Hello, I bought a 500rd. bulk pack of 175 smk, for my 20" remington ltr.308. I know my gun isnt the ideal long range gun. Even if i never shoot past 500 yards am I still better off with the 175's, or should i stick to the the 168 smk's or the 168 amax's? I wanted to know before I touch the box incase I end up selling the ammo. Thanks,
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
- Thread starter gregpo
- Start date
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
Just stick with it since you have it. You never know when you will get the chance to go out further than 500. This way you will have a load ready and wont have to rework anything.
Just stick with it since you have it. You never know when you will get the chance to go out further than 500. This way you will have a load ready and wont have to rework anything.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
Nope, the 155 Scenars are better than the 175 SMK's. But only in speed. Use up the 175's they will do you well.
Nope, the 155 Scenars are better than the 175 SMK's. But only in speed. Use up the 175's they will do you well.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
ok, thanks, ill use them up. Looks like average varget load is around 44 grains. I can't belive sierras max varget load is only 41.7. Whats up with that? I modified my magazine in my rem. ltr to accept a oal of 2.950. Whats the longest anyone has seated the .308, 175 smk's with brass trimmed to 2.05? Ill probably stick with around 2.850 to keep some bullet in the case, lol. Thanks again?
ok, thanks, ill use them up. Looks like average varget load is around 44 grains. I can't belive sierras max varget load is only 41.7. Whats up with that? I modified my magazine in my rem. ltr to accept a oal of 2.950. Whats the longest anyone has seated the .308, 175 smk's with brass trimmed to 2.05? Ill probably stick with around 2.850 to keep some bullet in the case, lol. Thanks again?
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gregp</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I modified my magazine in my rem. ltr to accept a oal of 2.950. Whats the longest anyone has seated the .308, 175 smk's with brass trimmed to 2.05? Ill probably stick with around 2.850 to keep some bullet in the case, lol. Thanks again?</div></div>
Just make sure you are using a gauge to check the overal length to the lands. You don't want to jam it into the lands by not knowing how far you can make the OAL of the bullet. My GAP M40A3 takes a 168 AMAX 2.870 to the lands so I started my load ay .20 from the lands - 2.850. Every bullet has a differnt length to the lands so check them all.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gregp</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I modified my magazine in my rem. ltr to accept a oal of 2.950. Whats the longest anyone has seated the .308, 175 smk's with brass trimmed to 2.05? Ill probably stick with around 2.850 to keep some bullet in the case, lol. Thanks again?</div></div>
Just make sure you are using a gauge to check the overal length to the lands. You don't want to jam it into the lands by not knowing how far you can make the OAL of the bullet. My GAP M40A3 takes a 168 AMAX 2.870 to the lands so I started my load ay .20 from the lands - 2.850. Every bullet has a differnt length to the lands so check them all.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
thanks, i still gotta check the oal with that bullet. I have the usual long throat remington 700. My guns oal with the 168smk, and 168 amax is approx. 2.920. My last batch of 168 amax's was seated at 2.900 and had 45.5 grains of varget, which i had some primers starting to flatten, I guess thats about the max.
thanks, i still gotta check the oal with that bullet. I have the usual long throat remington 700. My guns oal with the 168smk, and 168 amax is approx. 2.920. My last batch of 168 amax's was seated at 2.900 and had 45.5 grains of varget, which i had some primers starting to flatten, I guess thats about the max.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
http://practicalrifler.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1164
http://practicalrifler.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1164
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
IMHO there really is no reason to shoot 168's, a 175 will do everything just as well as a 168 inside 600 and past that the 175 kicks the 168 ass flat out, 155scenars are great bullets and preform very well if pushed to the max, where a 175 launch at 2650 will make it to 1k no problem and be very easy on brass.
IMHO there really is no reason to shoot 168's, a 175 will do everything just as well as a 168 inside 600 and past that the 175 kicks the 168 ass flat out, 155scenars are great bullets and preform very well if pushed to the max, where a 175 launch at 2650 will make it to 1k no problem and be very easy on brass.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMHO there really is no reason to shoot 168's, a 175 will do everything just as well as a 168 inside 600 and past that the 175 kicks the 168 ass flat out, 155scenars are great bullets and preform very well if pushed to the max, where a 175 launch at 2650 will make it to 1k no problem and be very easy on brass. </div></div>
This.
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. These are difficult to find so I started doing a little more digging and am now decided I will change to the 178gr Hornady Amax. Sounds like people are liking these even more than 175 SMK and keep in mind that I your barrel can stabilize it the added weight helps over longer distances. Some even reported tightened up groups at 100 using this bullet plus should you ever decide to hunt you've already got a good round worked up for it. After the reading I did I may not even start a load w/175's at all now. I'll probably go straight to the 178's. I have a DPMS LR308 upper that had a 24" bull barrel w/1:10 twist that I cut down to 20" when I had it threaded. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination so take what I say with a grain of salt but it sounds like we me be on the same highway here so I'm just condensing and sharing what I've found.
So back to your question: no, 175's shouldn't be too heavy for your setup and I wouldn't shoot anything lighter for distance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMHO there really is no reason to shoot 168's, a 175 will do everything just as well as a 168 inside 600 and past that the 175 kicks the 168 ass flat out, 155scenars are great bullets and preform very well if pushed to the max, where a 175 launch at 2650 will make it to 1k no problem and be very easy on brass. </div></div>
This.
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. These are difficult to find so I started doing a little more digging and am now decided I will change to the 178gr Hornady Amax. Sounds like people are liking these even more than 175 SMK and keep in mind that I your barrel can stabilize it the added weight helps over longer distances. Some even reported tightened up groups at 100 using this bullet plus should you ever decide to hunt you've already got a good round worked up for it. After the reading I did I may not even start a load w/175's at all now. I'll probably go straight to the 178's. I have a DPMS LR308 upper that had a 24" bull barrel w/1:10 twist that I cut down to 20" when I had it threaded. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination so take what I say with a grain of salt but it sounds like we me be on the same highway here so I'm just condensing and sharing what I've found.
So back to your question: no, 175's shouldn't be too heavy for your setup and I wouldn't shoot anything lighter for distance.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I have been considering the same question, as I have several boxes of both 168 and 175. Since more of my shooting is under 500 yards then over, I decided to develop loads for both.
However I couldn't find any real disadvantage of shooting the 175gr at shorter ranges, so once I exhaust my supply of 168s I will stick with the 175s.
The GMM 175s are at about 2600-2610fps, and I get nearly the same velocity with reloads of 175s and 4064 in GGG brass.
I may have to give those 178s a try however.
Jeff
I have been considering the same question, as I have several boxes of both 168 and 175. Since more of my shooting is under 500 yards then over, I decided to develop loads for both.
However I couldn't find any real disadvantage of shooting the 175gr at shorter ranges, so once I exhaust my supply of 168s I will stick with the 175s.
The GMM 175s are at about 2600-2610fps, and I get nearly the same velocity with reloads of 175s and 4064 in GGG brass.
I may have to give those 178s a try however.
Jeff
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
In short.........No
I have put many rounds down different Remy's and the 175's have performed well in all the rifles. Keep them IMHO.
In short.........No
I have put many rounds down different Remy's and the 175's have performed well in all the rifles. Keep them IMHO.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I'm thinking that 20-inch barrel will limit you with the 155s if you choose to stay with in-spec loads.
Some quick calculations put Varget at no more than about 2750 fps, RL-15 at 2800, and Ball-C(2) at 2825. That limits your 1,000-yard safe velocities to altitudes of 3,000 and above and temperatures over 50F or so (rough estimates, I haven't calculated that but I've been running numbers for a year while trying to get a good M1A load).
Inside 600, you're mostly looking at some small advantages in oh-so-slightly flatter trajectories with the bullets lighter than 175. How small are your targets, how well can you range, and how well can you read wind?
I'm thinking that 20-inch barrel will limit you with the 155s if you choose to stay with in-spec loads.
Some quick calculations put Varget at no more than about 2750 fps, RL-15 at 2800, and Ball-C(2) at 2825. That limits your 1,000-yard safe velocities to altitudes of 3,000 and above and temperatures over 50F or so (rough estimates, I haven't calculated that but I've been running numbers for a year while trying to get a good M1A load).
Inside 600, you're mostly looking at some small advantages in oh-so-slightly flatter trajectories with the bullets lighter than 175. How small are your targets, how well can you range, and how well can you read wind?
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
IMO, if you're shooting a lot of unknown distance and can range well, the advantage goes to the load with the least wind drift. That's usually the heavier, higher-BC bullet.
If your ranging skills are not great, I'd say go with the flatter trajectory, lighter and faster bullet, especially inside 600 yards.
If your ranging AND wind skills are proven to be both good, then just choose a bullet and memorize how it shoots. If it's one that doesn't go to 1,000 yards, then you have the prospect of new dope for the few times you need to shoot that "other" load. If you're a range card or ballistic calculator addict, that probably won't make an appreciable difference.
IMO, if you're shooting a lot of unknown distance and can range well, the advantage goes to the load with the least wind drift. That's usually the heavier, higher-BC bullet.
If your ranging skills are not great, I'd say go with the flatter trajectory, lighter and faster bullet, especially inside 600 yards.
If your ranging AND wind skills are proven to be both good, then just choose a bullet and memorize how it shoots. If it's one that doesn't go to 1,000 yards, then you have the prospect of new dope for the few times you need to shoot that "other" load. If you're a range card or ballistic calculator addict, that probably won't make an appreciable difference.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds.
I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I dont think you wasted your money. You could load em up and use them for whatever you want other than distances beyond 500yds. If they hold good groups at 500, the not a whole lot can change past that. Some guage a bullet with 100yd groups. Some may call it quits without seeing what they do at 200, 300 and further. Some may not hold a great group at 100, discouraging the shooter, and making him start over, even though the group may be only an inch, it may be stable and tight holding 2.25 inches at lets say 300 yards.
Load em up and shoot at varying known distances.
I dont think you wasted your money. You could load em up and use them for whatever you want other than distances beyond 500yds. If they hold good groups at 500, the not a whole lot can change past that. Some guage a bullet with 100yd groups. Some may call it quits without seeing what they do at 200, 300 and further. Some may not hold a great group at 100, discouraging the shooter, and making him start over, even though the group may be only an inch, it may be stable and tight holding 2.25 inches at lets say 300 yards.
Load em up and shoot at varying known distances.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911.it</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds.</div></div>
You could probably go simpler and use either of those for all ranges up to 1,000. The extra velocity you get from the 155 will do it and the extra weight (length, really) that you get from the 175 makes it good to 1,000, too. The only one that will not work is the 168. Too heavy to go as fast as the 155, too short to maintain the velocity like the 175.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911.it</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds.</div></div>
You could probably go simpler and use either of those for all ranges up to 1,000. The extra velocity you get from the 155 will do it and the extra weight (length, really) that you get from the 175 makes it good to 1,000, too. The only one that will not work is the 168. Too heavy to go as fast as the 155, too short to maintain the velocity like the 175.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911.it</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds. </div></div>
I have been doing this same thing too. I find the 155's EXTREMELY accurate inside of 600 but past that my TRG shoots the 175's better. My software says the 155's should perform all the way out there, but my actual results have shown otherwise.
CJG
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1911.it</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things simple so I use the 155g Scenar for <= 600yds and the 175g SMK for > 600 yds. </div></div>
I have been doing this same thing too. I find the 155's EXTREMELY accurate inside of 600 but past that my TRG shoots the 175's better. My software says the 155's should perform all the way out there, but my actual results have shown otherwise.
CJG
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I have a 20 inch 1:10 308 (ruger M77 Hawkeye) and I shoot 175 SMK with OAL of 2.855 and 43.2g of RE15 - thats what she likes and I get a SD of 10 to 11 for a 10 round string over the chrony. I think once you work up a load you will like the bullet. I went away from the 168s and to the 175 so I could load one round for just about any range.
I have a 20 inch 1:10 308 (ruger M77 Hawkeye) and I shoot 175 SMK with OAL of 2.855 and 43.2g of RE15 - thats what she likes and I get a SD of 10 to 11 for a 10 round string over the chrony. I think once you work up a load you will like the bullet. I went away from the 168s and to the 175 so I could load one round for just about any range.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
Like was already stated, Don't get discuraged if the groups at 100 or 200 yards arn't steller. My SPS-T shot about 3.5" at 200 yards but will bang a MOA steel at 600 all day in 10mph winds with 175's.
Like was already stated, Don't get discuraged if the groups at 100 or 200 yards arn't steller. My SPS-T shot about 3.5" at 200 yards but will bang a MOA steel at 600 all day in 10mph winds with 175's.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. </div></div>
I have found that 42.5 grains of AA2520 or 43 grains of 4064 behind a 175 at just under 2.8 shoot and feed great out of my lr308 and are very accurate.
However, 168's don't feed reliably, and when they do must be loaded to near max powder to get any accuracy out of them.
The 175 SMK and 178 hornady just shoot better for me.
If yours is anything like mine you'll probably have a similar experience.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. </div></div>
I have found that 42.5 grains of AA2520 or 43 grains of 4064 behind a 175 at just under 2.8 shoot and feed great out of my lr308 and are very accurate.
However, 168's don't feed reliably, and when they do must be loaded to near max powder to get any accuracy out of them.
The 175 SMK and 178 hornady just shoot better for me.
If yours is anything like mine you'll probably have a similar experience.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I like keeping things real simple...190's for 0-1k...
I like keeping things real simple...190's for 0-1k...
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. </div></div>
I have found that 42.5 grains of AA2520 or 43 grains of 4064 behind a 175 at just under 2.8 shoot and feed great out of my lr308 and are very accurate.
However, 168's don't feed reliably, and when they do must be loaded to near max powder to get any accuracy out of them.
The 175 SMK and 178 hornady just shoot better for me.
If yours is anything like mine you'll probably have a similar experience. </div></div>
Sounds similar to what I was planning to test with. I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here? I have had some issues in the past with chambering rounds so I want to pay close attention to OAL on this load.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact I'm just started to work up loads for my LR308 and after my research I was leaning towards the Sierra matchking in 175 which I have a box of. </div></div>
I have found that 42.5 grains of AA2520 or 43 grains of 4064 behind a 175 at just under 2.8 shoot and feed great out of my lr308 and are very accurate.
However, 168's don't feed reliably, and when they do must be loaded to near max powder to get any accuracy out of them.
The 175 SMK and 178 hornady just shoot better for me.
If yours is anything like mine you'll probably have a similar experience. </div></div>
Sounds similar to what I was planning to test with. I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here? I have had some issues in the past with chambering rounds so I want to pay close attention to OAL on this load.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifle?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gregp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello, I bought a 500rd. bulk pack of 175 smk, for my 20" remington ltr.308. I know my gun isnt the ideal long range gun. Even if i never shoot past 500 yards am I still better off with the 175's, or should i stick to the the 168 smk's or the 168 amax's? I wanted to know before I touch the box incase I end up selling the ammo. Thanks, </div></div>
No
This is from the www.6mmbr.com
Tips from Brad Sauve, 2004 F-TR Nat'l Champion
With my .308, I tried A LOT of different loads in the first 600 rounds, starting with 42.0-44.5 N150 for the first 200 rounds, then moving to 44.0-45.0 Varget for the next 300 rounds. I tried different bullets (Sierra 175 MKs both moly and naked, Nosler 180gr Ballistic Tips, 175gr Bergers), different cases (Lapua, Federal), primers (Rem, CCI BR, Fed Match), and, oh yes, seating depths (on the lands to 0.10" off, and several distances in between). Even after 500 rounds of testing, I still wasn't satisfied, and frankly, I was growing weary.
I finally found my "sweetheart" load on February 14, 2000 (Valentines Day), almost seven months after getting the rifle. This is the load I still shoot today and I shot all weekend at the F-Class Nationals. The break-through came when I discovered that slower velocities produced outstanding accuracy. I found that Varget pushing a 175 SMK at about 2610 fps delivered quarter-MOA groups out to 300 yards and half-minute or better groups beyond that distance. Since developing that load, I've used Lapua cases and Russian primers, but the core elements, 43.0 grains Varget with 175 MKs seated 0.018" off the lands, has not changed.
During the first few years I owned the rifle, I was crazy about cleaning. My log shows that I cleaned the barrel 80 times in the first 998 rounds. That works out to cleaning every dozen rounds! No wonder it took me so long to find the right load! Boy, have I changed my habits. I still clean the barrel, but I run a much higher round count between cleanings than before. Now, I shoot 100-200 rounds before I give the barrel a thorough cleaning. This goes with my general thinking--that some folks will benefit from added trigger time more than anything else. Spend more time shooting than loading 'perfect' ammunition or cleaning. Squeezing that last quarter-minute out of your groups won't do you any good if you can't hold one MOA or you can't read wind conditions
Cheers,
btm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gregp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello, I bought a 500rd. bulk pack of 175 smk, for my 20" remington ltr.308. I know my gun isnt the ideal long range gun. Even if i never shoot past 500 yards am I still better off with the 175's, or should i stick to the the 168 smk's or the 168 amax's? I wanted to know before I touch the box incase I end up selling the ammo. Thanks, </div></div>
No
This is from the www.6mmbr.com
Tips from Brad Sauve, 2004 F-TR Nat'l Champion
With my .308, I tried A LOT of different loads in the first 600 rounds, starting with 42.0-44.5 N150 for the first 200 rounds, then moving to 44.0-45.0 Varget for the next 300 rounds. I tried different bullets (Sierra 175 MKs both moly and naked, Nosler 180gr Ballistic Tips, 175gr Bergers), different cases (Lapua, Federal), primers (Rem, CCI BR, Fed Match), and, oh yes, seating depths (on the lands to 0.10" off, and several distances in between). Even after 500 rounds of testing, I still wasn't satisfied, and frankly, I was growing weary.
I finally found my "sweetheart" load on February 14, 2000 (Valentines Day), almost seven months after getting the rifle. This is the load I still shoot today and I shot all weekend at the F-Class Nationals. The break-through came when I discovered that slower velocities produced outstanding accuracy. I found that Varget pushing a 175 SMK at about 2610 fps delivered quarter-MOA groups out to 300 yards and half-minute or better groups beyond that distance. Since developing that load, I've used Lapua cases and Russian primers, but the core elements, 43.0 grains Varget with 175 MKs seated 0.018" off the lands, has not changed.
During the first few years I owned the rifle, I was crazy about cleaning. My log shows that I cleaned the barrel 80 times in the first 998 rounds. That works out to cleaning every dozen rounds! No wonder it took me so long to find the right load! Boy, have I changed my habits. I still clean the barrel, but I run a much higher round count between cleanings than before. Now, I shoot 100-200 rounds before I give the barrel a thorough cleaning. This goes with my general thinking--that some folks will benefit from added trigger time more than anything else. Spend more time shooting than loading 'perfect' ammunition or cleaning. Squeezing that last quarter-minute out of your groups won't do you any good if you can't hold one MOA or you can't read wind conditions
Cheers,
btm
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here?</div></div>
Barely under with sierra 175, but to get my nosler 168's to feed properly they have to be 2.76 overall. This is with stock dpms mags, I'm hoping that the magpul mags I just ordered will fix this problem. 150 grain FMJ stuff feeds 100%, so I'm sure it's because of the length of the bullet and the fact that it has an open tip.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here?</div></div>
Barely under with sierra 175, but to get my nosler 168's to feed properly they have to be 2.76 overall. This is with stock dpms mags, I'm hoping that the magpul mags I just ordered will fix this problem. 150 grain FMJ stuff feeds 100%, so I'm sure it's because of the length of the bullet and the fact that it has an open tip.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here?</div></div>
Barely under with sierra 175, but to get my nosler 168's to feed properly they have to be 2.76 overall. This is with stock dpms mags, I'm hoping that the magpul mags I just ordered will fix this problem. 150 grain FMJ stuff feeds 100%, so I'm sure it's because of the length of the bullet and the fact that it has an open tip. </div></div>
You'll love the pmags. I couldn't get my DPMS mags to feed reliably at all with the ammo I was using. Waited patiently for the pmags to be released and them I had zero issues. It was likely the M118 ammo I had from 1966. I just need to sell those to someone who uses a more compatible ammo.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was planning to run right at 2.80" but you say you run under so how much under are we talking here?</div></div>
Barely under with sierra 175, but to get my nosler 168's to feed properly they have to be 2.76 overall. This is with stock dpms mags, I'm hoping that the magpul mags I just ordered will fix this problem. 150 grain FMJ stuff feeds 100%, so I'm sure it's because of the length of the bullet and the fact that it has an open tip. </div></div>
You'll love the pmags. I couldn't get my DPMS mags to feed reliably at all with the ammo I was using. Waited patiently for the pmags to be released and them I had zero issues. It was likely the M118 ammo I had from 1966. I just need to sell those to someone who uses a more compatible ammo.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Strickland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things real simple...190's for 0-1k...</div></div>
Doesn't get much simpler than that. Work up a load with a temperature insensitive powder and you don't have to worry about working up a load again until your barrel burns out.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Strickland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like keeping things real simple...190's for 0-1k...</div></div>
Doesn't get much simpler than that. Work up a load with a temperature insensitive powder and you don't have to worry about working up a load again until your barrel burns out.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You'll love the pmags. I couldn't get my DPMS mags to feed reliably at all with the ammo I was using. Waited patiently for the pmags to be released and them I had zero issues. It was likely the M118 ammo I had from 1966. I just need to sell those to someone who uses a more compatible ammo. </div></div>
That's what I'm hoping. I have a pair in the mail via USPS priority. Really annoys me since I wasted all that $$$$ on 4 brand new factory DPMS 10 rounders that don't like my loads.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You'll love the pmags. I couldn't get my DPMS mags to feed reliably at all with the ammo I was using. Waited patiently for the pmags to be released and them I had zero issues. It was likely the M118 ammo I had from 1966. I just need to sell those to someone who uses a more compatible ammo. </div></div>
That's what I'm hoping. I have a pair in the mail via USPS priority. Really annoys me since I wasted all that $$$$ on 4 brand new factory DPMS 10 rounders that don't like my loads.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
My $0.02
You did perfect. 175s are great and have been shooting better then the 155 scenars out of my rifle. 20" is also plenty of barrel.
Infact Ill be happy to trade you as many 168s as you want for the 175s.
My $0.02
You did perfect. 175s are great and have been shooting better then the 155 scenars out of my rifle. 20" is also plenty of barrel.
Infact Ill be happy to trade you as many 168s as you want for the 175s.
Re: Did I waste money buying 175 smk's for my rifl
I like the 175 gn. SMK's. They are good out to 1000 yds and have good knock down power. Also with the lower muzzle velocity, they won't wear your barrel as bad as the higher muzzle velocity and pressures of the much faster rounds.
Good Luck
I like the 175 gn. SMK's. They are good out to 1000 yds and have good knock down power. Also with the lower muzzle velocity, they won't wear your barrel as bad as the higher muzzle velocity and pressures of the much faster rounds.
Good Luck
Similar threads
