Sierra 177 smk?

Bradv86

Sergeant of the Hide
PX Member
Minuteman
May 18, 2019
298
187
TX
A few more details would be nice, nothing on Sierra's site. Hope it doesnt go down the way of the 169...
 

Belt fed

A wealth of useless information
PX Member
Minuteman
Nov 11, 2020
172
977
Las Vegas
Oh yeah, that. My order with Sierra got canceled, not cool. Doesn't make it a bad bullet.
I think pretty much everything is limited availability right now though, not just 169's.
 

Bradv86

Sergeant of the Hide
PX Member
Minuteman
May 18, 2019
298
187
TX
Oh yeah, that. My order with Sierra got canceled, not cool. Doesn't make it a bad bullet.
I think pretty much everything is limited availability right now though, not just 169's.
Yeah, nothing against the bullet itself based on the numbers. Just wanted to actually get my order in my hands instead of a cancellation a month later after being told they were just waiting on labels...
 

Mooseknuckles

Private
PX Member
Minuteman
  • Jan 11, 2014
    1,049
    3,454

    NukeMMC

    Chlanna Nan Con Thigibh A’ So ‘S Gheibh Sibh Feòil
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,428
    709
    Harrisburg, PA
    My wife ordered 2 more boxes for me ;)

    Based on the 169SMK performance vs the 168TMK, I would guess the bc for the 177 to be around .540, since the 175TMK is .545 and the 175SMK is .505.
    I emailed Sierra tech support for a bc.
     

    6.5 GUY

    Private
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 19, 2013
    153
    46
    ID
    My wife ordered 2 more boxes for me ;)

    Based on the 169SMK performance vs the 168TMK, I would guess the bc for the 177 to be around .540, since the 175TMK is .545 and the 175SMK is .505.
    I emailed Sierra tech support for a bc.
    Good to hear you emailed them....... I started to wonder why nothing from Sierra, even in their "News" section about it, and what's going on? Info would be nice.
     

    sjoliat

    Private
    Supporter
    PX Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 4, 2014
    123
    35
    NE Ohio
    You would think some of these companies have dragged their marketing and customer service people down to the factory floor and put them to work, based on the lack of communication. A short while back there was a thread about Alliant releasing a temperature stable version of RL15, but go to their website and nothing to be found. Similar with Sierra - if you just look at their site SMK 169 and 177 do not exist. I'm looking forward to seeing the data from them as well...
     

    Mooseknuckles

    Private
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 11, 2014
    1,049
    3,454
    If I didn’t have 1k 175 smk’s sitting around I would buy up some of them to test out.
    it is frustrating when a company releases a new product with no information.
     

    NukeMMC

    Chlanna Nan Con Thigibh A’ So ‘S Gheibh Sibh Feòil
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,428
    709
    Harrisburg, PA
    I called Sierra and the tech I talked to said they have VERY little info on them and what he did have was to use load data for the 175 SMK/TMK and its G1 b.c. is .545, so same as the 175TMK. They didn't have any data on a multi-velocity b.c. profile for it yet.
     

    6.5 GUY

    Private
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 19, 2013
    153
    46
    ID
    I wonder why so little info is out there from Sierra, and whether or not these will cause a phase out of the TMK.... Which for me I'm not a fan of.
     

    NukeMMC

    Chlanna Nan Con Thigibh A’ So ‘S Gheibh Sibh Feòil
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,428
    709
    Harrisburg, PA
    I think the TMK is a great bullet but I wonder if the margin is better on the 2-piece (jacket & slug) than the 3 piece. There must be 3 added steps in the manufacturing process on the TMK (cut jacket, drill and insert tip).
    Seems a good business deciaion if they can get an equal bc bullet for less cost, it's a win for them, a no-lose for us.
     

    NukeMMC

    Chlanna Nan Con Thigibh A’ So ‘S Gheibh Sibh Feòil
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,428
    709
    Harrisburg, PA
    Got 2 boxes yesterday. I comparison-measured 10 against 10 of the 175SMK, 169SMK and 168SMK:
    177SMK:
    Base To Ogive
    Tip To Boattail
    OAL
    Bearing Length
    Weight
    Avg
    0.6879​
    1.1697​
    1.3343​
    0.5233​
    177.1​
    Sd
    0.0003​
    0.0022​
    0.0025​
    0.0009​
    0.0943​

    175SMK:
    Avg
    0.6600​
    1.0782​
    1.2403​
    0.4979​
    174.8​
    Sd
    0.0009​
    0.0018​
    0.0021​
    0.0014​
    0.1160​

    169SMK:
    Avg
    0.6575​
    1.1454​
    1.3079​
    0.495​
    169.0​
    Sd
    0.0007​
    0.0018​
    0.0014​
    0.0011​
    0.0516​

    168SMK:
    Avg
    0.6117​
    1.0542​
    1.1894​
    0.4765​
    167.9​
    Sd
    0.0011​
    0.0017​
    0.0019​
    0.0008​
    0.0816​

    Here is a visual comparison:
    20210408_082535.jpg

    Top to bottom, 177-175-169-168:20210408_085758.jpg
     

    glocker17

    Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 22, 2008
    120
    0
    49
    Russeltown, Texas
    Got a couple of boxes last week, them seem to shoot just like the 175s. I don't think there will be much of a BC gain from just closing the nose. 169 is probably a better choice.
     

    NukeMMC

    Chlanna Nan Con Thigibh A’ So ‘S Gheibh Sibh Feòil
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,428
    709
    Harrisburg, PA
    My 2nd set of 2 boxes came in today. Different lot. 0.010" shorter OAL, BTO and Bearing length. Also 0.2gr less weight.
    I'll be loading some up to do an OCW and try a few at 700+. Need to do the same with the 169s.