Range Report New M118LR loading from Federal
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they had any sense, they would have selected the 155 grain Sierra 2156 SMK or Lapua Scenar 155. The 175 is obsolete.
Yes, the 175 has been the standard for years, but it was surpassed when .500+ BC .30 cal bullets were released at the 155 grain weight. </div></div>
The 175 has a higher BC than the new Palma Sierra 155s and when both are loaded to equal pressure, you cannot push the 155s enough faster to make up for it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they had any sense, they would have selected the 155 grain Sierra 2156 SMK or Lapua Scenar 155. The 175 is obsolete.
Yes, the 175 has been the standard for years, but it was surpassed when .500+ BC .30 cal bullets were released at the 155 grain weight. </div></div>
The 175 has a higher BC than the new Palma Sierra 155s and when both are loaded to equal pressure, you cannot push the 155s enough faster to make up for it.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they had any sense, they would have selected the 155 grain Sierra 2156 SMK or Lapua Scenar 155. The 175 is obsolete.
Yes, the 175 has been the standard for years, but it was surpassed when .500+ BC .30 cal bullets were released at the 155 grain weight. </div></div>
The 175 has a higher BC than the new Palma Sierra 155s and when both are loaded to equal pressure, you cannot push the 155s enough faster to make up for it.
</div></div>
This wasn't the case when I compared the 155s to 175s in my rifle. I tried workups for both the 155gr Scenar and 175gr SMK in my 21" AR10 to find the right bullet to stay supersonic to 1000yds.
45gr Varget, 175 SMK (max load per Hodgdon) nets me 2630fps. According to JBM (at MY elevation and MY weather conditions) this equates to 400" of drop (11.1 mil) and 100.7" of windage (2.8 mil) in a 10mph full value wind. Velocity at 1000yds would be 1167fps, a mere 18sec more than the speed of sound.
47gr Varget, 155gr Scenar nets me 2835fps. This is also the max load in Hodgdon's data.
With the conditions the same in the JBM table, it works out to 341.2" drop (9.5 mil) and 92.5" windage (2.6 mil) at 1000yds. Velocity at that range is 1265fps.
The way I interpreted this data was that the extra velocity of the Scenars more than made up for the slight BC advantage of the 175s at equal pressure.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they had any sense, they would have selected the 155 grain Sierra 2156 SMK or Lapua Scenar 155. The 175 is obsolete.
Yes, the 175 has been the standard for years, but it was surpassed when .500+ BC .30 cal bullets were released at the 155 grain weight. </div></div>
The 175 has a higher BC than the new Palma Sierra 155s and when both are loaded to equal pressure, you cannot push the 155s enough faster to make up for it.
</div></div>
This wasn't the case when I compared the 155s to 175s in my rifle. I tried workups for both the 155gr Scenar and 175gr SMK in my 21" AR10 to find the right bullet to stay supersonic to 1000yds.
45gr Varget, 175 SMK (max load per Hodgdon) nets me 2630fps. According to JBM (at MY elevation and MY weather conditions) this equates to 400" of drop (11.1 mil) and 100.7" of windage (2.8 mil) in a 10mph full value wind. Velocity at 1000yds would be 1167fps, a mere 18sec more than the speed of sound.
47gr Varget, 155gr Scenar nets me 2835fps. This is also the max load in Hodgdon's data.
With the conditions the same in the JBM table, it works out to 341.2" drop (9.5 mil) and 92.5" windage (2.6 mil) at 1000yds. Velocity at that range is 1265fps.
The way I interpreted this data was that the extra velocity of the Scenars more than made up for the slight BC advantage of the 175s at equal pressure.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage.
When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
Retained "Bullet Energy" at the target and barrel life are also big factors than may push one towards the 175 SMK...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
Retained "Bullet Energy" at the target and barrel life are also big factors than may push one towards the 175 SMK...
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">45gr Varget, 175 SMK (max load per Hodgdon) nets me 2630fps </div></div>
Man, either you have a slow barrel or I have a fast barrel (Rock) - I'm getting 2630 with 42.0 Varget. If the chrono can be believed and I think it can. Although QuickLoad's telling me I should get 2589.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">45gr Varget, 175 SMK (max load per Hodgdon) nets me 2630fps </div></div>
Man, either you have a slow barrel or I have a fast barrel (Rock) - I'm getting 2630 with 42.0 Varget. If the chrono can be believed and I think it can. Although QuickLoad's telling me I should get 2589.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
Interesting. In my case it is almost EXACTLY 200fps difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
Interesting. In my case it is almost EXACTLY 200fps difference.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Ok so to wrap it all up we have definate information on the M118:
(quote)
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( not to be confused with M118LR )(quote)
So do we know how to duplicate the M118LR?
we know that it uses:
Sierra SMK 175gr HPBT .30 CAL
LC brass .30 CAL 7.62 NATO
but what about powder and load and COAL?
I appologize id this is obvious in the posts I kinda got lost throughout the pages.
Ok so to wrap it all up we have definate information on the M118:
(quote)
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( not to be confused with M118LR )(quote)
So do we know how to duplicate the M118LR?
we know that it uses:
Sierra SMK 175gr HPBT .30 CAL
LC brass .30 CAL 7.62 NATO
but what about powder and load and COAL?
I appologize id this is obvious in the posts I kinda got lost throughout the pages.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
iceking,
at risk of setting off a argument(seem to be good at it lately) id submit that m118lr can be pretty well duplicated using 42.5 grains of imr4064 in my testings using the same lake city brass and br2 primers. im sure this aint the only way to skin the cat but the only one i worked up.
iceking,
at risk of setting off a argument(seem to be good at it lately) id submit that m118lr can be pretty well duplicated using 42.5 grains of imr4064 in my testings using the same lake city brass and br2 primers. im sure this aint the only way to skin the cat but the only one i worked up.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
rl-15 for m118
rl-15 for m118
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
On paper I agree, and the 155 DOES best the 175 in my experience out to 600, but once you pass 600 the 175 makes a huge difference, <span style="font-style: italic">in wind</span>
I've shot the 175 and 155 out to 1k, prefer the 175 in wind. But you can send the 155 much faster than the 155.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When loaded to the same pressure, you get about 200 fps. more with the 155 than you do with the 175 (with Varget). This is what my Pressure Trace system and CED M2 tell me... Might not be the case for every barrel length with every powder. But, with standard barrel lengths and powders around the same burn rate as Varget, results should be the same.
If you plug the velocity numbers into JBM (using the Litz models), the 155 best the 175 in both drop and wind.
I suspect the choice of the 175 SMK over another bullet has more to do with maintaining commonality than it does with ballistic advantage. </div></div>
On paper I agree, and the 155 DOES best the 175 in my experience out to 600, but once you pass 600 the 175 makes a huge difference, <span style="font-style: italic">in wind</span>
I've shot the 175 and 155 out to 1k, prefer the 175 in wind. But you can send the 155 much faster than the 155.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iceking007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok so to wrap it all up we have definate information on the M118:
(quote)
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( not to be confused with M118LR )(quote)
So do we know how to duplicate the M118LR?
we know that it uses:
Sierra SMK 175gr HPBT .30 CAL
LC brass .30 CAL 7.62 NATO
but what about powder and load and COAL?
I appologize id this is obvious in the posts I kinda got lost throughout the pages. </div></div>
I was asking these questions a few months ago and was told that since Alinant had the Lake City powder contract that RL15 was the powder for the M118LR, 43.5 gr. 43.5 exceeds Sierrah's max published data but they err on the conservative side. I used LC LR brass, loaded several small lots of carts starting at 42.5 and adding .2 per lot. 43.5 is right on the money. Weighing every bullet to the tenth of a grain. The carts with 175.0 gr bullets and 43.5 gr RL15 push the round to 2645-2650fps (M118LR Mil Spec) out of my Remington M24 and it's hands down the best ammo I've ever loaded. Consistant sub half minute groups out to 800 meters which is as far as I've shot this lot to date. I dare say it's better than LC M118LR, at least out of my weapon. The difference is minute but I couldn't ask for more than that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iceking007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok so to wrap it all up we have definate information on the M118:
(quote)
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( not to be confused with M118LR )(quote)
So do we know how to duplicate the M118LR?
we know that it uses:
Sierra SMK 175gr HPBT .30 CAL
LC brass .30 CAL 7.62 NATO
but what about powder and load and COAL?
I appologize id this is obvious in the posts I kinda got lost throughout the pages. </div></div>
I was asking these questions a few months ago and was told that since Alinant had the Lake City powder contract that RL15 was the powder for the M118LR, 43.5 gr. 43.5 exceeds Sierrah's max published data but they err on the conservative side. I used LC LR brass, loaded several small lots of carts starting at 42.5 and adding .2 per lot. 43.5 is right on the money. Weighing every bullet to the tenth of a grain. The carts with 175.0 gr bullets and 43.5 gr RL15 push the round to 2645-2650fps (M118LR Mil Spec) out of my Remington M24 and it's hands down the best ammo I've ever loaded. Consistant sub half minute groups out to 800 meters which is as far as I've shot this lot to date. I dare say it's better than LC M118LR, at least out of my weapon. The difference is minute but I couldn't ask for more than that.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EODsix</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I was asking these questions a few months ago and was told that since Alinant had the Lake City powder contract that RL15 was the powder for the M118LR, 43.5 gr. 43.5 exceeds Sierrah's max published data but they err on the conservative side. I used LC LR brass, loaded several small lots of carts starting at 42.5 and adding .2 per lot. 43.5 is right on the money. Weighing every bullet to the tenth of a grain. The carts with 175.0 gr bullets and 43.5 gr RL15 push the round to 2645-2650fps (M118LR Mil Spec) out of my Remington M24 and it's hands down the best ammo I've ever loaded. Consistant sub half minute groups out to 800 meters which is as far as I've shot this lot to date. I dare say it's better than LC M118LR, at least out of my weapon. The difference is minute but I couldn't ask for more than that. </div></div>
You are correct. If you take apart a box of 118LR you will become nauseated at the differences in the powder weights. That's why 118LR is like a box of Cracker Jack - There is a surprise in every box. Most of the weight issues get lost in the noise but some of the variances are too big and you will get that really really low/high round out of a box.
Load with RL-15 to 2650 fps and carry on in a bolt gun, if you are running a MK-11 / M-110 (AR-10 18" ish) expect velocities to be significantly less and compensate accordingly.
Cheers,
Doc
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EODsix</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I was asking these questions a few months ago and was told that since Alinant had the Lake City powder contract that RL15 was the powder for the M118LR, 43.5 gr. 43.5 exceeds Sierrah's max published data but they err on the conservative side. I used LC LR brass, loaded several small lots of carts starting at 42.5 and adding .2 per lot. 43.5 is right on the money. Weighing every bullet to the tenth of a grain. The carts with 175.0 gr bullets and 43.5 gr RL15 push the round to 2645-2650fps (M118LR Mil Spec) out of my Remington M24 and it's hands down the best ammo I've ever loaded. Consistant sub half minute groups out to 800 meters which is as far as I've shot this lot to date. I dare say it's better than LC M118LR, at least out of my weapon. The difference is minute but I couldn't ask for more than that. </div></div>
You are correct. If you take apart a box of 118LR you will become nauseated at the differences in the powder weights. That's why 118LR is like a box of Cracker Jack - There is a surprise in every box. Most of the weight issues get lost in the noise but some of the variances are too big and you will get that really really low/high round out of a box.
Load with RL-15 to 2650 fps and carry on in a bolt gun, if you are running a MK-11 / M-110 (AR-10 18" ish) expect velocities to be significantly less and compensate accordingly.
Cheers,
Doc
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Why does everyone make clone ammo? granted M118 is some good stuff when its not hand reloaded but as reloaders our custom made ammo can't be beat so I find it silly to make clone ammo.
However for a starting place M118 isn't bad. just my .02
Why does everyone make clone ammo? granted M118 is some good stuff when its not hand reloaded but as reloaders our custom made ammo can't be beat so I find it silly to make clone ammo.
However for a starting place M118 isn't bad. just my .02
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Right the M118LR was my starting point as was Fed GMM. I wanted something that replicated the both of them because I use the Remington M24 which the M118LR was developed for. That's what I strived to achieve and I've met my goal and surpased it. Not bragging or anything, I'm just glad I found a load that is as good or better for much less money.
Right the M118LR was my starting point as was Fed GMM. I wanted something that replicated the both of them because I use the Remington M24 which the M118LR was developed for. That's what I strived to achieve and I've met my goal and surpased it. Not bragging or anything, I'm just glad I found a load that is as good or better for much less money.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
OK chrono data from today. 430PM, 70F, all from a R700 SPS-V cut to 22":
40.3gr/3031
Case - LC98LR
Primer - R9 1/2
Avg 2637
ES 37
Sd 14
42.1gr/4064
Case - LC93Match
Primer - 210M
Avg 2582
ES 40
Sd 14
42.3gr/4064
Case - LC93Match
Primer - 210M
Avg 2644
ES 37
Sd 10
FGMM 168gr
Avg 2623
ES 21
Sd 7
LC90 M852 (168gr)
Avg 2553
ES 30
Sd 12
OK chrono data from today. 430PM, 70F, all from a R700 SPS-V cut to 22":
40.3gr/3031
Case - LC98LR
Primer - R9 1/2
Avg 2637
ES 37
Sd 14
42.1gr/4064
Case - LC93Match
Primer - 210M
Avg 2582
ES 40
Sd 14
42.3gr/4064
Case - LC93Match
Primer - 210M
Avg 2644
ES 37
Sd 10
FGMM 168gr
Avg 2623
ES 21
Sd 7
LC90 M852 (168gr)
Avg 2553
ES 30
Sd 12
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I'm late to the party but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Why clone ammo? For me when I started loading my own ammo it to duplicate the match ammo I was issued. For others it is to use scopes with BDC's made for certain ammo.
Lots of good info on load development and research.
The last M118LR I shoot was loaded with the low flash derivative of RL-15. I don't shoot the Garand (.308 Match) with the 175's any more. My 5.56 match load is slower than the issued M262 now but as posted earlier it was a starting point.
I'm late to the party but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Why clone ammo? For me when I started loading my own ammo it to duplicate the match ammo I was issued. For others it is to use scopes with BDC's made for certain ammo.
Lots of good info on load development and research.
The last M118LR I shoot was loaded with the low flash derivative of RL-15. I don't shoot the Garand (.308 Match) with the 175's any more. My 5.56 match load is slower than the issued M262 now but as posted earlier it was a starting point.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunsnjeeps</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm late to the party but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Why clone ammo?</div></div>
As with your case, I too try to duplicate the match ammo I was issued. Now, though, I don't duplicate them for any other reason than the fact that they are a known, tested-accurate in multiple platforms load that serves as a base for me to tweak from for my rifles. M852 was great in my SACK M14, but it was never issued in quantity enough for all the matches I shot throughout the year outside of the Navy ones. Therefore I would tweak it to be that little bit better in my loads for my personal rifle. (Weren't allowed to shoot handloads thru a Navy SACK M14 ;-) That's my story and I am sticking to it)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunsnjeeps</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm late to the party but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Why clone ammo?</div></div>
As with your case, I too try to duplicate the match ammo I was issued. Now, though, I don't duplicate them for any other reason than the fact that they are a known, tested-accurate in multiple platforms load that serves as a base for me to tweak from for my rifles. M852 was great in my SACK M14, but it was never issued in quantity enough for all the matches I shot throughout the year outside of the Navy ones. Therefore I would tweak it to be that little bit better in my loads for my personal rifle. (Weren't allowed to shoot handloads thru a Navy SACK M14 ;-) That's my story and I am sticking to it)
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I spent the afternoon reading this entire thread, lots of good info and a lot of work has been put into this. But when I finished went looking elsewhere for more info and found this:
http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition..._load_data.html
Of the most interest is the part in blue. Looks like it is 4064 @ 41.745gr
I spent the afternoon reading this entire thread, lots of good info and a lot of work has been put into this. But when I finished went looking elsewhere for more info and found this:
http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition..._load_data.html
Of the most interest is the part in blue. Looks like it is 4064 @ 41.745gr
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Malefactor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I spent the afternoon reading this entire thread, lots of good info and a lot of work has been put into this. But when I finished went looking elsewhere for more info and found this:
http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition..._load_data.html
Of the most interest is the part in blue. Looks like it is 4064 @ 41.745gr </div></div>
Yep somewhere around there depending upon which lot # you have the data for
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Malefactor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I spent the afternoon reading this entire thread, lots of good info and a lot of work has been put into this. But when I finished went looking elsewhere for more info and found this:
http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition..._load_data.html
Of the most interest is the part in blue. Looks like it is 4064 @ 41.745gr </div></div>
Yep somewhere around there depending upon which lot # you have the data for
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Anyone still in interested handloading a clone of this ammo will be happy to hear that Jeff Bartlett is listing 1x fired MK 316 MOD 0 brass.
Anyone still in interested handloading a clone of this ammo will be happy to hear that Jeff Bartlett is listing 1x fired MK 316 MOD 0 brass.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Any chance I can get my share of M118LR that is not being delivered to the field to the troops? Instead of being sold off to be de-milled and sold back to me. I see my tax dollars hard at work here. Looks like M118LR is not cutting it in the theater. Looks like MK316 will be replacing it.
Any chance I can get my share of M118LR that is not being delivered to the field to the troops? Instead of being sold off to be de-milled and sold back to me. I see my tax dollars hard at work here. Looks like M118LR is not cutting it in the theater. Looks like MK316 will be replacing it.
This was done in late 2003 or early 2004, when the M118LR nominal change was lowered to 43.1 gr. of RE-15 from 44.3 gr. of that powder. This is the nominal load, assuming use of canister grade powder; however, most lots disassembled show an actual powder charge of about 42.8 grains of RE-15. The result was a 40 fps reduction in the velocity at 78 feet to around 2659 fps, which correlates to a 2,709 fps velocity from the 24″ barrel of the M24 or M40 rifle. Out of an M14, the muzzle velocity will be around 2685 fps. This load, though slower than the earlier lots of M118LR, can be used in the M14 with minimal risk to the rifle or gas system and it is this cartridge that is intended to be used with both the Army and Marines new M14 based EBR/EMR and M110 rifles.
Although this cartridge remains the current M118LR standard, it apparently still suffers from excessive velocity variation as the temperature changes and less accuracy than might be desired for truly precise shots at mid-range to long-range distances. The specification for M118LR requires 14 shots in less than 8 inches at 600 yards. To correct that difficulty, in 2008 the SOCOM/Navy sponsored a new developmental project to enhance the accuracy of the M118LR cartridge while maintaining its suitability for use in the M14, SR25 and M700 Remington rifle designs. As such port pressure consistency was a primary concern. The contract was given the Federal Cartridge Company, which for a long time has made a series of match cartridges under the “Gold Medal” brand. These were developed from the custom loads designed for the Marine Corp MTU in the 1970s (the IMR 3031 39 gr. match load). By this time IMR 4064 was the powder of preference for the Gold Medal match cartridge line. One of the areas considered by Federal Cartridge Co. was the case itself, with a more uniform neck concentricity tolerance than Lake City brass and beefed up web to cartridge case head interface being part of the finished cartridge design.
The result, when it was standardized as the MK316 Mod 0 cartridge, was a Federal modified case (Drawing number 8347636), Federal match primer, Sierra 175 grain Matchking and 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 powder. According to the published sources this load will produce a muzzle velocity of 2640 fps out of a 24 inch barrel. The load as produced by Federal is claimed to produce under 1 MOA out to 1000 yards from an appropriate rifle. With the IMR powder the shift in velocity is only 20 fps from 0 to 100 Deg C, with the Standard deviation in velocity over 40 rounds being 15 fps or less. In contrast the M118LR loaded with RE-15 powder will see a 50 fps rise in velocity for a 50 deg rise in temperature.
The MK316 ammunition is essentially the finest possible mass produced match ammunition, comparable to the hand loads utilized by the various service MTUs. The cost is higher than M118LR, with a government cost of 78 cents per round for the MK 316 Mod 0 rather than 55 cents for the M118LR (2009 prices).
In 2009 the NRA allowed the AR-10/SR-25 to be used as a service rifle for NRA competitions, which includes the Palma and 1000 yard matches. While the AR-10 was capable of exceedingly high accuracy, the 20 inch barrel put a further constraint on achievable velocities so crucial to 1000 yard performance. By this time the less than ideal transonic performance of the Sierra 175 gr. Match King had been shown by the performance of the M118LR cartridge fired from the AR10 rifle when these rifles were utilized in 1000 yard matches. In high winds the M118 LR cartridges show poor performance once the velocity drops below 1226 fps; therefore, performance on the 900 and 1000 yard lines can be problematic in high winds as the 20″ barrel of the AR10 simply does not generate the muzzle velocity needed to keep the 175 gr. Sierra above that threshold. Something new was needed to make the AR-10 with its 20″ barrel competitive in 1000 yard matches.
By German Salazars Rifleman's Journal
Although this cartridge remains the current M118LR standard, it apparently still suffers from excessive velocity variation as the temperature changes and less accuracy than might be desired for truly precise shots at mid-range to long-range distances. The specification for M118LR requires 14 shots in less than 8 inches at 600 yards. To correct that difficulty, in 2008 the SOCOM/Navy sponsored a new developmental project to enhance the accuracy of the M118LR cartridge while maintaining its suitability for use in the M14, SR25 and M700 Remington rifle designs. As such port pressure consistency was a primary concern. The contract was given the Federal Cartridge Company, which for a long time has made a series of match cartridges under the “Gold Medal” brand. These were developed from the custom loads designed for the Marine Corp MTU in the 1970s (the IMR 3031 39 gr. match load). By this time IMR 4064 was the powder of preference for the Gold Medal match cartridge line. One of the areas considered by Federal Cartridge Co. was the case itself, with a more uniform neck concentricity tolerance than Lake City brass and beefed up web to cartridge case head interface being part of the finished cartridge design.
The result, when it was standardized as the MK316 Mod 0 cartridge, was a Federal modified case (Drawing number 8347636), Federal match primer, Sierra 175 grain Matchking and 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 powder. According to the published sources this load will produce a muzzle velocity of 2640 fps out of a 24 inch barrel. The load as produced by Federal is claimed to produce under 1 MOA out to 1000 yards from an appropriate rifle. With the IMR powder the shift in velocity is only 20 fps from 0 to 100 Deg C, with the Standard deviation in velocity over 40 rounds being 15 fps or less. In contrast the M118LR loaded with RE-15 powder will see a 50 fps rise in velocity for a 50 deg rise in temperature.
The MK316 ammunition is essentially the finest possible mass produced match ammunition, comparable to the hand loads utilized by the various service MTUs. The cost is higher than M118LR, with a government cost of 78 cents per round for the MK 316 Mod 0 rather than 55 cents for the M118LR (2009 prices).
In 2009 the NRA allowed the AR-10/SR-25 to be used as a service rifle for NRA competitions, which includes the Palma and 1000 yard matches. While the AR-10 was capable of exceedingly high accuracy, the 20 inch barrel put a further constraint on achievable velocities so crucial to 1000 yard performance. By this time the less than ideal transonic performance of the Sierra 175 gr. Match King had been shown by the performance of the M118LR cartridge fired from the AR10 rifle when these rifles were utilized in 1000 yard matches. In high winds the M118 LR cartridges show poor performance once the velocity drops below 1226 fps; therefore, performance on the 900 and 1000 yard lines can be problematic in high winds as the 20″ barrel of the AR10 simply does not generate the muzzle velocity needed to keep the 175 gr. Sierra above that threshold. Something new was needed to make the AR-10 with its 20″ barrel competitive in 1000 yard matches.
By German Salazars Rifleman's Journal
Last edited:
Finally remembered my password 
"The result, when it was standardized as the MK316 Mod 0 cartridge, was a Federal modified case (Drawing number 8347636), Federal match primer, Sierra 175 grain Matchking and 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 powder. According to the published sources this load will produce a muzzle velocity of 2640 fps out of a 24 inch barrel. The load as produced by Federal is claimed to produce under 1 MOA out to 1000 yards from an appropriate rifle. With the IMR powder the shift in velocity is only 20 fps from 0 to 100 Deg C, with the Standard deviation in velocity over 40 rounds being 15 fps or less."
You can take all that to the bank. Except my SD was 6.
Also, muzzle flash is like nil.
"The result, when it was standardized as the MK316 Mod 0 cartridge, was a Federal modified case (Drawing number 8347636), Federal match primer, Sierra 175 grain Matchking and 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 powder. According to the published sources this load will produce a muzzle velocity of 2640 fps out of a 24 inch barrel. The load as produced by Federal is claimed to produce under 1 MOA out to 1000 yards from an appropriate rifle. With the IMR powder the shift in velocity is only 20 fps from 0 to 100 Deg C, with the Standard deviation in velocity over 40 rounds being 15 fps or less."
You can take all that to the bank. Except my SD was 6.
Also, muzzle flash is like nil.
I have been loading and shooting the .308 175SMK at 2.815" OAL in Remington brass, with Fed 210M primers, and 42.2gr of IMR 4064 for approximately the past two decades. Some of us may recall that I have posted this load here several times over the history of the 'Hide.
I am revising my load to use PPU brass, CCI BR-2 primers, and the HDY 178 ELD-X bullet, starting with the same 42.2gr charge of IMR 4064. These loads will be evaluated in a brand new Savage 11VT .308 24" 1:10 rifle. If accuracy is off, charge weights will be redeveloped.
Greg
I am revising my load to use PPU brass, CCI BR-2 primers, and the HDY 178 ELD-X bullet, starting with the same 42.2gr charge of IMR 4064. These loads will be evaluated in a brand new Savage 11VT .308 24" 1:10 rifle. If accuracy is off, charge weights will be redeveloped.
Greg
I switched over to 4064 shortly after this thread started and I have used the 178 AMAX like most but when the 178 bthp came out I dumped the AMAX. I use 42.0 grns. Of 4064 in a hornady match case with a COAL of 2.815 and it makes my AR10 look like a bolt gun. I'm averaging 2550 from the 18 inch barrel. I like this load..
