never been much of a fan of anything smaller than 6mm and barely that. but an opportunity has come up which begs a question. just how much of a handicap is a swift with a 24" barrel? i know it was supposedly overbore when it came out and typically has always been offered or built with 26" barrels, but checking reloading data, the powder charges look - to me - fairly moderate and it's hard for me to imagine that 2" less barrel would amount to anything more serious than a little drop-off in velocity. i would expect that today far more suitable powders can be had mitigating the downside of a shorter barrel.

roger

I think that there is enough variability between barrels such that 2" is not going to make a critical difference either way. I have a Savage 99R in 220 Swift, rebarreled with a pre-'64 Win 70 varmint weight barrel by well known 1950s VT 'smith Wilbur Hauck, that measures 23". It shoots as fast as I'm willing to load for that action. A 1 in 8" twist 220 Swift might make for a fun deer rifle with 60 grain Partitions.

Jeff

quote:

just how much of a handicap is a swift with a 24" barrel?

Absolutely no woodchuck, prairie dog, coyote or any other varmint will ever know the difference.

The velocity lost in the missing two inches is extrtemely small.....I wouldn't give it a second thought if you want a "Swift".

I've had at least 6 .220's and the one that gave the highest velocity was a Shilen 24 in. barrel. Most of the others were 26's. There will be more variation between barrels than the 2 in. will make.

thanks guys! that's unanimous enough for me. i can imagine that 60 yrs ago it might have been an issue but the load data with todays powders seemed to reasonable i likewise couldn't imagine ever caring abt a couple inches less barrel. i suspect the trend is as much style and habit as anything else.

roger

I have a Shilen DGA rifle with a 26 inch barrel thats always been on the fast side of published velocities.