Range Report FGMM 168gr SMK

kentactic

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 26, 2010
422
1
38
Southern, CA
im just curious what people are seeing in FPS with this cartridge out of a 20in barrel and if possible out of a REM700 20in bull barrel.

im guessing around 2500 but if some one could give me an exact theyve seen in there rifle that would give me a better starting point to pencil in.

and the BC number would also be appreciated. sorry if this question has been beaten to death i did a search and found nothing.

thanks in advance

kenny

EDIT: i found a BC number of .462 please confirm if thats correct thanks.
 
Re: FGMM 168gr SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">g1 = .427
g7 = .218 </div></div>

im not hip.... translation into retard terms? ..the plan is to punch this into a basic Ballistic calculator to pencil into my data book for a starting point.
 
Re: FGMM 168gr SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BC's.

not that the G7 will matter much for those, but whatever.

btw, buy this:
http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/Book.htm </div></div>

so bassically G1 is the number i care about for my purpose?..

also i see your in San Diego... i lived all over east county until i was 18.
 
Re: FGMM 168gr SMK

Go check out federals website. They give very BASIC data on gold medal match ammo, Iv'e compared there numbers with mine and they came up pretty dang close considering the ammo is mass produced. Also like swan said get some good books and read up. You can find data that will get you close but no rifle shoots the exact same numbers so you will need to fine tweek for your rifle.
 
Re: FGMM 168gr SMK

with a BC of .427 and a MV of 2500 the 168 SMK dosent go subsonic until around 980 yards.... i thought it went subsonic around 800 yards?.. im at around 2000ft of elevation.... but even at sea level it dosent go subsonis until around 910 yards.

with my elevation will the 168 SMK be more reliably accurate at further ranges then most claim?

also i dont plan to be dead nutts with this data just want to get a close starting point.