

Made by Kimber, the barrel measures 1.055 inches at the chamber, which is almost as large in diameter as the receiver. The barrel is 26 inches long, .685 inch at the muzzle, and has a nicely executed concave crown. The six-groove rifling has a twist rate of 1:14 inches. Six narrow lightening flutes machined into the exterior surface of the barrel extend from 2 1/2 inches forward of the receiver to 3 1/4 inches behind the muzzle. The barrel free-floats in the stock while the receiver is pillar bedded. The Varmint has the same basic Model 84M action as the big-game version. Its bolt has dual locking lugs up front, a two-position, Model 70-style safety out back, and a Mauser-style claw extractor. One among many nice things about the Model 84 is the fact that the receiver is so light it allows plenty of weight to be put into the barrel, which is where it belongs on a varmint rifle. On my postal scale, the Kimber Varmint weighed eight pounds, 14 ounces with a Burris Fullfield II 6.5-20X scope held in place by a Kimber two-piece base and Burris rings. Its trigger pulled a crisp two pounds with zero perceptible creep or overtravel. As I have come to expect from anything made by Kimber, this one looks as good as it shoots. And vice versa.

GalleryofGuns.com
To learn more about some of these and other firearms, check out the GalleryofGuns.com website brought to you by Davidson's and Shooting Times. You can read gun reviews, search thousands of firearms, view photos with specifications, learn about firearms safety, keep up to date on the latest firearms news, and locate local retailers. You can even arrange to purchase through a local retailer. The Weatherby Mark V I used to wring out various .220 Swift loads is the Super VarmintMaster version. Built around the standard-length Mark V action, it is available in .223, .22-250, .243, 7mm-08, and .308 in single-shot and repeating versions and as a single shot only in .220 Swift. Its 26-inch stainless-steel barrel is completely free-floating and was made by Krieger, a company famous for accuracy and top quality. After being button-rifled, the barrel is hand-lapped for smoothness and then cryogenically treated for stability. Six wide lightening flutes with their surfaces accented by black coloration run from just forward of the chamber to three inches aft of the muzzle. Of medium-heavy contour, the barrel measures .620 inch at the muzzle and has a concave target-style crown. Twist rate of the six-groove rifling is 1:14 inches.

The rifle I chose to test was the single-shot version. I actually prefer it over the repeater because lack of a magazine box cutout makes the receiver extremely rigid and that can't help but improve accuracy some. The entire length of the receiver is hand-bedded to a precision-machined aluminum bedding block in the stock. Six locking lugs on the fluted bolt reduce bolt rotation to about 30 degrees, a feature to be appreciated as you defend your position from hordes of charging prairie dogs. Also there is the familiar Weatherby bolt shroud with two-position safety and a firing pin cocking indicator. Like all Weatherby rifles, the Super VarmintMaster is made in America.

I really like the shape of the stock on Weatherby's premier-grade varmint rifle. Its comb is high enough to use with a big-objective scope mounted high on the action, and its wide, flat forearm is ideal in both size and shape for use with a sandbag. Finished in a nice tan color, the stock has a soft recoil pad and quick-detach sling swivel posts, the front post positioned correctly for the attachment of a Harris bipod. Outfitted with a Leupold 6.5-20X scope in a Weatherby two-piece mount, the outfit I shot weighed a couple ounces over 10 pounds. The trigger on the rifle was a bit heavy at 41/2 pounds, but it was quite smooth and had no perceptible pretravel. Those who prefer a varmint rifle made for more walking and less sitting might find the Super PredatorMaster to be of interest. It is basically a 61/2-pound version of the Super VarmintMaster.

As I write this I have used the Super VarmintMaster in .220 Swift along with Remington's 55-grain Power-Lokt load on Montana rockchucks and California ground squirrels, and believe me when I say that combination is extremely effective at long range.

.22-250 Or .220 Swift--That Is TheQuestion
So which of the two cartridges under discussion is best? Those are questions varmint shooters have been debating for several decades so in truth there's no way I can settle the argument here and now. When taking a close look at test results from a number of rifles in both calibers I have worked with through the years, I notice the .220 Swift has consistently produced slightly better accuracy, but that may have had more to do with rifles than with cartridges. When both cartridges are handloaded to the same chamber pressure and fired in barrels of the same length, the .220 Swift will usually average upwards of 100 fps higher velocity. While that can be considered substantial, I'm not sure it represents enough difference in performance to cause a serious decision to be made one way or the other. Due to its semirimmed case, the .220 Swift will sometimes fail to feed reliably from the magazine of a rifle unless the magazine was designed specifically for it. Even so, since, like the Weatherby Super VarmintMaster, most of my bolt-action varmint rifles are single shots with no magazine, neither cartridge has an edge there.

The .220 Swift is my favorite for reasons more sentimental than practical, but anytime I need to send a long-distance hello across the Back Forty, Mr. Woodchuck is in grave danger regardless of whether the rifle I am shooting is chambered for the .22-250 or the .220 Swift.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_creamofthe05_225.jpg

The Weatherby Super VarmintMaster average .57 inch for four five-shot groups at 100 yards with Winchester Supreme ammo loaded with the 40-grain Ballistic Silvertip.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_creamofthecrop/


Ellie