M118LR all the same regardless of the name on the box?

Mean_Man

Mean_Man

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2024
196
190
Georgia
#1
Not reloading but ammunition specific question, and I do reload…

My question since Federal lost the contract at LC to Winchester so far as I recall. Seeing ammunition sold as M118LR begs the question, is this like M193 has become in some instances a BS marketing thing rather than advertising the ammunition actually meets the spec? Or is all M118LR loaded at the LC plant by Winchester and just repackaged by some vendors in their box?
 
#3
If it's in Winchester brown boxes it might just be contract over-runs -- or it could be ammunition that failed government acceptance for a number of reasons (precision, pressure, tarnished cases, etc. per contract mil-standard.

Anyone can put a label on a box. Not sure how many call it M118LR or just a 175 SMK variant.

The common item across many, many brands is a Sierra 175-grain Match King -- but there are so many variables (starting with the brass case, then primer and powder, and perhaps the type of loading machine used) that it's impossible to tell whether or not that company is using the US Army Small Caliber Ammunition Data Sheet and Army technical standard.

Commercial cases are not military-standard for thickness, hardness, or capacity. Does the load use a standard, magnum, or match primer?

Even true military Lake City M118 Long Range has used two different powders and three different charges.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simonp and Mean_Man
#4
Okay so then if I want consistency with the M118LR load I purchase and want as close to the current spec MK316? I suppose my best bet without getting to know the right somebody is just to buy the Winchester produced ammunition. Since they’re running the LC plant now as I understand it.

I just want 100 or so for initial practice, and collecting data as a base line for hand loads. BUT I wouldn’t mind buying a case of it down the road and splitting it with my buddy (split the cost) for just factory ammo, have the Lapua SRP handloads for beyond 500meters perhaps.
 
Last edited:
#5
I would pull a couple of rounds apart and measure things - bullet, case, primer, powder weight, and then do some research online, then reload to that spec.

The only thing you get with factory .mil is that the case and primer are probably sealed with glue to keep the powder at the same RH%. But your reloads will have much better consistency ( and cost) in terms of charge weight, case prep, and bullet seating. You can then seal the rounds in groups of 20 or 100 using vac pac machine to retain RH%.

I did not find the M118LR loads to be consistent enough to compete with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DIBBS, j-huskey, camocorvette and 2 others
#6
Mean_Man said:
If there was a more ideal place for me to have asked this question as I didn’t find anything helpful using the search function, please let me know.
Click to expand...
I see you don't accept PM's, your choice , I'll just let you continue your search w/o my info.
But, instead of the trial and error, {the WW may group and then they may not}why not just buy some 1 x FGMM brass off the classifieds and build your own using better LR bullets that the 175's ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonp
#7
Old Corps 8541 said:
I see you don't accept PM's, your choice , I'll just let you continue your search w/o my info.
But, instead of the trial and error, {the WW may group and then they may not}why not just buy some 1 x FGMM brass off the classifieds and build your own using better LR bullets that the 175's ?
Click to expand...
What bullets would you suggest/ have you successfully used ? Had good luck with Fed brass, 4064 & 175’s but always looking for better
TIA
 
#9
www.snipershide.com

What is loaded in military 7.62 M118LR

I have a bunch of LC10 M118LR ammunition and it shoots fantastic. Does anyone know the powder/charge used in 2010 Lake City M118LR? Thanks
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com


Also
snipercentral.com

History of the M118 Ammunition

In the late 1950’s the United States military adopted the M14 battle rifle and M60 machine gun as standard combat arms incorporating the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge which was the newly adopted NATO ro…
snipercentral.com snipercentral.com
 
#10
Old Corps 8541 said:
I see you don't accept PM's, your choice , I'll just let you continue your search w/o my info.
But, instead of the trial and error, {the WW may group and then they may not}why not just buy some 1 x FGMM brass off the classifieds and build your own using better LR bullets that the 175's ?
Click to expand...
Um, sounds like a default settings thing I need to look into on the forum.
 
#13
Oldloser said:
I would pull a couple of rounds apart and measure things - bullet, case, primer, powder weight, and then do some research online, then reload to that spec.

The only thing you get with factory .mil is that the case and primer are probably sealed with glue to keep the powder at the same RH%. But your reloads will have much better consistency ( and cost) in terms of charge weight, case prep, and bullet seating. You can then seal the rounds in groups of 20 or 100 using vac pac machine to retain RH%.

I did not find the M118LR loads to be consistent enough to compete with.
Click to expand...
I may do that to 10, the thing is I’m more interested in having two loads, maybe that’s dumb? I figured something like M118LR for inside 500meters and then beyond that switch to a hand load. Part of the reason is the Lapua SRP brass especially once you factor in fire forming is not cheap, so I don’t want to just fire a lot of that at shorter distances if I can do what I want to do with a lower cost load.

Again maybe that’s dumb? What I was planning on for handloads so far was Reloader 15 powder, FGMM primer, Lapua SRP brass, 175gr TMK projectiles… duno about exact load length or powder charge yet but it seems most like 43-45gr.

My buddy is about to by a radar chronograph to replace my cheap unit. So later on I’ll be developing a load for my rifle looking for accuracy nodes.
 
Last edited:
#14
Are you shooting from a self-loader or a bolt gun?

If you want to use just one bullet try the new Sierra 169-grain Match King. It's a hybrid between the world-famous 168-grain Match King and the 175.

168, 169, 175:

168-169-175-smks-jpg.746481
 
#15
Just to clarify what happens with Lake City and changes in operators like Federal or Olin/Winchester. The ammunition manufactured by LC doesn't change with the change in management. It means that supervision of the facility in managed by new company. The same people are on the production line and formulation isn't changed.

As for M118 , there are different versions of the M118, like M118LR, M118LR SB Mk316 Mod 0. The latter was a product of Federal Ammunition and not Lake City when originally introduced. Winchester may well be selling/packaging LC M118 current production as there Match 175 gr ammunition. Since the wars have wound down the news on M118 has become scarce as to any updates. The last detailed information was on the Mk316 Mod 0 and that was from 2009. Understand that M118 references a specification. I can't say what various companies are doing but if they Label it as M118 then it would be expected to meet that specification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonp and Heretic
#16
M118 Match, M118 Special Ball, and M118 Long Range are Army products produced at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant to Army drawings and standards. It is a Government Owned - Contractor Operated (GO-CO) enterprise.

Mark 318 is a Navy-specified commercial ammunition item purchased for naval units and the United States Special Operations Command from Federal (ATK). It is NOT an Army ammunition item. It was bought with DOD Program 11 (Special Operations Forces) dollars for Special Forces and the Ranger Regiment Soldiers in United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). Transportation, handling, storage, issue, and disposition is through Army ammunition systems.

Army M118 Long Range Special Ball (DOD identity code AA11) and Navy-SOCOM Mark 318 Long Range Special Ball (DOD identity code AB39) are cousins (sharing 175 Match King bullets), NOT twins. Their cases, primers, and powders are different.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack_L, DIBBS, Mean_Man and 2 others
#17
Sinister Dave, Sir, Merry Christmas, and, fwiw, the 169 smk has managed to impress me.
To the rest of you, MC, HNY, and waste all the time, components, and cash you want on 175's and trying to copy M118LR or MK318, it just ain't the king of the hill.
It was good at the time, served it's purpose, killed a lot of the enemies of the Republic, and deserves the respect it earned.
But, if you want to have better results, and, more fun, run the 169 around 2700-2750.
jmhe
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinister, XP1K, DIBBS and 1 other person
#18
sinister said:
Are you shooting from a self-loader or a bolt gun?

If you want to use just one bullet try the new Sierra 169-grain Match King. It's a hybrid between the world-famous 168-grain Match King and the 175.

168, 169, 175:

168-169-175-smks-jpg.746481
Click to expand...
Is the length of the 169 similar to a 175 TMK? Oh also it’s a bolt gun. CZ 600 Range.

If the 169 OTM I am guessing SMK and a 175 TMK have very similar external ballistics I would assume the 169 would have the edge being able to be pushed just a nudge harder / faster at a similar powder charge.
 
Last edited:
#20
j-huskey said:
A little longer, see pic in post 14 above.
Click to expand...
I was specifically asking about the 169gr vs a 175 TMK, not SMK as the TMK does have a much better BC and holds it at lower velocities much better. I THINK, the tipped version is longer than the 175 SMK, so I was wondering how those two stack up to each other.
 
#22
Clear, had to go back and read your edits.
I stay away from the TMK's because their longer length using 2.8" magazine length settings ate enough case space to compress the load and up the pressures at the velocity i wanted, which blew some primer pockets w TMK, but not the SMK. That's my limited experience with the TMK.
Been very happy with the 169 from 100 to 1100 at 465' asl. It does what I need/want with one bullet, one load, simplifies my life.
None of that answers your questions, I know, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinister, DIBBS, Mean_Man and 1 other person
#23
j-huskey said:
Clear, had to go back and read your edits.
I stay away from the TMK's because their longer length using 2.8" magazine length settings ate enough case space to compress the load and up the pressures at the velocity i wanted, which blew some primer pockets w TMK, but not the SMK. That's my limited experience with the TMK.
Been very happy with the 169 from 100 to 1100 at 465' asl. It does what I need/want with one bullet, one load, simplifies my life.
None of that answers your questions, I know, sorry.
Click to expand...
If don't mind sharing with usual caveats about "work up to it" etc. what is your chosen one load with the 169?
 
#25
6.5SH said:
If don't mind sharing with usual caveats about "work up to it" etc. what is your chosen one load with the 169?
Click to expand...

Lapua brass, new or once/twice/thrice fired - annealed every 2nd firing, CCI-BR-2 primer, 45 grains of BLC2, 2.790/2.795", 169 smk.
R700, Hart 10tw, 26", cut w Clymer match reamer, by an old AMU smith on Ft. Benning/Moore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinister, 6.5SH and XP1K
#26
Mean_Man said:
I was specifically asking about the 169gr vs a 175 TMK, not SMK as the TMK does have a much better BC and holds it at lower velocities much better. I THINK, the tipped version is longer than the 175 SMK, so I was wondering how those two stack up to each other.
Click to expand...

169 smk. .527bc, 1.310 oal (@2180fps^)
177 smk. .540bc, 1.xxx oal (@1700fps^)
168 tmk. .536bc, 1.357 oal (@2050fps^)
175 tmk. .545bc, 1.384 oal (@2400fps^)

175 smk. .496bc, 1.235 oal (@2600fps)

Any of those running 2600, 2650, beat the 175smk.
I have no experience with the 177 smk.

I wanted 2700/2750, and found pressure with the 168 and 175 TMK and 175 SMK at 2.800 mag length, so, I made friends with the 169.
I wanted one round for all distance to avoid changing bullet weight/speed/pressure in places that didn't allow sighters to be able to harmonically settle the barrel w different bullet, and the 169 provided that, for me. And kept my learning curve simpler, one of my goals for less stress in a match.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simonp, sinister and Mean_Man
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Wolf WM193 5.56x45mm Accuracy Evaluation
Replies
2
Views
2K
TheHorta
TheHorta
R
MOA and Milrad Turret Calculations
Replies
45
Views
4K
smoothy8500
smoothy8500
M
Return Of The M193 Clones
Replies
11
Views
6K
Molon
M
Masked
How interested would precision shooters be in another M118LR 308 option?
Replies
201
Views
16K
smoothy8500
smoothy8500
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
139
Views
17K
Denys
Denys
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts