Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
What grain bullet for what kind of catridge would be the question? I take your most likely talking about the .308 Win? or what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
www.cheapertandirt.com and www.ammoman.com sells federal gold medal match in various calibers and bullet weights
federal gold medal match is a good choice of bullet
what caliber though?
well all of them are Sierra Match Kings Boat Tail Hollow Points
if its .223 rem your options are 69 and 77 grain if you have a 1:9 you MIGHT be able to handle 69 gr, if you have a 1:8 or 1:7 you might be able to handle both 69 gr and 77 gr
if its .308 win your options are 155, 168, and 175 grain
.30-06 Spgfld has 1 load that i know of, 168 grain
.300 Win Mag has 1 load that i know of, 190 grain
as far as what weight: well that depends on the caliber
every rifle is differnt so you should see which your rifle will like the best so buy a small qunaitity of each of them and test them to see which works the best
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
I will assume he is meaning .308 (most common). If thats the case, it depends on purpose.

If shooting palma, no option, has to be 155gr

If routinely shooting beyond 600 meters, then I would recommend the 175gr, its better past 600 as it doesn't suffer the transonic problems that the 168 does. (keep in mind, if you have a 1:12 twist barrel, you might be border line in being able to stablize the 175's).

If you don't plan to go beyond 600 very often, then the 168's are easier to find, and proven. Also may be the only option if you have a 1:12 twist.

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
Mel:
for a Rem 700P that has a 1:12 twist 26" barrel what do you recocmend if i ever want to hit longer ranges 600-1000y?
the 175 gr is boarderline stabilizeation in the 1:12, how much accuracy loss at that range would i loose form 168 grain instead of the 175 grain?
how would the 155 grain palma load compare to either of the two performance wise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Jeff

According to Remington, and confirmed by several ballistics calculators, the 155 GMM ammunition, pushing 2950 from the 24" barrel (a 26 inch barrel will run faster by somewhere from 40 to 60 fps - and therefore even flatter than the number shown below), will shoot roughly 60 inches flatter than the 175 GMM ammo at 1,000 yards (6 MOA) and 90 inches flatter than the 168 (which will not stay supersonic beyond 900-950 yards). the 155 also has less recoil than either the 168 or the 175.

The main negative against the 155 is it tends to get pushed around by the wind and retains less energy than the 175 beyond 600 yards.

A second negative is finding anyone that carrys the stuff for a reasonable price.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Jeff_850,

I would try the 175 and see if it stabilizes okay. Like I said its borderline... but its worth trying in your rifle/conditions at the longer ranges.

The 168gr's taper on the boattail is a bit too sharp, so when it drops down to the transonic layer (going from super sonic to sub sonic) the Air breaks away from the boattail and it behaves like a flat base. This can cause instability during this transition and can effect the accuracy at long ranges. Plus, its not good for ballistics either. The 175 has a boattail at a smaller angle and the extra weight helps it stay super sonic longer, which all equates to better accuracy at long range. To be honest, I have not used the 155gr to know how they perform... perhaps I need to try them.

MEL
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
take a look at http://www.federalcartridge.com to see their computer ballistics.

Many ballistics calculators come from bullet manufacturers (sierra makes a very nice one) but of course costs money. Here is a free one that I found that gets very good results and is worth looking at.

http://www.huntingnut.com/pointblank.html

ballistic coeffecient of bullets tells a lot about how a bullet will perform long range and in the wind.

MEL
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top