220 swift is it still the fastest?

[vandaliarndhse]

is the 220 swift still the fastest? does a longer barrel speed it up versus a shorter barrel? i've heard it eats up barrels in past years. maybe manufactures have cured that now?

 

[Hoosier]

I know the 204 Ruger is faster. One can reload other cartridges faster, but I don't recall another manufactered cartridge. Other members may know additional cartridges.
Hoosier

 

[42769vette]

i believe the 223wssm is now the fastest production round. modern barrel manufacturing techniques have helped improve barrel wear but its still a problem. i could be wrong on the 223 wsssm being the fastest production round, its the fastest i know of. with s 36 gr bullet it can do 4516fps.

yes a longer barrel will speed it up. but ive read reports stating that the 223 wssm can show noticable throut erosion in as few as 200 rds

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

204 Ruger and 223WSSM seem to run neck and neck...

 

[42769vette]

204 Ruger and 223WSSM seem to run neck and neck...

i ran hornady factory ammo through a chrono at 41ish. a few weeks ago. that pretty fast considering the temp outside whould be slowing the bullet down

 

[bRAD]

the swift is a very fast round. However with the new technology/R&D put into developing the 204 ruger it is just as fast with none of the drawbacks of the swift. You are using significantly less powder in the 204 ruger so you can watch hits thru the scope which is impossible with the swift due to the recoil. In addition to that the 204 shows less barrel wear versus the 220 swift. If you compare the ballistics of the 204 with 40 grain hornady bullets vs the 220 swift you will see that due to the higher ballistic coefficiency of the 20 cal. vmax bullet the 204 has just as much enery at 500 yards as the 220 swift. And last but not least if you are shooting factory ammo the 204 is easily $5 to $8 a box less than 220 swift ammo.

 

[fireball168]

If you compare the ballistics of the 204 with 40 grain hornady bullets vs the 220 swift you will see that due to the higher ballistic coefficiency of the 20 cal. vmax bullet the 204 has just as much enery at 500 yards as the 220 swift.

Apples and oranges, you are comparing among the heaviest projectiles for the 204 against nearly the lightest for the 224.

If you compare the 204 with a 40 grain projectile to the 220 Swift with a 50-55 grain projectile (both operating at the same velocity) - it makes things look a bit different.

To the OP's question:

Barrel wear isn't anything like it used to be on the Swift with modern powders and barrel steel.

If the OP wants the fastest SAAMI production cartridge - it is the 223 WSSM. Every factory barrel I've come across has been chrome lined from Winchester and Browning in 223 & 224 WSSM to date.

Barrel lengths of 26"+ certainly wouldn't be a detriment.

 

[bRAD]

you can call it an apples to oranges comparison, however the fact remains that even if you run a 55 grain bullet in the 220 swift and a 40 grain bullet in the 204 the 204 still has a higher ballistic coefficent, less drop at 500 yards, just as much velocity, similar wind drift, similar energy, and all this with a lot less powder used. That equates to a more efficient cartridge thats costs less to shoot.

Apples and oranges, you are comparing among the heaviest projectiles for the 204 against nearly the lightest for the 224.

If you compare the 204 with a 40 grain projectile to the 220 Swift with a 50-55 grain projectile (both operating at the same velocity) - it makes things look a bit different.

 

[fireball168]

...the fact remains that even if you run a 55 grain bullet in the 220 swift and a 40 grain bullet in the 204 the 204 still has a higher ballistic coefficent, less drop at 500 yards, just as much velocity, similar wind drift, similar energy....

There is a .2 difference in ballistic coefficient between the .204 40g V-MAX, and the .224 55g V-MAX.

For the purposes of this comparison, we'll just say both are running at 3900 fps.

That may seem more than a bit optimistic based on what many users have found in reloading 204 with the 40g pills - but we'll run with it anyway.

 

[Hoosier]

I forgot about the 223WSM. Handloading is another story...a local gunsmith is shooting a 243win with a 55gr Nosler bullet getting 4800fps. He pretty much destroys coyotes.
Hoosier

 

[42769vette]

I forgot about the 223WSM. Handloading is another story...a local gunsmith is shooting a 243win with a 55gr Nosler bullet getting 4800fps. He pretty much destroys coyotes.
Hoosier

id have to see the chrono to believe that. i just dont think thats possible. even loaded to max and having a 30 inch barrel i doubt you could get much over 4000 if that high.

using a 24 inch barrel and 58 gr hornady v-max max speed for a 243 win is 3800ish

 

[vandaliarndhse]

i've been toying around with the idea of building a rifle around a large ring 98. maybe a heavy barrel. and a nice stock. i'd like to keep recoil down and velocity high. i have no experience with any of the short or super short magnums. sounds like something to check into. thanks for the info.

 

[boman]

if I address the original question correctly the answer is no. there are several faster---all the above already mentioned but the fastest are the two factory 17's. remington and fireball. I personally have chronographed a 20grain vmax handload at 4423-4454(5 shot extreme spread) thru my cz 527 24in varmint. I don't see that kind of speed in any loading manuals for any of the factory 22's or the 204.

Steve

 

[bRAD]

the .17 remington and the .204 are pretty much even in the realm of FPS. I would mention that at the speeds you are pushing the .17 rem you are going to be replacing barrels pretty often. I have seen one guy push his 204 ruger to approximately 4400 FPS with the 32 grain vmax. However its not recommended due to shortening barrel life and the fact that its just plain dangerous to run that much pressure. The factory FPS of the 32 grain 204 round is just a bit over 4200 fps and that's more than adequate.

if I address the original question correctly the answer is no. there are several faster---all the above already mentioned but the fastest are the two factory 17's. remington and fireball. I personally have chronographed a 20grain vmax handload at 4423-4454(5 shot extreme spread) thru my cz 527 24in varmint. I don't see that kind of speed in any loading manuals for any of the factory 22's or the 204.

Steve

 

[fireball168]

the .17 remington and the .204 are pretty much even in the realm of FPS.

I would mention that at the speeds you are pushing the .17 rem you are going to be replacing barrels pretty often.

The factory FPS of the 32 grain 204 round is just a bit over 4200 fps and that's more than adequate.

...More than adequate.

I love this.

Allowing the same difference in "pretty much even" you mention above in your neverending 204 Ruger vs. 22-250 argument, would have the 22-250 trouncing the Ruger soundly with the more efficient bullets.

So, how many 17 barrels have you worn out?

Modern barrel steel, propellants and proper cleaning equipment in the 17 calibers have greatly extended bore life, along with every other groove diameter out there. When I say modern, I mean anything built in the last 20 years.

While I've never personally done a long term test on one, but in the one's I have owned - throat erosion wasn't measurable in the 800-1100 rounds I kept them around before rebarreling to something a bit more useful.

A neighbor has had the same 17 Remington 700 BDL since the late 80's, and based on the jeweling wear on the bolt, the amount of coyote, fox, crow and groundhog I've seen drop to it and the amount of brass he's purchased from me over the years - he's well into the THOUSANDS, and it still shoots just over an inch at 100. Cleans up nice, and with a lot less hassle than was involved 20 years ago - based on the increased interest in the .172's. And AMAZINGLY it still has the original barrel.

 

[farmboy365]

the .17 remington and the .204 are pretty much even in the realm of FPS. I would mention that at the speeds you are pushing the .17 rem you are going to be replacing barrels pretty often. I have seen one guy push his 204 ruger to approximately 4400 FPS with the 32 grain vmax. However its not recommended due to shortening barrel life and the fact that its just plain dangerous to run that much pressure. The factory FPS of the 32 grain 204 round is just a bit over 4200 fps and that's more than adequate.

I would want to do more resurch but I dont think handloading 200 fts over factory loads would be a problem in a 32gr 204. And as I have said to you before I would not have a 17rem but if I did I see no resone not to push the velosity to the top like stated above.if you cant push the 17 or 204 them better get some more 250s in my collection

 

[boman]

the .17 remington and the .204 are pretty much even in the realm of FPS. I would mention that at the speeds you are pushing the .17 rem you are going to be replacing barrels pretty often.

Modern barrel steel, propellants and proper cleaning equipment in the 17 calibers have greatly extended bore life, along with every other groove diameter out there

I agree with both statements but for me it's relative to what I want out of the rifle---if it will shot minute of angle after 1k I'm still happy---I think this barrel will go a lot farther than that by the way. Heck---I've got machinegun barrels that look like a charred oak beam in the first few inches and they shoot fine

Steve

 

[bRAD]

i am curious as to how many 17 and 20 caliber rifles you have in your personal collection? I can safely say that i have more than the average shooting enthusiast. I will also admit that i haven't burned up the barrel in any of them. However, thats primarily due to the fact that i run them at the factory velocities. I know a couple different guy's that run them hot and they have replaced barrels about every 1,000 rounds or less in some cases. Take that for what you will, i was only trying to offer advice based on my experiences with the small caliber varmint cartridges. These are only my opinions and you don't have to agree with them.

...More than adequate.

I love this.

Allowing the same difference in "pretty much even" you mention above in your neverending 204 Ruger vs. 22-250 argument, would have the 22-250 trouncing the Ruger soundly with the more efficient bullets.

So, how many 17 barrels have you worn out?

Modern barrel steel, propellants and proper cleaning equipment in the 17 calibers have greatly extended bore life, along with every other groove diameter out there. When I say modern, I mean anything built in the last 20 years.

While I've never personally done a long term test on one, but in the one's I have owned - throat erosion wasn't measurable in the 800-1100 rounds I kept them around before rebarreling to something a bit more useful.

A neighbor has had the same 17 Remington 700 BDL since the late 80's, and based on the jeweling wear on the bolt, the amount of coyote, fox, crow and groundhog I've seen drop to it and the amount of brass he's purchased from me over the years - he's well into the THOUSANDS, and it still shoots just over an inch at 100. Cleans up nice, and with a lot less hassle than was involved 20 years ago - based on the increased interest in the .172's. And AMAZINGLY it still has the original barrel.

 

[fireball168]

i am curious as to how many 17 and 20 caliber rifles you have in your personal collection?

The only one I've got at the moment is a 17 Ackley Hornet and a 204 Ruger barrel that I've had sitting in my new barrel inventory for 2+ years now.

Those I've owned:

17 Ackley Hornet (Multiples)
17 Ackley Bee
17 Mach IV
17 Remington Fireball
17 Remington (Multiples)
17 HMR (Multiples)
5mm Remington Magnum (Multiples)
20 Tactical
20 Practical
204 Ruger (Multiples)

Frankly - I don't have much use for any of them - other than they interest me - and custom cartridges are my side business.

Every couple of years I'll trade into one, more often than not a Contender/Encore barrel, play with whatever is "new" since the last one I owned, then get bored with its lack of utility and sell it.

For me, the sub calibers clutter up the bench with another projectile diameter and aren't much good for killing anything larger than a groundhog or a coyote(sometimes). There aren't good enough projectiles available to make them truly interesting as target cartridges.

They just are what they are, which is not much to me.

 

[LCPer]

I didn't check all but saw

.17 @ 4250
.220 Swift @ 4200
.204 Ruger @ 4225

Shooting Times Ballistics Charts