Factory loaded .308 match ammo for long range

[jkv45]

The 168gns smk is fine at 1000yds if the winds not blowing.

Yes the 175gn are better but less accurate at 100-600yds maybe and hold better at 600+ because they don’t get blown around the same.
A big arse piece of card board or ply wood will tell you all you need to know.

Hold in the same spot and group shoot both will tell the story.

Cheers.

Doesn't FGMM 168 run out of gas by 800yds or so, due to its BC?

Can you get out past that with the 168 SMK and hand loads at higher velocity?

[hamiltonkiler]

Doesn't FGMM 168 run out of gas by 800yds or so, due to its BC?

Can you get out past that with the 168 SMK and hand loads at higher velocity?

Welp. Go shoot it at 1000 on paper and see.
It works down south in thick air at sea level. Going from sonic to trans is tough. Tough if the winds blowing. I’m not supposed to be able to shoot 77gn bullets from a 1-9 .223
But it works.
How often really will you shoot at 1k yds?
The .308 isn’t really the right tool.
Neither is my 22lr at 350 but it’s fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jkv45]

Welp. Go shoot it at 1000 on paper and see.
It works down south in thick air at sea level. Going from sonic to trans is tough. Tough if the winds blowing. I’m not supposed to be able to shoot 77gn bullets from a 1-9 .223
But it works.
How often really will you shoot at 1k yds?
The .308 isn’t really the right tool.
Neither is my 22lr at 350 but it’s fun.

Not very often most likely, and I haven't yet, but there is a 1200 yd range about 30 min from me.

I realize 1000+ is pushing it with the .308, and if I'm going to give it a try I'll do some research and testing to give myself the best chance of success possible.

If it's been proven over and over that the 168 doesn't do well out that far, and the 175 does better, I'm going to at least try the better option.

This is all for fun at this point, but I do like to hit what I'm aiming at.

[GaCop]

Welp. Go shoot it at 1000 on paper and see.
It works down south in thick air at sea level. Going from sonic to trans is tough. Tough if the winds blowing. I’m not supposed to be able to shoot 77gn bullets from a 1-9 .223
But it works.
How often really will you shoot at 1k yds?
The .308 isn’t really the right tool.
Neither is my 22lr at 350 but it’s fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 9 twist Savage 26" fluted barrel LOVES the 77 grain TMK over 24 grains of CFE223. I seat them .010" OTL, 2843 fps and at 200 yards 5 group into .618" on a 90 degree day with 95% humidity.

[darkker]

Doesn't FGMM 168 run out of gas by 800yds or so, due to its BC?

Can you get out past that with the 168 SMK and hand loads at higher velocity?

Here's the truth with actual details, that no one has told you. The reason the 168 was deemed not ideal for 1k shooting came from a cold year at Camp Perry, and how the bullet is designed.

The 168gr SMK was built with a steep 13° tail angle. This steep trail angle allows you to get a higher(pronounced sexier) BC, and not have a very long overall bullet length. Unfortunately this also crates an odd center-of-gravity Vs Center-of-pressure combination. Going way, WAY back to Dr. McCoy's ballistic work, it's been known that such a steep trail angle will cause turbulence in the transonic region. Combine that with a CG Vs CP issue and it's all but a guarantee that the bullet tumbles. As the boys discovered at a cold Camp Perry year, that ultimate distance varies with weather. Which was also not a new conveyor art the time.... Anyway, the military boys didn't like getting shown-up by the civies, and the military paid Sierra a pile of money to "fix the problem". The "fix" was a new bullet known as the 175 SMK. Which curiously enough has the same 9° tail angle that McCoy proved is dead stable crossing transonic region; not unlike the 173gr used in the 30-06.

With the latest set of construction updates from Sierra, it's possible they revamped the 168 tail angle. But until I could measure it, I wouldn't believe it

Cheers

[yobuck]

Here's the truth with actual details, that no one has told you. The reason the 168 was deemed not ideal for 1k shooting came from a cold year at Camp Perry, and how the bullet is designed.

The 168gr SMK was built with a steep 13° tail angle. This steep trail angle allows you to get a higher(pronounced sexier) BC, and not have a very long overall bullet length. Unfortunately this also crates an odd center-of-gravity Vs Center-of-pressure combination. Going way, WAY back to Dr. McCoy's ballistic work, it's been known that such a steep trail angle will cause turbulence in the transonic region. Combine that with a CG Vs CP issue and it's all but a guarantee that the bullet tumbles. As the boys discovered at a cold Camp Perry year, that ultimate distance varies with weather. Which was also not a new conveyor art the time.... Anyway, the military boys didn't like getting shown-up by the civies, and the military paid Sierra a pile of money to "fix the problem". The "fix" was a new bullet known as the 175 SMK. Which curiously enough has the same 9° tail angle that McCoy proved is dead stable crossing transonic region; not unlike the 173gr used in the 30-06.

With the latest set of construction updates from Sierra, it's possible they revamped the 168 tail angle. But until I could measure it, I wouldn't believe it

Cheers

But meanwhile, i suppose one could just touch the paint in order to find out? lol

[wbm]

No "wet paint" warning so yeah.