I just got a new scope and im re zeroing my rifle im going to buy a bulk amount of ammo from the same lot. Just curious if i should stick with the 168gr .308 bullets or 175gr. Im zeroing at 100yds and heard that their isnt much difference between them at 100yds. I plan to shoot from 100yd to 500yd most of the time and then occasionally try to reach out to 1000yd. If this makes a difference my barrel twist is 1/10. Thanks!
Range Report 175gr or 168gr???
- Thread starter dannydifalco
- Start date
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I'd say 175s. No reason not to, and they'll reach further if you want.
I'd say 175s. No reason not to, and they'll reach further if you want.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Most .308s can't push 168s to 1000 and have reliable accuracy. You may able to push 155s or 175s to 1000 but your twist is more suited to 175. And that's just the way it is.
Most .308s can't push 168s to 1000 and have reliable accuracy. You may able to push 155s or 175s to 1000 but your twist is more suited to 175. And that's just the way it is.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
do you think i can 100yd zero with the 168's and shoot them when im within 500yds and then switch to the 175's above 500yd? Will the 7grs throw it off that much? Because if they zero almost identical at 100yds it shouldnt be too much difference i assume.
do you think i can 100yd zero with the 168's and shoot them when im within 500yds and then switch to the 175's above 500yd? Will the 7grs throw it off that much? Because if they zero almost identical at 100yds it shouldnt be too much difference i assume.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
You can shoot 168's to 800+. Unless you're shooting competition, buy what's less expensive.
You can shoot 168's to 800+. Unless you're shooting competition, buy what's less expensive.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
1:10" is better suited for 175 gr. Usually 175 and 168 are similar in price so no reason not to go with 175 gr.
1:10" is better suited for 175 gr. Usually 175 and 168 are similar in price so no reason not to go with 175 gr.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Both should perform well out of your 10-twist setup out to 600-700 yd or so, after which the 175s will far outshine the 168s. The 168s have inherent performance/stability issues past this range due to having a very steep angle to the boattail, which impairs their ballistic performance at longer range. The 175s do not suffer from the steep boattail design flaw and would be a better all around load for your 10-twist barrel as mentioned.
Both should perform well out of your 10-twist setup out to 600-700 yd or so, after which the 175s will far outshine the 168s. The 168s have inherent performance/stability issues past this range due to having a very steep angle to the boattail, which impairs their ballistic performance at longer range. The 175s do not suffer from the steep boattail design flaw and would be a better all around load for your 10-twist barrel as mentioned.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tyler Kemp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say 175s. No reason not to, and they'll reach further if you want.</div></div>
Here's a reason, the 175's kick harder. And, when these are shot in a typical traditional bolt action target rifle, consistent resistance to recoil is more difficult to muster. Of course, it's consistent recoil resistance which helps good shooters get good hits at long range. In my experience with M852 and M118LR it seems the 168 grain load is better for mid range work, I'm talking about 600 yard prone shooting. Plus, that load does not wear out or fatigue a shooter like the 175 will. At 1000 yards the 175 is the clear winner. The shooter just has to accept the heavier recoil over a 20 plus round string of fire.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tyler Kemp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say 175s. No reason not to, and they'll reach further if you want.</div></div>
Here's a reason, the 175's kick harder. And, when these are shot in a typical traditional bolt action target rifle, consistent resistance to recoil is more difficult to muster. Of course, it's consistent recoil resistance which helps good shooters get good hits at long range. In my experience with M852 and M118LR it seems the 168 grain load is better for mid range work, I'm talking about 600 yard prone shooting. Plus, that load does not wear out or fatigue a shooter like the 175 will. At 1000 yards the 175 is the clear winner. The shooter just has to accept the heavier recoil over a 20 plus round string of fire.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
i agree, 168 1-500. and 175 600 and further.
i agree, 168 1-500. and 175 600 and further.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SLO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1:10" is better suited for 175 gr.</div></div>Nope.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a reason, the 175's kick harder... that load does not wear out or fatigue a shooter like the 175 will.</div></div>I don't notice any difference in recoil between the two factory loads.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SLO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1:10" is better suited for 175 gr.</div></div>Nope.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a reason, the 175's kick harder... that load does not wear out or fatigue a shooter like the 175 will.</div></div>I don't notice any difference in recoil between the two factory loads.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive.
What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
That said,
If you don't have a 1000 yard range to shoot on why worry. I've heard that the 168 SMK and the 165SGK shoot the same dope out to about 500 yards. I use the 165SGK for hunting, great bullet for me. Personally if you're not shooting over 600 yards I'd buy what is cheaper.
If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
That said,
If you don't have a 1000 yard range to shoot on why worry. I've heard that the 168 SMK and the 165SGK shoot the same dope out to about 500 yards. I use the 165SGK for hunting, great bullet for me. Personally if you're not shooting over 600 yards I'd buy what is cheaper.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Don't forget the 168 AMAX and the 178 AMAX. For the 1:10 I'd stick with these two and the 175 SMK
Don't forget the 168 AMAX and the 178 AMAX. For the 1:10 I'd stick with these two and the 175 SMK
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
When I got started, in earnest, shooting long range with the 308 it was in matches that maxed out at 500 yards. The 168 was fine for that. But then, as I started to think about expanding my horizons and stretching the 308's legs a bit more, I immediately found I needed the 175. Now the 175 is all I shoot in the 308.
If you never dream or dare to go farther, then just keep on shooting the 168.
When I got started, in earnest, shooting long range with the 308 it was in matches that maxed out at 500 yards. The 168 was fine for that. But then, as I started to think about expanding my horizons and stretching the 308's legs a bit more, I immediately found I needed the 175. Now the 175 is all I shoot in the 308.
If you never dream or dare to go farther, then just keep on shooting the 168.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive. </div></div>
Well, I guess the mighty 308 isn't for everyone
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive. </div></div>
Well, I guess the mighty 308 isn't for everyone
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive. </div></div>
Well, I guess the mighty 308 isn't for everyone
</div></div>
Your right, now I shoot the little 80 grain .224 Berger VLD at 1000 from a match conditioned Service Rifle. That's not for everyone either, but it can't be beat for Low recoil, big fun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What factory loads are you comparing? I'm shooting prone with tight sling on a hand-stop to take up some of the recoil and even with that plus two sweat shirts and a heavy leather shooting coat I can still feel the difference between M118 and M852. Maybe I'm just sensitive. </div></div>
Well, I guess the mighty 308 isn't for everyone
</div></div>
Your right, now I shoot the little 80 grain .224 Berger VLD at 1000 from a match conditioned Service Rifle. That's not for everyone either, but it can't be beat for Low recoil, big fun.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I shoot the 223 to 1000 with the same bullet/cartridge.
It is fun. Sometimes quite the challenge.
hope you know I was just pokin' fun.
I shoot the 223 to 1000 with the same bullet/cartridge.
It is fun. Sometimes quite the challenge.
hope you know I was just pokin' fun.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
for reloading the price difference of 168-175 SMK is almost nothing, why have 2 sets of dope to increase the chance of error - go with the 175 as it will cover all uses that you anticipate and my lesson learned is to pry open the wallet for 500 lapua brass - the pain in the ass using basic brass is not worth it for long range
for practice to 500 yds 55 gr .223 and range pickup brass does the job economically
for reloading the price difference of 168-175 SMK is almost nothing, why have 2 sets of dope to increase the chance of error - go with the 175 as it will cover all uses that you anticipate and my lesson learned is to pry open the wallet for 500 lapua brass - the pain in the ass using basic brass is not worth it for long range
for practice to 500 yds 55 gr .223 and range pickup brass does the job economically
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Sorry to repeat myself but....IMO and experience 168's are NO better at ANY range than a 175/178 out of a .308. Out to 500 they are comparable at best...after that, its a no brainer and the 175/178's simply walk off and leave them. Recoil difference is a non issue. Oh...and...heavier bullets usually shoot better in a fast twist barrel because of thier profile and that they are longer, NOT because they are heavier. Long profile 155's such as the VLD's and Amax's do very well in fast twist rifles and from what I've seen will always out perform 168's. I havn't bought a 168 in over 10 years.
okie
Sorry to repeat myself but....IMO and experience 168's are NO better at ANY range than a 175/178 out of a .308. Out to 500 they are comparable at best...after that, its a no brainer and the 175/178's simply walk off and leave them. Recoil difference is a non issue. Oh...and...heavier bullets usually shoot better in a fast twist barrel because of thier profile and that they are longer, NOT because they are heavier. Long profile 155's such as the VLD's and Amax's do very well in fast twist rifles and from what I've seen will always out perform 168's. I havn't bought a 168 in over 10 years.
okie
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
There are some 168s that will perform at 1000yds, and if you could get the Berger Hybrid 168gr (.519 G1) to group well it most likely would perform, as the bullet design extends supersonic ability. The reason for the instability of the nosler/sierra 168gr BTHP is because of the steep boattail. There are some 168s that will work.
There are some 168s that will perform at 1000yds, and if you could get the Berger Hybrid 168gr (.519 G1) to group well it most likely would perform, as the bullet design extends supersonic ability. The reason for the instability of the nosler/sierra 168gr BTHP is because of the steep boattail. There are some 168s that will work.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There are some 168s that will work. </div></div>
This /\, SMK and the nosler copy are the ones to avoid unless you have altitude to your advantage.
I shot some 168 A-Max a week or two ago and was shooting in a DA of 2300' they did well at 1000y from my 308 Rem Tactical @ MV ~2630fps. I had almost perfect wind conditions and printed the best groups I ever have from that particular rifle at 900 & 1000. I also use 168 Berger VLD's for my deer load in the Rem Tactical, it shares nearly the same BC as the 175 smk but can be pushed another 80fps faster in my rifle. Makes a great 500 yard hunting load or 1000y target load.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There are some 168s that will work. </div></div>
This /\, SMK and the nosler copy are the ones to avoid unless you have altitude to your advantage.
I shot some 168 A-Max a week or two ago and was shooting in a DA of 2300' they did well at 1000y from my 308 Rem Tactical @ MV ~2630fps. I had almost perfect wind conditions and printed the best groups I ever have from that particular rifle at 900 & 1000. I also use 168 Berger VLD's for my deer load in the Rem Tactical, it shares nearly the same BC as the 175 smk but can be pushed another 80fps faster in my rifle. Makes a great 500 yard hunting load or 1000y target load.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
i have seen them tumble at 850y.... i would use a 155 over a 168, but the 175/178 would be best...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
i have seen them tumble at 850y.... i would use a 155 over a 168, but the 175/178 would be best...
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Maybe, if you're having problems with 168's out of your .308, you might be attacking the problem from the wrong end. I think the problem is the .308, not the 168.
The .308 was born as the bastard child of a compromise.
Uncle Sugar wanted to drive a 150-ish (actually 147gr) weight FMJ out of a less bulky cartidge package than the then-extant .30-'06. If that's the limit of your goals, then the compromise is a pretty good one.
If you're looking for it to carry heavier mail, you cross beyond the marginal capacity of the cartridge nearly immediately.
IMHO, the answer to the compromise's limitations is to go back to pre-compromise capabilities.
Sure, folks get the most improbably weighty/lengthy bullets to track nicely out of the .308; but face it folks, it's done by bumping all of them right along the wall of impracticality. There isn't a bullet among that won't shoot better (more practically) out of a .30-'06 than out of a .308.
Reloading costs, rifle differences, they are all excuses who come out to play when folks wrangle this choice. Makes one actually wonder how the world got along before the .308 got whacked on the butt and diapered out for the first time.
Actually it did just fine, and questions like the one we're hashing out here were never such an issue. Doubt me, ask Hitler and Tojo if the moldy old .30-'06 and its contemporaries were inappropriate to their tasks.
Greg
Maybe, if you're having problems with 168's out of your .308, you might be attacking the problem from the wrong end. I think the problem is the .308, not the 168.
The .308 was born as the bastard child of a compromise.
Uncle Sugar wanted to drive a 150-ish (actually 147gr) weight FMJ out of a less bulky cartidge package than the then-extant .30-'06. If that's the limit of your goals, then the compromise is a pretty good one.
If you're looking for it to carry heavier mail, you cross beyond the marginal capacity of the cartridge nearly immediately.
IMHO, the answer to the compromise's limitations is to go back to pre-compromise capabilities.
Sure, folks get the most improbably weighty/lengthy bullets to track nicely out of the .308; but face it folks, it's done by bumping all of them right along the wall of impracticality. There isn't a bullet among that won't shoot better (more practically) out of a .30-'06 than out of a .308.
Reloading costs, rifle differences, they are all excuses who come out to play when folks wrangle this choice. Makes one actually wonder how the world got along before the .308 got whacked on the butt and diapered out for the first time.
Actually it did just fine, and questions like the one we're hashing out here were never such an issue. Doubt me, ask Hitler and Tojo if the moldy old .30-'06 and its contemporaries were inappropriate to their tasks.
Greg
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ring</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
i have seen them tumble at 850y.... i would use a 155 over a 168, but the 175/178 would be best... </div></div>
My only experience with the 168 at 1000 was FGMM factory loads. It was pretty ugly. When I finally got way more elevation dialed in than any chart said I needed the bullets were keyholing.
Again, one bullet (175 SMK), one load and one range card for me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ring</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
i have seen them tumble at 850y.... i would use a 155 over a 168, but the 175/178 would be best... </div></div>
My only experience with the 168 at 1000 was FGMM factory loads. It was pretty ugly. When I finally got way more elevation dialed in than any chart said I needed the bullets were keyholing.
Again, one bullet (175 SMK), one load and one range card for me.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Shoot what your rifle likes..also try Berger 155 otm. They have a higher bc than any 168. Also the 155.5 full bore Berger has a good bc and a long profile. Both are vld bullets and will likely shoot good out of your 1/10 twist. With the increased velocity from a lighter bullet and a good bc you wont be missing anything over a 168..unless hunting.
Shoot what your rifle likes..also try Berger 155 otm. They have a higher bc than any 168. Also the 155.5 full bore Berger has a good bc and a long profile. Both are vld bullets and will likely shoot good out of your 1/10 twist. With the increased velocity from a lighter bullet and a good bc you wont be missing anything over a 168..unless hunting.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I wouldn't get too overly worried about it. Shoot your 168's out as far as they'll go. If your rifle likes them and shoots them well out to 1000 .... then there's no problem. See if thier is a problem first. Then look for a solution.
Before you buy bulk, figure out what shoots best out of your rifle.
I wouldn't get too overly worried about it. Shoot your 168's out as far as they'll go. If your rifle likes them and shoots them well out to 1000 .... then there's no problem. See if thier is a problem first. Then look for a solution.
Before you buy bulk, figure out what shoots best out of your rifle.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wvlapua</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shoot what your rifle likes..also try Berger 155 otm. They have a higher bc than any 168. Also the 155.5 full bore Berger has a good bc and a long profile. Both are vld bullets and will likely shoot good out of your 1/10 twist. With the increased velocity from a lighter bullet and a good bc you wont be missing anything over a 168..unless hunting.</div></div>
The 168gr Hybrid has a G1 of .519 and a G7 of .266 higher than any of berger's 155s and 175s
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wvlapua</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shoot what your rifle likes..also try Berger 155 otm. They have a higher bc than any 168. Also the 155.5 full bore Berger has a good bc and a long profile. Both are vld bullets and will likely shoot good out of your 1/10 twist. With the increased velocity from a lighter bullet and a good bc you wont be missing anything over a 168..unless hunting.</div></div>
The 168gr Hybrid has a G1 of .519 and a G7 of .266 higher than any of berger's 155s and 175s
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are some 168s that will perform at 1000yds, and if you could get the Berger Hybrid 168gr (.519 G1) to group well it most likely would perform, as the bullet design extends supersonic ability. The reason for the instability of the nosler/sierra 168gr BTHP is because of the steep boattail. There are some 168s that will work. </div></div>
Exactly this. The boattail angle on SMK/Nosler 168s is around 12 degrees, and should optimally be around seven degrees. They're still a standard, but a flawed design.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are some 168s that will perform at 1000yds, and if you could get the Berger Hybrid 168gr (.519 G1) to group well it most likely would perform, as the bullet design extends supersonic ability. The reason for the instability of the nosler/sierra 168gr BTHP is because of the steep boattail. There are some 168s that will work. </div></div>
Exactly this. The boattail angle on SMK/Nosler 168s is around 12 degrees, and should optimally be around seven degrees. They're still a standard, but a flawed design.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe, if you're having problems with 168's out of your .308, you might be attacking the problem from the wrong end. I think the problem is the .308, not the 168.
The .308 was born as the bastard child of a compromise.
Uncle Sugar wanted to drive a 150-ish (actually 147gr) weight FMJ out of a less bulky cartidge package than the then-extant .30-'06. If that's the limit of your goals, then the compromise is a pretty good one.
If you're looking for it to carry heavier mail, you cross beyond the marginal capacity of the cartridge nearly immediately.
IMHO, the answer to the compromise's limitations is to go back to pre-compromise capabilities.
Sure, folks get the most improbably weighty/lengthy bullets to track nicely out of the .308; but face it folks, it's done by bumping all of them right along the wall of impracticality. There isn't a bullet among that won't shoot better (more practically) out of a .30-'06 than out of a .308.
Reloading costs, rifle differences, they are all excuses who come out to play when folks wrangle this choice. Makes one actually wonder how the world got along before the .308 got whacked on the butt and diapered out for the first time.
Actually it did just fine, and questions like the one we're hashing out here were never such an issue. Doubt me, ask Hitler and Tojo if the moldy old .30-'06 and its contemporaries were inappropriate to their tasks.
Greg </div></div>
Kinda missin your point here Greg, we're talkin .308's. Most cartraiges evolve as the years go by, the .308 did as did the 06. The .308 was deveoloped with a new set of parameters in mind, not to match the 06..... which it cant. As with many others, what the military wanted out of them is conciderably different than what the civi market wants. Compare the 06 to the 300WM and get about the same outcome but with the 06 on bottom. I agree with you on the 06, I luv 'em. IMO, it may be the best all around cartraige on the planet. As you pointed out, it is a bit more costly to shoot than a .308 but if you're not going past 1k, there is very little it will do better than a properly tuned .308. If you need to go heavier than 208 gr then I agree to go with an 06 or something larger but up to there....the .308 does very well.....JMO.
Blackops..... all true, but why look for a hybrid or any of the very few 168's that "will perform at 1000" when you can just go buy an easily obtainable 175/178 match bullet that will out perform any of them at LR for less $? What are you trying to gain by sticking to the 168's? Not being a smart ass brother, this is an honest question.
okie
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe, if you're having problems with 168's out of your .308, you might be attacking the problem from the wrong end. I think the problem is the .308, not the 168.
The .308 was born as the bastard child of a compromise.
Uncle Sugar wanted to drive a 150-ish (actually 147gr) weight FMJ out of a less bulky cartidge package than the then-extant .30-'06. If that's the limit of your goals, then the compromise is a pretty good one.
If you're looking for it to carry heavier mail, you cross beyond the marginal capacity of the cartridge nearly immediately.
IMHO, the answer to the compromise's limitations is to go back to pre-compromise capabilities.
Sure, folks get the most improbably weighty/lengthy bullets to track nicely out of the .308; but face it folks, it's done by bumping all of them right along the wall of impracticality. There isn't a bullet among that won't shoot better (more practically) out of a .30-'06 than out of a .308.
Reloading costs, rifle differences, they are all excuses who come out to play when folks wrangle this choice. Makes one actually wonder how the world got along before the .308 got whacked on the butt and diapered out for the first time.
Actually it did just fine, and questions like the one we're hashing out here were never such an issue. Doubt me, ask Hitler and Tojo if the moldy old .30-'06 and its contemporaries were inappropriate to their tasks.
Greg </div></div>
Kinda missin your point here Greg, we're talkin .308's. Most cartraiges evolve as the years go by, the .308 did as did the 06. The .308 was deveoloped with a new set of parameters in mind, not to match the 06..... which it cant. As with many others, what the military wanted out of them is conciderably different than what the civi market wants. Compare the 06 to the 300WM and get about the same outcome but with the 06 on bottom. I agree with you on the 06, I luv 'em. IMO, it may be the best all around cartraige on the planet. As you pointed out, it is a bit more costly to shoot than a .308 but if you're not going past 1k, there is very little it will do better than a properly tuned .308. If you need to go heavier than 208 gr then I agree to go with an 06 or something larger but up to there....the .308 does very well.....JMO.
Blackops..... all true, but why look for a hybrid or any of the very few 168's that "will perform at 1000" when you can just go buy an easily obtainable 175/178 match bullet that will out perform any of them at LR for less $? What are you trying to gain by sticking to the 168's? Not being a smart ass brother, this is an honest question.
okie
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Blackops..... all true, but why look for a hybrid or any of the very few 168's that "will perform at 1000" when you can just go buy an easily obtainable 175/178 match bullet that will out perform any of them at LR for less $? What are you trying to gain by sticking to the 168's? Not being a smart ass brother, this is an honest question.
okie
</div></div>
It's no problem, you aren't coming off as a smartass. I'm not really trying to steer him into getting 168s, just pointing out the common misinterpretation of the 168s due to the SMK/Nosler lineup, that have consequently been used for years. The hybrids really aren't hard to find and are just as expensive as the 175gr BT LRs i usually shoot. That being said the 168gr hybrid has one of the best BCs of any .30 caliber bullet in a weight class of 155-175gr, if not the best. Though in reality four thousandths of a difference in BC between the 175gr BT LR and the 168gr Hybrid isn't going to make or break anything. I think they're just worthy of noting.
It's also worth noting that the 168gr Hybrids were designed to reduces some of the constraints of VLDs like sensitive seating depth. The hybrids will tolerate a jump to the lands, so you don't necessarily have to run them into the lands like you would a VLD. Still the jump couldn't be significantly large, but it's a positive none the less. Also the possibility of being able to push the 168gr a tad faster could strike interest as well. So i wouldn't say the 175s would necessarily outperform the 168gr hybrid, though there wouldn't be a monumental difference either.
I have some hybrids and still haven't grouped them yet, but if they do tolerate the huge jump they'll be making i'll be sticking with them. Though part of me wants to stick with my 175gr BT LRs at 2618fps, so i don't have to go through the whole "load discovery" process.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Blackops..... all true, but why look for a hybrid or any of the very few 168's that "will perform at 1000" when you can just go buy an easily obtainable 175/178 match bullet that will out perform any of them at LR for less $? What are you trying to gain by sticking to the 168's? Not being a smart ass brother, this is an honest question.
okie
</div></div>
It's no problem, you aren't coming off as a smartass. I'm not really trying to steer him into getting 168s, just pointing out the common misinterpretation of the 168s due to the SMK/Nosler lineup, that have consequently been used for years. The hybrids really aren't hard to find and are just as expensive as the 175gr BT LRs i usually shoot. That being said the 168gr hybrid has one of the best BCs of any .30 caliber bullet in a weight class of 155-175gr, if not the best. Though in reality four thousandths of a difference in BC between the 175gr BT LR and the 168gr Hybrid isn't going to make or break anything. I think they're just worthy of noting.
It's also worth noting that the 168gr Hybrids were designed to reduces some of the constraints of VLDs like sensitive seating depth. The hybrids will tolerate a jump to the lands, so you don't necessarily have to run them into the lands like you would a VLD. Still the jump couldn't be significantly large, but it's a positive none the less. Also the possibility of being able to push the 168gr a tad faster could strike interest as well. So i wouldn't say the 175s would necessarily outperform the 168gr hybrid, though there wouldn't be a monumental difference either.
I have some hybrids and still haven't grouped them yet, but if they do tolerate the huge jump they'll be making i'll be sticking with them. Though part of me wants to stick with my 175gr BT LRs at 2618fps, so i don't have to go through the whole "load discovery" process.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
Ahh memories, I found out quick why the pits have an overhang..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are talking about the 168SMK I've been in the pits when someone tried to use then at 1000 yds. Keyholes, and sideways hits when they actually hit the target. Definitely coming over below super sonic.
</div></div>
Ahh memories, I found out quick why the pits have an overhang..
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I'm good with that.
I shot the .308 pretty exclusively until I git tired of living within the limitations of shooting a cartridge for one pur[ose that was trimmed down to the minimum necessary to accomplish something quite different. Since then, I now own no .308's, and use .260's, 280's, and .30-'06's where once I used the .308. They each just do the actual job I have in mind bettter.
Stalin once said that quantity has a quality all its own.
I say it's just simply better to take advantage of every advantage. If I'm going to use the .30-8's case capacity, I'm going to use it in a .260. If I'm looking for more oomph, I'm going to use the .30-'06 case capcity and do it with the .280 or .30-'06 chamberings.
They each just do the actual job I have in mind bettter. Yes; I'm repeating myself. It's just simply worth repeating.
Greg
I'm good with that.
I shot the .308 pretty exclusively until I git tired of living within the limitations of shooting a cartridge for one pur[ose that was trimmed down to the minimum necessary to accomplish something quite different. Since then, I now own no .308's, and use .260's, 280's, and .30-'06's where once I used the .308. They each just do the actual job I have in mind bettter.
Stalin once said that quantity has a quality all its own.
I say it's just simply better to take advantage of every advantage. If I'm going to use the .30-8's case capacity, I'm going to use it in a .260. If I'm looking for more oomph, I'm going to use the .30-'06 case capcity and do it with the .280 or .30-'06 chamberings.
They each just do the actual job I have in mind bettter. Yes; I'm repeating myself. It's just simply worth repeating.
Greg
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I try to shoot the heaviest bullet my gun will effectively stabilize. I am shooting the 178 and 208 Amax in a 1:10 barrel with great results.
I try to shoot the heaviest bullet my gun will effectively stabilize. I am shooting the 178 and 208 Amax in a 1:10 barrel with great results.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
Some here say recoil is not an issue. It is an issue, not for most, but, in NRA LR, where the shooter must control recoil resistance to an infinitesimal level for the best results, recoil becomes important. In addition, in this sort of shooting, the shooter must get off 20 rounds for record in a timed period which is quite fatiguing when coupled to recoil. For a casual shooter picking up a few boxes of FGMM loaded with 168's and 175's it's understandable the shooter would not notice any divergence in recoil, but over a 20 plus string of fire from prone position, day after day, week after week, well, you get the picture, the harder recoil from the 175 round will be recognized. And since this added recoil is a distraction to good shooting there's no reason to use the 175 except for LR work where the 168 is not reliable.
I used to shoot 600 yard NRA mid range matches. I shot 168's and 175's with about the same results. But, eventually realizing I could get the job done with 168's, I switched to M852 and pulled down my M118SB reloading them with 168's.
Here's the big picture for all shooters: as the bullet leaves the bore an angle and arc between line of bore at rest and line of bore at bullet exit is created. If this is not made consistent shot to shot the bullet will not hit where aimed. The displacement increases with distance. It's one reason today's competitors take 6.5/284's to the long line rather than .300 Win. Magnums. Even when shooting reduced course XTC matches using the .223, a shooter will likely get better results with something like the 52 or 53 grain bullet than by using his across the course 77 grain round. The divergence in recoil from these diminutive bullets can also be felt.
Some here say recoil is not an issue. It is an issue, not for most, but, in NRA LR, where the shooter must control recoil resistance to an infinitesimal level for the best results, recoil becomes important. In addition, in this sort of shooting, the shooter must get off 20 rounds for record in a timed period which is quite fatiguing when coupled to recoil. For a casual shooter picking up a few boxes of FGMM loaded with 168's and 175's it's understandable the shooter would not notice any divergence in recoil, but over a 20 plus string of fire from prone position, day after day, week after week, well, you get the picture, the harder recoil from the 175 round will be recognized. And since this added recoil is a distraction to good shooting there's no reason to use the 175 except for LR work where the 168 is not reliable.
I used to shoot 600 yard NRA mid range matches. I shot 168's and 175's with about the same results. But, eventually realizing I could get the job done with 168's, I switched to M852 and pulled down my M118SB reloading them with 168's.
Here's the big picture for all shooters: as the bullet leaves the bore an angle and arc between line of bore at rest and line of bore at bullet exit is created. If this is not made consistent shot to shot the bullet will not hit where aimed. The displacement increases with distance. It's one reason today's competitors take 6.5/284's to the long line rather than .300 Win. Magnums. Even when shooting reduced course XTC matches using the .223, a shooter will likely get better results with something like the 52 or 53 grain bullet than by using his across the course 77 grain round. The divergence in recoil from these diminutive bullets can also be felt.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
I say go with the heaviest bullet and tweak the load to make it work. I have a 16" desert tactical that i used to shoot 175 grain bullets out of at 2450 until i realized.....that is really slow for a 175. Now i have worked up a load that shoots 225 grain bullets 2400 fps. The stays super sonic far past 1000 and hits very hard. At a 1000 yard match i shot a 176 with it while the guy next to me was shooting 175s that were going sub sonic at about 950. Not bad for a little gun.
I say go with the heaviest bullet and tweak the load to make it work. I have a 16" desert tactical that i used to shoot 175 grain bullets out of at 2450 until i realized.....that is really slow for a 175. Now i have worked up a load that shoots 225 grain bullets 2400 fps. The stays super sonic far past 1000 and hits very hard. At a 1000 yard match i shot a 176 with it while the guy next to me was shooting 175s that were going sub sonic at about 950. Not bad for a little gun.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultraman550</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't forget the 168 AMAX and the 178 AMAX. For the 1:10 I'd stick with these two and the 175 SMK </div></div>
I just recently completed a long range precision class with my GAP .308. I ran 168gr. AMAX (TAP factory load) with great success (what I had on hand). They were a hammer out to 800 yards and then the wind started to really effect the bullet. That said, the 168 AMAX is superior to the 168gr. SMK beyond 800 due to their design. I had two consecutive hits in the wind at 1000 on a 21"X15" plate and a 3rd round hit at 1100 on the same size plate with the 168gr. AMAX. They can hang for sure, but at distance (beyond 800) I would run 175gr. SMK or 178gr AMAX as they are less effected by the wind. The wind is the real killer here and I had no idea how much the wind really effected your bullet at long range until I saw it. A full value 1mph wind will move my 168gr AMAX 10" @ 1000 yards. Not much room for error when shooting a 15" wide plate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultraman550</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't forget the 168 AMAX and the 178 AMAX. For the 1:10 I'd stick with these two and the 175 SMK </div></div>
I just recently completed a long range precision class with my GAP .308. I ran 168gr. AMAX (TAP factory load) with great success (what I had on hand). They were a hammer out to 800 yards and then the wind started to really effect the bullet. That said, the 168 AMAX is superior to the 168gr. SMK beyond 800 due to their design. I had two consecutive hits in the wind at 1000 on a 21"X15" plate and a 3rd round hit at 1100 on the same size plate with the 168gr. AMAX. They can hang for sure, but at distance (beyond 800) I would run 175gr. SMK or 178gr AMAX as they are less effected by the wind. The wind is the real killer here and I had no idea how much the wind really effected your bullet at long range until I saw it. A full value 1mph wind will move my 168gr AMAX 10" @ 1000 yards. Not much room for error when shooting a 15" wide plate.
Re: 175gr or 168gr???
All things being equal, the 175 smks will outperform the 168 smks past 500 yards.
its undisputable.
All things being equal, the 175 smks will outperform the 168 smks past 500 yards.
its undisputable.
