I've been carrying a "Ten guns I'd like to own" wish list in my wallet for over fifty years. For at least some of those years the list was probably the only thing I had in my wallet, which made it retain its importance over the years. Drafted during Miss Conahan's middle school English class, its completion did not come without sacrifice. As an example, if I had been paying more attention to my English lessons, and less to my list and Miss Conahan's jiggly parts, I could have been a much gooder writer. As the French say, "Ma t�te est un cabage g�ant".

A week ago, I noticed there were still five rifles remaining on the list, so thought it might be a good time to take a whack at cutting it down to four. A quick check of the Sunday newspaper indicated the Holland & Holland company was not running its usual Spring .577 Nitro Express chambered Royal Double rifle "All rifles must go!!" clearance sale. Luck would have it, I was a tad shy of the full $250,000 MSRP, or as my hero Foghorn Leghorn would say, "I found mah-self henceforth, therewith and somewhat inexplicably financially disadvantaged". Conceding the big H&H, I jumped to the next item on the list which read, ".220 Swift - need for 500 yard shots at crows". A little odd as the only things 500 yards away from my childhood home in New Jersey were the state borders, in all directions. New Jersey is a very tiny state. Still, a list is a list, a gun is a gun and a cigar is, well, something Freud seemed to constantly struggle with. My justification for sticking with this choice? If I was smart enough to know how to grow hair on the top of my head in those days, I must have known some things then that I don't know now, so I could only defer to that younger and wiser, although not as handsome, Joe. Besides, in Maine I would have more room to exercise the .220 Swift's potential as long as I could find a space between all of the trees.

Since my list was written circa 1957, the rifle I originally had in mind was a .220 Swift Winchester Model 70 rifle with a heavy contoured stainless barrel. But time passed, 1964 passed and, eventually, Grand Fenwick declared war on Connecticut and labor unions, by hoisting their flag over the Winchester factory. This effectively put an end to the Model 70, the memory of Chuck Connors and a number of other well established icons of Americana. Fortunately, other American traditions survived as exemplified by the.220 Swift version of the Remington Model 700 VSSF II. I bought one and immediately set out to unravel some of its many mysteries...like the meaning of the initialism "VS SF II" - Varmint weight, synthetic stocked, stainless steel and fluted barrel. The "II" infers it is no longer a "I" which, in this case, means the VS SF received numerous enhancement for 2005  which is detailed in forward text. The VS SF II has been with us long enough to be wrung out debugged and refined, but not so long that it is missing the most current technology.

I took the Model 700 out of its box, wiped it down to get the "new" off and said aloud, "Wow! This is a pretty rifle". I blame this comment on my wife. She watches a couple of TV shows with me that I like, so I have to watch a couple of shows she likes. A couple of weeks of watching her "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice", on what I like to refer to as estrogen night and I start having salads for lunch. Good Lord!

Firearms produced by a couple of the leading manufacturers today have more than a little aesthetic appeal. I recently saw this in the fit, finish and mechanical design of Ruger's SP 101 327 Federal Magnum revolver and clearly this is the case with this Remington. The VS SF II has just the right touches from action's bright stainless finish to the cleanly jeweled bolt. The barrel is spin polished and the longitudinal flutes and shallow angle target crown are black powder coated. Bottom hardware is aluminum, textures and strategically polished. The ergonomically contoured H-S Precision varmint style stock is finished in matte black with green webbing. The gun is mechanical art. I took out a few of my Model 700's that represented a progression of Remington firearms that began with an early 7mm Magnum M700 BDL and the evolution of the M700's design was incredible. Some products get more cheaply made each year; nuance parts and assemblies are cost reduced out, inferior materials replace wood and steel. Not the case here. The M700's being sold today are a much better made firearm; materials, workmanship and design.

416 stainless steel is used for both barrel and action. The action is machined from cylindrical stock, not cast. The 26" barrel terminates at an 0.820" outside diameter at the muzzle which is capped with a dished crown. The barrel is strengthened, aided in heat dissipation and kept light in weight with the application of six 19 1/4" flutes. The flutes diminish in depth for the last six inches as they get closer to the chamber end of the barrel and chamber pressure. Rifling is hammer forged, twist is 1:14" 6 groove right. Remington's 40X has cut or "button" rifling, which would suggest cut rifling is more desirable for dimensional control and accuracy, however, so do the Model 504, Model 597 rim fire guns and the economy bent Model 710 center fire rifles. I'd speculate that economy of scale and production volume dictates the rifling methodology and cut rifling is more cost effective on short production runs. Based on prior experience with various hammer forged barrels, I do not believe this is a production concession that results in reduced accuracy.

The .220 Swift VS SF II employs a standard length action. Left - comparison of the .220 Swift bolt to a .300 Ultra Mag bolt. All Model 700 variants have opposed twin lugs with a recessed bolt face that is part of the Remington three rings of steel full enclosed cartridge system; bolt face, chamber walls and receiver ring.

The M 700 is of push feed design, a cartridge is retained in the magazine and then stripped out of the magazine and pushed without being constrained by the bolt into the rifle's chamber. In controlled round feed systems the case rim slips under an extractor claw and held in place in the bolt face as it is chambered. I've never has a failure to feed with either system, but then it has only been fifty years and I don't want to jump to conclusions. Might just be my impression, but I believe the push feed type action is much smoother in actuation and perhaps a little easier to operate under stressful conditions.

Why do these established descriptions always make their way into publication? Because, there are lots of experienced firearm enthusiasts who are aware of this information, but everyday new enthusiasts join us. Information needs to serve a broad audience with varying levels of experience. Hey, if people can build a whole cable network out of images of shooting whitetail deer from a tree stand I think redundancy is a minor transgression.

The "inside the guard floor plate" release (1) is out of the way, but handy when it is time to empty the magazine at the end of the day. The bolt release (2) is also easy to get at, but not easy to inadvertently get tangled up in. (3) A nice evolution to the X-Mark Pro trigger.

The original introduction of the X-Mark Pro provided a new enhanced operation trigger for Remington. It was tight, crisp and smooth. An excellent trigger. For 2009, the X-Mark Pro became owner adjustable for pull, using a 1/16" hex head wrench that is supplied with the rifle. The trigger comes from the factory set at a nominal pull of 3 1/2 lbs and has an adjustment range of 2 lbs. Instructions and precautions are noted in the gun's manual, but making adjustments is very simple.

The safety is a two position on and off affair which is a welcome ease of use feature. I always thought three position safeties were for the indecisive and added unnecessary complexity to a gun's mechanical design. Something nice about the Remington manual. It actually makes reference to reloaders and some general precautions that should be observed. If you've ever been given the "We do not condone using reloaded ammunition in our firearms so go away" speech by some firearm companies, you'll realize it's unique to find a company that tries to function in the same universe as its customers.

One of the ways to tell a quality firearm from a less than exciting firearm is to pull the action and bottom metal pieces. If the gun looks as good inside as it does from the outside, and the outside is very solid, you're in good shape. The VS SF II has a refined appearance where ever you look. Everything is made out of metal including the magazine follower and the magazine box. Again, lower metal parts are cast aluminum for light weight, everything up top is steel. The barrel recoil lug is well placed and well supported within the stock. The two hex head graded bolt fasteners are a nice touch and an end to screw driver sliced finishes.

Quite a nifty stock...

The H-S Precision made composite stock for the .220 Swift weighs 2 lbs 6 oz, which is pretty impressive as it's dimensionally quite beefy and it has an integral aluminum bedding block. It is the H-S Pro style with their tact contoured forearm and palm swells. Remington lists the construction of the stock as "...composite stock reinforced with aramid fibers." The aramid fiber description is shorthand for aromatic polyamide fibers which are used in the production of fire and high heat resistant material and in advanced forms of body armor. In this application, aramid fibers add a tremendous amount of strength to the composite material along the direction of the fiber. The result is a highly resilient stock that is very carefully shaped for maximum control while shooting over extended ranges for extended periods of time.

The VS SF II has two front tactical-style swivel studs. The one nearest to the trigger guard is for short range shooting. The one farthest from the trigger guard is for long range shooting...really. No, not really, The near stud is for a sling, the front stud is for mounting a bipod or possibly an iPod. More importantly, my VS SF II swivel studs are blued while my Sendero SF II studs are stainless and I don't know why. A mystery to solve.

The .220 Swift, in the scheme of things...

A number of cartridges see varmint use around here. They are left to right, our .17-357 RG, the .222 Remington, the .223 Remington, the newly added .220 Swift. The .243 Winchester appears in frame for cartridge size comparison only. The .17 and series of .224" cartridges each fit a different niche, each represents a significant increment upward in power and reach.

The .220 Swift is an incredibly flat shooting fps burner. With us since 1935, it was originally intended for long, long range varmint hunting with a 500 yard capability for shots at Wiley Coyote. The original factory load was a 48 grain soft point at 4,110 fps*.

Today, the industry's treatment of this venerable cartridge is split. Half of the bullet manufacturers' reloading manuals seem to perpetuate the old stories of the 1930's and 40's when barrel steel was less than exciting and the only powder speeds available were fast and really fast. It was a time when barrel life was expressed in three digit round counts and rebarreling was almost a national pastime. The other half of the bullet makers have embraced their inner Swift, acknowledged the cartridge as a premier varmint cartridge and an effective antelope and deer killer. In looking at the bullets available from these various companies, I would say their respective positions on the Swift depend upon how much R&D effort went into developing 50 - 60 grain 0.224" products that could hold up to the .220 Swift's velocity.

Rifle manufacturers have, for the most part, favored the .22-250 Remington over the .220 Swift. Remington has made a serious commitment to both cartridges to the extent that both are chambered in several varmint rifle configurations, like the VS FS II, as well as Remington's 40-X Custom Shop tactical and range rifles. Ammunition manufacturers are not in short supply with six major brands actively producing thirteen different loads including one for Remington's EtronX electrically discharged rifle.

Ah yes,  a 4,300 fps conundrum...

Pictured, right, with the smaller .223 Remington, you'd think the larger cartridge would handle the heaviest bullets with greater ease, but not so. With a typical 14" twist rate, the Swift will stabilize, and shoot accurately, most lead core flat base bullets up to 60 grains, (fourth from the left). The remaining five bullets to the right are intended for the .223 Remington where twist rates fall between 7" and 10".

For the most part, non-military/security applications for the heavy bullets are for competitive target shooting. Here, softball lobbing trajectories on the way to fixed target distances are not a problem and a heavy bullet's contribution to wind drift reduction is significant in determining the outcome of a match.

The .220 Swift's forte is where precise distances to targets may not be known and may be, in fact, continually changing. In these circumstances, the Swift's high velocity and extremely flat shooting characteristics are of consequence. So the question may be raised "Why not increase the .220 Swift's twist rate from 14" to 9" or even 8", then break out the heavy bullets and the light bullets and get the best of both worlds?" Glad you asked, I've been wondering the same thing myself. It seems the .220 Swift cartridge's best quality, velocity, is also it's Achilles Heel, one that prevents it from utilizing a twist rate similar to the .223 Remington across a full array of available .224" bullet weights.

Putting spin on the issue...

I will advance the notion that stating a rate of twist is only a simple way to communicate the rotational speed that is required to stabilize a bullet. Twist rates are an expression of a means to an end. I say this only because a static twist rate does not result in a constant rotational speed as rotational speed will vary with the velocity of the bullet. A bullet's rate of rotation has to be fast enough to provide the gyroscopic inertia necessary to stabilize a bullet so that its longitudinal axis tracks true to its intended path and is devoid of yaw. Spin a bullet too fast and there are consequences. Tight twist rates increase bore friction and therefore accelerate barrel wear. In a publicly aired failure analysis conducted by Berger Bullets, that company cited thin jackets and elevated bore friction as a source of lead core melting temperatures that resulted in bullet failure. Bullet rotational speeds can be increased through tighter twist rates to the point radial forces can exceed the strength of a bullet and cause it to fragment in flight prior to contact with a target.

I used two common weight bullets to construct the model below, both firearms with an 8" twist and the .220 Swift additionally listed with a 14" twist to see how they all stand in regard to rotational speed.

Bullet RPM is calculated as:

Conclusion

If you can't tell, I can comfortably say I am very pleased with Remington's VS SF II and I am really looking forward to wringing out the Swift cartridge. I picked up a very nice scope for the occasion, lots of powder and bullets and I am looking forward to the firearm exploration and education. These are the types of projects I really enjoy and I got to work my wish list down to four. I will be back soon to report how the bullets flew out of the barrel rather than my calculator.

Remington's VS SF II .220 Swift Part I
Remington's VS SF II .220 Swift Part II

*11th Edition - Cartridges of the World