Posted: 1/20/2015 1:57:14 PM EDT
|
I have a Remington 700 308 Win with 20” Heavy Barrel with 5/8-24 Threaded Muzzle 1-10 twist
I am looking to hit a 1 MOA at 500 Meter gong. And or punching paper. If I load it for hunting I will cross that bridge when I get to it. So I do some reloading now. I am having a hard time choosing the correct bullet to load up for 500 meter shooting. I would take all loading recipes as well as just bullet choice and some more general information about said bullet. Thank you |
|
Quoted:
unless you found a heckuva deal on them somewhere, don't screw around with the palma bullets. 500m is far enough away where wind calls could be a good part of the equation. If he can't get the Palma's up to 2900+ fps out of his 20" barrel, then I'd just opt for the 168gr class of match HPBT bullets, getting whatever flavor the barrels likes best, or whichever he can get for the least amount of money. Chirs |
| I don't get the love for the 168 smk. Sure it's an accurate bullet and will do fine well past 500 yards, but it's an old design and the boat tail angle pretty much turns it into a turd when it goes trans-sonic. It's kind of surprising that Sierra even makes them anymore. If you have a pile of them by all means shoot them, but if you're looking for something to buy, 175 SMK's are a better bullet for the same (or darn close) price. 168 Hybrid, 178 a-max or 185 juggernauts would also be great choices, you'll have to decide if the Bergers are worth the price for your application. With your 10-twist barrel, there won't really be anything too heavy for you to shoot. In a short barrel, you will not be able to get be velocities needed to make the 155-class bullets a good option. In a Palma rifle with a 30" or longer barrel they are ok, but I can't think of any Palma shooters that would shoot them by choice. I know I wouldn't. |
|
true, it doesn't have the high BC of other bullets, but it has 2 far more important things going for it. it's super easy to reload and it is not finicky. I've never seen a gun that will shoot one of those bullets well but won't shoot the 168smk well, but i've seen lots (and owned a few) guns that like 168s but won't shoot amax or scenar or others worth a crap. Mostly, i believe that's because of the type of chamber in factory guns and the bullet profile.
as a n00b, the 168 is a good choice because you'd have to try to screw up the reloading. just about any powder weight and seating depth is going to yield results a new shooter will be happy with, and i'd put money on the 'sierra accuracy load' without even looking at the rifle his twist and bbl length was also why i said don't mess with palma bullets |
|
Quoted:
true, it doesn't have the high BC of other bullets, but it has 2 far more important things going for it. it's super easy to reload and it is not finicky. Agreed, but the same is true of the 175, and it doesn't have the inherent transonic problems of the 168. The short, 13º boat tail does it in. |
|
Quoted:
Agreed, but the same is true of the 175, and it doesn't have the inherent transonic problems of the 168. The short, 13º boat tail does it in. Quoted:
Quoted:
true, it doesn't have the high BC of other bullets, but it has 2 far more important things going for it. it's super easy to reload and it is not finicky. Agreed, but the same is true of the 175, and it doesn't have the inherent transonic problems of the 168. The short, 13º boat tail does it in. If you're shooting under the arbitrary distance where the 168 SMKs are likely to fall out of the sky, then they're a perfect bullet for many rifles and shooters. They're cheaper, they're lighter and therefore thump a tad less, they're probably easier to find in stock than other more popular boutique bullets and they're an inherently accurate bullet with lots of reloading info. I've been around this place and SH for almost 10 years and target/precision shooters are a funny lot. Going back to '05-'06 I could give you a progression of the 'bullet of the month' club and the fanboys adopting each, to almost 6 month blocks of time. The 175s are so 2008, so get with the program. Not everybody needs to shoot out to 1500m. It's kind of a 'the right tool for the right job,' no? Chris |
|
Quoted:
If you're shooting under the arbitrary distance where the 168 SMKs are likely to fall out of the sky, then they're a perfect bullet for many rifles and shooters. They're cheaper, they're lighter and therefore thump a tad less, they're probably easier to find in stock than other more popular boutique bullets and they're an inherently accurate bullet with lots of reloading info. I've been around this place and SH for almost 10 years and target/precision shooters are a funny lot. Going back to '05-'06 I could give you a progression of the 'bullet of the month' club and the fanboys adopting each, to almost 6 month blocks of time. The 175s are so 2008, so get with the program. Not everybody needs to shoot out to 1500m. It's kind of a 'the right tool for the right job,' no? Chris Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
true, it doesn't have the high BC of other bullets, but it has 2 far more important things going for it. it's super easy to reload and it is not finicky. Agreed, but the same is true of the 175, and it doesn't have the inherent transonic problems of the 168. The short, 13º boat tail does it in. If you're shooting under the arbitrary distance where the 168 SMKs are likely to fall out of the sky, then they're a perfect bullet for many rifles and shooters. They're cheaper, they're lighter and therefore thump a tad less, they're probably easier to find in stock than other more popular boutique bullets and they're an inherently accurate bullet with lots of reloading info. I've been around this place and SH for almost 10 years and target/precision shooters are a funny lot. Going back to '05-'06 I could give you a progression of the 'bullet of the month' club and the fanboys adopting each, to almost 6 month blocks of time. The 175s are so 2008, so get with the program. Not everybody needs to shoot out to 1500m. It's kind of a 'the right tool for the right job,' no? Chris Well, I don't follow the trends that closely, so I will defer to your expertise on that topic. My only point is that the 168 is an underachieving bullet with well-known problems. Sure, something like a 175SMK will cost a few pennies more per shot, Bergers more than that. I don't know about availability, as I don't shoot either one and haven't checked around. If the OP will never shoot past the 500 yard gong he will be fine with 168's, but what if he wants to shoot at 1000 in 6 months? The 168 out of a 20" barrel will not be supersonic, and will encounter the usual 168 problems. So in that case, he could: A. Develop a new load B. Settle for crappy performance out of a tool that's not "right for the job" Why not just start with a better bullet? |
|
Quoted:
Well, I don't follow the trends that closely, so I will defer to your expertise on that topic. My only point is that the 168 is an underachieving bullet with well-known problems. Sure, something like a 175SMK will cost a few pennies more per shot, Bergers more than that. I don't know about availability, as I don't shoot either one and haven't checked around. If the OP will never shoot past the 500 yard gong he will be fine with 168's, but what if he wants to shoot at 1000 in 6 months? The 168 out of a 20" barrel will not be supersonic, and will encounter the usual 168 problems. So in that case, he could: A. Develop a new load B. Settle for crappy performance out of a tool that's not "right for the job" Why not just start with a better bullet? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
true, it doesn't have the high BC of other bullets, but it has 2 far more important things going for it. it's super easy to reload and it is not finicky. Agreed, but the same is true of the 175, and it doesn't have the inherent transonic problems of the 168. The short, 13º boat tail does it in. If you're shooting under the arbitrary distance where the 168 SMKs are likely to fall out of the sky, then they're a perfect bullet for many rifles and shooters. They're cheaper, they're lighter and therefore thump a tad less, they're probably easier to find in stock than other more popular boutique bullets and they're an inherently accurate bullet with lots of reloading info. I've been around this place and SH for almost 10 years and target/precision shooters are a funny lot. Going back to '05-'06 I could give you a progression of the 'bullet of the month' club and the fanboys adopting each, to almost 6 month blocks of time. The 175s are so 2008, so get with the program. Not everybody needs to shoot out to 1500m. It's kind of a 'the right tool for the right job,' no? Chris Well, I don't follow the trends that closely, so I will defer to your expertise on that topic. My only point is that the 168 is an underachieving bullet with well-known problems. Sure, something like a 175SMK will cost a few pennies more per shot, Bergers more than that. I don't know about availability, as I don't shoot either one and haven't checked around. If the OP will never shoot past the 500 yard gong he will be fine with 168's, but what if he wants to shoot at 1000 in 6 months? The 168 out of a 20" barrel will not be supersonic, and will encounter the usual 168 problems. So in that case, he could: A. Develop a new load B. Settle for crappy performance out of a tool that's not "right for the job" Why not just start with a better bullet? OP is only shooting 550 yards. 168 is fine for that. |
|
Quoted:
Well, I don't follow the trends that closely, so I will defer to your expertise on that topic. My only point is that the 168 is an underachieving bullet with well-known problems. Sure, something like a 175SMK will cost a few pennies more per shot, Bergers more than that. I don't know about availability, as I don't shoot either one and haven't checked around. If the OP will never shoot past the 500 yard gong he will be fine with 168's, but what if he wants to shoot at 1000 in 6 months? The 168 out of a 20" barrel will not be supersonic, and will encounter the usual 168 problems. So in that case, he could: A. Develop a new load B. Settle for crappy performance out of a tool that's not "right for the job" Why not just start with a better bullet? First of all, the 168gr SMK isn't an "underachieving bullet," so where are you getting that from? More to the point, within its 'intended' design parameters, it's probably one of the world's most consistent and accurate bullets, so you should dial back your rhetoric regarding "crappy performance." There's a reason why its still being used in FGMM after 3-4 decades. If the OP wants to shoot out to, or past 1000 yards, there are other commonly available bullets that will work better, but until he reaches that distance, there is nothing wrong with choosing the 168gr SMKs. You seem to be the type of person that would bitch about a BMW M3 only because it doesn't hit 200 mph and therefore its performance is crappy. Like I said above, one needs to use the right tool for the right job. Because a screwdriver isn't great for hammering in a nail, doesn't mean that fact is an indictment of that screwdriver's worthiness. Chris |
|
Quoted:.
Well, I don't follow the trends that closely, so I will defer to your expertise on that topic. My only point is that the 168 is an underachieving bullet with well-known problems. Sure, something like a 175SMK will cost a few pennies more per shot, Bergers more than that. I don't know about availability, as I don't shoot either one and haven't checked around. If the OP will never shoot past the 500 yard gong he will be fine with 168's, but what if he wants to shoot at 1000 in 6 months? The 168 out of a 20" barrel will not be supersonic, and will encounter the usual 168 problems. So in that case, he could: A. Develop a new load B. Settle for crappy performance out of a tool that's not "right for the job" Why not just start with a better bullet? If 1000 yrd is an option I'd say C start with a better cartridge Otherwise we're really all de asini umbra disceptare |
| Ok, you guys convinced me. I will dial back the rhetoric. I would suggest to the OP that for days when he will only be shooting at say, 300 yards, he should develop a separate load with the 135 SMK. Sure, the 168 would still shoot great at that distance, but why spend all that extra money when 300 yard target shooting is well within the 135's intended design parameters. You could probably even go with something like a 110r HP for those distances, they are super cheap! |
|
Quoted:
Ok, you guys convinced me. I will dial back the rhetoric. I would suggest to the OP that for days when he will only be shooting at say, 300 yards, he should develop a separate load with the 135 SMK. Sure, the 168 would still shoot great at that distance, but why spend all that extra money when 300 yard target shooting is well within the 135's intended design parameters. You could probably even go with something like a 110r HP for those distances, they are super cheap! The 168 was designed for 300m competitions... |
|
Quoted:
The 168 was designed for 300m competitions... Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, you guys convinced me. I will dial back the rhetoric. I would suggest to the OP that for days when he will only be shooting at say, 300 yards, he should develop a separate load with the 135 SMK. Sure, the 168 would still shoot great at that distance, but why spend all that extra money when 300 yard target shooting is well within the 135's intended design parameters. You could probably even go with something like a 110r HP for those distances, they are super cheap! The 168 was designed for 300m competitions... Sure, but why waste the extra money when a 135 will get there just fine for cheaper? |
|
Quoted:
Sure, but why waste the extra money when a 135 will get there just fine for cheaper? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, you guys convinced me. I will dial back the rhetoric. I would suggest to the OP that for days when he will only be shooting at say, 300 yards, he should develop a separate load with the 135 SMK. Sure, the 168 would still shoot great at that distance, but why spend all that extra money when 300 yard target shooting is well within the 135's intended design parameters. You could probably even go with something like a 110r HP for those distances, they are super cheap! The 168 was designed for 300m competitions... Sure, but why waste the extra money when a 135 will get there just fine for cheaper? 
I see... |
|
So is there something wrong with the 168?
The 17*s are interesting. The difference in cost if you are loading is negligible. I ask this question a round and get a lot of the same chatter. Only one person has really offered up a round and recipe. Also what are an advantage of the 174 over the 168? |
|
Quoted:
So is there something wrong with the 168? The 17*s are interesting. The difference in cost if you are loading is negligible. I ask this question a round and get a lot of the same chatter. Only one person has really offered up a round and recipe. Also what are an advantage of the 174 over the 168? There is nothing wrong with the 168, its just there is so much available now that is more right. The 168 SMK works fairly well for what it is, but it does nothing that a litany of newer designs don't do better. The 175 SMK is the most logical, safe upgrade, and it is immensely better in terms of BC. The Hornady AMAX offerings are considerably better bullets, and cheaper. Offerings from Lapua and Berger present an even more pronounced increase in BC. |
|
by "immensely" you mean a .2 mil difference between 168 and 175 SMK at 500 (the distance the OP has) assuming the same velocity (which would favor the 175 since in reality you could push the 168 a bit faster and even 20 fps would cut the delta to only .1 mil )
BC isn't everything though (the popularity of flat base bullets among short range benchresters might be a clue there) certainly, no one here is claiming the 168 has the best BC. it makes no difference to me if people want to use the highest BC bullet they can find. but, if there were a way to objectively measure it, I would still bet money that if the OP buys the 168smk, he'll be getting more hits at 500 a month from now than if he bought the higher BC amax or 175smk or the berger VLDs. |
|
Quoted:
by "immensely" you mean a .2 mil difference between 168 and 175 SMK at 500 (the distance the OP has) assuming the same velocity (which would favor the 175 since in reality you could push the 168 a bit faster and even 20 fps would cut the delta to only .1 mil ) BC isn't everything though (the popularity of flat base bullets among short range benchresters might be a clue there) certainly, no one here is claiming the 168 has the best BC. it makes no difference to me if people want to use the highest BC bullet they can find. but, if there were a way to objectively measure it, I would still bet money that if the OP buys the 168smk, he'll be getting more hits at 500 a month from now than if he bought the higher BC amax or 175smk or the berger VLDs. Oh, good Lord.... |
|
Quoted:
Does anyone have an opinion or experience with the 150 Sierra PALMA bullet? There are 2: 2155 (the old one) and 2156 (the new one) 2155 is an OK bullet 2156 is a great bullet almost equal to 155 Scenar and 155 Berger (all 3) for BC and accuracy potential In close (less than 300 yards) the 2155 has a slight accuracy edge over the 2156 anything past 300 the 2156 has a definite and distinct advantage. |
|
I was in the same boat looking for a 308 projectile. As of right now I have a huge supply of different bullets working up loads. My rifle has a 26" bbl and is 1:12 twist and finding the right bullet for me took loading different bullets and recording the results. As of now I have discovered the Hornady 168 BTHP works great out to 800+ yards. Falling in right behind that is the Hornady 168 AMAX bullet. I've loaded the Hornday 178 Amax, Nosler CC 175's and Berger 175 Long range boat tail. All of the 170's work great but haven't held as "tight" a group as the 168's. I'm sure I could change that if I were to work more on load development.
Right now I am only shooting to just a bit over 800 yards but will be going to shoot with some friends. They are set up to shoot out to 1500 yards and most of them are shooting rifles designed for those distances. However, they all have 308's and they all have tried them on their range. One of them have been able to get on steel at 1300 yards but only with the 175's. They say the 168's will go crazy on you when they start getting out to about 1000 yards. |
|
Quoted:
The 168 SMK or AMax is where I would start. At those ranges it wouldn't hurt to try the 155 Palma. Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone have an opinion or experience with the 150 Sierra PALMA bullet? The 168 SMK or AMax is where I would start. At those ranges it wouldn't hurt to try the 155 Palma. Two generations of Sierra Palma 155. 2155 and 2156. The 156 is newer and a touch better. Honestly, I prefer the Palmas over the 168 and 175 MK. Much flatter shooting. |
|
OP, I will throw this out there since you will also hunt with it..try Swift scirroco's..they make a 150, 165 and a 180 grain bullet and they are one of the most accurate bullets I have shot..they also perform very well on big game .I have shot 3 big moose with themas well as a few caribou, one grizzly, a wolverine, couple of wolves, and heck I forget. (I shoot them in a 300 RUM)..been very very happy with them over a wide range of distances on animals and paper... been trying to find some to load and try in the AR's as well...
http://www.swiftbullets.com/products-s/1819.htm# |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.