Berger 168gr hybrid target

[eddiesindian]

Looking for shooters who use berger 168gr hybrids in your 308. What say you?

[CFJunkie]

I haven't used Berger 168s at all, but I have used Berger 150 Full Bore, 155 Target, 155 Full Bore, 175 OTM and 175 Long Range in my .308s.
In my two .308s, the one that likes heavier bullets, the 150 Full Bore managed the 11 best powder bullet combination after 10 spots held by Sierra TMKs of 195, 175, 168 and 155, in that order with two different powders for each bullet.

The rifle that likes 150 , 155 and some 168 bullets best, the 155 Berger Target and 150 Full Bore hold the 15 and 16 slots out of 28, with the first 10 slots held by Sierra TMKs but in the order of lighter to heavier.
The 155 Target in 15th place averaged 0.179 larger groups than the best entry (168 TMK) in a rifle that likes lighter bullets.
The 155.5 FB and 175 OTM hold the 25th and 26 slots out of 28 and the Berger 175 Long Range holds the 28th slot.
Those averages were 0.250 or more larger than the best TMK.

The 150 Berger Target held 10 place out of 23 and averaged 0.148 larger groups than the best 195 TMK in the rifle that likes heavy bullets.

Based on the preferences of my two rifles, I have concentrated on loading for TMKs in the weights that each rifle prefers, so I haven't bothered with any more Berger bullets for my .308s.

For my 6.5 Creedmoors I found that the 5th best 140 Berger Hybrids preformed better than the 140 Long Range by 0.001 in average, and better than the 140 Match by 0.012. But the best 140 Berger hybrid average was 0.031 larger than the best 142 gr SMK and 0.010 larger than the 2nd best 147 Hornady ELD-M.

[tallsdyotehunter]

I shot alot of 168gr bergers in my savage 308 10FP back in the day so the originals. they shot solidly, 1/2in groups and were great on game

[Dennis]

168 Bergers, SMK's, and Amax are all sub MOA easily out of my FCP 308.

168's are awesome.

[eddiesindian]

Agreed. I'm finding the 168smk to be surprising me. I'm pretty sure the cost of the bergers isn't enuff to replace the smks. Though sad to say, the smks change drastically from lot to lot. My reading measurements from base to ogive are way off lot to lot. Time consuming to measure each one but the outcome is worth the time spent measuring.

[Dennis]

Agreed. I'm finding the 168smk to be surprising me. I'm pretty sure the cost of the bergers isn't enuff to replace the smks. Though sad to say, the smks change drastically from lot to lot. My reading measurements from base to ogive are way off lot to lot. Time consuming to measure each one but the outcome is worth the time spent measuring.

In matches, I find the Berger's are best, and worth a few extra $$$$$

Dennis

[eddiesindian]

In matches, I find the Berger's are best, and worth a few extra $$$$$

Dennis

What distance?

[Dennis]

What distance?

600 Yards.

[eddiesindian]

Thanks for the info den. I've been sending the 168smk out to 1000/1100 and frankly suprised there doing so well. Problem I've had with the smks is the changes in ogive location lot to lot. I've since made sure I purchase at least 500 at a time with same lot number. Even then I find about 10% out of 100 of the pills to have different ogive readings. I can live with that, I'll adjust accordingly to get my oal where it needs to be. I've measured my bergers in .264 and have had lower percentage in difference in readings. I've wondered if the berger 168 would be a better choice and if it's worth the price