Range Report Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

[lonely_wolf]

There are countless threads asking about which bullet to use for x rifle. The two most popular are always the 168 gr and the 175/178 gr match bullets. The majority of threads always end up giving the crown to the 175/178 gr because of better BC. Yet, the 168gr continues to be used and continues to be popular.

So I am curious- if the 175/178 has proven again and again to be the better round, why does the 168 continue to be chosen and used?

 

[KNIGHT11B4]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

If you shoot 500 and in the 168 may be a decent option.

 

[PhrogDriver]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I shoot 168 gr FGMM out of my AR-10 (at paper and steel out to 600 yards or less) because I can usually get it cheaper than 175 gr FGMM. I tend to burn through it faster with a semi-auto, so it just makes sense to shoot the cheaper stuff with the AR-10 and the more expensive stuff with the bolt guns (which I shoot out to 1,000 yards). Ballistically they're pretty much the same out to 600 and seem to be equally accurate, so why not save some money?

 

[flyboy]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Never discount the 168's. They are stupid accurate and only really start to fall short when they get transonic (900 yds for me) Otherwise they out shoot anything else I've sent through my rifles and many others.

 

[AXEMAN]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

i got 1000 really cheap. when i have that load down, ill get the 175s or 155 palmas. plus right now i am limited in range where i can shoot so the 168s were perfect starters

 

[Busby.]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

For us, the 168 is the only good ammo on state contract, which LE has to buy from. I have no problems with it to 900 yards what so ever. I can hit targets past 900 if the when its warm outside about 70% of the time. I would love to shoot 175's only, but they are alot more expensive than the 168's and I just can't justify it.

 

[SScott]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never discount the 168's. <span style="color: #009900">They are stupid accurate </span>and only really start to fall short when they get transonic (900 yds for me) Otherwise they out shoot anything else I've sent through my rifles and many others. </div></div>
I would say within 500 yards they are a go to round, and my best 300 yard target (5 shot group) was shot using 168 SMK's with a Rem 5R, it was just under 1 1/4".
SScott

 

[Sapper524]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PhrogDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I shoot 168 gr FGMM out of my AR-10 (at paper and steel out to 600 yards or less) because I can usually get it cheaper than 175 gr FGMM. I tend to burn through it faster with a semi-auto, so it just makes sense to shoot the cheaper stuff with the AR-10 and the more expensive stuff with the bolt guns (which I shoot out to 1,000 yards). Ballistically they're pretty much the same out to 600 and seem to be equally accurate, so why not save some money? </div></div>

what he said ...

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I use the 168Amax which is 'slicker' than the 168SMK. It is my go to round out to 600. I shoot midrange F-Tr and it is a most excellent choice.

I also dont load to max charge wiegth of Varget so I guess I am handicapping myself doubly.

VERY few here shoot 1000 yards on a regular basis and to my mind that would be the only reason to select 175/8 bullets. When I shoot LR I accept the fact I MUST read mirage downrange and be aware of the gusts.

As an aside the 168Amax has served me well hunting feral hogs, coyotes, deer and the occasional racoon.

It aint broke so the duct tape stays in the truck.

 

[marduk185]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

out of many rifles they are more accurate. also when used with me m1a they aproximate the nato surplus stuff trajectory a little closer and dont beat the gun up as bad i.e. destroy an oprod.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I use the 168 AMAX as a practice round as my range only goes to 400 yards. If I was going to 1000 then the 178 BTHP or AMAX would be and is my choice.

 

[Super Bee 950]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

The 168 AMAX is horrible on hogs. Every pig I have shot with a 168 AMAX has run off even after multiple hits. The first pig I shot with M80 ball dropped in its tracks.

Believe it or not, M80 Ball shoots great out of my AR10-T. I get 1-1.5 MOA out to 500 with it. For steel plate, and general plinking, its the best deal out there. Two weeks ago, I was shooting steel out to 700 yards with it.

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Interesting replies. I did not expect cheap to be as popular a reason

. In Canada there is only a dollar difference between a box of 168 AMAX and 178 AMAX. I suppose this does add up if you are a competitive shooter that goes though hundreds of rounds at a time. Especially, when dealing with ranges of 600 yards or so. No point in spending the extra if the difference can't be appreciated.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Why don't you run out there about 650 yards and tell me if this hurts.

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Interesting results Bee-
I have had poorly hit hogs run off no matter the bullet.

I have dropped, like a bad habit, hogs out to 400 yards with the Amax.

I've punched old Nosler J4s clean through at point blank range and had to have the buzzards find em for me.

I've crippled running hogs with the 168 and they stayed put til I get to them.

Years ago I dropped my first big ol sow with a Nosler BT out of a 257 Roberts. Blew up on her shoulder and while she couldnt go anywhere she sure as hell spun hard wanting a piece of me!

 

[flyrodder]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

168s work well for me out to 1,000 yards most of the time, probably because I live/shoot at about 4,700 feet of elevation. I tried 155 Scenars and they did not group as well. As I push past 1,000 I'll use 175s more, although I've had decent performance with the 168s out to 1,300. Seems like the 168s are easier to find and cheaper, too.

Rifle number two should come online later this month, so we'll see what it likes.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I'm beginning to shoot competitively in local matches where we shoot at up to 600 yards. I'm quickly learning that a LOT of what it takes to win is reading the wind. We are all good shooters. We all have good rifles. We all make good ammo. Aside from the pressure of being in a "match", the key is reading the wind properly.

That said, a higher BC (heavier bullet, usually) is a HUGE advantage.

 

[mgd45]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Super Bee 950</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 168 AMAX is horrible on hogs. Every pig I have shot with a 168 AMAX has run off even after multiple hits. The first pig I shot with M80 ball dropped in its tracks.</div></div>


So far, I've dropped about 23 hogs in the last year shooting nothing by 168 AMAX's.....never more than about 150 yards away...not one hog took more than 2 or 3 steps before dropping. Funny how animals are....never can bank on how they are gonna respond!

 

[armydog]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

168 A-MAX shoot good, better than 168 SMK but 175 SMK out shoot them both with my AR10

 

[psmith]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

It always seemed that the 168's shot just a little better for me than the 175's. If I didn't want to concentrate on just one load then I would definitely work up a 168 load for the 600 and under stuff.

 

[JSTARSZ]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Because I have a lot of it left so I have top reload it. I also shoot alot of rounds under 600 yards so there is no need to go larger than 168.

 

[bohem]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I shoot the 168 Amax and some 168 SMK's at the 600yd club. I do load development there for other bullets but those 2 shoot exceedingly well at 600 and the Amax's are much cheaper than 175 SMK's and still appreciably cheaper than the 178 Amax... so I run 'em.

I have yet to feel that the lighter Amax is holding me back, it's always the nut behind the trigger, not the bullet.

 

[JSFG]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I've been shooting them since 1992. I know how to load them and shoot them well.

I know I should move up to 175gr, but 19 years of data and experience is hard to let go of.

I just bought another thousand 2 hours ago.

 

[ubet]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Funny, I shot a boar with 175smk at 40yds, he ran for 300 yds before he dropped, clean, through and through right behind the shoulder. Damn pigs, never know whats going to happen after they are hit.

 

[powderBurnz]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny, I shot a boar with 175smk at 40yds, he ran for 300 yds before he dropped, clean, through and through right behind the shoulder. Damn pigs, never know whats going to happen after they are hit.</div></div>

At 40 yds, the bullet was going too fast to expand the way you want it to.

 

[ANGLICOMarine]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Angry_Pirate</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny, I shot a boar with 175smk at 40yds, he ran for 300 yds before he dropped, clean, through and through right behind the shoulder. Damn pigs, never know whats going to happen after they are hit.</div></div>

At 40 yds, the bullet was going too fast to expand the way you want it to. </div></div>


If he was shooting a Match King it wasn't designed to expand.

 

[Gravity_Knight]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lonely_Wolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are countless threads asking about which bullet to use for x rifle. The two most popular are always the 168 gr and the 175/178 gr match bullets. The majority of threads always end up giving the crown to the 175/178 gr because of better BC. Yet, the 168gr continues to be used and continues to be popular.

So I am curious- if the 175/178 has proven again and again to be the better round, why does the 168 continue to be chosen and used? </div></div>


I think it depends on the rifle of course, but for example my sps tactical w/ a 20" 1:12 barrel seems to like 165's more than 178's. I'm more accurate with the lighter bullets, I don't think my 1:12 is stabilizing the 178's quite as well. So far this has been my experience anyway.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Another reason why the 168 continues to be popular is because many law enforcement agencies have standardized on it for sniper use. LE agencies often don't like to change because of concerns with liability issues in the event of a shooting.

Their reasoning also often includes the fact that L.E. shootings are usually at ranges where the ballistic superiority of the 175 beyond 700 yards is not a factor.

 

[AXEMAN]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ubet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny, I shot a boar with 175smk at 40yds, he ran for 300 yds before he dropped, clean, through and through right behind the shoulder. Damn pigs, never know whats going to happen after they are hit. </div></div>

why not try a game king or berger hunting bullet?

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I shot a 12pt buck with 3 gamekings from 75 to 125 yards. First ran through both lungs and was found just infront of the diaphram, second dislocated the off-side shoulder after it passed just above and behind the heart. Third was a Texas heart shot that deflected up into the spine.

He was very much alive when I got to him.

My Amaxs have a bigger shrapnel effect in the lungs and I have never had to use a followup shot.

Guess it just goes to show even hunting bullets can fail.

 

[jagged77]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

My rifle loves them. I got sick of load development so stuck on the first good load I came across. Cost and availability are also a factor. My .308 is mainly for practice and the odd F-TR / McQueens comp. If I want to shoot beyond 500 then I go to my .260, .300WM or .338

 

[powderBurnz]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ANGLICO Marine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If he was shooting a Match King it wasn't designed to expand.</div></div>

Touché sir! Nor was it designed to hunt with.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never discount the 168's. They are stupid accurate and only really start to fall short when they get transonic (900 yds for me) Otherwise they out shoot anything else I've sent through my rifles and many others. </div></div>

+1 - especially out of 1/12 twist factory barrels. 175's don't do much more until you exceed 600 yards.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Funny.

True, the 168's don't perform as well as the 175's at 1000yd.

...Out of the .308...

So maybe the real question here is why are you still shooting the .308?

The .260 and .30-'06 don't have these issues.

My work here is done...

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Because the 168SMK has been extremely accurate in any of my .308 rifles and seems to work well in my Garand too.

My closest range goes to 380. I shoot a 168 Nosler CC (168SMK clone) at our local matches because I don't need the 175's ballistics.

 

[dieselgeek]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

My rifle shoots much better w/ 168s. The 175s are almost twice as wide of a spread. I still use a lot of 175s, but I'm going to start using them only 700+

 

[Jaxdialation]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Yup, make mine a .260 Rem shooting142smk

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So maybe the real question here is why are you still shooting the .308? The .260 and .30-'06 don't have these issues.
My work here is done... </div></div>

 

[rocky_lange]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So maybe the real question here is why are you still shooting the .308?

The .260 and .30-'06 don't have these issues.

My work here is done... </div></div>

Duh, because it is hard to load a 168SMK into a .260.

 

[kentactic]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

cost and availibility... and the 175 SMK FGMM shoot like shit in my rifle. i was going to give the 155 scenars that southwest ammo makes a shot but they are out of stock...all they do is ammo and they dont have any... so im not even going to try there ammo because if i like it ill get sucked into waiting on back order all the time for ammo... 168 SMK FGMM are easy to find and always cheap.

 

[tigerhawk]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

ArcticLight, the 168s also do really well out of 1:10 and 1:11 twist barrels, and the faster twist even seems to somewhat help with the transonic issue.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Because I picked up 1000 bthp's at .13 cents a bullet, 50% less than 175's. Depending on conditions they work well enough for what I am using them for 800 and under. Whats not to love?

 

[Gravity_Knight]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">cost and availibility... and the 175 SMK FGMM shoot like shit in my rifle. i was going to give the 155 scenars that southwest ammo makes a shot but they are out of stock...all they do is ammo and they dont have any... so im not even going to try there ammo because if i like it ill get sucked into waiting on back order all the time for ammo... 168 SMK FGMM are easy to find and always cheap.

</div></div>


I've been wanting to try their scenars as well.. Sucks that they are out quite often, but that also could be a good sign... heard nothing but good about shooting their ammo.

 

[kentactic]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gravity_Knight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">cost and availibility... and the 175 SMK FGMM shoot like shit in my rifle. i was going to give the 155 scenars that southwest ammo makes a shot but they are out of stock...all they do is ammo and they dont have any... so im not even going to try there ammo because if i like it ill get sucked into waiting on back order all the time for ammo... 168 SMK FGMM are easy to find and always cheap.

</div></div>


I've been wanting to try their scenars as well.. Sucks that they are out quite often, but that also could be a good sign... heard nothing but good about shooting their ammo. </div></div>

yeah same here i also hear all good things and im sure thats why its always sold out but when i need ammo i better be able to get it now. and that ammo just wont be able to hvave that luxury so im going to stick with the FGMM until i find something better thats easily accssable at any given time.

 

[z-man]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

Because I get as much of it as I can shoot free from work.

If I ever have to load for my 308, a black day that will be, I would use bergers or 175 smks.

As to deer and pigs I have shot a few of both with the sierra 168s. Real irregular performance. Had some drts and some run to hell and gone. Some good expansion and some pencil holes.

I love the federal 165 tbbc tactical load for game and barriers. It is an elk hammer in my Kimberl 308 Montana.

Be safe all.

 

[BobM]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to buy 10 boxes of 168 SMKs for $8 a box. It'll be a while before I even get to loading them as I've still got a few hundred rounds of FGMM.

 

[timelinex]

Re: Why are you still using the 168gr Match round?

I've always wondered the same thing! But I guess the overall answer is that they are sometimes cheaper. Most the time it seems the ammo is only a dollar cheaper if that, but I think the 168 FGMM goes on sale more more often, Like how its 18 a box at palmetto right now.

I hear that 168 groups better in closer ranges sometimes. Is that out of shorter barrel's or longer(24inch+) as well? I can see why they would group better out of short barrel that isn't as goo das stabalizing heavy bullets, but why out of a long barrel?