Range Report .308win with Nosler 168gr Ballistic Tip at 1000 yards

[scsims]

Does anyone have any experience with the .308win shooting the 168gr Nosler BT at 1K?

Reason I ask is that my sons .308 shoots those green tipped bullet so well I was hoping to give them a try out to 1000 yards. I've tried the 175gr SMKs that I know are good out farther in his gun but they just don't shoot as well.

We plan on shooting next month out to 1100 yards to work out the drops and was wanting to get the dope on what his gun shoot best.

 

[scsims]

No one has tossed these out to 1K?

Maybe I should try take both loads and just try them out.

 

[Deadshot2]

Can't speak to 1k performance but for a "Hunting Bullet" they sure fly nice at distances up to 500y for me.

I personally just don't like a lighter bullet for LR so I stick with 175's and 185 (Juggernauts if I can get them).

 

[majohnson2]

One thought you might try increasing your load a bit, the few extra FPS will help with drop over a longer range. The wind is the thing that will have the most effect. I played with Ballistic AE and if you get your fps to around 2800fps you go subsonic at 1000yds and have a drop of 508. As opposed to the same bullet at 2500fps you go subsonic at 850 and have a drop of 671".

I went to Berger 168VLD at 2800fps you go subsonic 1050 and your drop is only 476". Not knowing what your shooting I can't tell you if you can safely load to 2800fps on your rifle. It may take switching powders, case, and primers, but going subsonic at 1050 you have a better chance of consistently hitting your target. I just started 308, so I don't know what you can get in terms of fps per bullet weights, I spent some time using my ballistic program trying to give you a viable solution, 2800 may not be a reachable in your application. There are several article on using Reloader 17 to gain some extra fps. Hopefully this will give you some ideas and try some different combinations to reach your goal.

 

[scsims]

Ballistic AE has the 168 gr BT going subsonic at 1170 yards with my current load. So it should be good right?

 

[majohnson2]

Another factor is scope adjustment? Can you dial in enough elevation to cover the amount of bullet drop? Or are you faced with dialing up and still using a hold. Barrel length will also play a part. Although I think the big factor is when the bullet goes subsonic, because once that happen you loose any accuracy. If your sons going to shoot longer ranges you might consider going to a different caliber, there are a lot of much more efficient options like the 6mm and 6.5 calibers. There are many things that come into play once you get to and past the 1000 yard mark.

 

[Deadshot2]

Ballistic AE has the 168 gr BT going subsonic at 1170 yards with my current load. So it should be good right?

It's not just "subsonic" that matters, it's the distance where the bullet approaches the speed of sound which is known as "Transonic". Most ballisticians will use the distance where the bullet speed drops to mach 1.2 as the point where accuracy will start to suffer. In supersonic aircraft, this is where buffeting begins and it's the same for bullets. Some bullets are more suited for this "zone" than others but for reliable accuracy, look for speeds of 1340 or more if possible at the distance you want to shoot. This is not an absolute and I'm sure there will be the "Well son, I've shot bullets a lot slower than that way beyond 1,000 yards" guys but as I said, that's when the problems will start. If you're shooting a Berger VLD or Hybrid, you'll have a whole lot different results than a Sierra, Nosler, or Hornady bullet.

 

[SFSGM]

There are decades of experience with the 308 and 168 gr bullets, mostly sierra's. The 173 lapua was a good bullet and the 175 Sierra is better, in my opinion. There was a time when i was trying larger, heavier bullets for 1,000 LR NRA shooting and made the transition back the other way with smaller, lighter high BC bullets. The 300 WM with a Sierra 190 was kind of my center and then 6.5 -284 came in and improved that. i shot the 308 with 155's because i had to, not necessarily because it liked them but we could get them shooting just fine. I like the Nosler bullets. They might be on to something. their 140 6.5mm competition bullets shoot as good as my sierra's.
Run them over a chronograph and know your velocities and watch for pressure signs. sometimes a little slower rather than faster will find the sweet spot.

shoot well brother

 

[Bill Larson]

try it...... there are guys using them...and 162`s.... at 1K..... I believe you`ve gotta get them around 2950 ft/sec...

 

[Deadshot2]

I like the Nosler bullets.

Me too. Actually find the 175 gr Nosler Custom Competition to shoot better in my rifle than the SMK. The difference between the two is about .1MOA on average with the advantage Nosler. I also find that the Nosler bullets are .307" OD along most of the bearing surface with only a narrow "pressure ring" at the BT/bearing surface junction.

This may lead to less overall engraving of the bullet jacket by the lands with the pressure ring behaving more like a "drive band" like found on artillery shells.

Also like the Nosler 168's as they are easier to get them going fast than the smk's, again in my rifle. I shoot only 5-R's (or 5-C as some makers call it) so maybe it's a bullet/rifling combo that just works better.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I suspect the Nosler is pretty close to the same thing ballistic wise as the SMK. I run the 168 SMK with a MV of 2575 and don't shoot past 600 yards for the most part. Not saying you can't shoot 1000 yards. I've done it, others have done it, and now you can do it. Ignore any keyhole queens posting pics of a protractor and quoting from the Blue Book.

 

[Who Dat]

I have been using Nosler forever to hunt with, partion, ballistic tip and the accubond. Great hunting bullets, but I have not tried their long distance line yet. I know the accubonds because of their design come to pressure pretty fast, but talk about impressive results from 20 to 400 yds out of a magnum is awesome. You have to also give the Hornady AMAX in 168gr a try out of your 308, you can push those pretty fast with good accuracy and they will go 1000 yds with no issues if you get them at 2700fps or higher.

 

[Deadshot2]

You have to also give the Hornady AMAX in 168gr a try out of your 308, you can push those pretty fast with good accuracy and they will go 1000 yds with no issues if you get them at 2700fps or higher.

The 168 A-Max is good but if you want to go 1k, the 178 Amax is far better.

Even considering how most bullet makers overstate their BC's, the .495 G1 of the 178 Amax seems to perform as advertised according to my Ballistics computer. Both the Nosler and Sierra's, not so much. According to Brian Litz's testing the 178 A-Max isn't as "overstated" in BC as the Sierra 175 SMK (2.91% vs 3.48% overstated). The Nosler BT's were in the high 4% and up for their "overstated BC's".

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I've often wonder if there ever been a disgruntled employee from a bullet maker with evidence that the maker is over stating BCs

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deadshot2]

I've often wonder if there ever been a disgruntled employee from a bullet maker with evidence that the maker is over stating BCs

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

There probably are and have been. The info I referred to was based on a paper from the US Air Force Academy based on measurements provided by Brian Litz.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

Read and draw your own conclusions.

 

[orkan]

I launched quite a few nosler 165's and 150's from 308's a few years ago. I was actually quite surprised at how well they performed at distance.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

There probably are and have been. The info I referred to was based on a paper from the US Air Force Academy based on measurements provided by Brian Litz.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

Read and draw your own conclusions.

I've read it and the Blue Book a long time ago neither of which address the topic at hand because you are comparing apples to apples, Litz to Litz. Stating that manufacturers are intentionally overstating BCs is inconclusive. What they use to test their BC is not the same as the other guy. Litz works for a bullet manufacturer. Do you think he called them on overstating their own BC values after he started with them? And even if he did all the manufacturer has to say is they changed it their internal ballistic specialist's recommendations (Litz himself). That there is no conspiracy. They would never say they changed because it is intentional overstated. It is impossible for a manufacturer to come up with a BC value that will be the same for everybody's rifle. load, conditions, and so forth. So, most shooters take what is correct for them and compare to the manufacturer and state or conclude the latter is incorrect for them, which is supported by the USAF paper. The invisible hand of supply and demand takes care of itself. If a manufacturer is grossly misleading don't you think that manufacturer's bullet would cease to be a going concern? Personally, I've never used a bullet whereas the stated BC value was out of the ballpark. The average shooter just doesn't shoot good enough to determine if a stated BC is the true value or not. No different than comparing Litz's BC values with manufacturer's values and stating Litz must be the true value. To quote a leading bullet manufacturer, "If it is wrong we would correct it".

 

[Deadshot2]

I've read it and the Blue Book a long time ago neither of which address the topic at hand because you are comparing apples to apples, Litz to Litz. Stating that manufacturers are intentionally overstating BCs is inconclusive. What they use to test their BC is not the same as the other guy. Litz works for a bullet manufacturer. Do you think he called them on overstating their own BC values after he started with them? And even if he did all the manufacturer has to say is they changed it their internal ballistic specialist's recommendations (Litz himself). That there is no conspiracy. They would never say they changed because it is intentional overstated. It is impossible for a manufacturer to come up with a BC value that will be the same for everybody's rifle. load, conditions, and so forth. So, most shooters take what is correct for them and compare to the manufacturer and state or conclude the latter is incorrect for them, which is supported by the USAF paper. The invisible hand of supply and demand takes care of itself. If a manufacturer is grossly misleading don't you think that manufacturer's bullet would cease to be a going concern? Personally, I've never used a bullet whereas the stated BC value was out of the ballpark. The average shooter just doesn't shoot good enough to determine if a stated BC is the true value or not. No different than comparing Litz's BC values with manufacturer's values and stating Litz must be the true value. To quote a leading bullet manufacturer, "If it is wrong we would correct it".

I believe there was no statement that the manufacturers were purposely overstating their BC's at all. What I read into all of Brian's writing is that bullet manufacturers are living in another time by sticking to the G-1 BC. I'ts clear that the G-7 is more closely matches the characteristics of bullets used today for LR Shooting. Others even suggest that the G-5 BC be used rather than hanging onto the G-1 which more properly describes the characteristics of a WWII and earlier bullet design.

As for Litz's "numbers" being more accurate than the "factories", it all depends on the methodology. If one is merely using a pair of optical chronographs for measurement, and the other is using accoustic sensors at multiple intervals downrange, which do you think would have the best data to work with?

BTW, is Brian Litz an employee of Berger Bullets or is he merely a contractor/consultant. Applied Ballistics LLC is the company doing most of this work and it was founded by Brian in 2009.

Lastly, when I enter the numbers from the AF Paper into my Ballistics Computer I get a lot better "first shot" performance (like dead center hits more often than not) than if I use the Manufacturer's published BC's.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

You made the statement. Read your own posts. Geez, quit hiding behind Litz's skirt. If Litz knew how many arguments were made in his name he would never stop throwing up.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deadshot2]

I gather from the tenor of your comments that you either work for another bullet manufacturer, or don't like Brian Litz. Sure a lot of people that listen to what he says.

 

[Thumper580]

I shot 168SMK's at 1000 successfully in my 308, however as stated by others the 175's are ballistically better.

 

[randyrucker]

What about using 155 Gr Lapua Scenar ?

 

[hunting1]

No 1000 yards but I play at 800 often! The 165 NBT is the same BC as the 168 Amax and I shoot them in my AR1. I shoot the 168NBT .490 BC in my bolt guns with 45 grs Varget around 2725 in 20" barrels and 2775 in my 22's. They are very accurate! I hope to draw my antelope tag!