are all 168g 308's limited to 800yds?

[sht4brnz]

There's plenty of information about the smk 168's being limited to 800yd distances because of the boat tail angle at transonic speeds make it unstable, at least that's what I've gathered.
Are all 30cal 168's limited to 800yds?
What's a good 168 bullet for 1000+ if it exists.

 

[Rhyno]

The only 168s that have the instability issues at transonic speeds are the 168 SMK and Nosler CC. The others to my knowledge don't.

 

[Graham]

are all 168g 308's limited to 800yds?

You've already hit on the fact that you must consider more factors than bullet weight. What would you look for in a 1000-yard capable load?

 

[bcrich]

The Berger 168 hybrids are your best bet for 1k yds.

 

[Enough Said]

You are going to need a little more BC (length) and length (stability) than most 168's offer in order to reach 1000 above "super-sonic-with-some-cushion".
173 to 185 out of a .308 will get you there, but not much further.

Once the chine detaches you are left with a tumbling mess.
.

 

[elfster1234]

According to my ipad ballistics calculator an amax 168 at 2575fsp will stay super sonic up to about 1500yards tops.

You are going to need a little more BC (length) and length (stability) than most 168's offer in order to reach 1000 above "super-sonic-with-some-cushion".
173 to 185 out of a .308 will get you there, but not much further.

Once the chine detaches you are left with a tumbling mess.
.

 

[buffybuster]

According to my ipad ballistics calculator an amax 168 at 2575fsp will stay super sonic up to about 1500yards tops.

Maybe shooting from Mt. Everest.....

Throw that ballistics calculator in the trash........ that's about what it's worth.

 

[Enough Said]

According to my ipad ballistics calculator an amax 168 at 2575fsp will stay super sonic up to about 1500yards tops.

Take that out and shoot it and come back here and tell us what a miserable failure it was.
Just ain't happenin, bud, especially at 2575 fps.

 

[Dacam]

Supersonic is around 1125 ft/s. With that chrono speed, it will stay supersonic to around 1050 yds, I believe he meant 1050, not 1500.

 

[Sako man]

There's plenty of information about the smk 168's being limited to 800yd distances because of the boat tail angle at transonic speeds make it unstable, at least that's what I've gathered.
Are all 30cal 168's limited to 800yds?
What's a good 168 bullet for 1000+ if it exists.

168SMK will make it out too 1000 but you have to launch them HOT, and when you do that you may loose accuracy. As stated they do not do well when going through that transonic/sub sonic barrier.

If you want a good 30cal projectile for LR look at the 175 SMK. They do well with a 1/12 twist. Some here like even heavier projectiles like the 190 or the 210.

I agree the 168 Berger OTM is more effective at longer distances than the 168SMK.

 

[Bunnypunter]

I guess I'll be the devils advocate here. We were shooting out to 1180 yrds with our 308's. I was using the 168 Amax and it shot quite well out that far. Once dialed in I could make accurate hits on the 12"x12" steel plate. Our biggest factor was wind at that distance. 10-15 mph coming at around 4 o'clock made it a bit trickier but very doable. I've tried 175 SMK's and my gun did not chew on them well. 168's on the other hand it loves. Maybe my gun is the exception.

 

[Sako man]

I guess I'll be the devils advocate here. We were shooting out to 1180 yrds with our 308's. I was using the 168 Amax and it shot quite well out that far. Once dialed in I could make accurate hits on the 12"x12" steel plate. Our biggest factor was wind at that distance. 10-15 mph coming at around 4 o'clock made it a bit trickier but very doable. I've tried 175 SMK's and my gun did not chew on them well. 168's on the other hand it loves. Maybe my gun is the exception.

It's not so much 168s as it is 168SMKs I think that get wobbly. All rifles have their sweet spots and there is no once size fits all thats for sure.

 

[Dan Newberry]

Elevation comes into play... lots of folks who go thru our course here show up with 168 SMK's, either in handloads or factory match ammo. With 24" barrels these bullets make it to our 1040 yard plate. Elevation here is 2500 ft ASL.

The 168 AMAX has a better BC. And of course the 175's do, but as others have mentioned, some guns just like the 168's better.

It's often asked "Why are they still making the 168 grain Sierra Matchkings? Won't the 175's do everything they do--just better?" But the 168's are honestly some of the most accurate 30 caliber bullets ever designed. If your rifle shoots them best, just hang with them.

 

[Aimsmall55]

I spotted for my shooting partner shooting at 1100 yards with a 168 fgm. 2 shots to get on target. After that he was pinging it pretty good. 2'x2'ar500 plate. This was with an FN SPR 20" bbl. I personally was shocked because all the impacts on the plate were ALL STABLE. meaning no sideways hits.

 

[precision308]

168 custom competitions at 2650 fall on their face about 900 yards. My buddy was shooting the same round in a longer barrel rifle at 2750 and he was having a repeatable hits at 1000. If you want to shoot 1000 yards get rid of the 168 and go with the 175 for 178.

 

[Graham]

are all 168g 308's limited to 800yds?

My 168s enter the space-time vortex at 800, never to be seen again.

They travel through space.. Somewhere between Alpha Cantauri and Sacramento there's a small out-of-the-way gas station... There it is: There's the signpost up ahead.... Welcome to 800 yards. Hey, where did all my 168s go?!!

[With apologies to the Omega Flats comedy series].

 

[Dacam]

Lmao!!!!!!

 

[Grump]

Cartridge, barrel length and most importantly altitude with a bit of temperature thrown in can make all the difference, as you can tell in the lines (and in between them, too) above.

ASSuming .308 and barrel lengths from 20-24 inches, I'd say don't bother with 168s at 1,000 unless all of your shooting is in the late spring, summer and through early fall, and above about 2900 feet above mean sea level.

The A-Max does better.

Also, please know that it's not some majickal crack the whip sudden-onset of instability at "subsonic" velocities. The entire "trans-sonic" range is trouble, with wind drift starting to increase dramatically at mach 1.2 and finally disappearing in effect at about mach 0.8. So even if your bullet is otherwise stable and staying point-on at 50 fps faster than your atmosphere's speed of sound, you might still be needing to put on a LOT more wind and could be getting misses anyway. This can be with loads that still shoot MOA at 1,000 on calm days. Your clue will be a lack of vertical component in your misses.

 

[J-ROD]

No! Just the smk due to boattail angle.
Berger 168 hybrids are great at 1k

 

[Sako man]

Elevation comes into play... lots of folks who go thru our course here show up with 168 SMK's, either in handloads or factory match ammo. With 24" barrels these bullets make it to our 1040 yard plate. Elevation here is 2500 ft ASL.

The 168 AMAX has a better BC. And of course the 175's do, but as others have mentioned, some guns just like the 168's better.

It's often asked "Why are they still making the 168 grain Sierra Matchkings? Won't the 175's do everything they do--just better?" But the 168's are honestly some of the most accurate 30 caliber bullets ever designed. If your rifle shoots them best, just hang with them.

Yeah true on many levels. I like 168s as after 175s-178s work your shoulder if your shooting them all day. As well you are gonna get more out of a 168SMK if you're a mile above sea level.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Christ, this Internet hoax will never die. A lot of people just keep repeating what they heard or read about the 168 SMK and some people will even throw in the Nosler one for good measure. What you really don't see is a mater of fact statement by somebody that knows the bullet because he or she or it shoots the shit out of them. It is not designed for killing things at long range. It is designed for midrange target shooting. And it will kick ass at that. If you are really good and man up to the handicap you can go up against people with a better bullet for long range and less skill and still stomp them into the ground. But serious, don't take a .22LR to a midrange competition and don't use the 168 SMK at 1000 yards during competition. Not everyone, but someone, will shoot better than you. It's not Sierra's fault that somebody wrote something in a self published book with just a theory in mind and it turned into Internet Wiki-Shit. I'll still take the 168 SMK out to 500 meters any day. Why does Sierra keep manufacturing them? Because they disagree with the Wiki-Shit and if they did agree with it they would have already corrected it. Why on earth would Sierra stop manufacturing one of their finest .30 caliber bullets? Get real.

 

[Rhyno]

Christ, this Internet hoax will never die. A lot of people just keep repeating what they heard or read about the 168 SMK and some people will even throw in the Nosler one for good measure. What you really don't see is a mater of fact statement by somebody that knows the bullet because he or she or it shoots the shit out of them. It is not designed for killing things at long range. It is designed for midrange target shooting. And it will kick ass at that. If you are really good and man up to the handicap you can go up against people with a better bullet for long range and less skill and still stomp them into the ground. But serious, don't take a .22LR to a midrange competition and don't use the 168 SMK at 1000 yards during competition. Not everyone, but someone, will shoot better than you. It's not Sierra's fault that somebody wrote something in a self published book with just a theory in mind and it turned into Internet Wiki-Shit. I'll still take the 168 SMK out to 500 meters any day. Why does Sierra keep manufacturing them? Because they disagree with the Wiki-Shit and if they did agree with it they would have already corrected it. Why on earth would Sierra stop manufacturing one of their finest .30 caliber bullets? Get real.

I guess Brian Litz is an idiot then.

 

[Pinecone]

No one said they are bad at mid range. The question was about over 800 yards.

They are very accurate bullets, as long as you keep them supersonic. If you shoot them into the transonic range, you may have troubles.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I guess Brian Litz is an idiot then.

No, but Brain works for Berger Bullets. Everybody at Berger is very knowledgeable. Everybody at Sierra is just as knowledgeable. If you are going to publish something you should expect a little criticism. Principles before personalities and I would bet Berger has a bullet designed to compete against the 168SMK. I realize your post is sarcasm. I hate to be the one to finally say it but even an appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest in any professional capacity and that is a well known and published fact. Brian is not the idiot. He made the appearance but he sure isn't the one that drank the Kool-Aid and started the witch hunt. I think it is unfortunate but it does make the supply and demand easier on buyers of the offensive SMK bullet.

 

[gminor]

According to my ipad ballistics calculator an amax 168 at 2575fsp will stay super sonic up to about 1500yards tops.

Maybe up on Mt. Everest...

 

[gminor]

For what its worth, the LEO snipers in my neck of the woods only use 168 FGMM. They buy it by the lot and when they train, they train out to 1k, with the 168 SMK. Is it ideal? No. Is it recommended? No. Will it get out there? Yes, but maybe not in the best fashion.

I have used the 168 A-Max (Factory Hornady ammo) out to 900 yards and it worked pretty well. I wouldn't trust it farther than that though.

 

[George63]

For what its worth, the LEO snipers in my neck of the woods only use 168 FGMM. They buy it by the lot and when they train, they train out to 1k, with the 168 SMK. Is it ideal? No. Is it recommended? No. Will it get out there? Yes, but maybe not in the best fashion.

If you are going to mention this, put it in perspective - why do they go to 1000 ? - because the range has a 1000 and it is fun ( especially on the taxpayers dime ) ---- why do they use the 168 ? - because that is what the taxpayers bought ------ why was the 168 chosen to buy ? - because 99.9% of what they would ever actually do is under 200 yds - not because the planned use is 1000

 

[Temp9]

Christ, this Internet hoax will never die. A lot of people just keep repeating what they heard or read about the 168 SMK and some people will even throw in the Nosler one for good measure. What you really don't see is a mater of fact statement by somebody that knows the bullet because he or she or it shoots the shit out of them. It is not designed for killing things at long range. It is designed for midrange target shooting. And it will kick ass at that. If you are really good and man up to the handicap you can go up against people with a better bullet for long range and less skill and still stomp them into the ground. But serious, don't take a .22LR to a midrange competition and don't use the 168 SMK at 1000 yards during competition. Not everyone, but someone, will shoot better than you. It's not Sierra's fault that somebody wrote something in a self published book with just a theory in mind and it turned into Internet Wiki-Shit. I'll still take the 168 SMK out to 500 meters any day. Why does Sierra keep manufacturing them? Because they disagree with the Wiki-Shit and if they did agree with it they would have already corrected it. Why on earth would Sierra stop manufacturing one of their finest .30 caliber bullets? Get real.

What the hell are you talking about? The "internet hoax" you are referring to is that 168SMK's don't perform well at 1000 yards and out. No one is saying they don't do well at 500 yards. Everyone knows they kick ass out to 800 yards or so, depending on air density. Honestly, the only one I see spouting this "Internet Wiki-Shit" here is you. By the way, the "theory" about the boat tail angle hindering long range performance has been proven over and over again by shooters pushing the limits of the bullet.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

What the hell are you talking about? The "internet hoax" you are referring to is that 168SMK's don't perform well at 1000 yards and out...

Yeah, that's right. I would have added that is caused by users of the Internet and not shooters. I think it is safe to assume more people are contributing to the hoax than pushing any actual limits on the bullet.

 

[Temp9]

Yeah, that's right. I would have added that is caused by users of the Internet and not shooters. I think it is safe to assume more people are contributing to the hoax than pushing any actual limits on the bullet.

Let me try again. The 168gr SMK does NOT perform well in transonic territory. This is NOT a "hoax", it's due to bullet design. You said as much in your initial post about long range performance. I'm sorry, but I don't see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying transonic instability is a hoax, or that poor overall performance is a hoax?

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I'm being a smartass and saying that even a 175 SMK will poop out beyond its limit. The OP is whether all 168's are poor beyond 800 yards. The OP is getting this from all the misinformation out there on the 168 SMK. I'm going to assume he is curious about any 168 past 800 yards and some people are helping him out. The 168 SMK is the one bullet out there that has some tangible evidence in the form of tests and studies above and beyond those used by Litz, which he cites in his book. None of these tests state the bullet is crap. If you reference Litz's observations he never discusses exact ranges in relation to the 168 SMK overall performance. In relation to drift, he calls it an "oddball" and suffers from dynamic instability, which Litz himself states cannot be quantified. He also states that this oddball is still within 3.14" error at 1000 yards. So, Littz is not trying to confuse the reader. He is stating that he thinks the bullet is flying at high levels of average yaw but he is not concerned about it because, in essence, it is still performing as advertised but it is this so-called unexplained oddball. But look at the scoreboard 3.14" at 1000 yards. He is also clear that he is not making determinations on based "truth" data. He is merely using a method to predict something that is difficult to predict; i.e. dynamic instability. On into the book a little more and I think this is where people are getting off track. Look closely at the paragraph where he is describing dynamic instability and using the 168 SMK as an example. He is discussing spin stabilized bullets and dynamic instability. This is a well thought out paragraph. He summarizes with italics to avoid confusion. The 168 SMK is flying as advertised. He has peculiar ideas about this bullet but he corrects it with other information that is more informative and based on something better than it, "usually is it not effective beyond 800 yards." He doesn't like the bullet but he doesn't come right and out and say it because he doesn't have to. His calculations for it are not unstable but he will call it an "oddball" and then use it as an example for dynamic instability intimating that it is crap. Some people might call it interest confusion but I call it bullshit. Think of it like this. You own a popular chain of gun shops and one is located right off a busy freeway exit ramp. You put up a big sign with your competitor's name on it right at this ramp. People take the exit and drive right up to your gun shop. People think, "well, that's weird but I'm here now." The competitor would think that is a little misleading but all you have to say it is hard to predict what consumers will do because there is no way to quantify it. In other words, all you have to do is put up the sign and the sheep will come and you may benefit from it. Just like our wives benefit if we watch porn.

EDIT: I'm overlooking something. On the measurement page for the 168 SMK? Look at the stability factors. What he complains about in the text of the book doesn't add up to dry shit on his own stability factors. In fact the stability factors for the 168 SMK are better than the factors for the Berger 168. It would have made sense to beat up on the Berger. But that would really be interest confusion. Self interest confusion.

 

[redhooker]

Repost-not mine but still funny