Probelms w/ Federal GMM 168SMK? (308win)

Why did the GMM shoot so poorly?

  • Shooter error/fatigue/etc.

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Ammo fluke

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Improper alignment of the planets

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
921
Location
USA
I took my CZ550 American in 308Win to the 100yd range for some load development. I also wanted to shoot some Federal GMM 168 SMK that I've been saving.

Loaded ~.006" off the lands, most of my loads shot .90" or less with both 150gr SST and 168gr BTHP projectiles from Hornady. Two loads with the 150's shot just under .30" :what: (3-shot groups, my eyes get really tired with 5-shot groups which results in poorer accuracy. IMHO the accuracy of a rifle/load can be determined in 3 shots).

When I moved on to shoot the Federal GMM, I was expecting similar accuracy to my reloads. To my surprise, the group measured 3.1 inches at 100yds! This ammo is around a year old, and has been stored at room temperature. I finally got this rifle "squared away" and wanted to see, "what it would really do" with such quality ammo...

I only shot one 3-shot group, because I didn't want to waste what I had left. I plan to go back out next weekend and see if it was just me messing things up. Still, I must say that I'm pretty disappointed. I shot everything before and after the GMM very well. Heck, I made a 2.5" 5-shot group with my open-sighted CZ452 Trainier and Federal Automatch. Some 80gr Amax .223Rem reloads made it into .5".

I was prone on a mat, using a backpack for a rest and a rag for a rear-bag. The SWFA SS 10x Mil/Mil is mounted with a pair of Warne Permanent rings (everything was tight, I checked). I also used the "Set" feature on my rifle's trigger, which makes it ridiculously light.

So what do you folks think it was? Me? The gun? Stars not aligned correctly?
 
Some guns will have ammo preferences. Yours evidently doesn't like GMM.

My 308 Rem700 VS (benched, bipod front, bagged rear, 4.5-14 Leoupold Mildot scope, stock trigger) shoots teacup sized groups with 150gr A-Max bullets. With 168gr GMM the worst group was .75" (5 shots, 100yds), best was an astounding .114" (3 shots, 100yards).
 
We're on the same page, I'm just shocked by how poorly it shot compared to everything else. An inch or two larger could be expected for a load that the rifle hates, but over three? I don't know that I've seen GMM go over so badly :uhoh: Which is why I'm thinking maybe my mojo was off for those three rounds...

FWIW, the 80gr Amax loads didn't go through my 308. I shot those one-by-one :)banghead:) in my AR.
 
I've always had pretty good luck with Federal GMM. I usually run the 175gr stuff but use the 168gr to zero or as play ammo for shorter distances. It's always shot sub MOA in my rifles. Your rifle may just not like it at all... Try the heavier stuff if you can find it as your rifle may like that bullet better.
 
Not trying to start an argument, but one three shot group really doesn't tell you much about a load, good OR bad.

I also have a hard time understanding how "tired eyes" would keep you from shooting five shot groups, unless you only fire three rounds per range trip, which according to your post, doesn't appear to be the case.

There's no time limit on how long you take to fire a particular group, be it 3, 5 or even 10 rounds. If you can't space your shots within groups so that tired eyes aren't a factor, why would you assume that starting another group is going to somehow make your eyes better?

Five shot groups aren't larger than three shot groups because your eyes get tired, they're larger because they're a much better reflection of the true accuracy potential of you, your rifle and your ammunition. They also make "lucky accidents" far less likely. Ten round groups make 'em almost impossible. I'm not trying to pick on you here, the same rules apply to just about everyone, me included.

You might also reconsider the rests you're using. While a prone position, backpack and a rag are great for practice or shooting in the field, they are in no way a substitute for a a bench and good bags when you're doing load testing and development.

You may not like what I've said, and I can guarantee you that shooting five or ten round groups will cut way down on the number of .3 inch "braggin' groups" you shoot, but over time it'll make you a better and far more confident rifle shot, with better, more consistent handloads.

As far as the FGMM group goes, my luck with that ammo has been excellent. The only groups I've shot with it that went over an inch were with my iron sighted M1A. In over 30 years of highpower shooting, I haven't seen any other ammunition that performs so well, so consistently, in so many different weapons as FGMM.

Have you angered any voodoo witch doctors lately? :what:
 
Negative on the witch doctors ;)

Swampman, your points are well received. You are correct, I really should have shot 5 rd groups for all of my loads. From a statistical standpoint, firing more rounds will provide a more accurate representation of how precise a rifle/ammo/shooter combination can be. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of a bonified shooting rest (broke college kid here), which forces me to improvise. I find that using "field-expedient" rests (like my backpack and a rag) provide only enough consistent support for 3 shots, but after that things usually shift. Once I adjust the rag/bag to get back on target, the rifle is now supported in a slightly different way then it was before, and my cheek-weld most-likely changed in the process.

Continuing to look through the scope to check my "adjustments" is what causes the eye fatigue I mentioned earlier. Though its not crippling, attempting to maitain sharp focus on the target while controlling my breathing and body position, and trying to get the rest back to where it should be makes maintaining the utmost in attentiveness difficult. In my opinion, these factors are what causes the 4th or 5th shot to be thrown out of the group.

I hope that clears things up a bit. I think I'm going to try and come up with a rifle rest made out of 2x4s or something. Combined with some sandbags a basic rest like that could really help my shot-to-shot consistency; then I'd be able to report back with some real 5rd groups!

I'll shoot the GMM again next weekend (Heck, maybe tomorrow. I gotta know!) and see how it goes.
 
i'll echo everything swampman mentioned. also, try using good sandbags. i've done some of me best shooting from prone off a bipod with a rear wedge bag. i do my load development this way as well due to the benches at my range being at an akward height. fgmm has never let me down.
 
So I finally made it out again with the FGMM. Armed with a rest and bags I was ready for some work.

Although the group was better than last time, it wasn't anywhere near sub-moa. I really took my time, letting the barrel cool for several minutes between shots. I also made sure to set the trigger, and rest the rifle in exactly the same way with each shot.

The 3-shot group at 100 yards was 1.7". Yes, I know I should have done 5. However, I had let one of the novices in the group burn all but the last three a week or two ago on a plate at 610 yards. I think two three-shot groups is enough of an indicator that my rifle simply doesn't like the ammo. I might pick up another box in the future to see if it was maybe that particular box. In all honesty I'm not sure that will happen, since I could just buy 100 projectiles instead that I know the rifle will like.
 
GMM is going to be more CONSISTENT than most other loads, it doesnt mean it will be the most ACCURATE from your particular rifle.

I had a Ruger Tang safety .243 varmint rifle that would nearly pattern Win Silvertips and then punch .4" groups using Federal Power-Shok ....... Some rifles prefer cheap ammo (and we keep those rifles:D).
 
I would suspect that the rifle is cursed if it won't shoot GMM at least decently. I'd look very hard at scope, mounts, and action screws.
 
Not to get to far off the trail here, but I benchmark myself and my rifles off 3 shot groups.

When I work up a new load I will shoot 10 three shot groups and take the average from those 10 groups and that's my average group for that rifle/load.

It would be no different than shooting 6 five shot groups or 3 ten shot groups.

While I agree a single 3 shot group will tell you nothing, comparing multiple groups of whatever size is the best way to determine a true group size average.

On topic, Federal GMM has always been great for me. It's usually the factory load I buy for a new .308 to benchmark it.
 
30cal I hear you on the screws, mount and scope. In my case, I don't think they are the source of the problem. All of the three groups of my "pet" loads for this rifle shot into .75" +/- .1" that day at 100 yards. Later at 518 yards my one group of 5 shots made it into 5.8" on a 12x12" plate. Thats a 150gr Hornady SST with 44.5gr of H335 and a CCI #200 primer.

I have an SWFA SS 10x42 Mil/Mil mounted in a set of Warne Maxima steel rings. I checked the screws and everything seems solid.

Perhaps its just the brass in my particular batch was sized? Maybe its something to do with the lot of SMKs they used?
 
Originally posted by: EchoM70
It would be no different than shooting 6 five shot groups or 3 ten shot groups.
Using your method of fewer shots per group, I just shot 30, one shot groups at 100 yards with my rusty, smooth bored old Mossberg 500 loaded with beat up, home cast Lee slug culls, the leftover dregs from several different jugs of assorted shotgun and pistol powders and primers of varying age, type and manufacturer.

My average group size was 0.00 Inches!

My shotty and I are ready to take on the benchrest shooting world! :D



Your method wouldn't really give usefull accuracy data unless you overlaid the groups on top of one another (with your aiming point the same for all groups) and measured overall group size.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be much more meaningful than the satire I just posted.

I really have done quite a bit of work with "first shot, clean cold bore", one shot groups aggregated over a period of time.

Doing that kind of shooting will help you realize why the average shot taken by police snipers is so short.
 
I used 1 box of the Federal with my AR10. I wasn't impressed at all. I got 3" groups. My reloads with the same 168 SMK delivers .75 MOA or less. The Federal didn't perform any better than NATO surplus or at least not enough to warrant the extra $.
 
I don't find TNG's experience much different from my own. One of my AR's will not group a certain mfg 69 gr bullets, while another mfg 69 gr will clover leaf @100 yds. Giving that the powder, primer and case is identical.
 
Originally posted by: The_Next_Generation
I might pick up another box in the future to see if it was maybe that particular box. In all honesty I'm not sure that will happen, since I could just buy 100 projectiles instead that I know the rifle will like.
Buy the components.
Next time let the "novice shooter" buy a box or two of FGMM and bring it along.

I said that it shoots accurately and consistently in my rifles.

I didn't say that I actually BUY any of it myself. :D

Besides, I'm not real fond of Federal rifle brass.
It usually only lasts four cycles for me, even in a bolt gun.
Hirtenberger will generally go 9 and that's in an M1A.
 
Using your method of fewer shots per group, I just shot 30, one shot groups at 100 yards with my rusty, smooth bored old Mossberg 500 loaded with beat up, home cast Lee slug culls, the leftover dregs from several different jugs of assorted shotgun and pistol powders and primers of varying age, type and manufacturer.

My average group size was 0.00 Inches!

My shotty and I are ready to take on the benchrest shooting world!

No... Just no.

If you are consistently putting 3 shots under 1 MOA, then it's a safe bet you have a sub-Moa shooter and rifle.


But this thread isn't about groups, it's about federal GMM and it's performance. So I will not comment further on this topic, just keep in mind they are multiple ways to come to a conclusion, and different purposes require different standards. There isn't a one size fits all conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top