Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
168 smk vs 175 smk
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Eichele" data-source="post: 243906" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>This is correct. The 168 is designed for up to 600 yards. The 175 is designed for 1000 yards. On paper and in theroy that is. According to my own personal experiances (in the 308 win) this HAS been the case. Now in my experiance the 168 offered no better results from 0-600 than the 175. The 175 did everything the 168 could do. t 1K it was a different story. The 175's were by far more accurate and shot perfect round holes at 1K. Even at near sea level (80'ish) and in sub zero air. This was a a mild velocity as well. Around 2550 FPS. The 168's shot nearly 2700 FPS and wouldnt make it to 1K without going sideways and obviously huge groups.</p><p></p><p>IMHO the 175 makes the 168 near obsolete for the 308. The 168 has had some great success in matches in the past however. I still think the 168 is overrated. Just my .02</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Eichele, post: 243906, member: 1007"] This is correct. The 168 is designed for up to 600 yards. The 175 is designed for 1000 yards. On paper and in theroy that is. According to my own personal experiances (in the 308 win) this HAS been the case. Now in my experiance the 168 offered no better results from 0-600 than the 175. The 175 did everything the 168 could do. t 1K it was a different story. The 175's were by far more accurate and shot perfect round holes at 1K. Even at near sea level (80'ish) and in sub zero air. This was a a mild velocity as well. Around 2550 FPS. The 168's shot nearly 2700 FPS and wouldnt make it to 1K without going sideways and obviously huge groups. IMHO the 175 makes the 168 near obsolete for the 308. The 168 has had some great success in matches in the past however. I still think the 168 is overrated. Just my .02 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
168 smk vs 175 smk
Top