Home

Several shooters with new .220 Howell rifles have been having trouble getting decent varmint accuracy from these rifles.<P>Trouble-shooting by a top-level bench-rest barrel-maker and rifle-maker revealed that (a) the rifles weren't properly bedded and (b) the chamber throats were so long that a 75-grain or 80-grain bullet properly seated in the neck had to jump too far to reach the rifling, and a bullet seated to reach within a few thousandths of the rifling was barely seated in the neck (1/8 inch isn't enough!).<P>So this barrel-maker and I put our heads together (takes two to make a wit sometimes!) and developed the optimum reamer dimensions for this cartridge � a chambering reamer with no throat (which works for some bullets and some seating depths) and a separate throating reamer for extending the throat if necessary. These dimensions then allow a 'smith to chamber a rifle for the bullet[s] intended for it.<P>I bought the first of these "authorized" reamers from Pacific Precision Grinding (P O Box 2549; White City, OR 97503; [541] 826-5808), and it's in the custody of Richards Rifle Company (10501 N Monarch Street; Hobbs, NM 88241; [505] 392-1515; <A HREF="http://www.rifle-barrels.com)." TARGET=_blank>http://www.rifle-barrels.com).</A>

Mr. Howell,<BR>I have read some of your articles and info with great interest. But could you please explain to me in laymans terms why a .220 Howell with 70 or 80 grain bullets would be superior to a .243 shooting the same weights?<BR>I understand that you can beat a swift shooting 55 grn bullets at a faster velocity, because due to more weight and better b.c. you pass them up very quickly. But I don't know how you do against a .243 if all is equal. Barrel lenghts, velocities, etc. Thanks, Cal

CCW, I can't and won't answer with very much until I know more about the .243. I CAN say this, though �<P>.224 and .243 bullets of the same weight and comparable shapes have different ballistic coefficients � higher with the .224 bullets. At the same velocities, the .224 bullet will retain its velocities (and all its other long-range performance) higher and longer.<P>I'll check-out some of the .243's bona fides and get back to you with specifics.

CCW, here's sort of an answer to your question. I didn't compare the two bullets at the same velocity, because the two cartridges don't shoot 'em at the same velocity. Instead, I compared them on the basis of their typical performances in the two rifles.<P>A friend of mine developed and recorded a series of loads with a Winchester Model 70 (.243 Winchester) and the 75-grain Hornady .243 V-Max, using an Oehler Model 43 to measure pressures and velocities. Loaded to the SAAMI maximum pressure for the .243, his Model 70 .243 produced the performance listed below. I've listed his data alongside the related figures for one of my loads for the .220 Howell. Also, I've used the same equations to calculate the down-range performances of these two loads with 75-grain Hornady bullets. Any difference between the calculated performance and actual field performance presumably applies equally to both cartridges.<P>bullet � .220 Howell, 75-grain A-Max � .243 Winchester, 75-grain V-Max<BR>barrel length � .220 Howell, 26 in. � .243 Winchester, 24 in.<BR>(The .220 Howell would lose about 90 ft/sec in 24-inch barrel.)<BR>zero (both rifles) � 295 yd<BR>BC � .224 A-Max, 0.440 � .243 V-Max, 0.330 (significant difference, right here!)<P>velocity at muzzle � .220 Howell, 3,600 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 3,400 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 3,350 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 3,090 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 3,120 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,800 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 300 yd � .220 Howell, 2,900 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,525 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 400 yd � .220 Howell, 2,690 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,265 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 500 yd � .220 Howell, 2,485 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,025 ft/sec<P>bullet path at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 2.1 in. � .243 Winchester, 2.7 in.<BR>bullet path at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 2.7 in.� .243 Winchester, 3.4 in.<BR>bullet path at 300 yd � .220 Howell, - 0.25 in. � .243 Winchester, - 0.3 in.<BR>bullet path at 400 yd � .220 Howell, - 7.3 in. � .243 Winchester, - 9.5 in.<BR>bullet path at 500 yd � .220 Howell, - 19.2 in. � .243 Winchester, - 25.5 in.<P>wind deflection at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 0.55 in. � .243 Winchester, 0.75 in. (10-mi/hr wind)<BR>wind deflection at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 2.2 in. � .243 Winchester, 3.2 in.<BR>wind deflection at 300 yd � .220 Howell, 5.1 in. � .243 Winchester, 7.5 in.<BR>wind deflection at 400 yd � .220 Howell, 9.4 in. � .243 Winchester, 14 in.<BR>wind deflection at 500 yd � .220 Howell, 15.2 in. � .243 Winchester, 23 in.

Ken,<BR>Those are very impressive figures, but your not comparing them equally. You put the .243 at a dissadvantage in the 24' barrel. My particular rifle I use on coyotes is a 26" Pac-Nor on a Sako action. I shoot 47.5 grn of H414 and mag primers with a 70 grn Sierra HPBT match. This bullet shoots well and holds together better than the plastic tips. I get slightly better penetration on coyotes if I happen to strike bone (shoulder, hip). I have an oehler chronograph and my velocitys are right at 3620 fps. Now I'm giving you this to play with because I'm very interested in building a .220 Howell. I have a swift and have never been very impressed with it. It's very picky about what it shoots well and it doesn't feed worth a damn. For these reasons I want to re-barrel to something else. Thanks, Cal

Cal, I compared them as nearly equally as I can. I used what I had available. I can't make the 24-inch barrel two inches longer, and I'm not going to chop two inches off my 26-inch barrel just for a completely neat comparison in a chat-room forum.<P>Also, I acknowledged the actually very slight bias in the comparison. Please notice my note that (according to a computer simulation, which I trust) if the 26-inch barrel were two inches shorter, the muzzle velocity would drop by about 90 ft/sec. I assumed that you'd be able to take this into consideration in your own personal appraisal of the two sets of data.<P>The figures I provided nonetheless show roughly how much of a performance difference there is between the two cartridges. Refining the input numbers would refine the output numbers but would not erase the significant difference in the performance of these two cartridges with the same weight of bullet.<P>The .243 would have to show a huge increase in muzzle velocity to overcome the significant difference in the ballistic coefficients of the two bullets.<P>I'll have a look at the data you've just provided and see how they compare with the .220 Howell.<P>Cheers!

Here y'go, Cal: comparing mine 'n' yourn!<P>bullets � .220 Howell, 75-grain A-Max � .243 Winchester, 70-grain Sierra<BR>barrel lengths 26 in.<BR>zero (both rifles) � 295 yd<BR>BC � .224 A-Max, 0.440 � .243 Sierra 0.259<P>velocity at muzzle � .220 Howell, 3,600 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 3,620 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 3,350 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 3,205 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 3,120 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,830 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 300 yd � .220 Howell, 2,900 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,480 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 400 yd � .220 Howell, 2,690 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 2,160 ft/sec<BR>velocity at 500 yd � .220 Howell, 2,485 ft/sec � .243 Winchester, 1,860 ft/sec<P>bullet path at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 2.1 in. � .243 Winchester, 2.5 in.<BR>bullet path at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 2.7 in.� .243 Winchester, 3.3 in.<BR>bullet path at 300 yd � .220 Howell, - 0.25 in. � .243 Winchester, - 0.3 in.<BR>bullet path at 400 yd � .220 Howell, - 7.3 in. � .243 Winchester, - 9.6 in.<BR>bullet path at 500 yd � .220 Howell, - 19.2 in. � .243 Winchester, - 25.4 in.<P>wind deflection at 100 yd � .220 Howell, 0.55 in. � .243 Winchester, 0.9 in. (10-mi/hr wind)<BR>wind deflection at 200 yd � .220 Howell, 2.2 in. � .243 Winchester, 4 in.<BR>wind deflection at 300 yd � .220 Howell, 5.1 in. � .243 Winchester, 9 in.<BR>wind deflection at 400 yd � .220 Howell, 9.4 in. � .243 Winchester, 17.5 in.<BR>wind deflection at 500 yd � .220 Howell, 15.2 in. � .243 Winchester, 29 in.<P>Unless I've typed-in a typo, these figures should be a heck of a lot more accurate than either of us can tell by shooting these rifles.

Well.. it seems the comparisons could go on and on... the design idea seems very sound.<P>Though bullets appear to be improving..<P>See.. first.. to me the hunter. I would compare wildcats to wildcats.. and factory to factory ..<P>Then I would look around at bullets.. if someone really wanted to defend the 243AI then you could just go buy a lot of Lost River in J36 variety (80gr BC=.444) and launch them at 3600 then run the comparison.. this is marketed as a controlled expansion hunting bullets(obviously at a high cost...)<P>I guess the point is.. look around .. and find the chambering that meets your needs and go for it...<P>It is IMO a good thing to have another offering.. be it 220 Howell or 300 WSM(even better 7mm WSM;-)<P>.02 worth..<P>--Steve

Waycool wrote:<BR>See.. first.. to me the hunter. I would compare wildcats to wildcats.. and factory to factory ..<P>Then I would look around at bullets.. if someone really wanted to defend the 243AI then you could just go buy a lot of Lost River in J36 variety (80gr BC=.444) and launch them at 3600 then run the comparison.. this is marketed as a controlled expansion hunting bullets(obviously at a high cost...) <BR> <BR>Waycool, <BR> I would suggest that comparing the .220 Howell to the .243 Winchester is a fair comparison. As it gives the layman a benchmark with which to evaluate the .220 Howell to a known quantity, the .243 Winchester. <P> I also don't see the logic in only comparing a wildcat to wildcat and factory to factory. In all truth that has very little to do with it. What about factory chamberings that were initially wildcats? In that case we would have to ignore the .22-250, the .25-06', and even the .280 Remington in comparison to other factory chamberings. We could not compare a .22-250 to a .220 Swift. One was a wildcat and the other was introduced by Winchester in the 30's. Very similar performance in all truth yet they could not be compared by your criteria.<P> I also find it somewhat odd to "defend the .243AI". Firstly, the discussion was centered around the .220 Howell and the .243 Winchester. The .243 Ackley Improved was not discussed. Further we might note that the rifles in comparison were shooting a .22 caliber Hornady A-Max versus a .243 caliber V-Max. Both commonly available bullets.<BR>A .243 AI and a Lost River Ballistics bullet might make an interesting comparison, however, its irrelevant in this discussion. <P> Lastly, Why would someone want to "defend the .243AI", or the .243 Winchester in this discussion? The .220 Howell will either outperform the .243 Winchester in a given load comparison or it won't. Not a philosophical debate but rather a matter of scientific fact. I see no use in "defending" a cartridge, it either performs or it doesn't. I have a pet Remington 40XB-KS in .22-250, will the .220 Howell outperform my favorite rifle? Without question it will. Do I feel a need to defend the .22-250? Under no circumstances. We can certainly debate that which is subjective, however, scientific fact is not subjective. <BR> <BR>Regards, Matt in Virginia. <P><p>[This message has been edited by Matt in Virginia (edited February 09, 2001).]

Dr. Howell,<BR>I'm extremely impressed. Especially with the difference in wind deflection. The higher b.c. really makes a difference. I wasn't trying to "defend" the .243. It is a wonderful round and I know what it will do, but I am always looking for advantages as most of us are. The .220 Howell seems to have alot of the advantages we are looking for. Can you please give me some info on brass (can it be formed easily from another parent round) availability, cost, barrel life etc. etc. etc. What action do you reccomend, barrel length, etc. etc. <BR>Thank You again for your time.<BR>Cal

Head-stamped .220 Howell cases are available (not from me � see <A HREF="http://www.hunting-rifles.com)," TARGET=_blank>www.hunting-rifles.com),</A> but I'm making my .220 Howell cases by shortening and re-forming Winchester .25-06 cases.<P>Any action that'll take an '06-based cartridge a tad longer than the 8x57mm Mauser or as long as a .270, .280, '06, or .35 Whelen can handle the .220 Howell, which is about 3.1 inches long, loaded.<P>Both my .220 Howell rifles have 26-inch barrels, but I may shorten the next one to 24 inches to see whether I can tighten groups even finer than one-hole cloverleaves. The computer says the 24-inch will give about 90 ft/sec less muzzle velocity � with the difference undetectible in down-range field performance. All data from field tests, so far, are from 26-inch barrels.<P>No one has shot-out a .220 Howell barrel yet, but the significantly lower peak pressures guarantee a significantly longer barrel life.<P>DEFENDING FAVORITE CARTRIDGES<P>Any favorite cartridge that needs to be defended doesn't deserve it. Nobody should ever have to defend his favorites, even if they make absolutely no sense to anyone else. <BR>In his later years, somebody asked Mark Twain how he came to that age. He advised going your own way ("or don't go," he said), not his. He said, approximately, If a man wants to carry two cats home by their tails, I say let him. He'll learn things he'd never learn any other way, and the memory will never fade or grow dim. �o)<P>To each his own! I'm like the comic who said he used just one golf club for every shot on the course. "I've found the one I like," he said. "Those other guys are still trying to decide." �o)

Sorry Matt.. didn't mean to start controversy.<P>I hit my 7 iron best too...<P>--Steve

Steve, <BR> No need for apologies and I don't think you started a controversy. I intended my response as part of an informal discussion. No problems whatsoever. I find If we can't discuss topics openly we're unlikely to learn anything. Thats what I'm here for;-). Best, Matt.