308 Sierra 168gr matchking load

[American_Fusilier]

I was going through some of my 308 win ammo today and came across some loads that I loaded to mimic Fed Gold Medal Match with 168gr Sierra Matchkings hpbt. I had two loads, one with 46gr of CFE223 and one with 40gr of IMR 3031. I know I used my Hornady data book or the Hodgdon website to get the data.

When I checked the Hornady book, for 168gr bullets it said a max of 47.2gr of CFE223. I decided to recheck the Hodgdon data center and specially for the SMK 168gr it said CFE223 was good until 49gr.

That seems like a huge disparity... I know Hornady data is more conservative, but still!

I decided to pull the bullets and start lower.

I was trying to match velocity of the Fed GMM. But now that I think of it, that is an unsafe way to load...

Those of you who load 168gr SMK, do you load with 3031 or CFE223? If so, what are your go to loads for 308 win? For your rifles of course. I'm not looking to use anyone else's data, I'm just curious if I pulled my bullets unnecessarily.

 

[Charlie98]

I don't think either one of those would be good for the 168grn bullet while trying to match the FGMM in accuracy. FGMM uses IMR4064 (currently) or Reloder 15 (previously,) I would probably stick with powders in that very narrow range.

Having said that, I have loaded the Nosler 168 BTHP over IMR3031 for use in my 16" M1a... 39.5grn gave me 2430fps and excellent accuracy... but obviously, the velocity left a little to be desired. I have also loaded 40.5grn IMR3031 under the 168grn NCC... good for 2700fps out of my 24" Savage, which nearly mimics FGMM in the same rifle. I don't have any notes on it, so it must not have been very good there.

I have no experience with CFE223.

Having recently gotten into pressure troubles with the new Sierra MK 169grn bullet, and seeing the differences I've had between the 168's... Sierra, Nosler, and Hornady... I would use Sierra's data for Sierra's bullet.

 

[AJC1]

I was going through some of my 308 win ammo today and came across some loads that I loaded to mimic Fed Gold Medal Match with 168gr Sierra Matchkings hpbt. I had two loads, one with 46gr of CFE223 and one with 40gr of IMR 3031. I know I used my Hornady data book or the Hodgdon website to get the data.

When I checked the Hornady book, for 168gr bullets it said a max of 47.2gr of CFE223. I decided to recheck the Hodgdon data center and specially for the SMK 168gr it said CFE223 was good until 49gr.

That seems like a huge disparity... I know Hornady data is more conservative, but still!

I decided to pull the bullets and start lower.

I was trying to match velocity of the Fed GMM. But now that I think of it, that is an unsafe way to load...

Those of you who load 168gr SMK, do you load with 3031 or CFE223? If so, what are your go to loads for 308 win? For your rifles of course. I'm not looking to use anyone else's data, I'm just curious if I pulled my bullets unnecessarily.

Cfe seems to allow much higher loads than the 4064 I use to replicate gmm.

 

[JFrank]

I run Imr 4064, RL-15, Varget , H4895, also have N140 but haven’t got around to testing with it yet

 

[American_Fusilier]

Thanks for the info guys!

I've never tried replicating a factory load before. I have IMR 4064 though, maybe I should stick to that.

 

[Charlie98]

Thanks for the info guys!

I've never tried replicating a factory load before. I have IMR 4064 though, maybe I should stick to that.

I keep trying to reinvent the wheel with 168's in the .308 with other powders, when I know good and well the Easy Button is IMR4064.

I mentioned previously in another thread that I use 168grn FGMM as my control ammo... to check my chronograph, and as a barometer to compare my handloads with. So far, I have not been able to beat FGMM out of the Savage... it's that good... so I've decided to replicate it by loading down to the velocity of FGMM, and see how that works out.

 

[nettlle]

IMR 4064 under a 168 GR SMK is pretty popular load with M1A shooters. It's what I use in mine.

 

[.45Coltguy]

I had some very good loads using IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 using that bullets some years ago in my Rem 700 heavy barrel[24"].
That's a peach of a bullet with the right powder. Good luck.

 

[Charlie98]

I had some very good loads using IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 using that bullets some years ago in my Rem 700 heavy barrel[24"].
That's a peach of a bullet with the right powder. Good luck.

I tried IMR4895 with the 168's, but I don't think it's as good as IMR4064.... or maybe I wasn't using enough. They ran out of gas at about 500yds, and started tumbling.

 

[.45Coltguy]

I tried IMR4895 with the 168's, but I don't think it's as good as IMR4064.... or maybe I wasn't using enough. They ran out of gas at about 500yds, and started tumbling.

Yes, same here. The IMR 4895 loads worked great to 200-300 yards, then fizzled. 4064 worked better. Man, this was back in the early 90's! Been a while.

 

[American_Fusilier]

I'll have to try 4064. My rifle is a Rem 700 with a 26" heavy barrel on it.

 

[Nature Boy]

That seems like a huge disparity...

I think we make way too much of these differences between published load data sources.

It really doesn’t matter.

These manuals are simply references meant to give you a safe starting point and a general range. What does matter is what you observe during your load testing in your rifle.

For instance, what if you observed excess pressure signs several grains below any published max charge? Would you feel safe to keep going all the way to the max because it’s written in a reloading manual?

BTW, I had this happen with 180gn Nosler BTs in a .308 load. I noted my max charge was 2gn less than Hodgens max.

In effect I’m writing the book on that rifle and that load, based on my own load development.

Isn’t that the basis of all reloading?

 

[AJC1]

I think we make way too much of these differences between published load data sources.

It really doesn’t matter.

These manuals are simply references meant to give you a safe starting point and a general range. What does matter is what you observe during your load testing in your rifle.

For instance, what if you observed excess pressure signs several grains below any published max charge? Would you feel safe to keep going all the way to the max because it’s written in a reloading manual?

BTW, I had this happen with 180gn Nosler BTs in a .308 load. I noted my max charge was 2gn less than Hodgens max.

In effect I’m writing the book on that rifle and that load, based on my own load development.

Isn’t that the basis of all reloading?

That's absolutely the way I see it. Give me a safe start and I'm good.

 

[nettlle]

Although it's not practical to buy a reloading manual for every brand of bullet manufactured (at least not for me anyway) I will pony up the money for a manual for a brand of bullet that I am trying that shows promise.

 

[lightman]

I use mostly 4064 but I have used Varget and 4895. I've never tried the two powders that you posted.

 

[jmorris]

These manuals are simply references meant to give you a safe starting point and a general range.

And over the years people seem to have forgotten what "starting load" means, so they've simply moved the top down to a safer level.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

IMR 4227. Versatile powder, all you need.

 

[DMW1116]

I don’t use the SMK but I used CFE223 with a 168 grain Amax. I don’t think I’m going to use it again. It seems like a gassy powder and I use it in gas operated guns. Even with an adjustable block, it has a different setting than the other loads and going over causes damaged brass in the form of bent rims. It probably works fine in manual actions. I’ve never used IMR 3031. If the price weren’t higher than giraffe eyebrows, I’d try some.

 

[Walkalong]

so I've decided to replicate it by loading down to the velocity of FGMM, and see how that works out.

That's what I did the last time out, didn't have enough to prove if it was better, but that's what I did for the FM-SPR I gave to my younger son a couple of years ago.

 

[Charlie98]

Although it's not practical to buy a reloading manual for every brand of bullet manufactured (at least not for me anyway) I will pony up the money for a manual for a brand of bullet that I am trying that shows promise.

Yes and no. We live in the Information Age... a lot of reloading data is available for free from bullet manufacturers, like Nosler and Speer, but by no means all... like Hornady and Sierra. So I have the Hornady manual, and will very likely pick up the Sierra manual, and just print off the data I need for the others, including other sources like Alliant and Hodgdon, although I generally cross-reference those for validity.

I’ve never used IMR 3031. If the price weren’t higher than giraffe eyebrows, I’d try some.

I used to think IMR4895 was the 'Unique' of rifle powders, but I've changed that to IMR3031... at least in the realm of rifle cartridges I shoot. You should try a pound... it'll change your life, swear to god.

That's what I did the last time out, didn't have enough to prove if it was better, but that's what I did for the FM-SPR I gave to my younger son a couple of years ago.

Well, and I figure I can match the velocity, then range it up or down a few tenths to match the accuracy. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.