.308 168gr vs 175gr

[Mormegil87]

Looking at trying some 175gr Sierra's in my .308 Remington 700. I'm shooting Federal Gold Medal Match 168 factory ammo, I'm looking into their offering of 175s also looking at scooping up some of HSMs M118 copy as well. Does it perform a whole lot better than the 168 Sierra's. I know the BC is a bit higher but that's about all i know.

 

[illae]

Looking at trying some 175gr Sierra's in my .308 Remington 700. I'm shooting Federal Gold Medal Match 168 factory ammo, I'm looking into their offering of 175s also looking at scooping up some of HSMs M118 copy as well. Does it perform a whole lot better than the 168 Sierra's. I know the BC is a bit higher but that's about all i know.

For my rifle, I definitely saw an increase in accuracy with the 175's. As I am new to reloading, I can't answer the 'why' of it - only see the results when I shoot it.

 

[texas_vet00]

I have found the 175s behave a bit better at around 700+...

 

[Sterling Shooter]

The 175 was developed as an LR round for the match conditioned M14. I shoot it at LR, but prefer 168 for MR. My experience with each suggests indistinguishable results at 600 yards but the 168 is easier to control; and, since the b.c. of the 175 is not needed for 600, I shoot the 168 in mid range events. At LR the 168 may not make it to the target nose-on from an M14 so this is where the 175 distinguishes itself. It can get to 1000 yards nose-on from a 22 inch barreled M14. The most accurate factory ammo I have ever enjoyed in LR competition was pre production lot A M118LR. This round is loaded with the 175.

 

[Flat Tire]

I would almost be willing to bet you can't tell the difference between the two.

 

[-R-]

I would almost be willing to bet you can't tell the difference between the two.

Until beyond 6-700 yards.

 

[Flat Tire]

Until beyond 6-700 yards.

You think you can tell the difference @ 700 yards ? If you load both up and go to the range and let someone switch them up or have someone shoot the gun and don't tell them there is a different bullet........ you won't see much of a difference @ 700. You might with the 185 vs 168 or maybe 210 vs 168.

 

[texas_vet00]

Wind seems to play games a bit less when using 175s at that range is all I am suggesting...

 

[-R-]

You think you can tell the difference @ 700 yards ? If you load both up and go to the range and let someone switch them up or have someone shoot the gun and don't tell them there is a different bullet........ you won't see much of a difference @ 700. You might with the 185 vs 168 or maybe 210 vs 168.

Many people, myself included havent had much luck with the 168's staying stable going transonic. It may not be right at 700 yards but that depends on your conditions/load. FGMM isnt a hot load for the 168's to begin with.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I've never shot either bullet at 700. For certain, any shooter will see the ballistic advantage of the 175 at 1000. At any specific distance, comparison between the 168 and 175 would likely require annotating trends in a data book from long strings of fire. As I earlier alluded, my score books suggest scores at 600 yards are too close between 168's and 175's to declare a winner; yet, for a shooter who is not able to rebuild a position from shot to shot, or has difficulty building a muscularly relaxed position, the 168 might serve better inside 900 yards. I don't know that the 175 takes any less wind favor at 600.

 

[-R-]

I've never shot either at 700. For certain, any shooter will see the ballistic advantage of the 175 at 1000. At any specific distance, comparison between the 168 and 175 would likely require annotating trends in a data book from long strings of fire. As I earlier alluded, my score books suggest scores at 600 yards are too close between 168's and 175's to declare a winner; yet, for a shooter who is not able to rebuild a position from shot to shot, or has difficulty building a muscularly relaxed position, the 168 might serve better inside 900 yards. I don't know that the 175 takes any less wind favor.

Inside supersonic ranges there is very little difference that I have noticed personally, 175's do buck the wind a little better on days where its blowing hard but its only a slight advantage.

To the OP, the price is nearly identical between the two, unless you dont ever plan on shooting long range then there isnt any real reason to choose the 168 over the 175 in my opinion, but both are a great round.

 

[Mormegil87]

Inside supersonic ranges there is very little difference that I have noticed personally, 175's do buck the wind a little better on days where its blowing hard but its only a slight advantage.

To the OP, the price is nearly identical between the two, unless you dont ever plan on shooting long range then there isnt any real reason to choose the 168 over the 175 in my opinion, but both are a great round.

600 is the max right now. There is a range available out to 1400 but it's $500 per year and requires qualification on their 700 yard targets. Someday I may go down that road but for the immediate future, 600 is it.

 

[M40_A1]

Depends on the rifle. Barrel twist and harmonics are factors. My 24" 1:12 definitely prefers 168 over 175, accuracy-wise. But, at longer range I would hedge the 175 for staying supersonic and better wind bucking to 1000 yards.

However, my first shooting at 1000 yards was with 168s, as the 175s had yet to be invented; and, for my first time shooting a match at 1000 yards, moderate wind, and bullets keyholing at the target I did very well. I never worried about the bullets going subsonic just before hitting the target. If someone at that time had told me 168s couldn't shoot at 1000 yards, then I guess I wouldn't have done as well

 

[ksthomas]

Absolutely no difference whatsoever in accuracy between the 168s and 175s as a whole, although you may run into lots of one or another that shoot a bit better than other lots. Over the long run, however, no difference at all. As to the exterior ballistics of these two, the 175 takes it, hands down. As others have suggested, you won't see much of a difference out to mid-range, but the 168 just won't take it to 1,000 from a 308 Win, and generally go transonic somewhere around the 900 yard mark. After that, all bets are off, and you're as likely to get a keyhole as a round hole on target. Loaded to anywhere a bit over 2,600 fps and the 175s will generally still give a nice crack in the pits from the 1,000 yard line.

 

[emdeucee]

Shooting 100 yards, ive had better groupings with 168gr. But that could be sheer luck. On average, they are very close.