220 Swift in Remington Short Action?

[danny]

Remington has chambered the 700 short action for .220 Swift. I am considering building a heavy barreled 700 chambered for the Swift. I am going to single load only, so magazine function is not a consideration. To me, the 700 short action, even without using the magazine seems too short, but maybe I am wrong. The receiver opening on the short action is shorter than a Swift loaded round. Has anyone had a 700 Short Action Swift or built a Swift on a Long Action that can relay their thoughts and experiences?

Thanks,

Danny

 

[IdahoSharpshooter]

mag box length is roughly 2.8XX" long. If you want to pull a loaded round, you will probably have to pull the bolt first...
Berger's Manual is rather pessimistic; they recommend a COAL of just 2.680", which will seat the heavier bullets pretty deep inside the case. The nice thing about a single load COAL, you can specify the FB when your smith chambers the barrel, and seat the bullets out to where the base is even with the shoulder/neck junction. I have a 22-284 in process, so I understand your dilemma.

What bullet do you plan to build around? My gunsmiths have me bring three rounds with the bullet seated to depth I want. Two dummies, and a starting load.

Since I plan to shoot Rockchucks and a few Coyotes with it, 600 yds is about all the distance I will use it for. I went to Berger's website, and ran everything from the 75gr to the 90gr bullets, using a 250yd zero, the 75gr had the best overall trajectory.

Good Luck,

Rich

 

[Hal]

Remington's 40Xs are short actions and they put magnums on the 40x.
Let me know how it shoots . The first rifle I bought was a Ruger 77V in .220 swift. I still have it.

Hal

 

[Ggmac]

Remington has chambered the 700 short action for .220 Swift. I am considering building a heavy barreled 700 chambered for the Swift. I am going to single load only, so magazine function is not a consideration. To me, the 700 short action, even without using the magazine seems too short, but maybe I am wrong. The receiver opening on the short action is shorter than a Swift loaded round. Has anyone had a 700 Short Action Swift or built a Swift on a Long Action that can relay their thoughts and experiences?

Thanks,

Danny

If you need to extract a live round , you could always mill the ejection port longer in the rear , similar to the Rem 7

 

[John Russell]

"Remington has chambered the 700 short action for .220 Swift. I am considering building a heavy barreled 700 chambered for the Swift. I am going to single load only, so magazine function is not a consideration. To me, the 700 short action, even without using the magazine seems too short, but maybe I am wrong. The receiver opening on the short action is shorter than a Swift loaded round. Has anyone had a 700 Short Action Swift or built a Swift on a Long Action that can relay their thoughts and experiences?

Thanks, Danny"

I have had four .220 Swifts on short Remington 700 actions - 3 were repeaters, and the current one is a SA single shot. I usually load to the limits of the box (2.800-ish) for the repeaters, and my current single shoot is loaded to aprox 3.1 inches.

Contrary to opinions from people who don't have or never used a .220 Swift in an SA Rem 700, the loaded rounds extract and eject with lots of room to spare. Don't worry, be happy. You will love the .220 Swift.

 

[danny]

I have had four .220 Swifts on short Remington 700 actions - 3 were repeaters, and the current one is a SA single shot. I usually load to the limits of the box (2.800-ish) for the repeaters, and my current single shoot is loaded to aprox 3.1 inches.

Contrary to opinions from people who don't have or never used a .220 Swift in an SA Rem 700, the loaded rounds extract and eject with lots of room to spare. Don't worry, be happy. You will love the .220 Swift.

Does extraction and ejection then equally work well for your single shot when loaded to 3.1"?

Danny

 

[John Russell]

"Does extraction and ejection then equally work well for your single shot when loaded to 3.1"?

Danny"

Works fine.

And to correct a comment about milling the ejection port - totally unnecessary...

Lot's of room.

 

[B23]

my current single shoot is loaded to aprox 3.1 inches.

Holy moly, 3.100 for an COAL, what bullet are you shooting that you use a COAL of 3.100? Even the heaviest for caliber bullets and 3.100 there can't be much of the bullets shank in the neck.

 

[John Russell]

69gr STMK... I did not like it, but it is looooong.

 

[B23]

69gr STMK... I did not like it, but it is looooong.

LOL I could see why.

That bullet isn't all that long and at a COAL of 3.100 the boat tail must have been about the only thing sitting in the neck.

 

[xring]

Danny , some years ago I had a Fast Twist Swift built with a 30 inch Barrel ( starting contour about like the Rem. Varmint Barrel ) on the Small Rem. 700 Action to shoot the 60 Gr Vmaxs for Long Range Pdogs shooting off a Bench . Does it work ....Yes . Would I do it the same way again ..... No . I would go with a longer Action , a thicker Barrel , and a Muzzle Break ( more of a BR Platform ). I have shot this Rifle very little ( due to Medical problems ) , but for some strange reason the 8.5 Twist Barrel shoots the 40 Vmaxs into considerably smaller Groups than the 60s . I can't remember the COL , but I think it was over 3.1 inches . Anyway , that's my experience .

 

[284winner]

Holy moly, 3.100 for an COAL, what bullet are you shooting that you use a COAL of 3.100? Even the heaviest for caliber bullets and 3.100 there can't be much of the bullets shank in the neck.

The 220 swift case is 2.205 long vs the 243 at 2.045. Noticeably longer. My 22-250 Ackley case is 1.905. When I load an 80 Amax, it's COAL is 2.705 just before touching the lands. If you do the math, it's easy to see that 3.1 isn't unrealistic. Sounds long but with 220s long case, it all adds up. Imagine running 90 VLDs !!!

 

[B23]

Here's the problem though, a 220 Swift case is 2.205 but a 69gr Sierra TMK is only .982 in length, the boattail length is .125 thou. So say you seat the bullet so there is only 1 thou of the bullets shank in the very top of the neck, that still only leaves you with a COAL of 3.064.

As for a 60gr Vmax being seated to a COAL of 3.100, well, that's simply impossible because that bullet is only .873 in length and with a case length of 2.205, you could sit the base of the bullet on top the necks edge and you'd still be way short of 3.100 so I'll assume xring was thinking of a different measurement.

Even with a 80gr Amax seated to a COAL of 3.100 it only leaves you with .085 of shank in the neck.

A general rule of thumb is you want somewhere around the diameter of the bullet, as a minimum, being gripped by the neck. Some will go less, but not that less.

 

[284winner]

Here's the problem though, a 220 Swift case is 2.205 but a 69gr Sierra TMK is only .982 in length, the boattail length is .125 thou. So say you seat the bullet so there is only 1 thou of the bullets shank in the very top of the neck, that still only leaves you with a COAL of 3.064.

As for a 60gr Vmax being seated to a COAL of 3.100, well, that's simply impossible because that bullet is only .873 in length and with a case length of 2.205, you could sit the base of the bullet on top the necks edge and you'd still be way short of 3.100 so I'll assume xring was thinking of a different measurement.

Even with a 80gr Amax seated to a COAL of 3.100 it only leaves you with .085 of shank in the neck.

A general rule of thumb is you want somewhere around the diameter of the bullet, as a minimum, being gripped by the neck. Some will go less, but not that less.

Got your point. I'm pretty much using the 75/80 eld/Amax so it will make it to 3.1 if used in a 22-243.