168gr match and Amax in .308 caliber bullets

katanaa

Regular
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Location
Regina, Sask
Hey all. I was reading on here that 168gr bullets are not good for longer distances than 800m. Some one commented that they aren't good for the long range for the same reason they are good for 100m.

Can anyone explain to me how come? If this truly is the case.

Thanks.
 
They were developed and optimized for performance at 300. There is a tendency for them to destabilize at longer ranges.
 
Hey all. I was reading on here that 168gr bullets are not good for longer distances than 800m. Some one commented that they aren't good for the long range for the same reason they are good for 100m.

Can anyone explain to me how come? If this truly is the case.

Thanks.

While I can't explain other people's comments, one of the key issues regarding bullets and their suitability for long-range shooting is their ballistic coefficient (BC) relative to other choices. All other factors being equal (muzzle velocity, acceptable barrel twist rate, bullet shape, etc.), longer, heavier, pointier bullets will have higher higher BCs than others. BC is a measure of drag that a bullet experiences i.e. how much it is slowed by friction with the air and is pushed by cross-winds. This translates into less drop and windage for higher BC bullets. Also, some bullets will become unstable as they become slower than the speed-of-sound and undergo erratic changes in flight-path resulting in unpredictable POI.

In a 308, 168 grain bullets have a modest BC as compared to heavier 308 bullets such as the 190 Sierra Match King (168gr Amax (.475 BC) vs. 190gr SMKs (.533 BC)). So bullets with a higher BC than a 168 tend to be better at longer ranges.

For a 100m bullet one might consider flat-base bullets which can be more "accurate" (i.e. exhibit more precision) than the lower BC boat-tail bullets. Flat base bullets are still a favourite of many bench-rest shooters. The reason is that flat-bases tend to be easier to manufacture and thus are more likely to be consistent than boat-tail bullets. Also, the boat-tail is more affected by lack of concentricity in the bullet-base and/or in the barrel due to the flow of muzzle gases past and around the bullet when it exits the muzzle.

At longer ranges, the lower BC of boat tails overshadows the benefits of flat base bullets.

See below a quotation attributed to Gale McMillan of McMillan barrels:

“If you consider the way a boat tail bullet is made you will understand that it is an impossibility for the tail of the bullet to be inline with the body. If the tail is formed in the upper punch it will always be off by half the amount of the clearance between the punch and die. If it is made in the lower punch it will be a wider tolerance since there is more clearance in the lower punch. With the tail of the bullet being off center by at least 1/2 a ten thousandth of an inch, this keeps the bullet from flying true.”
“That is the reason you don't see them used in competition (Bench Rest, that is). We will hear a loud cry from long range shooters and all I can say is the ability to lay on ones belly and shoot 1/10 moa is an impossibility so they can get away with using them since the error factor is still smaller than the shooters ability. There was a remark made above about a flat base shooting better in a factory barrel and I will change that and say any barrel! My favorite saying is the records speak for its self. Show me a national benchrest record shot with a boat tail bullet. One thing that clouds the issue is that no high power match bullets are made with a flat base so they can only be compared with custom match bullets made with flat bases of which there are few.”
“I will say that the small amount of loss of accuracy is off set by the ability to overcome conditions due to decreased flight time at ranges of 600 and beyond.”
 
Last edited:
Isn't the smh in 168 made for 600m? 300 seems kind of short

That's what I was told by magpul dynamics (LR shooting course), when reading the rules and what ammo to bring. They clearly stated do not bring 168 smk, but rather 175 smk for the course. As 168 caps out at 600m, we would be shooting out to 1000.
 
That's what I was told by magpul dynamics (LR shooting course), when reading the rules and what ammo to bring. They clearly stated do not bring 168 smk, but rather 175 smk for the course. As 168 caps out at 600m, we would be shooting out to 1000.

That is what I thought.
 
Brian Litz writes specifically about .308 168gr Sierra bullets as being unstable at longer ranges - and backs this up with measured BC data. I don't believe it applies to all 168gr projectiles by other manufacturers, just this one particular projectile (which coincidentally, is the projectile that my local tactical team uses in their sniper rifles!).

I don't have the Litz book in front of me, so the above is from memory...perhaps others can chime in on the Litz angle.
 
168 SMK were designed in the 60's for 300m ISU competitions, now called ISSF. They will work out to 800 and maybe at 900 yards but after that all bets are off. You are better off sticking to a 155 gr or 175 gr bullet.
 
Hey guys, thanks for the comments. For my current needs, I think I'm okay with the 168gr match and amax bullets as I don't have anywhere to shoot over 600m. I will look at the 175gr when I find a longer range to shoot at.

Oh actually on that note, I recall a while back being told to look at the 208gr (I think) Hornady match bullets for 1000m. does that sound right in a 308? They would definitely be longer than the 168gr.
 
It is worth experimenting with a ballistics program. You can easily survey available bullets, and see what to expect in the way of wind drift and down range velocity, when fired at achievable muzzle velocities. I have been very comfortable using 154gr Lapua Scenars @ just under 3000fps.
 
168 SMK were designed in the 60's for 300m ISU competitions, now called ISSF. They will work out to 800 and maybe at 900 yards but after that all bets are off. You are better off sticking to a 155 gr or 175 gr bullet.

ah...no, I disagree. I've shot 168gr SMK's out to 1200m. They are consistent at 1k, but even out to 1.2k they make hits. And, I would never shoot the lighter 155 pill out that far. The 175 SMK's are really good.
 
I have seen 168 SMKs tumble at 800y and Norma match fail at 700 and 800m. What muzzle velocity are you getting?
 
ah...no, I disagree. I've shot 168gr SMK's out to 1200m. They are consistent at 1k, but even out to 1.2k they make hits. And, I would never shoot the lighter 155 pill out that far. The 175 SMK's are really good.

I believe sierra even says they are designed for med range target.
 
Just played with the Sierra ballistics program.
A 155 Scenar at 2950 (what I have observed from my TR) has a 1000m velocity of 1368fps, and a 10mph wind at 90 degrees gives 8.2 minutes of drift.
A 168 SMK at 2900fps has a velocity of 1168fps, and 10.4 minutes drift.
With a mv of 2750fps, velocity is down to 1100 fps and drift is 11.4minutes.

Had a further look.
A 175 SMK @ 2750, velocity is 1175fps, drift is 10 minutes.
In comparison, a 139 Scenar 6.5mm @2850, 1515fps, 6.7 minutes drift.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom