168gr vs 175gr
- Thread starter alexzeph142
- Start date
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
168 goes subsonic before 1K. 175's all the way if you plan on shooting out to 1K. Also look into the 155 Scenars, they will outperform both the 175 and 168 out to 1K.
168 goes subsonic before 1K. 175's all the way if you plan on shooting out to 1K. Also look into the 155 Scenars, they will outperform both the 175 and 168 out to 1K.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
155's, 175's or heavier, but not 168's smk. The 168 smk works great for shorter ranges but tend to become unstable between 8-9 hundred yards, because of the boat tail angle.
155's, 175's or heavier, but not 168's smk. The 168 smk works great for shorter ranges but tend to become unstable between 8-9 hundred yards, because of the boat tail angle.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
Not to muddy the waters, especially since I don't shoot a 308 anymore, but what about the 168's in a variety other than Sierra? Take the 168gr Hornady A-Max for example. How does that look beyond the 168 SMK's shorter threshold of velocity? Does the same adage apply?
Not to muddy the waters, especially since I don't shoot a 308 anymore, but what about the 168's in a variety other than Sierra? Take the 168gr Hornady A-Max for example. How does that look beyond the 168 SMK's shorter threshold of velocity? Does the same adage apply?
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
</div></div>
Answers that question!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
</div></div>
Answers that question!!
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sawgunner2001</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to muddy the waters, especially since I don't shoot a 308 anymore, but what about the 168's in a variety other than Sierra? Take the 168gr Hornady A-Max for example. How does that look beyond the 168 SMK's shorter threshold of velocity? Does the same adage apply? </div></div>
If your gun likes VLD's the 168 berger vld is very close to the 175 smk's bc, G7's: [email protected] and [email protected]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sawgunner2001</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to muddy the waters, especially since I don't shoot a 308 anymore, but what about the 168's in a variety other than Sierra? Take the 168gr Hornady A-Max for example. How does that look beyond the 168 SMK's shorter threshold of velocity? Does the same adage apply? </div></div>
If your gun likes VLD's the 168 berger vld is very close to the 175 smk's bc, G7's: [email protected] and [email protected]
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
i have shot 168 amaxs and 175 smks out to a thousand and the 175 is the way to go. The 168s have a tendency to key hole, or hit sideways at longer ranges... just my 2 cents.
i have shot 168 amaxs and 175 smks out to a thousand and the 175 is the way to go. The 168s have a tendency to key hole, or hit sideways at longer ranges... just my 2 cents.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
168s to 600.
175s and 155s to 1K.
168s go subsonic at 800-900 and loose stability, but rule the roost at 600 and lower.
155s can be pushed considerably faster than the 175s. The only problem I have is that every Scenar I've tried seemed to favor tight bore tubes. But there are a few 155 projectiles other than the Scenar to try.
If you are trying to choose between 168 and 175 FGMM, which is typically the case on this type of question, buy a box of both. Run them down the rifle. I bet the 168s will be better out to 600 or 700, but if you are really going to 1k, then go with the 175s.
168s to 600.
175s and 155s to 1K.
168s go subsonic at 800-900 and loose stability, but rule the roost at 600 and lower.
155s can be pushed considerably faster than the 175s. The only problem I have is that every Scenar I've tried seemed to favor tight bore tubes. But there are a few 155 projectiles other than the Scenar to try.
If you are trying to choose between 168 and 175 FGMM, which is typically the case on this type of question, buy a box of both. Run them down the rifle. I bet the 168s will be better out to 600 or 700, but if you are really going to 1k, then go with the 175s.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
How close is the trajectory between the 168 and 175? I have a twist of a 11 and I'm thinking of stepping up to the 175's.
How close is the trajectory between the 168 and 175? I have a twist of a 11 and I'm thinking of stepping up to the 175's.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
I've used 168s out to 800+ yards so far with good results. 1000 yards is probably pushing it unless you are at higher altitude. I shot some about 1000ft. above sea level and they seemed OK, but every now and then one would act a little funny at 1000 yards.
However, 168 Gold Medal Match rounds are almost 50% cheaper than 175 Gold Medal Match which means you can shoot 50% more often with match grade ammo. So really you should be asking whether you shoot enough at the 900-1000 range to justify the significant cost difference (assuming you don't reload in which case just use the 175s because they are basically the same price as 168s SMKs).
This is a way of saying that you if you are new to longer range shooting you shouldn't optimize for the last 5-10% of the distance IMO. Your money and time is better spent buying the cheaper match ammo and practicing more at the 900 and less ranges because you can develop all the skills you need to then go to 1000 yards with the 175s and not be wasting a bunch of money.
At least, that's been my observations so far in this endeavor. If I can't hit a steel plate consistently at 700 yards with 168s for instance then shooting 175s isn't going make me do it either. There are fundamental skills that should be built first such as trigger control, sight picture, breathing, steady hold factors, reading wind and elevation, natural point of aim, etc. Once these are solid, then when you know you are going to 900-1000 yards you can start using the 175s for all ranges because you won't be pissing money away making basic errors while learning.
I've used 168s out to 800+ yards so far with good results. 1000 yards is probably pushing it unless you are at higher altitude. I shot some about 1000ft. above sea level and they seemed OK, but every now and then one would act a little funny at 1000 yards.
However, 168 Gold Medal Match rounds are almost 50% cheaper than 175 Gold Medal Match which means you can shoot 50% more often with match grade ammo. So really you should be asking whether you shoot enough at the 900-1000 range to justify the significant cost difference (assuming you don't reload in which case just use the 175s because they are basically the same price as 168s SMKs).
This is a way of saying that you if you are new to longer range shooting you shouldn't optimize for the last 5-10% of the distance IMO. Your money and time is better spent buying the cheaper match ammo and practicing more at the 900 and less ranges because you can develop all the skills you need to then go to 1000 yards with the 175s and not be wasting a bunch of money.
At least, that's been my observations so far in this endeavor. If I can't hit a steel plate consistently at 700 yards with 168s for instance then shooting 175s isn't going make me do it either. There are fundamental skills that should be built first such as trigger control, sight picture, breathing, steady hold factors, reading wind and elevation, natural point of aim, etc. Once these are solid, then when you know you are going to 900-1000 yards you can start using the 175s for all ranges because you won't be pissing money away making basic errors while learning.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
I like the 168 for 300 and 600 yd F class. Beyond that, it is the 175 for me.
I like the 168 for 300 and 600 yd F class. Beyond that, it is the 175 for me.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
I am new here so be gentle, but I would hesitate shooting light bullets at extended ranges due to the wind effect and the loss of energy at that distance. I have always had good luck with Nosler 168gr Match at ranges out to 500 and 175 smk's past.
I am new here so be gentle, but I would hesitate shooting light bullets at extended ranges due to the wind effect and the loss of energy at that distance. I have always had good luck with Nosler 168gr Match at ranges out to 500 and 175 smk's past.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
All I use is the Sierra 2156 (155.5gr Palma) out to 1000 yards. Vol is 2985. I use it in two different rifles. One rifle is a 13 twist and the other is a 10 twist. Though the 10 twist rifle I only use at 600 yards.. the 13 twist is used at 1000 yards.
All I use is the Sierra 2156 (155.5gr Palma) out to 1000 yards. Vol is 2985. I use it in two different rifles. One rifle is a 13 twist and the other is a 10 twist. Though the 10 twist rifle I only use at 600 yards.. the 13 twist is used at 1000 yards.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
I realize this thread is old but I just Google'd <span style="font-style: italic">165gr vs 175gr</span> and this topic told me <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> what I was wanting to know, which is another reason why I love Sniper's Hide!
I realize this thread is old but I just Google'd <span style="font-style: italic">165gr vs 175gr</span> and this topic told me <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> what I was wanting to know, which is another reason why I love Sniper's Hide!
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
Might want to check out the 176 Predator solids. Very good bc and have impressed me. South West ammo has a load using them.
Might want to check out the 176 Predator solids. Very good bc and have impressed me. South West ammo has a load using them.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
</div></div>
I have used the 175 SMK out to 1k consistantly, never used Scenars.......but if you read Applied Ballistics, which goes into the G7 BC theory Scenars' down range BC is actually less. Yes indeed initially they have a higher BC than the SMK but as far as keeping that BC down range the 175 SMK is still KING!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
So its worse than the SMK. Even though the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar have the same BC, you can push the Scenars 300fps faster out of a .308, so it beats out the SMK.
</div></div>
I have used the 175 SMK out to 1k consistantly, never used Scenars.......but if you read Applied Ballistics, which goes into the G7 BC theory Scenars' down range BC is actually less. Yes indeed initially they have a higher BC than the SMK but as far as keeping that BC down range the 175 SMK is still KING!
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
I lied to myself that 168's were good for years.
I travelled to a match, paying my way, taking time off work and did fine until we were shooting 1K and the density altitude dropped to minus 1200-1500. Tactical pulled my target (NorCal 2009) and when my shots hit my frame (instead of two frames over) the holes were less than round. This was a 168 Amax's with a 2750fps load out of a Rock 1:10, YMMV but I doubt it.
I won't bother with less than a 175SMK in my 308 ever again. Having your ass handed to you at such a cost teaches good lessons-you're welcome to learn from mine......
Lots of guys I shoot with drank the 155 koolaid and have returned to 175's, just easier to laod and easier on barrels. If you want better performance than the ridiculouly predictable 175SMK get a 6.5 or other caliber....
I lied to myself that 168's were good for years.
I travelled to a match, paying my way, taking time off work and did fine until we were shooting 1K and the density altitude dropped to minus 1200-1500. Tactical pulled my target (NorCal 2009) and when my shots hit my frame (instead of two frames over) the holes were less than round. This was a 168 Amax's with a 2750fps load out of a Rock 1:10, YMMV but I doubt it.
I won't bother with less than a 175SMK in my 308 ever again. Having your ass handed to you at such a cost teaches good lessons-you're welcome to learn from mine......
Lots of guys I shoot with drank the 155 koolaid and have returned to 175's, just easier to laod and easier on barrels. If you want better performance than the ridiculouly predictable 175SMK get a 6.5 or other caliber....
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
The 175 prefers 11.25, but will take what it can get between 10 and 12 and learn to live with it.
TC
The 175 prefers 11.25, but will take what it can get between 10 and 12 and learn to live with it.
TC
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
</div></div>
Just to clarify, the 168 SMK listed BC is .462, not .488. Actual tested average per the Litz book is .421 and it is .450 for the 168 AMAX. This is one of the reasons people find the 168 AMAX to fly better at longer distances than the 168 SMK.
Also the 175 SMK BC is .496 unless you can push it above 2800fps in a .308 which is where it goes to .505.
I never used the 155s. I like the 178 AMAX. Has worked great for me at long range. That said I am very excited to try the new 178 BTHP. It's a new match bullet from Hornady with a listed .530 BC. I have only pulled some from Superformance and dropped them on some varget to try and they gave very promising results. Can't wait to get some bullets and load them up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 168 A-Max has a BC of .475, 168 SMK is at .488, the 175 SMK and 155 Scenar are at .505
</div></div>
Just to clarify, the 168 SMK listed BC is .462, not .488. Actual tested average per the Litz book is .421 and it is .450 for the 168 AMAX. This is one of the reasons people find the 168 AMAX to fly better at longer distances than the 168 SMK.
Also the 175 SMK BC is .496 unless you can push it above 2800fps in a .308 which is where it goes to .505.
I never used the 155s. I like the 178 AMAX. Has worked great for me at long range. That said I am very excited to try the new 178 BTHP. It's a new match bullet from Hornady with a listed .530 BC. I have only pulled some from Superformance and dropped them on some varget to try and they gave very promising results. Can't wait to get some bullets and load them up.
Re: 168gr vs 175gr
175g Nosler "cheaper than SMK" 44.6g Varget fire formed Lapua, 210m. Got out to 1230yds last weekend to man sized steel target. Crono's at 2730.
I only run the 168's in the M1a but they start to fall apart around 800ish.
Switch to a 260 and leave the 308 in the safe.
175g Nosler "cheaper than SMK" 44.6g Varget fire formed Lapua, 210m. Got out to 1230yds last weekend to man sized steel target. Crono's at 2730.
I only run the 168's in the M1a but they start to fall apart around 800ish.
Switch to a 260 and leave the 308 in the safe.
Similar threads
