Why different bullet weights for Highpower shooters?

kotengu · May 30, 2002, 03:19 PM

I understand why the .223 guys use the 77gr at 200 and 300yds and the 80gr at 600 yds (80gr performs better, but has to be loaded so long it won't fit in the magazine). What I don't understand is why .308 shooters use the 168gr at 200-300yds and the 175gr at 600yds. Is this an untrue rumor? Why not just use the 175gr at all ranges and be done with it? Does the 168gr somehow perform better at the shorter ranges?

Thanks in advance - I'm beginning my handloading quest for the perfect .308 loads for Highpower shooting. Any other tips would be appreciated.

Matt

Jim Watson · May 30, 2002, 10:00 PM

Fron conversation with my local highpower shooter; heavier bullets cost more and kick more.

In some rifles the 168 or even a 150 or 155 Palma might be more accurate at the shorter ranges, but the 175 will hold closer to the wind at 600 and would score better.

Talk to some real highpower competitors before standardizing.

Steve Smith · May 30, 2002, 10:57 PM

But I shoot an AR! I know exactly why I use two different weights, but I'd imagine that, like I said in the H&R forum, it has to do with pressure (less wear on the rifle), cost, and length. I'd imagine that the 175, like my 80's, can be loaded longer (can't get any fatter than .30 cal, so it must get longer) so you could get it closer to the lands for the slow fire prone. Recoil would also be an issue as the M14'ers consider that heavily with the rapid stages.

Also, there is a THEORY that states that the "cone of fire" that is theoretical in itself doesn't exist, and the heavier bullets, while not as accurate at close ranges, may infact hold closer to their course over long distances. I was shown a drawing of two sets of diverging lines depicting the widening path of 168's and 175's. The base of the 168 "cone" began at a smaller point and had a more obtuse (right word?) angle, while that of the 175 began with a wider point but had a more acute angle. I can't say that I agree with it, but its a THEORY.

I believe that cost and recoil are probably the two greatest factors as to why the M14'ers don't do it.

vitiaz · May 31, 2002, 12:45 AM

I had always heard that the 168's were optimized for 300 meter standard rifle competition(and then became popular in USA hi-power cometition). The 175's were a spin-off of the 155 Palma bullet. The 175s were meant to stay supersonic at 1,000 yards.

Myself...I use 168's at 2 & 300. I go to a 190 for 600(beyond...), although lately I have been thinking of using the 175's at all 3 ranges.

Just my $0.02 worth...

May 30, 2002, 03:19 PM	#1
kotengu Member Join Date: November 21, 2001 Location: Cookeville, TN Posts: 71	Why different bullet weights for Highpower shooters? I understand why the .223 guys use the 77gr at 200 and 300yds and the 80gr at 600 yds (80gr performs better, but has to be loaded so long it won't fit in the magazine). What I don't understand is why .308 shooters use the 168gr at 200-300yds and the 175gr at 600yds. Is this an untrue rumor? Why not just use the 175gr at all ranges and be done with it? Does the 168gr somehow perform better at the shorter ranges? Thanks in advance - I'm beginning my handloading quest for the perfect .308 loads for Highpower shooting. Any other tips would be appreciated. Matt __________________ "The way is in training" - Miyamoto Musashi

May 30, 2002, 10:57 PM	#3
Steve Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1999 Posts: 4,131	Real Highpower shooter here... But I shoot an AR! I know exactly why I use two different weights, but I'd imagine that, like I said in the H&R forum, it has to do with pressure (less wear on the rifle), cost, and length. I'd imagine that the 175, like my 80's, can be loaded longer (can't get any fatter than .30 cal, so it must get longer) so you could get it closer to the lands for the slow fire prone. Recoil would also be an issue as the M14'ers consider that heavily with the rapid stages. Also, there is a THEORY that states that the "cone of fire" that is theoretical in itself doesn't exist, and the heavier bullets, while not as accurate at close ranges, may infact hold closer to their course over long distances. I was shown a drawing of two sets of diverging lines depicting the widening path of 168's and 175's. The base of the 168 "cone" began at a smaller point and had a more obtuse (right word?) angle, while that of the 175 began with a wider point but had a more acute angle. I can't say that I agree with it, but its a THEORY. I believe that cost and recoil are probably the two greatest factors as to why the M14'ers don't do it. __________________ Favor the X. Steve Smith NRA Life Member

May 31, 2002, 12:45 AM	#4
vitiaz Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 158	I had always heard that the 168's were optimized for 300 meter standard rifle competition(and then became popular in USA hi-power cometition). The 175's were a spin-off of the 155 Palma bullet. The 175s were meant to stay supersonic at 1,000 yards. Myself...I use 168's at 2 & 300. I go to a 190 for 600(beyond...), although lately I have been thinking of using the 175's at all 3 ranges. Just my $0.02 worth... __________________ Molon labe

May 30, 2002, 10:00 PM	#2
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	Fron conversation with my local highpower shooter; heavier bullets cost more and kick more. In some rifles the 168 or even a 150 or 155 Palma might be more accurate at the shorter ranges, but the 175 will hold closer to the wind at 600 and would score better. Talk to some real highpower competitors before standardizing.