.308 + A-Max

[liltank]

I have even seen some going as high as 50.gr of the RL-17 and getting up to 2800fps. They report no ill effects either. Of course this is hear say.

I don't know how they are getting that velocity with that load. For one the case would be filled to about the bottom of the neck with powder. I have taken mine up to 49grn and got a sticky bolt, with ejector marks. I would say they are banging their brass up. The bullet would be sticking out there quite a ways too. At 49grn the best I could get was right around 2640fps but my ES was all over the place. One would go faster, then next slower. I use a 28" tube in a 1:12. So I would be curious to hear what their set ups are. 2650 to maybe 2700, but nowhere near 2800.

Tank

 

[Good]

I don't know how they are getting that velocity with that load. For one the case would be filled to about the bottom of the neck with powder. I have taken mine up to 49grn and got a sticky bolt, with ejector marks. I would say they are banging their brass up. The bullet would be sticking out there quite a ways too. At 49grn the best I could get was right around 2640fps but my ES was all over the place. One would go faster, then next slower. I use a 28" tube in a 1:12. So I would be curious to hear what their set ups are. 2650 to maybe 2700, but nowhere near 2800.

Tank

Yeah, my buddy Jonathan went up to 49g and the rifle liked it, but he had to throw away half his brass due to primer pockets opening up.

I want to work up a load for my Win model 88 lever action soon.

 

[The Surgeon]

I don't know how they are getting that velocity with that load. For one the case would be filled to about the bottom of the neck with powder. I have taken mine up to 49grn and got a sticky bolt, with ejector marks. I would say they are banging their brass up. The bullet would be sticking out there quite a ways too. At 49grn the best I could get was right around 2640fps but my ES was all over the place. One would go faster, then next slower. I use a 28" tube in a 1:12. So I would be curious to hear what their set ups are. 2650 to maybe 2700, but nowhere near 2800.

Tank

The ones I have been reading that I would put weight in their findings are running between 43- 45 gr and coincides with your work. The set ups they are using are 28+ inch barrels with a 1:11 twist or faster. One thing that I did read was that some folks that ran the 1:12, had a lot of trouble holding vertical in anything else but ideal conditions. They did say with ideal conditions and a higher elevation, they were at 6800, the 1:12 held good groups with the 208's.

As far as the 50 gr of RL17, it's like anything else on a forum, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Proof is in the preverbal pudding.

 

[Good]

Not to hijack the thread or anything like that, but 208 gr bullet with .62 MOA at a grand out of a stock Remington with a 1:12 twist? Ok.

I guess I should clarify, I never measured any 1k groups, but several from 750, 600, and various 200 and 300. Most were a fairly consistent .62 MOA, some better. Our range doesn't go to 1k officially, but we've set up rock piles way out there and shoot them regularly. Unfortunately, my shooting buddy just moved across the country, just about... :/

 

[alloutsmith3]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm planning on using the 168's as my main round but sending the 208's down range is really appealing.

 

[The Surgeon]

I guess I should clarify, I never measured any 1k groups, but several from 750, 600, and various 200 and 300. Most were a fairly consistent .62 MOA, some better. Our range doesn't go to 1k officially, but we've set up rock piles way out there and shoot them regularly. Unfortunately, my shooting buddy just moved across the country, just about... :/

Its all good. I got to thinking after I posted , that is probably were you were going. Not your fault, Its my bad for not using my nugget. Sssshhh, Don't tell my wife. LOL

 

[CentreHit]

Sorry guys - I made a mistake below with the powder load, I provided a load of 40.5Grains after checking my data it was actually 40.0 Grains of 2208, with an estimated speed of 2410 F.P.S.

Thanks.

As I was conducting a ladder test in the late afternoon, my chronograph didn't record the velocity for that particular group due to ambient light was too low - but it did record the previous group using 39.5 grains of powder and that velocity averaged = 2341 F.P.S.

So, I'd assume based on the previous results of the ladder, that the 40.5 grain velocity would be in the vicinity of 2410 F.P.S. range.

I'm going to conduct the same test again to verify these results and see what I can get with two loads higher - bearing in mind the pressure will be getting up there and I do not wish to go for a compressed load.

 

[liltank]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm planning on using the 168's as my main round but sending the 208's down range is really appealing.

I'll put in a suggestion for the Nosler Hunting Balistic Tip. Their 168 has a BC of .490. I have yet to stretch them out, hope to do that this weekend. Just started shooting them. I measured the length difference between the 168 A-max (1.279") and the 168 NBT (1.306"). The A-max has a sharper tip, but there is more surface area on the tip of the Nosler. I have a feeling this is why they open at such a slow speed. The A-max has a longer boat tail compared to the Nosler also. If Nosler would stretch that boat tail out, they would have a really nice bullet. I'm sticking with the Noslers as my hunting bullet. Here is what they are capable of:

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/ar-comp-alliant-79438/

My target is on post #5.

Tank

 

[Capt Kurt]

Unless you have a magazine length restriction, the end to end length of matched weight bullet comparisons is not the best way you determine the bullets C.O.A.L ability to the lands. Along with several other factors, that is determined by the measurement taken off the ogive of a bullet. You may find that because one bullet is phyisically longer it may have a longer distance away from the ogive to the lands then the shorter bullet due to its design. Try an experiment, take both bullets mentioned above and seat both the same distance off the lands to the ogive, which one has the longer C.O.A.L. You may be surprised. If you are looking for the ultimate VLD, the Berger target/hunting bullet line up should be your next selection.

 

[liltank]

Unless you have a magazine length restriction, the end to end length of matched weight bullet comparisons is not the best way you determine the bullets C.O.A.L ability to the lands. Along with several other factors, that is determined by the measurement taken off the ogive of a bullet. You may find that because one bullet is phyisically longer it may have a longer distance away from the ogive to the lands then the shorter bullet due to its design. Try an experiment, take both bullets mentioned above and seat both the same distance off the lands to the ogive, which one has the longer C.O.A.L. You may be surprised. If you are looking for the ultimate VLD, the Berger target/hunting bullet line up should be your next selection.

Thanks Capt., but that is not the point I'm trying to state. What I am stating is the physical length difference enforcing the higher BC due to the longer bullet of the same weight. The ogive on the A-max is much deeper than that of the NBT. The NBT is definitely a Tangent ogive, where the A-max in my opinion is closer too a VLD style nose. He will find that the A-max will set farther out of the casing if he wants them to touch the lands, compared to the NBT. Anybody else that miss interpreted my statement, the Capt. makes a valid point.

Tank

 

[liltank]

Just as a comparison, here are the respective BC's per maker's web sites:

Berger 168: .452 BT Target, .473 VLD, and didn't know it existed Hybrid .519
Hornady A-max: .475
Hornady BTHP: .450
NBT's: .490
Nosler CC: .462
Sierra SMK: .462
Speer BTHP: .534 (I have my suspicions about this one, but until somebody can prove it correct or says its the next best thing to sliced bread, not buying it. Nobody talks about the Speer BTHP as a competition standard or hunting bullet.)

Now let's look at hunting bullets (the only reason I kept the NBT up top is because some guys do use it for competition):

Hornady Interbond 165: .447
Spire PT 165: .387
SST 165: .447
BTSP 165: .435
GMX 165: .447

Sierra Pro Hunter SPT 180: .407
Game King 165 HPBT: .363
165 SPBT: .404

Berger Hunting 168 VLD: .473

Nosler Accu-Bond 165: .475
Partition 165 Spitzer: .410
Ballistic Tip 165: .475
Ballistic Tip 168: .490
CT 168: .490
E-Tip 168: .503 (Didn't take this one as it requires more velocity to work properly and I have no desire to use a mono metal bullet.)

Speer Hot-Cor 165: .433
Deep Curl 165: .441
Grand Slam 165: .393
BTSP: .520 (Again you don't hear of anybody talking about the quality as a long range bullet for hunting.)

For you Barnes fans
TSX 165: .398
168: .404
TTSX 165: .442
168: .470
They have an LRX series in 175 that requires a 1:10 or faster w/ a .507 BC. As I am generally comparing the 160 series bullets, this is not an option. I did add the 180 Sierra as the BC is quite pathetic in my opinion even when compared to 165-168 hunting bullets.

So with all this information you can see why I chose and suggest the NBT's. It gives me the low opening speed and trajectory performance I am looking for. I have a feeling there other's in this list that would work rather admirably, but can not speak from experience other than the 165 SST worked good at close range w/ high velocity going through a deers neck.

Tank