Federal .308 168gr vs 175gr accuracy?

madav8r

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 11, 2011
53
0
34
I have a savage 10 .308 with a 1:10 twist. My local shop got stacks of federal gold medal 168 gr and 175 gr sierra matchking ammo in and i went ahead and invested in the 175gr cause i had shot some other 175 s and was already zeroed for them but are the 168's more accurate closer range. I heard 168's are a tighter grouping round unless your shooting past 600-800 yards, then the 175's are better? Whats your guys experience? Whats better for getting tight groups at 100 yards? That being said when the stars align i seem to shoot the 175's well but seem to be tough to get them 1/2in or less.
 

stalski

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 3, 2012
148
7
41
Utah
Their performance is close enough that it depends on your rifle. The 175s are much better past 400 regardless.
 

Bruno

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 3, 2013
267
0
Kansas City
They both shoot well for me in my 5r. That being said, my rifle seems to prefer the 168 up close. I don't know if that is specific to my rifle, or is a general consensus, but just my experience.
 

Mike407

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 18, 2012
242
22
Orlando, Florida
Depends on the rifle for me. Some of mine do like the 168 better, but the 175 is always close and is always going to be better at distance.
 

Spock

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 23, 2012
360
139
Central Montana
My Savage FCP-K is true .5 MOA with the FGMM 168's and closer to .75 MOA with the 175's at 100yds. That being said after 500 yrds the 175's are the way to go.
 

Dallas4rceMarine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 5, 2011
541
2
37
Dallas, TX
like people have said every rifle is different. you can give the same pair of earings to 10 different women and only 6 might like them..
I have always had better luck with the 175's, my rifles have a 1:11.25 twist and a 1:10 twist. my friend has a 1:12 and shoots 168's, but again every rifle is different. if your main goal is to punch holes in paper try them both and see what your rifle likes better. most 1:10 like heavier bullets tho.
 

l115a3

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 28, 2010
449
1
Texas
Within 200 yards, I would bet on 168 SMK.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    56 KB · Views: 211

proneshooter

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 27, 2010
696
2
56
I have a savage 10 .308 with a 1:10 twist. My local shop got stacks of federal gold medal 168 gr and 175 gr sierra matchking ammo in and i went ahead and invested in the 175gr cause i had shot some other 175 s and was already zeroed for them but are the 168's more accurate closer range. I heard 168's are a tighter grouping round unless your shooting past 600-800 yards, then the 175's are better? Whats your guys experience? Whats better for getting tight groups at 100 yards? That being said when the stars align i seem to shoot the 175's well but seem to be tough to get them 1/2in or less.
Your problems have, with almost complete certainty, nothing to do with the ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smoothy8500

surfr716

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 4, 2013
70
0
issaquah, WA
Id go with the 175. My savage shoots the 168 gr SMK about a quarter moa better at ranges inside 200 yrds but beyond that the groups open a bit faster than the 175s do. That quarter moa diference means a lot less to me at 100 yards than at 500 and beyond. Also the 168 gr SMK tumbles as it goes transonic, about 800 yrds out of a 20 inch barreled 308, due to the boat tail being unstable (too short supposedly) at said speed where as the 175 gr doesn't suffer from the same affliction. The 175 is a more versatile bullet in my opinion, I could be wrong though.
 

Genin

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 18, 2004
644
172
41
Bloomsburg, Pa
I only load 175 and 178s in my 20" barrel because it likes them for some reason. It's a stock SPS Tac 20" barrel. 168s and 155s shoot well also, but the 175s are legit .3-.4 MOA every outing. I see no reason to use the lower BC bullets when my rifle likes the heavier pills more. I'd say use the 175s since they will serve you better over the entire effective range of your 308.
 

HousePlant

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jan 16, 2020
    1,316
    1,104
    On my 12FV, it likes the 168s for .5 MOA at 200 yards with no wind (in a range surrounded by high dirt walls). Haven't shot farther than that.

    I do have a box of the 175s (that I bought on accident) but haven't fired them yet. I figured as much they'd be better suited for the long haul, but haven't gone past 200 yet, so figured what's the point.
     

    Caihlen

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • May 24, 2020
    217
    288
    X
    My RPR out of a 1:10 20 inches prefers the 175’s. So do I.
     

    Kentuckywindage222

    Private
    Minuteman
    Jul 28, 2020
    15
    11
    In the good ole U.S.A.
    I've loaded both weights in the SMK. I'm running Varget(was I'm out😳) and CFE 223.
    Varget and 168's shots pretty darn good out to 600 yards from a little ole Savage model 10 20inch heavy barrel 1/10. 175 grain and CFE shot some nice groups at 100 yards. The Federal Gold Medal Match in both weights shoot nice groups also. At 100 and 600, farthest field I have access to. I'm shooting off a backpack on the hood of my vehicle. If you are shooting at 600 or better these guys have better info, but inside of that either will work but 175 would be my choice. Pick the one your rifle shoots best at distance and then practice the fundamentals a lot. Then some more.
    Goodluck, be safe and have fun!
     

    Baron23

    Check 6
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 19, 2020
    4,575
    5,406
    70
    Maryland
    They both shoot well for me in my 5r. That being said, my rifle seems to prefer the 168 up close. I don't know if that is specific to my rifle, or is a general consensus, but just my experience.
    Wow, and while they are very close in performance, my 5R seems to like the 175's just a bit better. Just different barrels seem to favor different ammo.

    Although, I will say that I think the differences I have seen between the two at closer ranges (100 and 200 yds) is very small.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Kentuckywindage222

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Banned !
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    21,810
    33,552
    How many threads is going to take to drive home the point that every rifle is different and that questions about which bullet is "more accurate in my rifle" are a waste of space?
     

    eastexsteve

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 18, 2018
    589
    507
    NE Texas
    I have a savage 10 .308 with a 1:10 twist. My local shop got stacks of federal gold medal 168 gr and 175 gr sierra matchking ammo in and i went ahead and invested in the 175gr cause i had shot some other 175 s and was already zeroed for them but are the 168's more accurate closer range. I heard 168's are a tighter grouping round unless your shooting past 600-800 yards, then the 175's are better? Whats your guys experience? Whats better for getting tight groups at 100 yards? That being said when the stars align i seem to shoot the 175's well but seem to be tough to get them 1/2in or less.

    I have a Savage 110 tactical with 1:10 twist 24" barrel. If I had to guess, the 168s shoot just a hair tighter than the 175s on most days. Both will shoot under 1 MOA in my gun shooting over a pack. I have two 18" barrel AR10 clones that shoot the 175s tighter. I've shot the 168s in the Savage out beyond 600 with no issues. Shooting 1/2" or less consistently with factory loads will be tough.
     

    Kentuckywindage222

    Private
    Minuteman
    Jul 28, 2020
    15
    11
    In the good ole U.S.A.
    I did a little testing Friday evening. I had loaded some Speer 130 gr FBHP WITH 50 gr. of CFE 223. Fps= 3178, 3174, 3168. At 100 yrd. the group measured .78 . My Savage 10 20" 1/10 likes these 130's. It shot 1/2 moa with the 130 and H 322. 175gr SMK and CFE 223 with 46.0 gr. Shot a best 3 shot group at 100 yrds under .50 moa. Averaging 2750 fps using a Caldwell chronograph at 12 feet.
     

    HousePlant

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 16, 2020
    1,316
    1,104
    How many threads is going to take to drive home the point that every rifle is different and that questions about which bullet is "more accurate in my rifle" are a waste of space?

    And yet not everyone has easy access to ranges, unlimited money, and the desire to start with nothing. Not a waste of space at all.

    If you don't want to see a thread about which one or the other bullet, don't open it, don't read it, and don't comment on it like you're something special.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Kentuckywindage222

    theLBC

    Shiftless
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Jun 21, 2019
    29,167
    100,068
    How many threads is going to take to drive home the point that every rifle is different and that questions about which bullet is "more accurate in my rifle" are a waste of space?
    42
     

    MikeRTacOps

    Private
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 18, 2017
    955
    2,886
    You guys make me laugh my ass off...
    Thank you I needed that :ROFLMAO:

    Mike R.
     

    BadAccountant

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 7, 2019
    304
    257
    While a fair bit depends on the reamer and skill of the gunsmith chambering the gun, I have found that they both work well in a variety of different chambers, and I love both of them. There's a lot of data out there for both and if you have a good rifle from a reputable manufacturer or builder, you can work up a good load with either.

    Start low of course with your own loads, but a 168 on top of 42.5 grains of 4064, RE15, or Varget in Winchester brass loaded to mag length is usually where I start to see things get really good.
     

    jpspeeddemon

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Sep 3, 2009
    713
    82
    34
    Asheville, NC
    The 168s were developed for 300m competitions and their design causes them to lose stability/tumble when going transonic and subsonic. As a result, the 175 smk was developed to be stable thru transonic to subsonic velocities. I've never seen much difference in grouping between either round through the same rifle out to 600 yds, although wind drift will be less with the 175s. 100 zero is usually the same, but ymmv
     

    HousePlant

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 16, 2020
    1,316
    1,104
    100 yard zero with 168 out of my savage is the same elevation, but consistently windage is a little left for the 168 and a little right for the 175 (relatively).

    Just did this over the weekend. There was no wind at the range, which is sunk down surrounded by dirt walls anyway. Was interesting.

    I did one then the other in a magazine it was left right left right left right... kinda cute.
     

    Kentuckywindage222

    Private
    Minuteman
    Jul 28, 2020
    15
    11
    In the good ole U.S.A.
    While a fair bit depends on the reamer and skill of the gunsmith chambering the gun, I have found that they both work well in a variety of different chambers, and I love both of them. There's a lot of data out there for both and if you have a good rifle from a reputable manufacturer or builder, you can work up a good load with either.

    Start low of course with your own loads, but a 168 on top of 42.5 grains of 4064, RE15, or Varget in Winchester brass loaded to mag length is usually where I start to see things get really good.
    43.5 grains of Varget, Federal brass, Federal primers, 168 SMK at 2.800" C.O.A.L. full length sized brass. Saw overall better groups neck sizing only.
    My rifle has a short chamber throat length also. Something I have wondered about.