Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

[kritos666]

Hello all,

Not knowing better in my 1st run of load development I chose 168's over 175's due to them grouping better in my rifle. I'm not super precise with reloading, (read neck turning, annealing, etc) but I do shoot for consistency .. to a point. I do realize I have to accept a trade off by not going to the N'th degree. I'm OK with that. At the time I developed the loads I was only shooting out to 300 yards. I have in the last year found a spot to shoot where I go out to 900. The 168's seem to do OK. However I also know I have a lot to learn reading wind/temp/humidity, etc. (Headed off to training in April) That said, when I read the wind right im hitting 18" targets at 900 and 12 on a really good day. What will 175's do for me that Im not getting ? Better consistency in the 600-900+ range?

Any input would be appreciated.
thanks

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kritos666</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello all,

Not knowing better in my 1st run of load development I chose 168's over 175's due to them grouping better in my rifle. I'm not super precise with reloading, (read neck turning, annealing, etc) but I do shoot for consistency .. to a point. I do realize I have to accept a trade off by not going to the N'th degree. I'm OK with that. At the time I developed the loads I was only shooting out to 300 yards. I have in the last year found a spot to shoot where I go out to 900. The 168's seem to do OK. However I also know I have a lot to learn reading wind/temp/humidity, etc. (Headed off to training in April) That said, when I read the wind right im hitting 18" targets at 900 and 12 on a really good day. What will 175's do for me that Im not getting ? Better consistency in the 600-900+ range?

Any input would be appreciated.
thanks </div></div>

168s are a great bullet and I've read that some feel that they're more accurate at <800 yards than the 175s.

The 175s, with a better BC and SD can just buck the wind better and with a bit more mass, they can retain that speed a bit farther out than the lighter 168s, which go transonic closer to home.

Now, if you can get the 168s up over nominal 308 velocities, like 2800-2900 fps, then they'd no doubt do better.

Don't get me wrong, they don't fall out of the sky at 801 yards, just that there are better 1k bullets out there like the 155 Scenars, 178 AMAX, 208 AMAX, Berger X, Y and Z, 175 SMKs and 155 MKs (2156).

Chris

 

[Huckleberry75]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Yep, what CG said.

 

[rrflyer]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Also it depends on what 168gn bullet your talking about.

The 168gn SMK's are the bullet that got the reputation of becoming unstable in the transonic region.

Other 168 grain bullets with a different design may handle the transition better.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

If you know your altitude and fps a ballistic program will tell you when you will be close to the transonic zone.

If you have some altitude where you are shooting the 168smk may do just fine. I have shot them and like stated above, they still make hits but the consistency is no longer there. I am at ~1000 ASL and in the summer I can stretch them 850 almost 900 at times if it’s hot and or a low pressure front has moved in.

I am no bullet expert... that said, it has been explained to me the boat tail angle on that SMK is too steep and causes a base wobble as it gets near transonic.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

for what its worth, I use nosler custom competion 168. and occasionally SMK's Both I believe have a BC of .462 I know the bench rest guys swear by berger VLD bullets, but that seems a bit extreme.

I shoot in Oregon, so the conditions are reasonably dynamic. In summer its warm but not dry 80-90F 30-50%, in winter its wet and cool 40-60F and frequently raining. That's a weather guest-imate. Last time I went out I shot thru breaks in the fog for a challenge. (I learned I have a lot to learn, I didn't do so hot )

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kritos666</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for what its worth, I use nosler custom competion 168. and occasionally SMK's Both I believe have a BC of .462 I know the bench rest guys swear by berger VLD bullets, but that seems a bit extreme.

I shoot in Oregon, so the conditions are reasonably dynamic. In summer its warm but not dry 80-90F 30-50%, in winter its wet and cool 40-60F and frequently raining. That's a weather guest-imate. Last time I went out I shot thru breaks in the fog for a challenge. (I learned I have a lot to learn, I didn't do so hot )

</div></div>

I forgot, speed are pretty slow 2450 with BLC-2 and 2675 with Varget, both do well at 200 (sub-MOA) , but likely not enough at distance.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kritos666</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What will 175's do for me that Im not getting ? Better consistency in the 600-900+ range?
</div></div>

I ran a ballistic chart off using my home range weather and altitude using your 2640 and an educated guess of 2600 for the 175.

Out to 400 yards the 168 will require a fraction of an moa less elevation BUT will require more wind correction at all distances. At 1000 the 175 will be using 2.6 moa less elevation (27") and 1.6 moa less wind (17"). That’s a wind at 10mph, 90* constant cross wind.

So what will the 175 do???

It will give you less horizontal dispersion in your groups as it is effected less by the wind while also using less elevation and hit 1000 yards about 60 fps faster.

Or in layman’s terms, if the two loads where shot side by side in the same conditions your groups with the 175 would be tighter. That is not considering any ill-effects of instability present in the 168 Nosler CC, which I am pretty sure is an exact copy of a Sierra match king with the exception of the J4 jacket and lead composition on and in the Nosler.

Those Noslers do shoot well though. I picked up a box of 1000 about two years ago for little more than what a box of 500ct 175 grain match kings were selling at. I still have some and use them for practice at home when I don’t have the time to drive to my 1000y range. So my shooting with them is rarely over 300 yards.

 

[Xcount]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

to directly answer your question so you can make a future informed decision. The SMK 168 got the rep of poor 1k accuracy due to it 12 degree boattail, and it was commonly shot from a m1a which was hard to keep supersonic passed 900. Plenty of military teams shot them well because they pushed them hard enough to keep them supersonic, they didn't have to pay to replace parts when they hammered their M1A. so that's how it started.
The old 180 SMK was the answer for someone not wanting to load over pressure specs, it had a shallower boattail and better BC. Then Sierra redesigned the 180 with a, you guessed it, 12 degree boattail and it's performance turned bad in M1a's. So Sierra came out with the 175 around 1995 which was basically a old 180 and would work in a 12 twist barrel and easily stay supersonic to 1k plus had a 9 degree boattail for better transsonic performance.

Now we have a whole new generation of bullets. Notice the Berger 175 "tactical" bullet designed for excellent transonic stability, 7 degree boattail. You can run a Berger 168 in several different configurations and they all should work to 1k+ because they all have a 9 degree of less boattail. try the new Hybrid, they hammer at 1k.

308 Bolt guns are easier to keep supersonic at 1k than a gas gun so these problems are easier to avoid with them.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

THANKS for the work !! .. and for spelling it out for me. very clear and concise.

Its good to know that the 168 are _really_ effected by the wind .. where I shoot, I cross 2 valleys and a ridge, so that would explain my don't shoot in more than 10mph winds at that distance lesson I gave my self last year.

arrggg .. so long story short, I'll need to work up a load for 175s and shoot the 168's I have already at shorter ranges. Well if I didn't learn by doing it wrong the 1st go round I don't think id learn at all.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Niles Coyote...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kritos666</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> THANKS for the work !! .. and for spelling it out for me. very clear and concise.

Its good to know that the 168 are _really_ effected by the wind .. where I shoot, I cross 2 valleys and a ridge, so that would explain my don't shoot in more than 10mph winds at that distance lesson I gave my self last year.

arrggg .. so long story short, I'll need to work up a load for 175s and shoot the 168's I have already at shorter ranges. Well if I didn't learn by doing it wrong the 1st go round I don't think id learn at all. </div></div>

.. and Xcount.. thanks for the 'history' lesson .. the angle of the boat tail makes sense. I do shoot a 1-12" heavy contour barrel bolt gun. So that It stabilizes the 175 well I haven't tried anything heavier. I had concerns about bullet stabilization. However I have an AR-10 that I am re-barreling with a Noveske 1-10". Once that gets here, Ill have to see how different a gas gun will be to that distance.

 

[Grump]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Just so you'll know, it's generally 800+ yards where the 168 SMKs start to lose steam.

And wind drift increases dramatically in the transsonic velocity zone.

 

[Hi Speed]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

with this being said, I still shoot 168's out to 600 and 175's on out. Why? I get better groups at closer ranges with the 168's. This data is for one of my rifles. The rest don't get fed Sierra's. A-MAX's for them.

 

[5RWill]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Berger 168gr VLDs actually have a higer BC than the 155gr scenars, just a matter of getting them at the right speed I would imagine. I have a box of 168gr Hunting VLDs just never got to em because the 175gr BT LRs shot.

 

[MAT4-82]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xcount</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to directly answer your question so you can make a future informed decision. The SMK 168 got the rep of poor 1k accuracy due to it 12 degree boattail, and it was commonly shot from a m1a which was hard to keep supersonic passed 900. Plenty of military teams shot them well because they pushed them hard enough to keep them supersonic, they didn't have to pay to replace parts when they hammered their M1A. so that's how it started.
The old 180 SMK was the answer for someone not wanting to load over pressure specs, it had a shallower boattail and better BC. Then Sierra redesigned the 180 with a, you guessed it, 12 degree boattail and it's performance turned bad in M1a's. So Sierra came out with the 175 around 1995 which was basically a old 180 and would work in a 12 twist barrel and easily stay supersonic to 1k plus had a 9 degree boattail for better transsonic performance.

Now we have a whole new generation of bullets. Notice the Berger 175 "tactical" bullet designed for excellent transonic stability, 7 degree boattail. You can run a Berger 168 in several different configurations and they all should work to 1k+ because they all have a 9 degree of less boattail. try the new Hybrid, they hammer at 1k.

308 Bolt guns are easier to keep supersonic at 1k than a gas gun so these problems are easier to avoid with them. </div></div>

Good reply, This myth about 168s is because of their almost universal use in NRA bullseye in M14s/M1As in the 70s-80s which were unable to stand the pressures to enable their use past about 800yds. The Marine team under Gunner Connor used them in their .300W magnums at 1000yds. Its not the projo its what you use it in association with. If you want a bullet to deal with the wind for you it is not as good as a heavier projo. The OPs 12 twist is going to limit him much beyond the 175 so as others have stated that is a good choice.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Berger 168gr VLDs actually have a higer BC than the 155gr scenars, just a matter of getting them at the right speed I would imagine. I have a box of 168gr Hunting VLDs just never got to em because the 175gr BT LRs shot. </div></div>

Those 168 berger vld's are great. I made a load for my mule hunt this fall and they worked out wonderful.

FWIW, I have 4 308's with 1-12 twist and one with 1-11.27 twist. Every one of them will stabilize the long 190 berger vld's in Michigan’s winter temps (30ish degrees) and 670 ASL and I am not pushing them fast. There are a few guys here shooting 208's out of factory Remington 308's also with the 1-12t, so I would not worry about stability issues. If you got a 10 twist, great, but don’t limit yourself thinking a 12t won’t work. Now if you want to shoot suppressed and sub sonic that’s a whole different issue.

 

[5RWill]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

We have 2 .308s here, mine and my fathers. Might have to load some 168gr VLDs for the sporter .308 and try them on a deer or two. I'm eager to see the performance of the VLD hunting line.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Blackops_2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have 2 .308s here, mine and my fathers. Might have to load some 168gr VLDs for the sporter .308 and try them on a deer or two. I'm eager to see the performance of the VLD hunting line. </div></div>

Here is what bergers did for me with some detailed photos

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...170#Post2890170

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Thanks folks.

Ok Im going 175's .. and suggestions on powders? Just for a starting point.. to hopefully keep me from buying 6 different powders again like I did with the 168s
I have a 1-12" barrel bolt now. Soon will have a 1-10" AR-10

Thanks.

 

[BuzzBoss915]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

The problem being discussed is a function of the bullet's RPM; which is your fps(MV) X twist, and that is why bullets don't stabilize below a certain speed. The long tapered VLD type bullets with shorter bearing surface and a long ogive don't do so well at "subsonic" but it's because they aren't spinning fast enough, to begin with. Unless you order a fast twist barrel which solves the problem.

I don't really play this particular game, therefore I don't know for certain what the angle of the dangle on the boat tail has to do with it, (if anything) but I'm pretty sure you can solve the problem by either simply driving the bullet faster, which gives it slightly more spin, which in turn, stabilizes it....OR, order a barrel with a faster twist, and I don't think a 9 twist would be a bad idea, if everybody else is using an eleven twist and requiring a max load. Whatever it may be, a faster twist will result in a higher RPM, even if there is no velocity gain, but the faster RPM will, (should) noticeably improve accuracy down range with heavier, longer bullets. BB

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kritos666</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks folks.

Ok Im going 175's .. and suggestions on powders? Just for a starting point.. to hopefully keep me from buying 6 different powders again like I did with the 168s
I have a 1-12" barrel bolt now. Soon will have a 1-10" AR-10

Thanks. </div></div>

I use Varget almost exclusively for 175's, imr8208, RL15, H4895 there are other one ones as well.

Why???

IMR8208 is good but I can get a little more fps with varget it does seem very stable though, RL15 isn’t as temperature stable as varget but it is still good and usually shoots a little faster than varget. H4895 someone else will have to comment as it has been a long time since I used it but I remember it working well.

I don’t have an auto so this is in bolts only.

With Varget and Winchester brass the top accuracy/speed node is usually between 44 and 45 grains. But always work up into that area as 45 is max published and depending on your chamber specs you may be getting pressure signs. It works well there in my Remington’s, FN SPR and custom barreled rifle. In a auto that may be to much, the next node down is usually in the 43 grain area.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use Varget almost exclusively for 175's, imr8208, RL15, H4895 there are other one ones as well.

Why???

IMR8208 is good but I can get a little more fps with varget it does seem very stable though, RL15 isn’t as temperature stable as varget but it is still good and usually shoots a little faster than varget. H4895 someone else will have to comment as it has been a long time since I used it but I remember it working well.

I don’t have an auto so this is in bolts only.

With Varget and Winchester brass the top accuracy/speed node is usually between 44 and 45 grains. But always work up into that area as 45 is max published and depending on your chamber specs you may be getting pressure signs. I works well there in my Remington’s, FN SPR and custom barreled rifle.
</div></div>
Perhaps I will stick /w Varget, as it is what I use in 168 at 45.5 gr. I had heard IMR 4064 and H380 worked well with 175's.. but dont have any facts.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't really play this particular game, therefore I don't know for certain what the angle of the dangle on the boat tail has to do with it, (if anything)</div></div>

Bryan Litz wrote a great article on the subject. It has to do with the way the air comes back together behind the bullet as it nears trans-sonic speed. If I remember correctly the steep angle creates a low pressure zone at the base and this turbulence begins the wobble.

“Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting” is his book and required read IMHO for long range shooters. The true (tested) bullet BC’s listed in the back are worth the price of the book alone.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

kritos666,

If you are already have that powder that is what I would use for now. Get your results and then play around if you want. That is part of the enjoyment of reloading, for me at least, but I enjoy crafting precision ammo almost as much as I do shooting it.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">kritos666,

If you are already have that powder that is what I would use for now. Get your results and then play around if you want. That is part of the enjoyment of reloading, for me at least, but I enjoy crafting precision ammo almost as much as I do shooting it.

</div></div>

Thanks for all your input its been really helpful. I think I will follow your advice and stick with varget for now.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MAT 4-82</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xcount</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to directly answer your question so you can make a future informed decision. The SMK 168 got the rep of poor 1k accuracy due to it 12 degree boattail, and it was commonly shot from a m1a which was hard to keep supersonic passed 900. Plenty of military teams shot them well because they pushed them hard enough to keep them supersonic, they didn't have to pay to replace parts when they hammered their M1A. so that's how it started.
The old 180 SMK was the answer for someone not wanting to load over pressure specs, it had a shallower boattail and better BC. Then Sierra redesigned the 180 with a, you guessed it, 12 degree boattail and it's performance turned bad in M1a's. So Sierra came out with the 175 around 1995 which was basically a old 180 and would work in a 12 twist barrel and easily stay supersonic to 1k plus had a 9 degree boattail for better transsonic performance.

Now we have a whole new generation of bullets. Notice the Berger 175 "tactical" bullet designed for excellent transonic stability, 7 degree boattail. You can run a Berger 168 in several different configurations and they all should work to 1k+ because they all have a 9 degree of less boattail. try the new Hybrid, they hammer at 1k.

308 Bolt guns are easier to keep supersonic at 1k than a gas gun so these problems are easier to avoid with them. </div></div>

Good reply, This myth about 168s is because of their almost universal use in NRA bullseye in M14s/M1As in the 70s-80s which were unable to stand the pressures to enable their use past about 800yds. The Marine team under Gunner Connor used them in their .300W magnums at 1000yds. Its not the projo its what you use it in association with. If you want a bullet to deal with the wind for you it is not as good as a heavier projo. The OPs 12 twist is going to limit him much beyond the 175 so as others have stated that is a good choice. </div></div>

As an addition to this discussion. I just heard back from Nosler their 168 Custom Completion bullet has a 10deg. angle, Sadly they didn't answer me on the 175's. I asked again. A 10 degree 168 is better than 12 but not 7 degrees. Delving this far into it, I may need to ask my engineering buddy for clarity as It seems were walking into mad scientist territory. As well, he can likely help me ask more intelligent questions.

Holy crap you guys know a lot!

 

[Xcount]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

the main thing about the SMK 168 is that is was designed for 300m International Competitions, I think in the late 60's. So asking for it to perform perfectly out to 1k is beyond it's design. It was picked up for Match 852 ammo in the 80's to use in M1/M1a out to 600, this was about the max of it's design. It shoots great in my M1a but it's a old design and behind the BC curve compared to many other bullets. it's still a great bullet for some out to 600.
The bottom line is use another 168 like the Berger Hybrid or go to a 175. Either way you still have to have everything else in place to make 1k, there is no magic bullet to fix a bad shooter/ bad rifle.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xcount</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the main thing about the SMK 168 is that is was designed for 300m International Competitions, I think in the late 60's. So asking for it to perform perfectly out to 1k is beyond it's design. It was picked up for Match 852 ammo in the 80's to use in M1/M1a out to 600, this was about the max of it's design. It shoots great in my M1a but it's a old design and behind the BC curve compared to many other bullets. it's still a great bullet for some out to 600.
The bottom line is use another 168 like the Berger Hybrid or go to a 175. Either way you still have to have everything else in place to make 1k, there is no magic bullet to fix a bad shooter/ bad rifle. </div></div>

Understood on the no magic bullet. I have a very accurate rifle and pretty accurately developed cartridge. however, I can blow that with one simple jerk or not paying attention to breath, much less mis-judge the wind.

Thanks for the history
.. it does now make sense that the 168s did well at 200 when developing the loads (200 is all I have as a "official range" Sometimes too much information can be a bad thing

Ill stick with the 175s

 

[BuzzBoss915]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

I still have a hard time with everybody putting so much emphasis on the perfect boattail? Call me clueless, but a boattail is a boattail and it's not a flat base, which are usually more accurate bullets at shorter distances. Why wouldn't they be accurate at 600/1000 yards? Well, the reason might be they are slower? But, do they get inaccurate when reaching 600 yards?

I don't know the answer? A bullet's design is important, no doubt. Has any research been done on long range flatbase versus Xdegree boattail designs? Just curious. BB

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

Any reason to not try Amax? I've been running these (in front of 44-45 grains of Varget) for quite awhile with great results.

Tried SMK, like everyone else; found that my rifles liked Amax a little better.

 

[Xcount]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

no reason not to try any 168. it all comes down to if your rifle/load can keep it supersonic after 800yds. like i said the Bergers should work fine. i've seen them hammer at 1k, but in a Palma rifle with 32" barrel. The 175 usually work better for most because they have much better BC's and stay supersonic farther.

It's all about keeping them stable to your target or having a bullet that works through transonic, i.e. the Berger 175 OTM.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any reason to not try Amax? I've been running these (in front of 44-45 grains of Varget) for quite awhile with great results.

Tried SMK, like everyone else; found that my rifles liked Amax a little better. </div></div>
I tried AMAX's a while back and found them varying quite a lot as far as weights were concerned. I took a random sampling of 20 rounds and found they varied 1.3 grains over the sample. Conversely SMKs were withing 0.1 grain. and Nosler. 0.3 grains. If something has changed with AMAX's, I can give it a go. But I would want to have a similar comparison to consider. But hey .. show me its changed, I'm open.


Given the distances, I want the most consistent I can get (without completely breaking the bank) For me, I can't justify the cost of bergers. I realize they are the bee's knees. Just too rich for my blood. I have had really good luck /w SMKs or Nosler CC's Based on previous discussions .. due to better BC, I will work up a load for 175s for certain.

my 27cents

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

I haven't had that manner of variance from my 168s, maybe ou got a bad batch.

 

[kritos666]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

I made a mistake, I bought Hornaday match (assuming that they were the best Hornaday made)

As an experiment, a long range shoot friend of mine suggested I take a random sampling of each. so I did .. I grabbed 25 out of each box. (Hornaday match, SMK, Nosler CC) and weighed them and grouped each. I got the afore mentioned variances.

Completely not scientific.. but also reasonably random.. I did however hear that Hornaday has completely redesigned their jackets and as a result they are much more consistant. Perhaps I should give AMAX's a go

My experience nothing more.

 

[Aimsmall55]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

They are depending on your atmospheric conditions.. the hotter the better. Also your rifle. I have shot 168 FGM SMK's out of my GAP Crusader to 800 yards. 6 in group

 

[metalmike]

Re: Why are 168's no good past 500-600 yards?

I'm with Niles...I ended up just working myself to the H4895 and Varget for all of my 175 loads...for 168's, I'm using 4064 or RL-15(I do need some more experience with the RL-15 though)

My dad's M14 uses the 4064 for the 168's. He just needs to keep resizing the cases for it to chamber properly.