swift scirocco's

[bramble basher]

HI.

Was wondering has anybody used 100gn swift scirocco's

have acquired a box and a half not much info about, was going to give them a go in my 25-06 chap i got them off tried them in 257 Roberts without much success write up's on the web seem good but not a lot of load info.

 

 

 

any help as always used with caution

thanks simon.

 

[maltbuck]

they have a secant ogive, which prefers (but not always) a reasonable jump to the lands. So you may want to start further out from the lands than you usually would, I am about to start a load work in a 30-06 using 165 grain and will probably start at 40-50 thou off.

 

Regards,

 

MB

[gbal]

If you haven't,google "257 swift scirocco bullets"-among the few entries,Chuck Hawks gives his usual experienced opinion,as a hunting bullet-design Scirocco II (heavy jacket eg) is clearly intended for relatively medium-heavy game (it would be no surprise if it was't the best ever roe bullet!) The early sciroccos had by some accounts,a somewhat mediocre accuracy record,though 1moa with a properly heavy bullet might do for elk!

Terminal performance -what are you intending to shoot?-seems to be the bigger issue-is it the right expansion rate etc for you quarry?

Foster "Long Range Hunting Cartridges" has detailed commentary -New Zealand,though-on this topic,but doesn't include Swift bullets.Maybe someone on here will give a UK game pespective-"try and see" is rather unethical.

gbal

[srvet]

not sure that try and see is unethical as such but perhaps start with smaller game like roe or fox first. Im sure they will do just fine

[gbal]

Its unethical to use bullets on live targets without knowing they are suitable,animals are not ethically used for what would be essentially,an experiment..trial and error,reallly....the coincident pragmatic point is that there is some field evidence that this bullet is a medium game bullet,not designed for fox etc,and may not expand. it is possible to wait and see if it has been uk used,and whether it was acceptably effective.If so,fine,use further,monitoring effects.If not.....do not.Simples...there are plenty other suitable bullets and no emergency here.we are not talking about a paper target,but a sentient creature,which deserves better.Sorry for the lecture,but you offer no support at all,to balance the other,incomplete evidence that suggests caution meanwhile.The test bed should not be some animal,until at the very minimum we can be confident it has not been dodgy so far.

[jcampbellsmith]

HI.

Was wondering has anybody used 100gn swift scirocco's

Simon

No, but I briefly used 130 gr Sciroccos in my 260 Rem. I found it difficult to develop a consistent load with them. Load development did show some exceptional results. I did shoot at least one roe buck with them. Even 6 or 7 years ago they were eye wateringly expensive and I had to replace the two boxes I borrowed.

I doubt I will look at them again. At present I'm just about to do some load development with Nosler partitions.

Regards

JCS

[srvet]

Its unethical to use bullets on live targets without knowing they are suitable,animals are not ethically used for what would be essentially,an experiment..trial and error,reallly....the coincident pragmatic point is that there is some field evidence that this bullet is a medium game bullet,not designed for fox etc,and may not expand. it is possible to wait and see if it has been uk used,and whether it was acceptably effective.If so,fine,use further,monitoring effects.If not.....do not.Simples...there are plenty other suitable bullets and no emergency here.we are not talking about a paper target,but a sentient creature,which deserves better.Sorry for the lecture,but you offer no support at all,to balance the other,incomplete evidence that suggests caution meanwhile.The test bed should not be some animal,until at the very minimum we can be confident it has not been dodgy so far.

 

I would agree that caution is appropriate but unethical I feel is going too far.... Surely by that standard we are unethical when we use the first of any handloads on live game unless they have been tested for accuracy, penetration and expansion in ballistic gelatine with and without penetrating light and heavy bone at short medium and long range on roe, red, fallow, fox etc. Then we should only take shots at less than 10 yards from a benchrest because we might wobble and place our shots badly. There are numerous threads that relate to the variation in ballistic performance between various loads, rifles, barrel lengths etc that can easily render some loads illegal or perform poorly, yet we do not consider this practice to be unethical. I personally think it is reasonable to assume that the makers have exercised due diligence in ensuring that their offerings will expand within a velocity window of the range of cartridges that might be used. Otherwise their product will surely be a commercial failure. Therefore providing the cartridge is broadly speaking reasonably appropriate for the game in hand (which a 25/06 with 100g bullets clearly is) and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the likely velocity of the projectile falls within the velocity range that the bullet is designed for, then it is reasonable to assume it will do its job as required. Besides do you think you can believe everything you read on forums about a given bullet??? don't forget the 25/06 shoots like a lazer beam with zero drop to 500 yards

[gbal]

srvet,perhaps we can come closer to agreeing,if we look at some of what I also said-essentially that an unknown/untested bullet may be 'dodgy',verging on unethical-just as some might be not 'expanding missiles' and actually illegal.The terms are not mutually exclusive,however.

There is a fair bit of mixed reports about some swift bullets,though that may well be essentially their misuse on inappropriate species-a bullet designed for large North American game may well be an inappropriate choice for roe-note I also said 'pragmatically'-whatever one's position on 'ethics',such bullets might just not do the job (wounded deer escapes,no venison).

I accept your point about manufacturers tests-though commercial success and failure have several drivers,eg cost-IF the tests were on the species to be shot at-US has no roe deer.Yes,you'd expect the 25-05 100g to be effective....but there are plenty examples-some on this forum-of less than satisfactory performance of several bullets,in several cartridges/calibres.Most are failures to expand in deer,some are over fragmentation without penetration in severalspecies,if the wrong bullet is chosen.Any bullet can occasionally fail,of course.

Note I strongly suggested the 'ethical' /pragmatic decision would be to see if there is any relevant UK experience with the bullet.First tests on live quarry seem to me unethical,but it is a sliding scale-in this instance,dependent on how much is known already...as ever...here it iss 'not much,and it's not all good".

You examples really are unconvincing-many bullets have a convincing history of good performance-so working up a load using them is not a 'shot in the dark'-performance is already established,and if sensible,guided by success on the appropriate UK species-there are such reports here almost every day.

"Wobble" etc is off the point-really,though a shooter who can't adequately should (ethically?) consider some skill improvement before risking wounding.TO shoot and miss is incompetent,to shoot and would is unethical,if the norm.But call it what you will-most of us make decisions about what is right/sensible etc.

While we are on it,the bullet makers do use gelatine etc----in part because it is unethical to test bullets on live game (it's also not very practical !). I agree that 32 vmax can be used on crows ,without need for extensively rediscovering that that wheel is OK.(there is very mixed experience of 20g on fox,though).Ditto quite a lot of other load combinations.I hope we might get up to date info on the Scirocco II(not the earlier,different ones,note),and won't be flabbergasted if a 100g 25-06 works on fox ( though a bit OTT?). And I have heard that the 25-06 comes close to the ballistic miracle that was the early 22-250: flat (no lasers back then) to 250,then rises up a bit. :-)

 

OK,I don't believe every advertising claim-or rather that truth is'nt always the whole truth (as in comparing trajectory but omitting windage,or much reduced energy...naughty,naughty-coyotes deserve at least a clean death 350 yards away.)

Can we agree that we should be cautious in using an essentially untried load,but can have corresponding faith in using well tried and tested components,appropriate to the local species etc. Call it ethical,pragmatic,enlightened self interest ...or plain good old common sense...any will do.

In part,that is what these forums can be good at-passing on experience,so some reasonably reliable data base builds up.Until it does,as I also said,maybe use something else ? I do admit,when I take a pinch of salt,as one should occasionally,even here,I don't run all the lab tests first,whether it's good old Anglo saxa,or these Maldon sea flakes that NIgella recommends.... :-)

 

atb

g