which is best?
FGMM
Black Hills
Winchester Ballistic Supreme
?
looking for a 168 that'll go to 800 yards easily.
FGMM
Black Hills
Winchester Ballistic Supreme
?
looking for a 168 that'll go to 800 yards easily.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Havn't tried the WBS but of the other two I'd go with FGMM.....in my guns anyway.
okie
Havn't tried the WBS but of the other two I'd go with FGMM.....in my guns anyway.
okie
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
The only way to know which will shoot best in your gun is to shoot all three in your gun. It could be any one of the three.
The only way to know which will shoot best in your gun is to shoot all three in your gun. It could be any one of the three.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">stay the hell away from 168s beyond 600 yards. </div></div>
Obviously youre not speaking from experience.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">stay the hell away from 168s beyond 600 yards. </div></div>
Obviously youre not speaking from experience.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I shoot 168s to 1000yds with no problems at all. Have shot some damn scairy groups at 900 an 1000yds. </div></div>
handloads or factory loads?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I shoot 168s to 1000yds with no problems at all. Have shot some damn scairy groups at 900 an 1000yds. </div></div>
handloads or factory loads?
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flounderv2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try loading your own.. I am shooting the 168 Hornaday amax to 1165 yards </div></div>
Same here.
Down to the shooter at this point.
Sorry,
Handloads.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flounderv2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try loading your own.. I am shooting the 168 Hornaday amax to 1165 yards </div></div>
Same here.
Down to the shooter at this point.
Sorry,
Handloads.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
I have shot both but mostly hand loads. I have shot FGMM out to 1000yds with no problems out of my rifle.
I am still shooting 168s an just cronographed my load the other day. It averaged 2828fps with a 168. I have some 175s and 185 Lapuas to try. The 175s have shot well out to 600yds but have not shot them past 600 yet.
The 185 Lapuas shot in the .4s at 100yds but was around .6 moa at 400yds but then it was a tad windy. (But then the 168s did out shoot them for an average at 600yds). I need to try them again on a calmer day an at longer ranges to say one way or the other.
But don't listen to guys who tell you 168s won't shoot at 1000yds because it plain BS!!
I have shot both but mostly hand loads. I have shot FGMM out to 1000yds with no problems out of my rifle.
I am still shooting 168s an just cronographed my load the other day. It averaged 2828fps with a 168. I have some 175s and 185 Lapuas to try. The 175s have shot well out to 600yds but have not shot them past 600 yet.
The 185 Lapuas shot in the .4s at 100yds but was around .6 moa at 400yds but then it was a tad windy. (But then the 168s did out shoot them for an average at 600yds). I need to try them again on a calmer day an at longer ranges to say one way or the other.
But don't listen to guys who tell you 168s won't shoot at 1000yds because it plain BS!!
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Give more info about the rifle you are shooting them out of.
Barrel lenght
twist rate
I shot a LTR with factory barrel (20" 1/12 twist) could get the 168's to stay supersonic out but to about 850. Now I handload the 178gr Amax bullets and they work good out to 1000yards maybe alittle further but only have access to 1000yards range.
Give more info about the rifle you are shooting them out of.
Barrel lenght
twist rate
I shot a LTR with factory barrel (20" 1/12 twist) could get the 168's to stay supersonic out but to about 850. Now I handload the 178gr Amax bullets and they work good out to 1000yards maybe alittle further but only have access to 1000yards range.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
11.27 twist out of 22" with an ops inc 3rd model suppressor in .308 mike rock 5r barrel. trued blue printed action.
11.27 twist out of 22" with an ops inc 3rd model suppressor in .308 mike rock 5r barrel. trued blue printed action.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have shot both but mostly hand loads. I have shot FGMM out to 1000yds with no problems out of my rifle.
I am still shooting 168s an just cronographed my load the other day. It averaged 2828fps with a 168. I have some 175s and 185 Lapuas to try. The 175s have shot well out to 600yds but have not shot them past 600 yet.
</div></div>
Your getting 2828 out of 168 FGMM? That is the fastest I have ever heard of anyone getting out of that factory load. Locally, out of good barrels, we get in the 26's out of it, thats also chronyed. Please give us the specs of your rifle. It was posted by a guy on here just the other day that according to Quickload (which I know nothing about) for the 168's to stay supersonic to 1K they had to be pushed to 2850 and that it was very hard to do it in a 308 without getting excessive chamber pressures. Done much more easily in 300WM and '06's.
There seams to be a group on this forum that says they regularly run 168's to 1K with no problem from a 308 and another that says it is almost NOT doable even with the very best of equipment and sometimes not then. Just trying to get this figured out because when I told a good shooting pard a while back from what I've read he might have trouble getting his PSG to 1K with 168 FGMM he seemed surprised. Like I've said from the beginning though, dont know why anyone messes with the 168's anyway when there is bullets like the 178Amax redilly available.
okie
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have shot both but mostly hand loads. I have shot FGMM out to 1000yds with no problems out of my rifle.
I am still shooting 168s an just cronographed my load the other day. It averaged 2828fps with a 168. I have some 175s and 185 Lapuas to try. The 175s have shot well out to 600yds but have not shot them past 600 yet.
</div></div>
Your getting 2828 out of 168 FGMM? That is the fastest I have ever heard of anyone getting out of that factory load. Locally, out of good barrels, we get in the 26's out of it, thats also chronyed. Please give us the specs of your rifle. It was posted by a guy on here just the other day that according to Quickload (which I know nothing about) for the 168's to stay supersonic to 1K they had to be pushed to 2850 and that it was very hard to do it in a 308 without getting excessive chamber pressures. Done much more easily in 300WM and '06's.
There seams to be a group on this forum that says they regularly run 168's to 1K with no problem from a 308 and another that says it is almost NOT doable even with the very best of equipment and sometimes not then. Just trying to get this figured out because when I told a good shooting pard a while back from what I've read he might have trouble getting his PSG to 1K with 168 FGMM he seemed surprised. Like I've said from the beginning though, dont know why anyone messes with the 168's anyway when there is bullets like the 178Amax redilly available.
okie
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There seams to be a group on this forum that says they regularly run 168's to 1K with no problem from a 308 and another that says it is almost NOT doable even with the very best of equipment and sometimes not then.</div></div>
It's important to note which 168g bullet they are talking about. FGMM is a SMK while Black Hills is a Hornady bullet.
The elevation also matters. I've seen BH 175 SMK tumble at 1K when our DA got below -600.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There seams to be a group on this forum that says they regularly run 168's to 1K with no problem from a 308 and another that says it is almost NOT doable even with the very best of equipment and sometimes not then.</div></div>
It's important to note which 168g bullet they are talking about. FGMM is a SMK while Black Hills is a Hornady bullet.
The elevation also matters. I've seen BH 175 SMK tumble at 1K when our DA got below -600.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
okiefired,
That 2828FPS is "NOT" with FGMM it is with my hand loads. I use 46grs of Varget in a Lapua case. My rifle has a 24" Kreiger barrel on it with a 1-12 twist.
Its been a long time since I cronographed any FGMM since I reload almost all my ammo. As I recall it was 2700+fps out of my rifle but can not say for sure. Our elevation here is around 1500ft. Like I said I have not had any problems shooting 168s to 1000yds and they were very accurate out of my rifles.
okiefired,
That 2828FPS is "NOT" with FGMM it is with my hand loads. I use 46grs of Varget in a Lapua case. My rifle has a 24" Kreiger barrel on it with a 1-12 twist.
Its been a long time since I cronographed any FGMM since I reload almost all my ammo. As I recall it was 2700+fps out of my rifle but can not say for sure. Our elevation here is around 1500ft. Like I said I have not had any problems shooting 168s to 1000yds and they were very accurate out of my rifles.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
im runnin a savage 10fp and 26 inch bull barrel and show minimum of 2715 from fgmm 168's on the chrony. jbm shows that sonic out past 1000. not experience talkin here just numbers.
im runnin a savage 10fp and 26 inch bull barrel and show minimum of 2715 from fgmm 168's on the chrony. jbm shows that sonic out past 1000. not experience talkin here just numbers.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1121122&page=3
One of the threads I was speaking of.
okie
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1121122&page=3
One of the threads I was speaking of.
okie
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Federal Gold shoots excellent out of my factory 308. I couldn't handload any better than it. The other 2 shoots okay. Each gun is different.
Federal Gold shoots excellent out of my factory 308. I couldn't handload any better than it. The other 2 shoots okay. Each gun is different.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rijndael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a good pic of what 168s do when you push them too far:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Picture by E.Shell</span>
</div></div>
if it can still kill, good enough for me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rijndael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a good pic of what 168s do when you push them too far:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Picture by E.Shell</span>
if it can still kill, good enough for me.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Rijndael:
What was the distance for that steel, and what altitude is your range?
I'm wondering if you can get away with 168s at 1,000 YARDS (not meters!) once you're above about 2,000 feet ASL and keep it above 50 degrees F.
Rijndael:
What was the distance for that steel, and what altitude is your range?
I'm wondering if you can get away with 168s at 1,000 YARDS (not meters!) once you're above about 2,000 feet ASL and keep it above 50 degrees F.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Grump, regarding the picture I took:
The range was 1,150 (lasered) yards.
The physical altitude was 2,900' ASL.
The more important density altitude number was closer to 4,000'.
These are FGMM 168 SMKs from a 26" rifle, exact muzzle velocity unknown.
Dsparil, "If it kills, it's good enough for me":
Most of the 168 SMKs didn't hit the (24" x 33") target at all during that session, and some went quite wide. They'll all kill, *IF* you can land one. IMHO, there are few things more aggravating, and less effective, than bullets going off call.
These same bullets have gone sideways before 1,000 at density altitudes near or below sea level.
For those who do not grip the concept of a "below sea level" DA, it is often encountered during high pressure and/or low temperature weather at ranges that are located near sea level, like Quantico, which is a little over 400' ASL physical altitude, depending up where one stands. We often have people in the pits that call the 800 yard line and tell us that "someone is subsonic". We ALL know who that someone is. When we go to 900, the pit crew advises "some keyholes on target". When we get back to 1,000, the pit crew tells us they cannot find the impacts. It's your money, buy the performance the YOU want.
Items to consider:
As Rijndael states, there is a definite difference between the Sierra 168 and the Hornady 168 <span style="text-decoration: underline">A-Max</span>.
Not all bullets destabilize as they enter the trans-sonic velocity zone, but 168 SMKs often/usually do.
One of our friends shoots FGMM 168 SMKs exclusively at physical altitudes near 3,900' ASL, and enjoys good results to at least 1,000 yards. He does not usually go to the targets after shooting, and may not note any that land sideways. His sentiments are similar to yours, in that "a hit is a hit".
So, it boils down to: "YMMV, within certain parameters".
If you shoot 168 A-Maxs, you may have better than average 168 results at moderately long range.
If you shoot Hornady's 168 BTHP, you may find yourself with the same problems *documented* by those using 168 SMKs.
If you shoot at higher altitudes and/or lower pressures, your overall results with lighter bullets in this lower density air will be better than average.
If ALL of your shots are within 800 yards, you may be able to use 168 SMKs effectively.
When talking about 168 SMK and 168 A-Max bullets, your wind drift is going to be substantially greater at longer distances than a 175 SMK or other well designed heavier bullet. At known distance courses, the wind is usually the greater evil anyway.
If you are looking for 100% reliability at distances beyond 800 yard, meaning that you can expect every shot to go exactly where you send it, a heavier bullet is recommended by just about everyone who ever shot this far.
Grump, regarding the picture I took:
The range was 1,150 (lasered) yards.
The physical altitude was 2,900' ASL.
The more important density altitude number was closer to 4,000'.
These are FGMM 168 SMKs from a 26" rifle, exact muzzle velocity unknown.
Dsparil, "If it kills, it's good enough for me":
Most of the 168 SMKs didn't hit the (24" x 33") target at all during that session, and some went quite wide. They'll all kill, *IF* you can land one. IMHO, there are few things more aggravating, and less effective, than bullets going off call.
These same bullets have gone sideways before 1,000 at density altitudes near or below sea level.
For those who do not grip the concept of a "below sea level" DA, it is often encountered during high pressure and/or low temperature weather at ranges that are located near sea level, like Quantico, which is a little over 400' ASL physical altitude, depending up where one stands. We often have people in the pits that call the 800 yard line and tell us that "someone is subsonic". We ALL know who that someone is. When we go to 900, the pit crew advises "some keyholes on target". When we get back to 1,000, the pit crew tells us they cannot find the impacts. It's your money, buy the performance the YOU want.
Items to consider:
As Rijndael states, there is a definite difference between the Sierra 168 and the Hornady 168 <span style="text-decoration: underline">A-Max</span>.
Not all bullets destabilize as they enter the trans-sonic velocity zone, but 168 SMKs often/usually do.
One of our friends shoots FGMM 168 SMKs exclusively at physical altitudes near 3,900' ASL, and enjoys good results to at least 1,000 yards. He does not usually go to the targets after shooting, and may not note any that land sideways. His sentiments are similar to yours, in that "a hit is a hit".
So, it boils down to: "YMMV, within certain parameters".
If you shoot 168 A-Maxs, you may have better than average 168 results at moderately long range.
If you shoot Hornady's 168 BTHP, you may find yourself with the same problems *documented* by those using 168 SMKs.
If you shoot at higher altitudes and/or lower pressures, your overall results with lighter bullets in this lower density air will be better than average.
If ALL of your shots are within 800 yards, you may be able to use 168 SMKs effectively.
When talking about 168 SMK and 168 A-Max bullets, your wind drift is going to be substantially greater at longer distances than a 175 SMK or other well designed heavier bullet. At known distance courses, the wind is usually the greater evil anyway.
If you are looking for 100% reliability at distances beyond 800 yard, meaning that you can expect every shot to go exactly where you send it, a heavier bullet is recommended by just about everyone who ever shot this far.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
good information to some of us with less distance experience, thanx yall.
good information to some of us with less distance experience, thanx yall.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But don't listen to guys who tell you 168s won't shoot at 1000yds because it plain BS!!</div></div>
Shooting 168's as loaded in something like M852 shot from an M14 will not get to 1000 yards nose-on, except under ideal conditions. The bullet likely will become unstable, sometimes just before reaching the 1000 yard mark, as evidenced by key hole produced on the target from the tumbling bullet.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: raptor99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But don't listen to guys who tell you 168s won't shoot at 1000yds because it plain BS!!</div></div>
Shooting 168's as loaded in something like M852 shot from an M14 will not get to 1000 yards nose-on, except under ideal conditions. The bullet likely will become unstable, sometimes just before reaching the 1000 yard mark, as evidenced by key hole produced on the target from the tumbling bullet.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
I'm still strugling with why anyone would even bother to try to go to 1K with 168's, I cant think of anything they can do better than 175 SMK's or 178 Amax's. If there is any question as to wether they are gonnna stay super sonic or not, why even mess with them? Is it a recoil sensitivity issure or what? Guess I could understand that. You loose nothing at the short ranges with the heavies and they out perform the 168's at 800+ so why not just shoot them? Just wonderin.
BTW, if your not hittin it, your not killin it. If your flyin sideways, your gonna be a lot less likely to hit it.
okie
I'm still strugling with why anyone would even bother to try to go to 1K with 168's, I cant think of anything they can do better than 175 SMK's or 178 Amax's. If there is any question as to wether they are gonnna stay super sonic or not, why even mess with them? Is it a recoil sensitivity issure or what? Guess I could understand that. You loose nothing at the short ranges with the heavies and they out perform the 168's at 800+ so why not just shoot them? Just wonderin.
BTW, if your not hittin it, your not killin it. If your flyin sideways, your gonna be a lot less likely to hit it.
okie
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Some guys would rather work harder than smarter, that's why.
Or maybe they have a sh*tload of 168s and can't afford to try something superior.
To 600y, the 168 is great. Farther, no thanks. Not gonna waste my time with that struggle.
Some guys would rather work harder than smarter, that's why.
Or maybe they have a sh*tload of 168s and can't afford to try something superior.
To 600y, the 168 is great. Farther, no thanks. Not gonna waste my time with that struggle.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rijndael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a good pic of what 168s do when you push them too far:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Picture by E.Shell</span>
</div></div>
if it can still kill, good enough for me. </div></div>
Brilliant reasoning. Go get yourself a muzzleloader then, and have at it. Or throw rocks, if your arm is good enough. Fer crissakes...
Newbies, don't follow that kind of "logic".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rijndael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a good pic of what 168s do when you push them too far:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Picture by E.Shell</span>
if it can still kill, good enough for me. </div></div>
Brilliant reasoning. Go get yourself a muzzleloader then, and have at it. Or throw rocks, if your arm is good enough. Fer crissakes...
Newbies, don't follow that kind of "logic".
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
168FGMM hits fine at 1000.
I just got back from Badlands, which, by the way is an excellent shoooting school, we (all of us with all types of ammo) were regularly landing on a 19X20.
That is, with a 8-15 mph steady headwind (measured by a Kestrel).
It pretty straightforward to make groups at 1000. Groups size will differ because of environmental conditions, mine were about 15-24 inches. Again, the wind was a major factor. With little wind, it is not too much of a proiblem to land 90% of your rounds on a 19x20.
168FGMM hits fine at 1000.
I just got back from Badlands, which, by the way is an excellent shoooting school, we (all of us with all types of ammo) were regularly landing on a 19X20.
That is, with a 8-15 mph steady headwind (measured by a Kestrel).
It pretty straightforward to make groups at 1000. Groups size will differ because of environmental conditions, mine were about 15-24 inches. Again, the wind was a major factor. With little wind, it is not too much of a proiblem to land 90% of your rounds on a 19x20.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Welcome to the forum Tomcat.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tomcat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">168FGMM hits fine at 1000.</div></div>In the very specific situation in which you applied them this time? Yes.
Always, for everyone, in every situation? No, not hardly.
What was your density altitude at the FFP?
With regard to wind, if you could land 90% of your FGMM 168 SMKs under your conditions, your average would probably have been closer to 95% or possibly better with 175s, but if you can get happy with 90%, they're obviously working for you.
Welcome to the forum Tomcat.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tomcat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">168FGMM hits fine at 1000.</div></div>In the very specific situation in which you applied them this time? Yes.
Always, for everyone, in every situation? No, not hardly.
What was your density altitude at the FFP?
With regard to wind, if you could land 90% of your FGMM 168 SMKs under your conditions, your average would probably have been closer to 95% or possibly better with 175s, but if you can get happy with 90%, they're obviously working for you.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.
Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?
How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?
I'm going to test the 155 A-Maxes once I can get another order in, but reports here on the 'Hide put their BC closer to .414 than the advertised .435. Anyone know which number is closer to how they really fly?
E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.
Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?
How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?
I'm going to test the 155 A-Maxes once I can get another order in, but reports here on the 'Hide put their BC closer to .414 than the advertised .435. Anyone know which number is closer to how they really fly?
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.
Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?
How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?
</div></div>
My experience with 168AMAX: MV: 2685fps, they shot well and I could call my shots and make corrections until about 950yds. Beyond that the bullets started to go all over (tumbling) and I couldn't make any consistent corrections or hits. Conditions: 3700'ASL, 45-50F
Wasn't using 175-178's because I couldn't find any at the time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.
Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?
How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?
</div></div>
My experience with 168AMAX: MV: 2685fps, they shot well and I could call my shots and make corrections until about 950yds. Beyond that the bullets started to go all over (tumbling) and I couldn't make any consistent corrections or hits. Conditions: 3700'ASL, 45-50F
Wasn't using 175-178's because I couldn't find any at the time.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.</div></div>
FGMM 168 SMKs do not make it to 1K, reliably, when the DA is anywhere near 0. It's not like we've seen this one or two times, it's a regular occurrence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.</div></div>
FGMM 168 SMKs do not make it to 1K, reliably, when the DA is anywhere near 0. It's not like we've seen this one or two times, it's a regular occurrence.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
Try the hornady amax. I shoot it out to 1000 all the time with very good accuracy.
Try the hornady amax. I shoot it out to 1000 all the time with very good accuracy.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.</div></div>I know what you're saying, but as I had posted above, and as suggested by Rijndael, they are quite reliably unreliable. They often go trans-sonic as close as 800 - we see it all the time as people prove to themselves what they wouldn't believe. Higher velocities help, but a factory loaded FGMM .308/168 just doesn't do it in a manner that can be counted on in denser air. Personally, I don't like being that close to failure when a solution is SO easy.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?</div></div>Quite a few shooters have very good results with 168 A-Maxs from a .308. They shoot well, but still share the greater than necessary vulnerability to wind that is common to lighter bullets.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?</div></div>Dunno, I use 175s.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm going to test the 155 A-Maxes once I can get another order in, but reports here on the 'Hide put their BC closer to .414 than the advertised .435. Anyone know which number is closer to how they really fly? </div></div>Will your rifle shoot 155 Scenars? Many people have very good results. Even though their BC is slightly overstated, it is still good enough that they perform well at 1k+ and 2,975 is easy enough to get with a 24" or 26" gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E.Shell:
I think that last 150 yards might have made all the difference...depending on the launch speed.</div></div>I know what you're saying, but as I had posted above, and as suggested by Rijndael, they are quite reliably unreliable. They often go trans-sonic as close as 800 - we see it all the time as people prove to themselves what they wouldn't believe. Higher velocities help, but a factory loaded FGMM .308/168 just doesn't do it in a manner that can be counted on in denser air. Personally, I don't like being that close to failure when a solution is SO easy.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm...What's the real-world experience with the 168 A-Maxes?
Better transsonic than SMKs?</div></div>Quite a few shooters have very good results with 168 A-Maxs from a .308. They shoot well, but still share the greater than necessary vulnerability to wind that is common to lighter bullets.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much of a difference? Other performance differences, like more or less tolerant of jump?</div></div>Dunno, I use 175s.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm going to test the 155 A-Maxes once I can get another order in, but reports here on the 'Hide put their BC closer to .414 than the advertised .435. Anyone know which number is closer to how they really fly? </div></div>Will your rifle shoot 155 Scenars? Many people have very good results. Even though their BC is slightly overstated, it is still good enough that they perform well at 1k+ and 2,975 is easy enough to get with a 24" or 26" gun.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: E.Shell</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will your rifle shoot 155 Scenars? Many people have very good results. Even though their BC is slightly overstated, it is still good enough that they perform well at 1k+ and 2,975 is easy enough to get with a 24" or 26" gun. </div></div>
Not with IMR 4895. I dubbed the OCW test last month as NOT _O_ne _C_harge _W_orks. 2-3 MOA with 3-round groups. Same day, same everything, some 168 loads with AA 2520 shot 1.25 MOA and 1 MOA (2 5-round groups), so I know it wasn't me.
On the other hand, my tired Federal cases were sized to min headspace and I had several broken cases with those Lapua loads. Busted cases apparently slam the bolt pretty good--those caseheads showed impressive ejector and extractor marks, but shot to the same velocity as everything else.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: E.Shell</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will your rifle shoot 155 Scenars? Many people have very good results. Even though their BC is slightly overstated, it is still good enough that they perform well at 1k+ and 2,975 is easy enough to get with a 24" or 26" gun. </div></div>
Not with IMR 4895. I dubbed the OCW test last month as NOT _O_ne _C_harge _W_orks. 2-3 MOA with 3-round groups. Same day, same everything, some 168 loads with AA 2520 shot 1.25 MOA and 1 MOA (2 5-round groups), so I know it wasn't me.
On the other hand, my tired Federal cases were sized to min headspace and I had several broken cases with those Lapua loads. Busted cases apparently slam the bolt pretty good--those caseheads showed impressive ejector and extractor marks, but shot to the same velocity as everything else.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
All,
Hmm? Got folks here with little experience at LR arguing with folks who clearly know which hog ate the cabbage. That's just plain stupid.
All,
Hmm? Got folks here with little experience at LR arguing with folks who clearly know which hog ate the cabbage. That's just plain stupid.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter's tagline</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Long Range, Where Fantasy Collides with Reality
</div></div>
Long Range, Where Fantasy Collides with Reality--and sometimes bullets collide with the target, too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter's tagline</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Long Range, Where Fantasy Collides with Reality
</div></div>
Long Range, Where Fantasy Collides with Reality--and sometimes bullets collide with the target, too.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[snip]
Your getting 2828 out of 168 FGMM? That is the fastest I have ever heard of anyone getting out of that factory load.
[snip]
It was posted by a guy on here just the other day that according to Quickload (which I know nothing about) for the 168's to stay supersonic to 1K they had to be pushed to 2850 and that it was very hard to do it in a 308 without getting excessive chamber pressures. </div></div>
Since some source put the BC of the 155s about the same as the 168, that doesn't surprise me a bit. 155s work better at 1,000 than 168s *because* they can be run faster.
Looks to me like a choice--if you want less elevation to get to 1,000, go with the 155s or even the 168s, but don't count on doing it at lower elevations or colder temperatures. I'd go with 175s for Perry, for example.
If you want the least amount of wind correction and solid reliable performance at sea level and colder conditions, stick with the 175s at the expense of more clicks up.
I still haven't settled on a single standard load for me, or having a special load for beyond 800. But since I'm also interested in some unknown distance shooting, I'm leaning towards reading the wind better and having less elevation to dial in...unless I find a 175 load that shoots 1/2 the size of my 155 loads' groups! Then I would definitely be a one-load shooter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[snip]
Your getting 2828 out of 168 FGMM? That is the fastest I have ever heard of anyone getting out of that factory load.
[snip]
It was posted by a guy on here just the other day that according to Quickload (which I know nothing about) for the 168's to stay supersonic to 1K they had to be pushed to 2850 and that it was very hard to do it in a 308 without getting excessive chamber pressures. </div></div>
Since some source put the BC of the 155s about the same as the 168, that doesn't surprise me a bit. 155s work better at 1,000 than 168s *because* they can be run faster.
Looks to me like a choice--if you want less elevation to get to 1,000, go with the 155s or even the 168s, but don't count on doing it at lower elevations or colder temperatures. I'd go with 175s for Perry, for example.
If you want the least amount of wind correction and solid reliable performance at sea level and colder conditions, stick with the 175s at the expense of more clicks up.
I still haven't settled on a single standard load for me, or having a special load for beyond 800. But since I'm also interested in some unknown distance shooting, I'm leaning towards reading the wind better and having less elevation to dial in...unless I find a 175 load that shoots 1/2 the size of my 155 loads' groups! Then I would definitely be a one-load shooter.
Re: 168gr to 800 yards
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. . .Since some source put the BC of the 155s about the same as the 168, that doesn't surprise me a bit. 155s work better at 1,000 than 168s *because* they can be run faster.</div></div>This is what drives the 155 Scenar popularity: almost the same BC as the 175 but 200+ fps faster = less drop at same pressures.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> . . . But since I'm also interested in some unknown distance shooting, I'm leaning towards reading the wind better and having less elevation to dial in...</div></div>When we consider:
a) that at 1k, 1 mph of wind will change your bullet's course by almost a minute (more if it's lighter than 175), coupled with the average shooter's ability to read downrange wind indicators to that degree of precision, and,
b) that it is generally much easier for the average shooter to reticle range within an acceptable error budget and read a drop chart . . .
you may find yourself re-thinking this approach.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. . .Since some source put the BC of the 155s about the same as the 168, that doesn't surprise me a bit. 155s work better at 1,000 than 168s *because* they can be run faster.</div></div>This is what drives the 155 Scenar popularity: almost the same BC as the 175 but 200+ fps faster = less drop at same pressures.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> . . . But since I'm also interested in some unknown distance shooting, I'm leaning towards reading the wind better and having less elevation to dial in...</div></div>When we consider:
a) that at 1k, 1 mph of wind will change your bullet's course by almost a minute (more if it's lighter than 175), coupled with the average shooter's ability to read downrange wind indicators to that degree of precision, and,
b) that it is generally much easier for the average shooter to reticle range within an acceptable error budget and read a drop chart . . .
you may find yourself re-thinking this approach.
Similar threads
