308 bullet weight question for 1000 yards

right now i am shooting a 20 inch, 1/10 barrel with 168 gr bthp with ramshot tac. the other day i could shoot pretty consistently out to 600 yards. then i went for 1000 yards and hit an 8-10 inch steel plate 1 out of 10, with the others being just a hair low or right, probably close enough that if it was a man sized target i would have had 7/10 hits. i know 168 isn't ideal for 1000 yards but i have been debating using 155 or 175, or if i should just stick to the 168. does anyone have experience with these bullet weights and provide insight on accuracy at all ranges including out to 1000?

175 gr Sierra HPBT would get you there.

There is no issue w/ 168g at 1000.

The issue is more probably fundamentals. Tiny errors get massively amplified when shooting at 1k and above.

Heavier bullets help with the wind a bit but that is it -- at least for target shooting.

I will say that for most 600 to 1000 is a big jump. It also depends on the type of weapon. Is this a bolt gun or semi? I have used 150-155 to 600 with ease but like the 168 if mainly shooting 600 and up.

My normal limit is 600 just because going past it with my semi is hit or miss at the longer ranges. I have shot it to 1100 and also my PSL out to 1100 but consistent hits on a 10" target go out the window after 7-800 in my case.

I like the speer 168's but for cheap 600 yard loads these work well. http://www.goldenwestbrass.com/Produ...ctCode=GWB-049[Flower]

While the 168 can do the job and stay supersonic out to 1,000 (maybe not with your short barrel... what's your muzzle velocity / load data?), I'd look at a 175 SMK.

I know you didn't ask, but I'd look at a slower powder too. You'll need all the speed you can get from the 20" rifle. I'm thinking Varget, AA2520, IMR 4320... something like that.

for a semi beginner shooter such as myself, it is difficult to determine, even at say 600 yards, if i am the limiting factor, or if its the rifle, or the load/round. i guess the big question is if i should just keep practicing with the 168, or maybe play with the load, before jumping weights.

175smk or 155 scenars. The 155s might get there a little easier with a naturally higher muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory

If in doubt, play. 155 Scenar, 168s, and 175 SMK See which one you can get to group with the best velocity for the round. If you are in the low end of powder charge and getting the best accuracy, try a different bullet or even powder. They will all do the job, but some will do better than others. the 155s and 175s will out perform the 168s for less drop based on their ballistic coefficients, but not all rifles prefer the same bullets. My two bolt action 308s like the 175s over Varget, so that's what I feed them. It's really about playing around and finding out what the gun wants.

BTW, RL15, IMR4064, and Varget are the three powders usually used and recommended for the high end accuracy out of 308 loads. Tac will work, but I bet you get better accuracy out of one of the three above.

1-10 twist, go for the 175g match bullets. Assuming you live in Colorado, if you ever wanted to shoot at sea level you would see a big difference at 1000 yds with the lighter bullets. (sound barrier)

The 155 craze is making me feel old.

Let me start by admitting that I don't shoot 155's. I will also say that I've plugged all 3 weights into a ballistics calculator, and the 155's are impressive (using Sierra's 155 Palma) at 1,000 yards.


All said and done, bc, velocity and drop at 1,000 is so close, I can't imagine not going with the 175 to buck the wind better. You can figure out gravity and it will never change, but wind is always going to screw with you, and heavier bullets will always be less affected.

Sierra Suite 16 comes up with this:


155 Sierra Palma going 2,800 fps - 1,377 at 1,000 yards, dropping 306.71" with my setup (1.75" sight height).

168 SMK going 2,700 fps - 1,305 fps at 1k, dropping 334.74"

175 SMK going 2,600 at the muzzle - 1,376 fps, dropping 338.66

No, the numbers aren't perfect for velocity, but it's a reasonable comparison...

I get 2650 fps from 168s and 2720 fps from the 175s out of 26" barrels. Haven't shot or chrono'ed any 155s yet. Only played with the ballistics on them. There's a bunch of info on then on Sniperside though.

I just like the 175 load too much to change at this point.

To tell you the truth I have problems with the 168's past 800. I have not looked into the 175's or 155's but with 168 grain A-Max projectiles traveling at 2750 fps I can hit anything I want out to 800 and after that I don't know what happens, but I am all over the place. I would need to put up a huge ass target out there and fire 10 - 20 rounds at it to see if there is just something that I am doing wrong or if the bullets are key-holing. I guess it could be the wind at that distance, but it is really hard to tell when you don't hit the target at all and no one can give you an accurate mark where the round hit relative to the target.

If I were to guess I would say the 175's are a better bet because they will buck the wind better and take a little of that out of the equation so that you can focus a little more on other variables.

Its not the weight that matters but the BC . run the 155's if they shoot if not then the 175's . With the shorter barrel the 155 will maximize the velocity and the BC of the two is effectively the same .

Ditch the TAC and go to Varget , it is too temp sensitive and will give vertical impact variance with the temp changes . Win brass , BR2's , and 44 ish grains of Varget with the 175 and 46 ish with the 155 .

the problem with the 155's is they are so damned expensive. 175's really aren't too bad. if i am changing my loads completely, anyone interested in around 800 nosler 168 bthp bullets and 8 pound of unopened tac? :)

Powder Valley has both the 175 and 155 SMk's in stock and there is only around 4 bucks difference between the 2 in the 500 count box .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C Ward

Powder Valley has both the 175 and 155 SMk's in stock and there is only around 4 bucks difference between the 2 in the 500 count box .

---

Really? Everywhere I've looked they are pricey. Any advantage really to having the 155 over the 175?

Same BC with more velocity = less drop and less wind . I wouldn't get a big box to start they may not shoot in your gun . Haven't seen one yet that wouldn't shoot them . When I've shot up the 175's I have I'm switching to the 155's . Make sure it is the NEW 155 SMK Sierra just changed the profile and the BC this year and some of the old ones are still out there , the NEW part number ends in 6 IIRC .

I do both 168gr and 175gr.

168gr I use at 100 to 600.. maybe 700 yards depending on conditions.
175gr for anything pass 700 yards...

...big difference between the 2 in rough conditions (winds pass 10 mph, etc...) pass 800 yards, and hate to waste good 175gr inside 500 yards despite any type of weather condition.

I love stretching'em legs of them 175gr... I tried going out 1400 yards in 20 mph winds one day.. no luck, but I was close though [Coffee] I was able to hit 1200 yards... that's the farthest for me so far with 175gr (1 hit out of 10 shots) [Beer]

1400 with a 175 is right in the trans sonic area depending on muzzle velocity and they become pretty unpredictable in that area .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C Ward

1400 with a 175 is right in the trans sonic area depending on muzzle velocity and they become pretty unpredictable in that area .

---

especially in high winds [ROFL1]

I was feeling so lucky... I must've went through 20 to 30+ rounds...

.... but nope... not one hit [LOL]