168’s

akinswi

New member
I have always used Sierras 168s MKs in my M1. They have shot well. Has anyone here tried Speers 168 HPBT and or Hornadys 168 equivalent.

The prices Between the speer and Hornady are pretty close around 29.99 box of 100 . I bought 1000 168s SMKs back during the pandemic when they were on sale. two years of shooting they are getting depleted

Speer lists their G1 B.C. at .534
Sierra lists their G1 B.C. at .462
Hornady’s G1 B.C. at .450

Speers is quite a bit higher im assuming their boatail is a different angle than
Sierras or Hornady

Thanks

Will
 

Shadow9mm

New member
I personally love the new SMK 169g. G1 Bc of .527 . Designed for shooting 308 at 1000yds. They have shot well in my cheap 30-06

I do have some of the hornady 168g just have not had a chance to work them up yet. But as i wanted to shoot over 1000yds, I went with the sierras.
 
Last edited:
A boattail won't account for that big number for the Speer bullet. They will be using a secant ogive on that bullet, and possibly a longer boattail as well. More comparable will be the new Sierra 169 grain long-range match bullet and the Hornady 168-grain ELD match.

Bryan Litz gives the Sierra 168 a measured G1 BC of 0.473 over 3000 fps, but 0.450 between 2500 and 3000 fps, where Garand muzzle velocity will be. The value decreases with velocity from there. If you launch it in the 2600-2700 fps MV range, by the time it has gone 600 yards, it will be down in the 1520-1600 fps range, and the average G1 BC for the whole trip will be about 0.43.

For the Hornady, Litz gives a measure G1 BC of 0.478 over 3000 fps, but 0.456 between 2500 and 3000 fps. The value for this bullet also decreases with velocity from there. By the time it has gone 600 yards, the average G1 BC for the whole trip will be about 0.44.

I've never heard anything against the Hornady National Match 168. You want to try both in your gun to see if it has a preference, but I wouldn't count on being able to see a difference in the Garand.
 

akinswi

New member
Shadow the 169s did fantastic out of My M1.

They are Kinda pricey and hard to find right now but I was very impressed. I had to seat them out longer to 3.330 vs 3.320 on the 168s.

I had to tweak the IMR4895 charge up .2 grains that I normally use on the 168s.

I like that they are kinda already pointed from the facotry and the points were not near as jagged as the 168s. Made it way easier to sort by OAL of the bullet.

It is interesting to note the best group I ever shot with the 168 smks, I weighed each bullet exactly same weight vs OAL or by measuring the ogive.
 
Last edited:

akinswi

New member
Nick,

Do you think the speers would stabilize better than the Sierras 168s past 600 yards?
 
Last edited:
I expect so. They seem to be designed for long ranges like the 169s and ELDs, so they probably have the shallower boattail angle. But where Litz's 3rd Edition of Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets has both the Sierra and Hornady measured, as well as numerous other brands, including some niche brands I was unfamiliar with, he didn't include Speer.
 

Bart B.

New member
I think the best way to select a bullet for the best accuracy is to first find out what the barrel groove diameter is. Then use bullets at least .0003" bigger in diameter.

Garand barrels were mostly broach rifled and new broaches made groove diameters about. 3086". When the broach was at the end of its life, groove diameters were under .308" and some about. 3077." These were what the USN match

Sierra's match bullets are about. 3082". Lapua makes match bullets about. 309" diameter.

Those jagged match bullet tips still test well under quarter MOA. Call Sierra then ask what that lot number tested at 200 yards.
 
Last edited:

akinswi

New member
Bart B

I measured some of my Sierra 168s and they all are .308 maybe one was .3082 but my digital calipers probably are not very accurate down to the “ten thousandths “ range.

I also measure some of my LAKE CITY 1967 M72 MATCH ammo that I had and they were pretty consistent at .308 again same caliper’s.

What suprised me the most was that they set the Overall length to 3.290 to 3.315 was the range on that Lot I have.

I will never shoot this ammo , but im sure you have shot thousands of rounds of that stuff and you could probably hand load same quality or even better.

Its gorgeous ammo
 

Bart B.

New member
I've never seen any LC 30 caliber 174 grain FMJBT match bullet mic less than .3085.

Note that every production lot of match ammo using them had bullets and cases from 3 or 4 sets of forming dies. Cartridge overall length is an indicator of quality. Bigger spreads indicates poor quality.

LC arsenal match ammo ammo accuracy tests at 600 yards required over 200 rounds to have mean radius of 3.5 inches maximum. The best extreme spreads were 10 to 12 inches using bolt action test barrels.

A common practice was to rebullet LC match ammo with .3082" Sierra 168 or 180 HPMK's if barrel groove diameter was less than .3000 inch. Bigger groove diameters shot Lapua .3091 inch bullets most accurate. MOA or better at 600 yards in quality semiautomatic match rifles was common.

With the best rifle and ammo, one needs a match grade trigger finger. Most folks don't have one. I didn't when I started competitive shooting. That's one that stays back until the bullet leaves the barrel.
 
Last edited:
Digital calipers only resolve 0.5 thousandths, so you can't see smaller quantities than that and you have to allow they can be off by at least that much due to bit error. For measuring bullet diameters you want to invest in an OD thimble micrometer with either a vernier scale or an electronic digital type so you can resolve tenths reliably. Amazon has both. Harbor Freight has the same digital one for slightly less. I don't know how accurate they are, but if you check zero each time you measure, I wouldn't expect much error. CDCO tool has vernier types for a few dollars less. What is least expensive may come down to shipping. With all the inexpensive digital types, you may want to take the battery out when you are not using it. They typically have about ten times the current drain in their off-state than higher end ones do.
 

akinswi

New member
I will Check these out. Is there a way to check concentricity of each projectile before its seated In the case?

Thanks
Will
 

Shadow9mm

New member
I will Check these out. Is there a way to check concentricity of each projectile before its seated In the case?

Thanks
Will
I have the feeling we just took a hard left straight down into a deep rabbit hole.

Never heard of anyone checking the concentricity of the projectile itself. Would firing and being forced over the rifling effect a projectiles concentricity? Or just being misaligned (poor cartridge concentricity) when firing?
 

akinswi

New member
I have the feeling we just took a hard left straight down into a deep rabbit hole.

Never heard of anyone checking the concentricity of the projectile itself. Would firing and being forced over the rifling effect a projectiles concentricity? Or just being misaligned (poor cartridge concentricity) when firing?
It was a random thought that popped in my head, but I was thinking if the bullet is not perfectly concentric to start with , then measuring runnout would be pointless would it not.

Im sure at the distances I shoot wouldnt matter was just an interesting thought to me at least. Interested to see what Nick and Bart have to say
 

Shadow9mm

New member
It was a random thought that popped in my head, but I was thinking if the bullet is not perfectly concentric to start with , then measuring runnout would be pointless would it not.

Im sure at the distances I shoot wouldnt matter was just an interesting thought to me at least. Interested to see what Nick and Bart have to say
Its an interesting one, and not one i have heard before. Curious to see what our bastions of knowledge have to say.
 

Road_Clam

New member
I'm always intrigued at how reloaders claim to be verifying concentricity of a loaded round. There is NO way to precisely check because there is NO precise axis base datum. If someone knows a method please explain and share....
 

Shadow9mm

New member
I'm always intrigued at how reloaders claim to be verifying concentricity of a loaded round. There is NO way to precisely check because there is NO precise axis base datum. If someone knows a method please explain and share....
Last I checked the axis runs from the point of the bullet through the center of the base of the case. The point is easy enough and so is the base of the case.
 

akinswi

New member
I contacted Speer, they advised there boattail on the 168s is 13 degrees, so they will more than likely act like the sierras at longer ranges like past 600 yards.
 
With the secant ogive, that isn't certain, but I wouldn't bank on that boattail angle to behave in the transonic range.

For bullet concentricity, I only know of four approaches to the problem. One is to use a torsional pendulum, for which there are a couple of different types and methods that can work. I won't describe them because Harold Vaughn did that in the reference cited in the last paragraph of this post. Way, way too slow and too much trouble, IMHO.

Another is the old Vern Juenke sonic inspector. It operates on the assumption the core of a bullet is uniform and the forming dies that control the external dimensions were uniform, but that there is a runout in the jacket wall thickness that will throw the center of mass off-axis (opens groups by the same mechanism as bullet tilt; the centrifugal effect of spinning the center of mass eccesntrically around the bore axis). It uses an ultrasonic transducer arrangement and a motorized bullet turner to measure the jacket thickness all around the bullet axis. I have never had one, as they seemed rather expensive for what they were. A couple of guys bought out Juenke when he retired, but despite their website, they don't seem to be actively producing it. Looking at their posted schematic as compared to their photos of the unit, I found errors, and their method of hand-producing the circuit board is slow and expensive compared to just having the boards made by a PC board house. I concluded they don't really know what they are doing. But also, the assumption Juenke made that bullet forming dies can be counted on to produce a uniform exterior is wrong. I've seen photos of cheap foreign "match" bullets with boattails so far off-center you can see their heels are higher on one side where they meet the bearing surface.

The other method of determining bullet mass symmetry is to spin them. Bart B has described previously how Mid Tompkins got a special collet made to hold some Lapua match bullets (D46, IIRC) in a Dremel tool while an ammeter monitored the current flowing into it. The more out of balance a bullet is, the more current is drawn because an out-of-balance item in the chuck significantly increasing the side load on the motor. If I recall, Bart said Mid sorted the best (lowest current) of these bullets in this manner and shot a world record level (at the time) group with them. Something under an inch at 600 yards (again, IIRC; if Bart see's this post, he can correct the particulars).

Another spinner was the late Harold Vaughn's pneumatic device. You can see that described in his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts, in the Bullet Imbalance chapter on page 169 (182 if you use the page counter in the scroll bar). Page 170 explains how an off-center center of mass opens groups up, whether the imbalance is due to bullet tilt in the bore or is manufactured into the bullet. On page 173 he shows a torsional pendulum with indicator for finding bullet imbalance. On page 174 he shows the pneumatic spinner. There are more details on it in one of the book's appendices.
 
Top