.223 is not really a problem. I've got a Remington Model 70 .222 (same thing)
I've had since the late '50s. It's had thousands of rounds put through its
barrel, which still looks like new. It's the difference between 3200 fps and
4100 fps, I suppose, kind of the same difference between an automobile engine
you can run in the family sedan for over 150,000 miles, but the same engine
after a 500-mile, petal-to-the-metal race would have to be rebuilt. And
rolling your own ammo is the way to go if you shoot a lot. Besides, it's kinda
fun, but be careful. :-)
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Wayne Culberson" <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> > Barrel erosion has always been the big bugaboo with the .220 Swift. With
> a muzzle velocity of 4110 fps, barrel wear came quickly, and after a
> thousand rounds or so, those 100-yard, one-inch groups started to spread a
> bit.
> > Walt
>
> Wow, I didn't realize barrel erosion happened that quickly. 1000 rounds is
> not that many to be seeing significant barrel erosion. So is it pretty hard
> on brass as well for those who reload (not knowing whether or not you do)?
> That's another thing I like about the 223 over the 22-250, brass lasts a
> long time, and it is cheap (read free to me) anyway. And it's a bit easier
> on my older ears, too.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|