Anybody tried the new 168 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips yet

Ridgerunner665

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
553
I have been playing around with them, their BC is .490 which is better than the 165 grain Ballistic Tips.

I have not shot any deer with them yet (gun season ain't open yet)...but fired into water, they hold together way better than the 165's.

The 168's are built a little "tougher"...similar to the 180 grain version...thicker jacket.
 
A member here brought some of those over so we could work up a load for his 300WSM. He shot the best 3 shot 800 yard group I have ever seen with a sporter weight gun using them.
 
That sounds about right...I didn't mention it because I didn't want to lead the conversation.

My groups also got smaller with them...they were .3 MOA on average with the 165's, with the 168's I got them down to .2 (most of the time...you know how it goes) out to 300 yards.

They are the most accurate bullet I've tried in my 308 so far.
 
I've just ordered 100 of them for my .308 will be here this week. I'll post back and let you know after I work up a load and shoot them. Sounds like a good deer round. I've been using 168 gr. Hornady Amax that have impressive accuracy.

bshaw
 
I shoot these (168 CT ballistic Silver tip) out of my 300 Tejas and they shoot and perform excellent. I shot a mule deer last week @ 217 yards with a high shoulder shot and it left a 3 " hole through both shoulders
 
I've used them in the past for whitetail hunting using a T/C Encore 30-06 JDJ with a 15" bbl (MV of 2715 fps) and they worked good. Accuracy was excellent in the 30-06 JDJ and also in a T/C Encore 308 15"bbl (MV of ~2484 fps). Well, I should clarify that I used the C-T 168 BST.....

Rog
 
They seem to shoot great in my 26" FN SPR. 46 grs of Varget, Winnie cases, 210M.... chrono was acting a little wacky in the sun, I moved it into the shade, kind of close, but it looked like I was getting 2830fps, or pretty much right on per Nosler. What loads are others using in .308?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top