Range Report 168 vs 175 SMK

[Tempest 455]

I'm going to the range Sat to test some different ammo. Rifle is dead nuts at 400 w/ 168 SMK Black Hills at 2,650. I'm going to try some 175 SMK Black Hills at 2,600 fps and another brand as well.

I'm just trying to determine how much drop I should expect from the 168 to the 175?

Looks like 2.5" according to JBM. Does that sound about right? Rifle is sighted for the 168, so I don't care about POI, just group between the two.

Thanks!

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

If your MV and atmospheric data inputs are solid, JBM has always given me predictions that were very, very close to what I shot at the range.

 

[30SMK]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

I plugged it into Infinity and Point Mass Ballistics Solver and got in between .55"-.65" difference between the two at that distance. I used the atmospheric conditions for the "Middle" of Tennessee. Hope they work out for you.

-AM

 

[TNtrg.300]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

Would barrel twist rate play any role in the difference between POI between the 2 projectiles?

 

[Tempest 455]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

Well.............

They shot EXACT the same amount of elevation at 400 yards. However, the 175g shot left of the 168g.

 

[30SMK]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tempest 455</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well.............

They shot EXACT the same amount of elevation at 400 yards. However, the 175g shot left of the 168g. </div></div>

I figured, try them at 600 and you will probably start to see a bigger difference.

 

[HarryBallz2029]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

I agree with 30SMK, as I have learned the more you stretch out your shots the better data you collect. What exactly is the test trying to find out. I know I use to use 168 AMAX for about year then I started getting out to 600 yds + and seen better performance from the 175 Match burners from barnes and 178 AMAX. If you dont plan on shooting past 600 yds then a 168 will do good with the increased velocity but your 175 will hold stable out at distance. Lots of people swear by the 175 SMK.

 

[30SMK]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DirtyHarry2029</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with 30SMK, as I have learned the more you stretch out your shots the better data you collect. What exactly is the test trying to find out. I know I use to use 168 AMAX for about year then I started getting out to 600 yds + and seen better performance from the 175 Match burners from barnes and 178 AMAX. If you dont plan on shooting past 600 yds then a 168 will do good with the increased velocity but your 175 will hold stable out at distance. Lots of people swear by the 175 SMK. </div></div>

You might be seeing the difference in wind deflection at that distance. Lighter bullets will get tossed around more and you really have to watch the wind switches unless you are running it and shooting all in the same wind.

 

[VKC]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

If you have a fast enough twist and your groups are similar, then go with the 175smk over 168s. At beyond 600 yards you see a difference, especially in wind drift.

 

[tnichols]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

In my limited experience, the 168's might shoot/group a touch better in close (100-300 yards) give or take. The 175's will do better out in the wind and at the further ranges. Plus, the 175's "behave" better into and through transonic.

 

[aku]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

I'd like to know about the performance between those two rounds,shooting thru glass or plywood etc.

 

[FLIGHT762]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ak74u28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to know about the performance between those two rounds,shooting thru glass or plywood etc. </div></div>

Neither of those bullets are stellar barrier penetrators. They are thin jacketed Match bullets, they weren't designed for barriers. They tend to shed their jackets quickly when going through glass, wood, etc.

For barrier penetration there are a number of better bullets out there. There's also a lot of information on the net regarding barrier penetration testing with the 308 Winchester.

 

[VKC]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tnichols</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my limited experience, the 168's might shoot/group a touch better in close (100-300 yards) give or take. The 175's will do better out in the wind and at the further ranges. Plus, the 175's "behave" better into and through transonic. </div></div>

It really depends on your barrel twist and what your rifle likes, and not on the distance with the SMKs.

Some argue that VLDs take some distance to stabilize, but that is a completely different argument and has more to do with seating length.

 

[George63]

Re: 168 vs 175 SMK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FLIGHT762</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ak74u28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to know about the performance between those two rounds,shooting thru glass or plywood etc. </div></div>

Neither of those bullets are stellar barrier penetrators. They are thin jacketed Match bullets, they weren't designed for barriers. They tend to shed their jackets quickly when going through glass, wood, etc.

For barrier penetration there are a number of better bullets out there. There's also a lot of information on the net regarding barrier penetration testing with the 308 Winchester. </div></div>

projectiles designed to penetrate (hold together) are usually pricey and do not have the accuracy potential of the thin jacket match style - best compromise may be a turned solid, but the lower density materials result in a lower BC and they are super $$$

no magic pill for high penetration + precision at distance

certainly it could be done (and probably has) with a turned solid of uranium or other exotic dense metal