From your existing lineup, it would appear that you're serious about .22 cal. centerfires...If you are interested solely in speed, then the Super Short is the answer. The Swift holds a lot of nostalgia, simply because of its early evolution as a wildcat in 1935. The Swift developed a reputation as a barrel-burner, and in those early days, it was true. The metallurgy finally caught up with the ballistics, and now a Swift will give you just as much good shooting as the next caliber, when properly maintained. I'm not so sure that the metallurgy was ready for the Super Short, as evidenced by the fact that the manufacturers started chrome-lining the barrels to slow the erosion. I'll illustrate:
In one example, from the Hodgdon manual:
.223WSSM: a 52g bullet with IMR4007SSC, loaded max with a 47gr charge, gives you 3851fps at 62,4000 psi. The same bullet in the Swift, at max with a 42gr charge, gives you 3820fps at 52,600 psi. So, doing the math, the WSSM gives you 31fps more, but at the cost of 5gr of powder, and nearly 10,000 psi. Sum it up: 12% more powder, 19% more pressure, 1% more velocity.
Now, this is just a glaring example to demonstrate the point. There are other spreads that are a little more favorable. It's just statistics. In my opinion, the little extra velocity costs you more than it is worth, in terms of powder consumption, pressure, brass life, and barrel longevity. That having been said, the same comparison could be made between the .22-250 and the .220 Swift.
Enough theory--now the real-world experience:
I own and shoot a .223 Rem and a .220 Swift, and have shot several .22-250s and .223 WSSMs. The two friends of mine that bought the WSSMs both regretted it, for different reasons: One shot the barrel (pre-chrome) nearly smooth, and the other is disappointed in reloading the cartridge, in that he cannot seem to equal factory ballistics. Not statistically significant, but that is what I've seen.
Field results: For 10 years I have been shooting jackrabbits much like others shoot prairie dogs: off a bench, next to other shooter buddies, at measured distances. We set up on a remote stretch of flat, straight dirt road, by an alfalfa field. We are zeroed at 300 yds, and sit about 300 yds from the "corridor" where most of the rabbits cross the road to eat alfalfa. We have several calibers making noise at the same time, and we inspect the damage done, comparatively between calibers, bullets, velocities, and distances. We have hundreds of "confirmed kills" from 20 yards out to 624 yards. It's a little subjective, granted, but certain conclusions have been drawn. I have not met a jackrabbit that knows the difference between 3700fps and 3900fps. Terminal performance appears the same. The rather academic difference in paper ballistics simply does not show up in the field. Moreover, the farther out those bullets go, the less the velocity difference. You essentially lose any benefit, real or academic, from a velocity boost past 400 yds or so. At 500 yds, the difference in the amount of energy imparted by a 50gr bullet fired from a .22-250 vs. the same bullet fired from a WSSM is very little in the real world.
If I were to pronounce the most practical .22CF above the .223 Rem, I would have to say the .22-250. It appears to be the most efficient of the bunch. I still own a Swift, and love it. Whatever you decide, when you venture into that ballistic category, be sure that you keep the bore clean and cool, be reasonable with your loads, and most of all, have fun. Apologies for the rambling, but you asked for opinions. Here's mine.
Regards,
Schuter