• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

SICARIO

SICARIO

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 9, 2010
187
15
43
Oregon, USA, etc.
I'd like to start building up a nice longer range load. I already have a bunch of factory loaded 175SMK's and 168SMK's, but I was thinking of going with the 178BTHP due to the higher BC. They're hard to come by though. Is it worth waiting for them, or am I splitting hairs here.

Rifle is a MATEN with an 18.5" Fulton Chrome lined light weight barrel, so it's certainly no bench rest rifle.

Also, as far as powder goes, am I going to find anything better than RL15 or Varget? I've been using RL15 up to now.

Thanks
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

In my last barrel, which just shit the bed in the last 2 months, the 178 was a SIGNIFICANTLY better bullet than the 175. I could send it 100fps faster (2750 instead of 2650), and it has a better BC. If it is accurate in your rifle, and goes at least ALMOST as fast as a 175, it's a winner. If it goes faster, well, thats a win-win-win! Faster, higher BC, cheaper. Hard to argue.

I haven't tried them out in the new barrel yet though...
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Powder:

'15 and Varget are proven stand-bys for 170ish grain bullets in 308. There are some newer powders you might wanna play with, perhaps RE17 or 2000MR. Many folks are claiming 2000mr is giving them 75-150fps more than Varget. Not for me. Forget 8208 or 4895...too fast.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

I can tell the difference at range with the 178 bthp's.

They are pushed just as fast as the old 175 load but with a better BC. I recommend the switch.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pusher591</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can tell the difference at range with the 178 bthp's.</div></div>

At what distance can you start to tell the difference?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

I never had to switch, Ive been using the 178HPBT for a year now. 2000MR all the way, Varget sucks in my 700, RE15 works very well, too.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Thanks guys, I think I'll pick up 100 of the 178's and try them out to see how they fly. Will also pick up some RE17 or 2000MR and compare it to what I have left of my RE15
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: caseyru</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hodgon CFE223 is the same as 2000MR in case you can't find Alliant.</div></div>

Can anyone else confirm this?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Are the 178s extremely picky about seating depth??? I've had years of pleasure with Sierra because I've found them to be less sensitive to seating depth, compared to some others. I was told by an old gunsmith it was due to the ogive design. not really sure I buy into that, but.....
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

The main difference is secant versus tangent ogives.

A lot of the Berger's and other high BC bullets are secant ogive and are more temperamental to seating depth because they have more trouble centering in the bore.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captramrod01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: caseyru</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hodgon CFE223 is the same as 2000MR in case you can't find Alliant.</div></div>

Can anyone else confirm this? </div></div>

That is interesting. Caseyru (or anyone else) can you provide a link or other means of confirmation?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 244</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captramrod01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: caseyru</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hodgon CFE223 is the same as 2000MR in case you can't find Alliant.</div></div>

Can anyone else confirm this? </div></div>

That is interesting. Caseyru (or anyone else) can you provide a link or other means of confirmation? </div></div>I can't confirm this, but I was under the same impression. They at least seem to have more in common with each other than with other powders. They both seem to offer the same outstanding performance. I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewhere that they were both produced by St Marks Powder Inc company in Crawfordville, FL if you want to try and research it.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SICARIO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to start building up a nice longer range load. I already have a bunch of factory loaded 175SMK's and 168SMK's, but I was thinking of going with the 178BTHP due to the higher BC. They're hard to come by though. Is it worth waiting for them, or am I splitting hairs here.

Rifle is a MATEN with an 18.5" Fulton Chrome lined light weight barrel, so it's certainly no bench rest rifle.

Also, as far as powder goes, am I going to find anything better than RL15 or Varget? I've been using RL15 up to now.

Thanks </div></div>You are not splitting hairs. I agree with turbo54 that the 178bthp is a better bullet. The 175SMK is much closer to the 178amax than the 178bthp. If both bullets are shot at 2700fps to 1000 yards with a modest 10mph crosswind the 178bthp will drop 18" less, drift 8" less, and maintain 66fps more when it gets there. The more wind their is the bigger the difference between them.
CFE 223 and 2000MR will both give you extra speed, but are more temperature sensitive than Varget. CFE 223 and 2000MR are still much more temperature insensitive than RL-17.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boltgunluvr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the 178s extremely picky about seating depth??? I've had years of pleasure with Sierra because I've found them to be less sensitive to seating depth, compared to some others. I was told by an old gunsmith it was due to the ogive design. not really sure I buy into that, but..... </div></div>
The 178s seem to shoot better off the lands, Ive got mine seated to an OAL of 2.840", buddy shoot some 168MKs a few years ago and they shot better further from the lands as well.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Thanks to everyone for the interesting info. I have been using 175 SMK and only them since I started shooting. I just always heard that for a 308 WIN, 175 SMK was the go to. I guess I'll have to buy a box of 178 AMAX and give them a whirl.

I'm also very interested in if CFE223 and 2000MR are the same or not?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rebel</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks to everyone for the interesting info. I have been using 175 SMK and only them since I started shooting. I just always heard that for a 308 WIN, 175 SMK was the go to. I guess I'll have to buy a box of 178 AMAX and give them a whirl.

I'm also very interested in if CFE223 and 2000MR are the same or not? </div></div>Not the AMAX. 178BTHP is a different bullet than the 178AMAX.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JGorski</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boltgunluvr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the 178s extremely picky about seating depth??? I've had years of pleasure with Sierra because I've found them to be less sensitive to seating depth, compared to some others. I was told by an old gunsmith it was due to the ogive design. not really sure I buy into that, but..... </div></div>
The 178s seem to shoot better off the lands, Ive got mine seated to an OAL of 2.840", buddy shoot some 168MKs a few years ago and they shot better further from the lands as well. </div></div>Rob01 says he likes to shoot the 178 BTHP .02" off the lands. I've been shooting them at .01" off the lands with good success, but he is sponsored by Hornady and shoots lots of them so I will try that next time.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

The .020" is a good place to start and works great for me but if you get better results at .010" then rock on with it. Every rifle is different so use what works best for you.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmchairElite</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 244</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captramrod01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: caseyru</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hodgon CFE223 is the same as 2000MR in case you can't find Alliant.</div></div>

Can anyone else confirm this? </div></div>

That is interesting. Caseyru (or anyone else) can you provide a link or other means of confirmation? </div></div>I can't confirm this, but I was under the same impression. They at least seem to have more in common with each other than with other powders. They both seem to offer the same outstanding performance. I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewhere that they were both produced by St Marks Powder Inc company in Crawfordville, FL if you want to try and research it. </div></div>

My Google-fu isn't up to the task. I found another comparison on a different board, but no data to prove it.


Hodgdon's MSDS confirms manufacture by SMP, as does Alliant by referencing the SMP 763 designation for Power Pro 2000MR. I'm not sure if there is a Ball (spherical) powder made in the USA that ISN'T made by SMP.

The MSDS for the Power Pro powders has many similarities with ALL of Hodgdon's spherical powders.

Power Pro's MSDS lists Graphite and Calcium Carbonate specifically and has a different percent range of Akardite II and Diphenylamine than Hodgdon spherical powders. Hodgdon also lists three "trade secret" components.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The .020" is a good place to start and works great for me but if you get better results at .010" then rock on with it. Every rifle is different so use what works best for you. </div></div>Ultimately I will seat them where they work best, but I figured I would at least give them a try at that distance since you shoot them quite a bit.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 244</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My Google-fu isn't up to the task. I found another comparison on a different board, but no data to prove it.


Hodgdon's MSDS confirms manufacture by SMP, as does Alliant by referencing the SMP 763 designation for Power Pro 2000MR. I'm not sure if there is a Ball (spherical) powder made in the USA that ISN'T made by SMP.

The MSDS for the Power Pro powders has many similarities with ALL of Hodgdon's spherical powders.

Power Pro's MSDS lists Graphite and Calcium Carbonate specifically and has a different percent range of Akardite II and Diphenylamine than Hodgdon spherical powders. Hodgdon also lists three "trade secret" components.
</div></div>This is total conjecture on my part, but doesn't some of this stuff seem alot like CFE 223. WC 846 perhaps?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/faintich.pdf
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Here's how the 178HPBTs shoot out of my SPSS with the bullet seated.130" off the lands. 200, 200 and a 4 shot group @300. Then a 3 shot from from my Classic stocked 700 hunting rifle seated @2.830" oal.


SPSS178HPBT.jpg

2011-10-26-79226.jpg

2011-08-26-77257.jpg

2011-08-15-21389.jpg
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The .020" is a good place to start and works great for me but if you get better results at .010" then rock on with it. Every rifle is different so use what works best for you. </div></div>
Rob, but you probably have a shorter throat than most of us shooting funky factory rigs, yeah?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

They both work great. cs1183 here and I experienced outstanding results with the 178 in a bone stock LTR. A surprise was it being transonic stable and posting very predictable results out to 1300 yards. It also tracked very well with the G7 based ballistic programs. If you have easy access to a lot of them at a decent price, go for it. Otherwise, just run the 175 SMK.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

I think you should try them as every rifle is different.
My AI really shoots the 175 SMK but the 178 BTHP not as good. Is it going to make a difference at long range with all the other variables that come into play,I am not convinced but that is only my opinion.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JGorski</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's how the 178HPBTs shoot out of my SPSS with the bullet seated.130" off the lands. 200, 200 and a 4 shot group @300. Then a 3 shot from from my Classic stocked 700 hunting rifle seated @2.830" oal.


SPSS178HPBT.jpg

2011-10-26-79226.jpg

2011-08-26-77257.jpg

2011-08-15-21389.jpg

</div></div>As a Savage shooter it's hard for me to wrap my mind around that kind of jump. I've heard Remingtons had long throats but I've never owned one. I guess that answers boltgunluvr's question of whether the 178bthp was picky about seating depth. Those look like great groups for a factory rifle.
I don't mean to go off topic but I must mention that I've been messing around with the 208 amax with good success in my 308 Savage. If my rifle had a throat like that I would have tried the 208 amax in it a long time ago. You could pull the bullet out farther and add some powder...wow! If you need to mag feed then maybe the 178 bthp is the way to go, but I would at least have to try it, especially with that 2000 MR you're using.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

Iv been working up a load for my svage 10 PC 308. So far Iam using Norma cases, FL sized. CCI Br2 primers 43.2g Varget and 178g HPBTs, seated .010 jammed. And my preliminary 3 shot groups at 300 have been shooting sub MOA, somewhere around 2 inch spread center to center.

I am loading up right no to do a seating length test, from .010 jammed, touching, .010 jump, .020 jump and then a 2.800 OAL. But I only have access to a 100m range until late june, when I can get to a 100-1000m range. Still debating If I should wait to shoot at 300 or just go for the 100.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

For what it is worth, I have had better results with Hornady 178gr AMAX versus the 178gr HPBT. Likewise the 168's.

-Jason
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">178bthp works great with 2000MR loaded to 2.81 nominal length in my fulton. Too bad I can't afford to shoot them more often
frown.gif
</div></div>How much are you paying for them?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

I have always ran the Serra's, I'll have to pick up some of these and give them a go. I'm not pushing a heavy change 42.2 target on 175s, im sure it's fine to run the 178s the same way right?
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Josh Elam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have always ran the Serra's, I'll have to pick up some of these and give them a go. I'm not pushing a heavy change 42.2 target on 175s, im sure it's fine to run the 178s the same way right? </div></div>I've shot them with 45 gr of Varget with no pressure signs. I wouldn't advise starting at 45 gr because it's max, but at 42.2 gr you should just have a nice comfortable load. It probably won't be the same accuracy node though.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

I've found I can use more powder (Varget) with the 178hpbt than I can with a 175smk in two of my rifles. 45.5 with 175, and 46.5 with 178.
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmchairElite</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">178bthp works great with 2000MR loaded to 2.81 nominal length in my fulton. Too bad I can't afford to shoot them more often
frown.gif
</div></div>How much are you paying for them? </div></div>

I think it was 28cents per the price isn't necessarily bad but I have a shitpile of 175 sierra pulls and 2nds so no real need for more bullets...yet...
 
Re: 308 - 175SMK vs. Hornady 178BTHP

i've had excellent results from the Hornady 178 AMP bullets and 43.8 grains of Varget powder. loaded @ 2.830 in my bolt gun

I have other powders but haven't tried them yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Load Development for 1k yard supersonic 308 - 168GR TMK - 20 inch barrel
Replies
21
Views
931
Chris M.
C
W
Powder recommendations for 55 grain Hornady CX in 223/556
Replies
6
Views
672
secondofangle2
secondofangle2
D
How to get a load in 50 bullets with Gordon's Reloading Tool (GRT)
Replies
23
Views
1K
Dstoenner
D
JohnDeereGuy1996
Geissele GFR Maritime Reconnaissance 6mm arc write up and review
Replies
45
Views
2K
JohnDeereGuy1996
JohnDeereGuy1996
J
Help Me Develop a 308 AR-10 Load
Replies
10
Views
3K
Doom
Doom
Top Bottom
Back