What is this? .220 Swift Mauser-based custom...

[Skunk]

I ended up having to adjust the headspace just a tad to get the bolt to close on a GO gauge. After doing that, it functions perfectly, and shoots like you see. The brass looks great, but the primers have some sharp, raised edges around the firing pin strike. I'm not sure if the firing pin needs to be bushed, or if it's a protrusion issue or what. But, I figured I'd develop a load just for this rifle before deciding.

 

[Skunk]

Nice!!!! That’s a worthy cause right there!!!

Thank you so much for the ammo. The 52gr hollow points are what I fired. 3800fps.... There was a recipe in one of the boxes...35gr of 3031 with a 52gr Speer.

I haven't tried the soft-points yet.

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

Beautiful piece of kit.

 

[sandwarrior]

I ended up having to adjust the headspace just a tad to get the bolt to close on a GO gauge. After doing that, it functions perfectly, and shoots like you see. The brass looks great, but the primers have some sharp, raised edges around the firing pin strike. I'm not sure if the firing pin needs to be bushed, or if it's a protrusion issue or what. But, I figured I'd develop a load just for this rifle before deciding.

The 'splash' around the firing pin indent is typical of a Mauser anytime you get warm. To extreme benchresters, that matters. To the rest of us, shooting groups like you are showing, it doesn't.

 

[Skunk]

I need to post a pic of the primer. I agree with you in that I wouldn't normally worry about it, but I'm not really sure the load is all that warm. The outer edge of the primer is not flattened at all...

 

[sandwarrior]

I need to post a pic of the primer. I agree with you in that I wouldn't normally worry about it, but I'm not really sure the load is all that warm. The outer edge of the primer is not flattened at all...

It don't take much 'warmth' and that will show. Often misdiagnosed as a 'hot' round, it's really just showing two things: A. inherent issues due to Mauser 'looseness of tolerances between the many rifles (firing pin hole), and B. the taper of the case lends to a kind of setback. The walls of the case don't grab the chamber so hard and the case slides back during firing.

Both issues could be at play here with minimal safety issues. Unless in the latter, you have excessive headspace issues. I've fired a ton of Mauser cases in a Mauser action and had those same 'splash' issues and the cases never had any issue with headspace.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Thank you so much for the ammo. The 52gr hollow points are what I fired. 3800fps.... There was a recipe in one of the boxes...35gr of 3031 with a 52gr Speer.

I haven't tried the soft-points yet.

Keep in mind that those are somewhat “older” handloads. Probably done in the 1980s. 35 gr. Of 3031 would have been a very max load for a 55 grain bullet. And “warm” bordering on hot for a 52 grain. I can look up in my vintage loading manuals to see what max loads were.

However, today’s manuals are decidedly more conservative. Modern numbers from Hodgden have 3031 max load at 35 grains for a 50 grain projectile.

The manuals are definitely more conservative these days. I suspect the formulations are the same (ie better manufacturing methods have not produced hotter powders by some small margin). Instead, I think liability is the driver. Max loads being dialed back as a a margin.

So your primers may be showing some pressure signs.

FYI, normally, shooting someone else’s handloads... I’d pull bullets and just use the brass. But this guys notes that came with his ammo were so meticulous that I have no issue consuming them.

BTW, a lot of folks now don’t recommend 3031 for .220 Swift as it is a fast powder. But it is historically a very accurate powder in a Swift.

Like to see some pictures!

Sirhr

 

[sandwarrior]

Keep in mind that those are somewhat “older” handloads. Probably done in the 1980s. 35 gr. Of 3031 would have been a very max load for a 55 grain bullet. And “warm” bordering on hot for a 52 grain. I can look up in my vintage loading manuals to see what max loads were.

However, today’s manuals are decidedly more conservative. Modern numbers from Hodgden have 3031 max load at 35 grains for a 50 grain projectile.

The manuals are definitely more conservative these days. I suspect the formulations are the same (ie better manufacturing methods have not produced hotter powders by some small margin). Instead, I think liability is the driver. Max loads being dialed back as a a margin.

So your primers may be showing some pressure signs.

FYI, normally, shooting someone else’s handloads... I’d pull bullets and just use the brass. But this guys notes that came with his ammo were so meticulous that I have no issue consuming them.

BTW, a lot of folks now don’t recommend 3031 for .220 Swift as it is a fast powder. But it is historically a very accurate powder in a Swift.

Like to see some pictures!

Sirhr

I definitely agree that the manuals have gotten more conservative. And yes, for liability reasons, not manufacturing. Always use the 'work up' method and you'll know where your pressure is before it bites you.

Manufacturing capability of powder today is far better than it was back in the day, though. It's the additives that make powder much better today. What you are seeing on the shelf today is literally a new powder from the same number and manufacturer of yesteryear. The reason for that is branding. Powder companies didn't want to throw a whole lot of confusion into the mix, and people like their old manuals. So, the "new" powders were formulated to approximate the old numbers. They are different, but the whole premise with reloading still applies: "Start low and work up!" {but you knew that anyways, right?}. The numbers don't mean you have to stop, it's where they set the margin to mitigate liability. STOP when you have a safe load and a good accuracy 'high' node.

That said, 3031 can get you accuracy in a .220 Swift. But, I would suggest moving to a slower powder such as 4064, Varget, 4350 (all flavors), even as slow as 4831. Since the Swift is known for speed it doesn't hurt to use a double base powder (nitro-glycerin added that is still in the new powders). RE-15 is about as fast I would go with 17 being about optimum and 19 working well too. Slower powders will give the lower initial pressure and a long push out the barrel. Finding a low node with them still has the bullet singing along at high speed and not eating barrels so bad.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

I definitely agree that the manuals have gotten more conservative. And yes, for liability reasons, not manufacturing. Always use the 'work up' method and you'll know where your pressure is before it bites you.

Manufacturing capability of powder today is far better than it was back in the day, though. It's the additives that make powder much better today. What you are seeing on the shelf today is literally a new powder from the same number and manufacturer of yesteryear. The reason for that is branding. Powder companies didn't want to throw a whole lot of confusion into the mix, and people like their old manuals. So, the "new" powders were formulated to approximate the old numbers. They are different, but the whole premise with reloading still applies: "Start low and work up!" {but you knew that anyways, right?}. The numbers don't mean you have to stop, it's where they set the margin to mitigate liability. STOP when you have a safe load and a good accuracy 'high' node.

That said, 3031 can get you accuracy in a .220 Swift. But, I would suggest moving to a slower powder such as 4064, Varget, 4350 (all flavors), even as slow as 4831. Since the Swift is known for speed it doesn't hurt to use a double base powder (nitro-glycerin added that is still in the new powders). RE-15 is about as fast I would go with 17 being about optimum and 19 working well too. Slower powders will give the lower initial pressure and a long push out the barrel. Finding a low node with them still has the bullet singing along at high speed and not eating barrels so bad.

Agreed on all fronts. And for most rifles, the most accurate is definitely below the 'speed' threshold.

I know my TRG loads are about 2 grains below max for a 168 grain bullet. That's going to cost me at 1000, but it's going to be pretty much one ragged hole at 200.

Again, the beauty of handloading. What do you want? A hotrod? A tackdriver? ELR? Minute of Moose? My Moose rifle is a .458 Magnum, but the loads I use are a 'hot' .45-70 load. Would not even consider that in Africa. But in the Northeast for bear or moose at short range, it is an incredible thumper. I still have the boolit from my moose. Stopped under the skin on the far side, where we cut it out while skinning it. Same with two from my .416 Taylor on bison. Skin on the far side stopped the bullet. That's as perfect a load as you can get. 100 percent energy transfer and 100 percent wound channel. Only downside is only bleeding on one side. Upside is really cool bullets to display!

Handloading takes shooting to the best levels. It's what I love about the sport. The mechanical mechanism is generally more repeatable than even the best human. Then get into casting your own bullets, making your own cartridges. Working up your own loads. Now it is just you against physics. And if your shots aren't going where you want, you have noone and nothing whatsoever to blame. So what you have to work on is... you.

That, to me, is a sport at the highest level!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Skunk]

 

[sirhrmechanic]

View attachment 7616861

Those look just fine.

The ridge around the firing pin is not high pressure. It's a loose firing pin.

You are well within GTG range!

Those primers look fine! There are NO high-pressure warning signs there. Outstanding!

Sirhr

 

[Skunk]

That's what I was thinking... just loose firing pin to bolt fit. I'm going to enjoy the introduction of this rifle to the dog-size jackrabbits we have around here!

 

[sandwarrior]

That's what I was thinking... just loose firing pin to bolt fit. I'm going to enjoy the introduction of this rifle to the dog-size jackrabbits we have around here!

That is good medicine for annihilating jackrabbits!

On a sad note, the guy who introduced me to the .220 Swift in my young teens passed away this past week. His three boys all love the Swift, but none of them will take shooting it to the level he did.

 

[MarinePMI]

I definitely agree that the manuals have gotten more conservative. And yes, for liability reasons, not manufacturing. Always use the 'work up' method and you'll know where your pressure is before it bites you.

Manufacturing capability of powder today is far better than it was back in the day, though. It's the additives that make powder much better today. What you are seeing on the shelf today is literally a new powder from the same number and manufacturer of yesteryear. The reason for that is branding. Powder companies didn't want to throw a whole lot of confusion into the mix, and people like their old manuals. So, the "new" powders were formulated to approximate the old numbers. They are different, but the whole premise with reloading still applies: "Start low and work up!" {but you knew that anyways, right?}. The numbers don't mean you have to stop, it's where they set the margin to mitigate liability. STOP when you have a safe load and a good accuracy 'high' node.

That said, 3031 can get you accuracy in a .220 Swift. But, I would suggest moving to a slower powder such as 4064, Varget, 4350 (all flavors), even as slow as 4831. Since the Swift is known for speed it doesn't hurt to use a double base powder (nitro-glycerin added that is still in the new powders). RE-15 is about as fast I would go with 17 being about optimum and 19 working well too. Slower powders will give the lower initial pressure and a long push out the barrel. Finding a low node with them still has the bullet singing along at high speed and not eating barrels so bad.

The manuals have gotten conservative for several reasons:

1. Liability and legal advising has pushed powder manufacturers to be very conservative with their published load data.

2. The consolidation of ownership of the powder factories. I think it was around 2004, after Hodgdon had bought Winchester and DuPont (IMR) factories, that they realized all the load data was created using various methods of measurement. Some were PSI, some were CUP, some were just visual inspection and "guesstimates" of pressure. So, they bought 10 universal receivers and a metric shit ton of test barrels, so they could standardize the load data testing. When that happened, the load data also became very conservative.

Only reason I know/remember, was that we were setting up a ballistics lab, and the lead time on a universal receiver and barrels was 12 months. That's when the guy (from Texas IIRC) told us why...

 

[sandwarrior]

The manuals have gotten conservative for several reasons:

1. Liability and legal advising has pushed powder manufacturers to be very conservative with their published load data.

2. The consolidation of ownership of the powder factories. I think it was around 2004, after Hodgdon had bought Winchester and DuPont (IMR) factories, that they realized all the load data was created using various methods of measurement. Some were PSI, some were CUP, some were just visual inspection and "guesstimates" of pressure. So, they bought 10 universal receivers and a metric shit ton of test barrels, so they could standardize the load data testing. When that happened, the load data also became very conservative.

Only reason I know/remember, was that we were setting up a ballistics lab, and the lead time on a universal receiver and barrels was 12 months. That's when the guy (from Texas IIRC) told us why...

The CUP/PSI thing is still around. Which is probably why some cartridges have been reduced. It would be great and safer if all the old cartridges were converted to PSI only and we could move forward. However, some cartridges don't generate enough interest to test. Therefore, they will get a CUP rating of yesteryear or a very low guesstimate of PSI if ammo is ever manufactured for them. But, always have the CUP rating.

@MarinePMI is familiar with this. For those not familiar, CUP is copper units of pressure. How that is done is a disc made of a given hardness of copper is placed behind the case (or in a formed hole in the side of the chamber) in a test firearm as it's fired at different load pressures. The copper at lighter loads smashes down pretty uniformly. At high pressures it smashes down slightly less uniformly and at even slightly higher pressures than that, it doesn't smash down any more at all. That is at about 55,000 CUP. The 'slug' they use just runs out of usable slip planes.

The other method , PSI, is typically measured by Piezo electric. They use a quartz transducer and it measures much higher and much more accurately. The quartz does not compress. It gives off a very small electric charge uniform to the pressure it receives. So, as you may be able to see why PSI is now the preferred method. Not to mention it can be converted to most any other measuring system.

And, the Piezo method tends to be an upward curving parabola on a graph, where CUP tends to be a downward curving and flatter parabola on a graph. CUP isn't really directly convertible to any other pressure measuring system.