220 swift rechambered to 220 wilson arrow

C

chris k

Guest
Hi guys I am going to ream a 220 swift to a wilson arrow .I do not have a reamer print for the Wilson Arrow .Does any body know how much one should set back to clean up the 220 swift chamber when rechambering to the Wilson Arrow ?

Thanks ,
Chris
 
Basically, the Wotkins-Wilson Arrow pushed back the neck-shoulder junction. According to the prints I have, you would have to set the barrel back AT LEAST .0607, as base to shoulder/neck junction is 1.8450 on the Arrow, but 1.9057 on the Swift. If those numbers are correct for your existing chamber and your Wilson arrow reamer, that would be one thread with a 16 TPI tenon, 2 with anything finer.

Risky assumption. Smart would be set it back at least .100 -- assuming that the body of your Wilson Arrow reamer is at least close to as large as the Swift was, perhaps not a valid assumption.

Smarter still would be to cut an Arrow chamber in a scrap barrel, and make a cerrosafe cast.

BTW, the Weatherby Rocket is a "improved" Swift, and should avoid these issues. It's a nice chambering for a large .22 -- and yes, I have one.
 
Last edited:
Chris

Before you start you need to determine exactly which particular 220 Wotkyns-Wilson Arrow you want to end up with. It is a wildcat, and as such, everyone had their own idea of what it should look like. The original, designed by Wotkyns and Wilson, used the same gauging point on the shoulder as did the Swift, but increased the shoulder angle to 30 degrees thereby lengthening both the body and neck lengths. Case taper and case length remained the same. Case capacity also remains unchanged. A 220 Swift case has to be sized before it can be chambered and fire-formed. (OTOH, an Arrow case can be chambered and fired in a Swift chamber and an original Swift case will emerge.)

There are also any number of "220 Arrows" out there that do not conform to the original. Most are mildly improved forms of the Swift with slightly sharper shoulders and/or lengthened bodies. Most can be fire-formed simply by shooting a standard Swift in the new chamber. The Ackley and WBY Rocket are the two most popular. I have a modest wildcat cartridge collection and I think I have at least 4 or 5 "Improved" Swifts and the same number of "Arrows". All different.

Exactly what do you hope to gain by re-chambering to the Wotkyns-Wilson Arrow, other than the name? Wilson hisself never claimed any ballistic advantage over the standard Swift. He was a cantankerous old SOB who, I think, designed his case so that the standard Swift could not be fired in it, just because he could. It gave him pleasure to pi$$ off other shooters.

So, bottom line, you'd be well advised to take Charles' advice and cut a test chamber in a barrel stub, make a chamber cast, and see exactly what you are up against.

JMHO

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ray,

but increased the shoulder angle to 30 degrees thereby lengthening both the body and neck lengths.
Click to expand...

My print is taken from Ken Howell's book, Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges, pp 124-25. While the body does increase, it is by .0003 -- three ten-thousandths gets lost in the noise. Essentially, it's all lengthening the neck.

But I agree, a test chamber is the way to go.

BTW, Warren Page had some kind words for the Rocket. Both I and the barrel makers like it a lot. And if speed's your thrill, there is always the .244 Clark, on the 7x57 case . . .
 
The reason for why this fella wants his 220 swift reamed to wilson arrow is purely for case life /stretching . He has a reamer and dies and gauge which he is supplying me with .

Chris
 
A note on the case life angle...
I have a Swift that was showing quite a bit of case length growth on every FL sizing. I had the body part of the FL die lapped out for minimum resizing, and it cut the case growth in half. sometimes it can be interesting to look at case diameters .300 up from the head, and at the shoulder, before and after FL sizing. Another thing that I learned on the Swift was to set the shoulder to the same place that it came out of the rifle, When FL sizing. I think that it is a shoulder angle thing. I never had a bolt close issue and the cases lasted a lot longer.
 
Boyd Allen said:
A note on the case life angle...
I have a Swift that was showing quite a bit of case length growth on every FL sizing. I had the body part of the FL die lapped out for minimum resizing, and it cut the case growth in half. sometimes it can be interesting to look at case diameters .300 up from the head, and at the shoulder, before and after FL sizing. Another thing that I learned on the Swift was to set the shoulder to the same place that it came out of the rifle, When FL sizing. I think that it is a shoulder angle thing. I never had a bolt close issue and the cases lasted a lot longer.
Click to expand...

+++++++1
 
Charles E said:
Ray,



My print is taken from Ken Howell's book, Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges, pp 124-25. While the body does increase, it is by .0003 -- three ten-thousandths gets lost in the noise. Essentially, it's all lengthening the neck. . . .
Click to expand...

Charles - Then it is not a real Wotkyns-Wilson. This from a letter written by Wilson 30+ years ago:

"I used the same gauging point on the Arrow shoulder (0.335 Inch) and distance from the gauging point to the bolt face (1.1806 inches) as the .220 Swift. In increasing the shoulder angle by nine degrees, the body is lengthened slightly while the neck is also lengthened by about the same amount. . ."

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top