Factory loaded .308 match ammo for long range

[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.