General accurate 308 175gr load recommendations

suncoastarmory · May 3, 2015, 02:17 PM

I have been searching here and across the web for 308 175gr accuracy loads. I am looking to load up a lot of 308 rounds for 4-5 rifles including both semi and bolt action. I want one, two or perhaps three, depending on powder availability, good accurate loads that will do well in all the guns. I know they may not be the best 1 hole accurate in each gun, but I need to think along the lines of a FGMM type of round.

These are what I have found for 175gr BTHP:

42gr IMR 4895
41.7gr, 42gr or 44 gr IMR 4064
43.5gr Varget

Any other ideas? I look forward to the input.

jwrowland77 · May 3, 2015, 02:19 PM

That new powder 4166. It's great in my rifle (bolt)

math teacher · May 3, 2015, 02:58 PM

I wish it was that simple. I was reading an old hand loading article last night in which the author pointed out that the go to powder for the .270 is H4831. He stated however that his .270 hated 4831 or any other powder with a similar burn rate. What one rifle loves, another may hate. You will probably get some good suggestions on loads that in general are quite accurate, but you cannot always count on it. There is not one universal most accurate load.

4runnerman · May 3, 2015, 03:50 PM

My FTR Load was
42.3 gn RL-15
GM210M Primers, Good Luck finding any.
175 Serria Match.

firewrench044 · May 3, 2015, 05:20 PM

For Sierra 175 MK
Military load is 41.75gr IMR 4064 ( M118LR )

(all of my 308s (6) 1/10 twist )
my load is 42.2gr IMR 4064
CCI # BR2
COAL 2.800 ( fits in most magazines )

For single round loaded into gun( longer than the magazine )
175 Sierra MK's like to be 10 to 15 thou. off lands

a few competitors have found RE 15 works better in their guns

Marco Califo · May 3, 2015, 05:50 PM

TM 43-0001-27 TECHNICAL MANUAL ARMY AMMUNITION DATA ...

No. Not 4064. It was 4895 when this manual was published. When Alliant/ATK took over the Lake City operation management (2001), they switched M118 to Rel 15 (which they distribute).
4064 was never used in LC M118.
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant

mehavey · May 3, 2015, 07:51 PM

Just stay with your first load [42gr IMR 4895] and generally duplicate the
LC-Match rounds 175SMK/2,550fps (from M1A) as a starting point:

[Nothing's going to universal for every rifle type.]

firewrench044 · May 3, 2015, 08:13 PM

Sorry the M118LR ( old ammo ) did not use 4064
you are correct

the newer sniper ammo , I have read does, it is designated
" 7.62X51 MK 316 MOD O Special Ball, Long Range "
and it uses 41.75gr IMR 4064, Lapua case, Fed. primer,
Sierra 175 MK

suncoastarmory · May 3, 2015, 08:18 PM

Thanks for the info so far. I know one load wont be the best in each rifle. I just want one load I can focus on and crank out in the 1050 that will generally get the job done.

Marco Califo · May 3, 2015, 10:34 PM

You are not talking about LC M118, although I am sure at some point 175 gr SMK were put on some of those.

I found some info on your round. I had heard there was recent U.S. military research and development on sniper rounds. Although last I heard, they were planning 300 Win magnum as a new sniper platform. 338 Lapua was being used by some Canada and UK snipers in Afghanistan, while US troops had 50 cal (and 7.62) sniper rifles, and took turns breaking long distance confirmed kill distance records.

But, I do not believe this is current U.S. military battlefield production, for several reasons:
1. Not a NATO icon on the brass, or spec.
2. It is not FMJ. It is OTM. May be great for research and target competition, but I believe battlefield use would violate Geneva convention ban on expanding projectiles. MK are only designed for making holes in paper. Of course, shooters have long pulled FMJ and replaced them with MK's.
3. If you can buy them at Walmart (i.e. mass market merchandising), mil-specs don't mean much to ATK accountants and Walmart buyers.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantr...ioniii8524.pdf

"7.62 x 51mm MK 316 MOD 0 Special Ball, Long Range A 175-grain round consisting of Sierra MatchKing Hollow Point Boat Tail projectiles, Federal Cartridge Company match cartridge cases and Gold Medal Match primers and an undisclosed modified extruded propellant. The 7.62 x 51mm MK 316 MOD 0 Special Ball, Long Range cartridges have an accuracy requirement based around 10-round shotgroups. The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745 grains).
The average extreme spread radius for 10-round shotgroups shall be less than or equal to the following values:
600 yd: 7.0 in (first Production Lot). This equates to a ≤ 1.1 MOA requirement at 548.6 m.
300 yd: 3.5 in (after first Production Lot). This equates to a ≤ 1.1 MOA requirement at 274.3 m.
The maximum muzzle velocity standard deviation is set at 15 ft/s (4.57 m/s). Information published on acceptance tests regarding five MK 316 MOD 0 cartridge production lots indicated a sub 2.4 in at 300 yd performance. This equates to a sub 0.8 MOA performance at 274.3 m for the listed ammunition lots.[9] "

waveslayer · May 3, 2015, 11:58 PM

moat accurate will depend on how your rifles do with those loads. do an OCW test and find out what works best. for off the shelf... get Federal Gold Metal Match or use the copy cat load if you don't want to spend the time on doing load work ups. go to the hide and find Dan Newberry's Sleuthing of the FGMM

suncoastarmory · May 4, 2015, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waveslayer

moat accurate will depend on how your rifles do with those loads. do an OCW test and find out what works best. for off the shelf... get Federal Gold Metal Match or use the copy cat load if you don't want to spend the time on doing load work ups. go to the hide and find Dan Newberry's Sleuthing of the FGMM

Dan's thread is where I found the most info on the 41.7 IMR 4064 load. I may just stick with that one.

**Unclenick** · May 4, 2015, 12:21 PM

It's not M118LR, but the replacement load Federal developed for the M24 sniper system, Mk 316 MOD 0 that seems to use 4064 or a variation of it. From the Wikipedia:

"The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745 grains)"

That information appears to be copied from this article, which references as its authority, this pdf file. The only problem: the propellant is not revealed in that pdf file. All it says is over 20 powders were tried and a modified one selected. That matches what was said in this American Rifleman article. That said, the load certainly is a good match to 4064 load data, so it may well be 4064 modified with calcium carbonate to reduce muzzle flash.

Mk 316 MOD 0 was developed after it was found Reloader 15 suffered pressure and velocity variation in desert heat and made too much muzzle flash (see the American Rifleman article, above). The Mk 316 uses 2.7 grams (41.67 grains) of what we believe to be 4064 over a Federal 210M primer in a specially developed FC match case with the 175 grain SMK seated to 2.8" COL to comply with self-loading gun requirements. Change any of that and you have a different load and may need to adjust it to suit your rifle.

I've forgotten where I saw the charge weight specified as 2.7 grams, but it's obvious that the 0.077 grain higher 41.745 grain load cited in the Wikipedia and Ammunition Store articles is impossibly high precision for a powder specification or for a mechanical powder dispensing unit to achieve. So it is either an average for some pulled samples or is a miscalculated conversion from grams to grains. The difference is 2.700 g or 2.705 g. Believe whichever you choose to. The gun won't know the difference. When I pulled some old Federal GMM 168 grain SMK loads that used 4064, the dispensing was ±0.2 grains. About three times tighter than needed to achieve the target 15 fps velocity SD reported in that pdf of the Power Point presentation on this ammunition.

Jimro · May 4, 2015, 04:15 PM

Unclenick,

The IMR4064 part comes from a lot data card for Mk316.

Here is a link to scoutsout2003's photobucket account which has a picture of the lot data.

http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/sc...5a0a2.jpg.html

Jimro

May 3, 2015, 02:17 PM	#1
suncoastarmory Member Join Date: December 21, 2013 Posts: 37	General accurate 308 175gr load recommendations I have been searching here and across the web for 308 175gr accuracy loads. I am looking to load up a lot of 308 rounds for 4-5 rifles including both semi and bolt action. I want one, two or perhaps three, depending on powder availability, good accurate loads that will do well in all the guns. I know they may not be the best 1 hole accurate in each gun, but I need to think along the lines of a FGMM type of round. These are what I have found for 175gr BTHP: 42gr IMR 4895 41.7gr, 42gr or 44 gr IMR 4064 43.5gr Varget Any other ideas? I look forward to the input.

May 3, 2015, 03:50 PM	#4
4runnerman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,577	My FTR Load was 42.3 gn RL-15 GM210M Primers, Good Luck finding any. 175 Serria Match. __________________ NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional

May 3, 2015, 05:50 PM	#6
Marco Califo Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2011 Location: LA (Greater Los Angeles Area) Posts: 2,598	TM 43-0001-27 TECHNICAL MANUAL ARMY AMMUNITION DATA ... No. Not 4064. It was 4895 when this manual was published. When Alliant/ATK took over the Lake City operation management (2001), they switched M118 to Rel 15 (which they distribute). 4064 was never used in LC M118. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant __________________ ............ Last edited by Marco Califo; May 3, 2015 at 10:36 PM.

May 3, 2015, 10:34 PM	#10
Marco Califo Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2011 Location: LA (Greater Los Angeles Area) Posts: 2,598	Interesting reading You are not talking about LC M118, although I am sure at some point 175 gr SMK were put on some of those. I found some info on your round. I had heard there was recent U.S. military research and development on sniper rounds. Although last I heard, they were planning 300 Win magnum as a new sniper platform. 338 Lapua was being used by some Canada and UK snipers in Afghanistan, while US troops had 50 cal (and 7.62) sniper rifles, and took turns breaking long distance confirmed kill distance records. But, I do not believe this is current U.S. military battlefield production, for several reasons: 1. Not a NATO icon on the brass, or spec. 2. It is not FMJ. It is OTM. May be great for research and target competition, but I believe battlefield use would violate Geneva convention ban on expanding projectiles. MK are only designed for making holes in paper. Of course, shooters have long pulled FMJ and replaced them with MK's. 3. If you can buy them at Walmart (i.e. mass market merchandising), mil-specs don't mean much to ATK accountants and Walmart buyers. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantr...ioniii8524.pdf "7.62 x 51mm MK 316 MOD 0 Special Ball, Long Range A 175-grain round consisting of Sierra MatchKing Hollow Point Boat Tail projectiles, Federal Cartridge Company match cartridge cases and Gold Medal Match primers and an undisclosed modified extruded propellant. The 7.62 x 51mm MK 316 MOD 0 Special Ball, Long Range cartridges have an accuracy requirement based around 10-round shotgroups. The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745 grains). The average extreme spread radius for 10-round shotgroups shall be less than or equal to the following values: 600 yd: 7.0 in (first Production Lot). This equates to a ≤ 1.1 MOA requirement at 548.6 m. 300 yd: 3.5 in (after first Production Lot). This equates to a ≤ 1.1 MOA requirement at 274.3 m. The maximum muzzle velocity standard deviation is set at 15 ft/s (4.57 m/s). Information published on acceptance tests regarding five MK 316 MOD 0 cartridge production lots indicated a sub 2.4 in at 300 yd performance. This equates to a sub 0.8 MOA performance at 274.3 m for the listed ammunition lots.[9] " __________________ ............ Last edited by Marco Califo; May 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM. Reason: DOH!

May 4, 2015, 12:21 PM	#13
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	It's not M118LR, but the replacement load Federal developed for the M24 sniper system, Mk 316 MOD 0 that seems to use 4064 or a variation of it. From the Wikipedia: "The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745 grains)" That information appears to be copied from this article, which references as its authority, this pdf file. The only problem: the propellant is not revealed in that pdf file. All it says is over 20 powders were tried and a modified one selected. That matches what was said in this American Rifleman article. That said, the load certainly is a good match to 4064 load data, so it may well be 4064 modified with calcium carbonate to reduce muzzle flash. Mk 316 MOD 0 was developed after it was found Reloader 15 suffered pressure and velocity variation in desert heat and made too much muzzle flash (see the American Rifleman article, above). The Mk 316 uses 2.7 grams (41.67 grains) of what we believe to be 4064 over a Federal 210M primer in a specially developed FC match case with the 175 grain SMK seated to 2.8" COL to comply with self-loading gun requirements. Change any of that and you have a different load and may need to adjust it to suit your rifle. I've forgotten where I saw the charge weight specified as 2.7 grams, but it's obvious that the 0.077 grain higher 41.745 grain load cited in the Wikipedia and Ammunition Store articles is impossibly high precision for a powder specification or for a mechanical powder dispensing unit to achieve. So it is either an average for some pulled samples or is a miscalculated conversion from grams to grains. The difference is 2.700 g or 2.705 g. Believe whichever you choose to. The gun won't know the difference. When I pulled some old Federal GMM 168 grain SMK loads that used 4064, the dispensing was ±0.2 grains. About three times tighter than needed to achieve the target 15 fps velocity SD reported in that pdf of the Power Point presentation on this ammunition. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

May 3, 2015, 02:19 PM	#2
jwrowland77 Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2012 Location: Conway, Arkansas Posts: 1,398	That new powder 4166. It's great in my rifle (bolt)

May 3, 2015, 02:58 PM	#3
math teacher Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2012 Location: Southwest WA Coast Posts: 559	I wish it was that simple. I was reading an old hand loading article last night in which the author pointed out that the go to powder for the .270 is H4831. He stated however that his .270 hated 4831 or any other powder with a similar burn rate. What one rifle loves, another may hate. You will probably get some good suggestions on loads that in general are quite accurate, but you cannot always count on it. There is not one universal most accurate load.

May 3, 2015, 05:20 PM	#5
firewrench044 Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Posts: 381	For Sierra 175 MK Military load is 41.75gr IMR 4064 ( M118LR ) (all of my 308s (6) 1/10 twist ) my load is 42.2gr IMR 4064 CCI # BR2 COAL 2.800 ( fits in most magazines ) For single round loaded into gun( longer than the magazine ) 175 Sierra MK's like to be 10 to 15 thou. off lands a few competitors have found RE 15 works better in their guns

May 3, 2015, 07:51 PM	#7
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,896	Just stay with your first load [42gr IMR 4895] and generally duplicate the LC-Match rounds 175SMK/2,550fps (from M1A) as a starting point: [Nothing's going to universal for every rifle type.]

May 3, 2015, 08:13 PM	#8
firewrench044 Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Posts: 381	Sorry the M118LR ( old ammo ) did not use 4064 you are correct the newer sniper ammo , I have read does, it is designated " 7.62X51 MK 316 MOD O Special Ball, Long Range " and it uses 41.75gr IMR 4064, Lapua case, Fed. primer, Sierra 175 MK

May 3, 2015, 08:18 PM	#9
suncoastarmory Member Join Date: December 21, 2013 Posts: 37	Thanks for the info so far. I know one load wont be the best in each rifle. I just want one load I can focus on and crank out in the 1050 that will generally get the job done.

May 3, 2015, 11:58 PM	#11
waveslayer Senior Member Join Date: August 22, 2013 Posts: 246	moat accurate will depend on how your rifles do with those loads. do an OCW test and find out what works best. for off the shelf... get Federal Gold Metal Match or use the copy cat load if you don't want to spend the time on doing load work ups. go to the hide and find Dan Newberry's Sleuthing of the FGMM

May 4, 2015, 04:15 PM	#14
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	Unclenick, The IMR4064 part comes from a lot data card for Mk316. Here is a link to scoutsout2003's photobucket account which has a picture of the lot data. http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/sc...5a0a2.jpg.html Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.