I know the 175 gr bullets are recommended better for the longer ranges but at what distance do you see the real advantage over 168 gr bullets? I am finally getting my .308 up and running and as soon as I can get some powder and bullets I will start loading for it. Right now I won't be shooting past 400 until at least the end of June. Even after June I will only have limited opportunity to shoot at 600 yards. Is it worth it to get the 175s now and just use them at the shorter distance or start with the 168s until I can get past 400? I know this has probably been discussed a thousand times but every time I try a search I get a message saying The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Distance for 175 vs 168
- Thread starter Maelstrom
- Start date
I agree. I only load 175s for ranges past 800y but to keep everything consistent, that's all I shoot now.
There is nothing wrong with using 168's for the type of shooting you plan to do. Also depending on your twist rate, you may experience tighter groupings at closer ranges vs the 175/8's.
The 175/8's do have some advantage at closer ranges, and that would be the higher bc for less wind deflection and also the weight and sustained terminal effects. So if you were to hunt at longer distances the bullets will have slightly higher retained energy. You will extend your max effective(ethical) range by 100-200Y depending on which accuracy node you chose. If you do not hunt, then it does not matter.
The 175/8's do have some advantage at closer ranges, and that would be the higher bc for less wind deflection and also the weight and sustained terminal effects. So if you were to hunt at longer distances the bullets will have slightly higher retained energy. You will extend your max effective(ethical) range by 100-200Y depending on which accuracy node you chose. If you do not hunt, then it does not matter.
I have my 5r doped for Federal Gold Medal 168 SMKs. I chronoed them at 2660 out of my 24" barrel. Although they don't carry energy very well and the wind really bullies em, I have made hits out to a bit over 1100 yrds. At 800 yrds they're only carrying about 875 ft-lbs of energy..... Definitely not a hunting round.
Concerns with the 168 beyond 800 yards have to do with how that particular bullet performs as the velocity decreases (i.e, transonic-to-subsonic) and poor stability.
Not all rifles have barrels with the same rate of twist, barrel lengths are different, loads and velocities vary, and differences in altitude/temperature/bpressure must be considered.
However, popular opinion seems to be that for reliable performance out to 1K, use the 175MK, not the 168MK.
Not all rifles have barrels with the same rate of twist, barrel lengths are different, loads and velocities vary, and differences in altitude/temperature/bpressure must be considered.
However, popular opinion seems to be that for reliable performance out to 1K, use the 175MK, not the 168MK.
It depends on the 168. People use the term 168's in reference to the old Sierra bullets that should only be used to about 800. However, Hornady and Berger both make 168's that will easily outperform the old Sierra's. I've heard of guys hitting 1200 with the Hornady 168's if I recall correctly.
Jasonk I was referring to the old Sierras but only because that is what I know. I am curious about the Berger's but need to read up on them more. I am going to have to spend some time in the reloading section in the next few weeks. If anyone has any suggestions as to other bullets to try I am all ears.
No real set rules with when 175gr trumps the 168gr, it will depend on how fast your are pushing them and wind/atmospheric conditions etc. In general after 800 yds. For me at least, I just one bullet and load development to worry about, it doesn't matter what distance just how I can maximize my hit percentage at all distances. When you start using multiple loads and different bullets it can just get confusing.
Pretty well covered already. Depends....twist rate, velocities, wind speeds.
I will say, though, that before the 175s came out I used to get reports from the butts at 1000 yards that my 168 gr. bullets were keyholeing, but dang if I would have known by my scores. They must have juuuuust been becoming unstable near 1000 yards. They were Federal Match, and Federal Match duplicate reloads.
Even though my 1:12 twist rifle prefers the 168s, all I shoot now are the 175s (as long as I can find any).
I will say, though, that before the 175s came out I used to get reports from the butts at 1000 yards that my 168 gr. bullets were keyholeing, but dang if I would have known by my scores. They must have juuuuust been becoming unstable near 1000 yards. They were Federal Match, and Federal Match duplicate reloads.
Even though my 1:12 twist rifle prefers the 168s, all I shoot now are the 175s (as long as I can find any).
This man is correct and the 168 magically becoming inaccurate beyond 800 is another internet commando myth perpetuated by people that never shoot to those distances and type with Cheeto-stained fingers.
My experience (8000 rounds of 168 SMK hand loaded to smallest groups/highest fps) with the 168's is they are terrible at 1000 yards, keyholeing, huge groups, no calls etc...175's are excellent. ( 3500 rounds of 175 SMK's)....then I switched to .260..
I've read on the internet that 168's fall out of the sky at 438 yards, and the 175's do so at 524 yards, so there you have it
If you work in the pits at 800, 900 and 1000 yard matches, you will see the holes from the 168's elongating on all of them by 1000 yards. Most of them are round at 800, with most of the .308's going off by 900 and by 1000, even the 06's are tipped and when they do that the groups open way up. Never have seen the old 173's or the newer 175's do that. I think someone is better off using one load, but not a 168.
If you work in the pits at 800, 900 and 1000 yard matches, you will see the holes from the 168's elongating on all of them by 1000 yards. Most of them are round at 800, with most of the .308's going off by 900 and by 1000, even the 06's are tipped and when they do that the groups open way up. Never have seen the old 173's or the newer 175's do that. I think someone is better off using one load, but not a 168.
I agree with you. It just that so many people believe they fall out of the sky after 800. Hell guys here hit steel bi-weekly at those ranges with 45/70s and 45/90s
Not true, sat too many times in the pits and watched 168 SMKs keyhole thru the target at 1K. No myth, reality. Now bergers and noslers 168s different story.
The problem with the 155's is you have to run them fast...175's with a 20" barrel is doable. 155's with a short barrel it's hard to get them up to speed.
That's why I recommended the 175's one load that can do it all, and has proven time and time again. It was developed specifically to out perform the 168's
Some of my rifles don't like the 155's (rem 5r) all of my rifles like the 175's
Just load develop for 175's and your done.
That's why I recommended the 175's one load that can do it all, and has proven time and time again. It was developed specifically to out perform the 168's
Some of my rifles don't like the 155's (rem 5r) all of my rifles like the 175's
Just load develop for 175's and your done.
Regardless of barrel length
pert easy to run 155 150-200fps faster than 175 from same barrel
Eye ball a 175smk beside a 155 scenar
the slightly longer sleeker looker bullet is the scenar
Almost identical form factor n BC
but the 155 can run 150-200fps faster
pert easy to run 155 150-200fps faster than 175 from same barrel
Eye ball a 175smk beside a 155 scenar
the slightly longer sleeker looker bullet is the scenar
Almost identical form factor n BC
but the 155 can run 150-200fps faster
^^ yeah but the 155 does not achieve its highest bc unless its clocking 2900 FPS, that is very difficult to do with a 20" bbl (at least with standard published 308 loads). They do shoot flatter, but the wind does have their way with them. This may not be true for everyone, but my observation out of a 20" bbl M700. They do, however, kick ass out of my 30-06.
jasonk and I were both talking about Hornady and Bergers. I agree about the SMKs.
Your rifle may play a role as well. My DPMS sass doesn't like 175gn but loves the 168s. My dTA loves the 175s. Best to get a box of 50 of each and do some testing before you go all in with a box of 1000
It has everything to do with barrel length...yea they are 150-200 fps faster..but on a 20" rifle that's not going to get you the 2900+ they need to match the 175's.
With more and more guys running cans on their rifles adding 8-9" to a 24-26" 155 slinger gets a little unweildly.
Appreciate all the info. Now I need to find someplace that has bullets in stock. Everyone seems sold out.
That's the truth.
The 26" CBI on my Savage runs the Scenar at 2975 with 47gr Varget. It isn't a 142smk @ 2850, but it sure beats a 175@2650-2700!
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I'm a fan of 168s SMK because I've stuck with it over the years in this windy country but it is a 550 meter bullet based on my experience. I'm not buying into the 168 SMK bug-a-boo though. I'm not seeing it myself. That being the 168 SMK is a smart bullet and will jump ship on you at any speed. The 175 SMK doesn't have the dreaded 13 degree tail. Therein lies the advantage you are requesting. The 175 is more stable.
If you want to shoot with a handicap than the 168 SMK is your hot rod. I believe that is was it what it was originally designed for. Mid range accuracy. But now we have this thing about it even though Federal continues to have faith in it. Some people see a keyhole. I see a damn good three shot group. Is the glass half full or half empty? Or is the glass twice as big as it should be? I'm no monument to bullshit.
If you can find the 178s. If I had to do it over I'd try to use a different bullet than the 178 due to lack of availability. Probably go with 175s. IIRC don't the 155s have similar or better BC? If so I would much rather run those, could push them faster.
I bought 600 a month or two ago, their availability isn't really any better or worse than anything else during the craziness. The 178s have a higher BC but the 155s have better ballistics if you get them moving fast enough. Depends on your rifle. If you have a barrel long enough to drive the 155s to speed, do it. If you are running a shorty the 178s are probably a better choice.
I don't see the point of 168/175 grain bullets with better choices available unless you are military or LE and duplicating factory ammo for practice.
Who makes the 178s? I don't see them listed anywhere not even on Sierras website.
I have &will continue to run 168 Amax out of my 30" barrel out to 1K yds. The 155 Scenar is a fine projectile but wind can ruin a good score, same with 168s. IF you are going to be shooting more beyond 800 I would goto 175 or 185, especially if you don't have a long barrel like I do.
The Nosler 155s are not even in same league as the Lapua Scenar. I didn't see what powder the OP was using but I would suggest trying the Alliant 2000MR for 175 & 178s. For 155s I would use IMR 4895. There is one load using the 155 and IMR that is absolutely kick butt !! IIRC it's also above factory listed max but after a few thousand loads I haven't had the 1st problem. YMMV
The Nosler 155s are not even in same league as the Lapua Scenar. I didn't see what powder the OP was using but I would suggest trying the Alliant 2000MR for 175 & 178s. For 155s I would use IMR 4895. There is one load using the 155 and IMR that is absolutely kick butt !! IIRC it's also above factory listed max but after a few thousand loads I haven't had the 1st problem. YMMV
Two hits at 1120 yards with 168 SMKs (federal factory loads) chronoed at 2660 fps out of my 24" 5R. I know it's not the best of groups but it was the two out of four shots fired that made contact in nasty wind. I honestly do wish I was running a heavier projectile, but unfortunately this is what I could find (my timing to get into long range in CO was terrible, couldn't even find .308 dies until recently)
Was hitting steel silhouette at 905 yds the other day with FGMM 168. repeatedly. that said the 175's do seem a bit more consistent.
I don't have a particular powder selected yet. I am trying to get as much supplies together as I can while waiting for my scope and rings to arrive. I am going to look for both the Sierra 175gr HPBT and the Hornady 178gr HPBT. I know this is not the reloading section but what powders do you recommend for these bullets. I currently have 5,000 Federal 210M primers sitting on the work bench plus 300 brand new Lapua cases. Just need to find powder and bullets now.
If you are going to spend the time and money to reload and get your dope figured out for a certain load. I would suggest going with one that you know will be fine at all ranges. Go with the 175's and you will know everything from 100 yds out. The 168's dont transition well once they go trans-sonic as listed above.
But if you are only going to shoot at 400 yards in and never want or have the need to go past 600 yds, then the 168's may be a better pick for you.
But if you are only going to shoot at 400 yards in and never want or have the need to go past 600 yds, then the 168's may be a better pick for you.
As far as powder, I can onyl suggest what I've used. Varget and R15 are what I've used and I really like Varget. I've sighted in at 50° and held the same zero at 70°. So the Varget is a good powder that doesn't differ with temp.
<dt style="margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left; min-width: 60px; color: rgb(62, 62, 62); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); width: auto !important;">Location</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 3px; color: rgb(62, 62, 62); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">Ft. Collins, Co....
DA and Transsonic line..... thats why they work for you.... come down to sea level and watch them "hit the wall" at 850y... </dd>
Location: Coalinga, CA
elevation: <700 ft.
predominantly cool weather in March
1000 yards
Scores in the 180s to 190s. Keyholing, but 194-6X is nothing I would complain about.
