When is it OK to ignore the conventional wisdom?

[bikemutt]

I have a Rem 700 308 rifle that seems to feed quite nicely on 168 grain SMKs. Every gun person I know, including the person I bought the rifle from, says it will really shine with 175 grain projectiles. Well, I've tried 5 different 175/178 grain ammo, the rifle hates it. I really don't give a rip what the rifle likes but there's this "it really wants 175 grain" force that leaves me wondering if I'm leaving something on the table. The rifle is sub 1" at 100 yards with 168 grain and 2" plus with the heavier bullets, should I care why it likes what it likes despite what consensus says it should like?

 

[taliv]

my experience is same as yours though not nearly that extreme. 168 SMK seem to do better in factory rem700 for me than the 175g etc. dunno why everyone is so hot and bothered about the 175g other than they are better at long range, but then, i wouldn't be shooting a 308...

 

[The Alaskan]

Sub MOA? Let it go, you're on the mark. I don't think it should matter "why" one bullet shoots better than another, just that it does. As long as the most accurate bullet is heavy enough and of the right design to do the task you want it to do, I'd leave well enough alone and not over think it. Put your resources into fine tuning that 168 grn bullet and see if you can get one hole groups out of it.

 

[ontarget]

In my experience nearly every rifle has its own favorite load. Who cares what someone says their gun likes best. Shoot what your gun likes best.

 

[Jackal]

Best rifle I never should of sold: Ruger M77 Tang Safety Varmint in .243. That bugger was 1/2moa with cheap Federal blue box 80gr loads.

But wait, it was a Ruger and they are all inaccurate....

Sometimes the common internet/social hyperbole is pure BS.

 

[justin22885]

more often than not, "conventional wisdom" which is almost a euphemism for "common knowledge" is almost always wrong and the belief that common knowledge or conventional wisdom actually has any basis in facts or evidence has done more to keep people from realizing the facts

if you tried 5 different loads in the stated bullet weight and didnt find the results people claimed you would.. then its quite simply just another situation where the "conventional wisdom" was probably made up of unsubstantiated stories to begin with and should of course be ignored

 

[Delmar]

If you are going to confine your shooting to a few hundred yards, then I would stick with the 168 grain weights as they seem to do very well in your particular rifle. The only issue I have heard about with 168s is that some go subsonic before 1000 yards and the accuracy is spotty.

I have a Remington VS in 308 with the 1:12 twist which shoots the 168 and 175 grain weight Sierra SMKs about the same at 100 yards, but that's my rifle, not yours. I have found that in my rifle, the 175 grain bullets need to be closer to the lands for best accuracy. Why that is, I do not know for sure. I just know that it works.

I don't know it to be fact, but have heard from some I respect who tell me that sometimes, the heavier bullet needs more distance to stabilize from a given barrel.

 

[Tirod]

It's been said, "Observe the masses, and do the opposite." Keep shooting the 168"s.

If what the mass of opinions said was correct in every instance, we'd be celebrating Hillary's 2d term, own only shotguns, and chase off intruders by simply racking the action.

In other words, when "everybody" is telling you the same thing, then it's time to be around some different people. That group has gotten itself locked into a mindset due to word of mouth and being less than interested in knowing a factual answer they have tested.

You tried it, didn't work, oh well. Too bad for them.

 

[BSA1]

Every gun is a rule unto itself. That's one of the things that keeps handloading interesting.

 

[Sunray]

"...tried 5 different 175/178 grain ammo..." Factory? Your rifle doesn't like those 5 brands. That's why you have to try as many brands as you can.
Personally, I'd just shoot the 168's. Mind you, 2 MOA isn't the rifle hating the ammo. It's the rifle being what it is. A hunting rifle.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

175 grain bullets are the optimum choice for match shooting using the .308 because of the bullet ballistics. That's all the "conventional wisdom" really is. If you were target shooting, you'd work up the load that works best in your rifle using 175 grain match bullets.

Since you're, apparently, not loading your own ammunition for rifle match use - then conventional wisdom is irrelevant.

Probably the best factory loaded 175 grain ammunition is the Federal Gold Medal Match Ammunition. The Federal ammunition uses Sierra MatchKing bullets. Federal also makes the Gold Medal Match with a 168 grain Sierra MatchKing bullet.

If your particular rifle does not work best with 175 grain bullets, then obviously you should use the 168 grain - that's why Federal makes their Gold Medal Match ammunition in two bullet weights.

My .308 will shoot the 175 grain slightly more accurately than the 168 grain. But, where you really see the difference is past 600 yards where the better ballistic coefficient of the 175 grain bullet becomes apparent.

 

[barnbwt]

I always thought the conventional wisdumb was that SMK 168's were the most accurate 308 load in general, but that a longer/heavier bullet would ultimately do better at long range, but the 308 was basically running out of steam by then due to its reduced case capacity. The corollary being that a bigger 30-06 or 300WM or 7.5x55 or what have you loaded with the longer bullets would beat the lighter 308, by more than a heavy 308 would be capable of.

Can't even remember the number of times I've seen "168gr SMK, 42.Xgr H4895" tossed out as X 308's favorite load for 100yd or so groups. I would assume it would remain so until getting near transonic velocities, out around 800-1000yrds as I understand it.

TCB

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My response to those telling you the 175 grain bullet is better would be, "I've asked my rifle, and it disagrees with you."

 

[Jim Watson]

If you are going to continue to shoot at short range, stay with what you have got.

 

[maxxhavoc]

The 1:12 twist rate on the Remington 700s won't run 175+ very well unless you push it as fast as you can. 168's are probably as heavy as you want to go.

Other brands use 1:10, which changes the rules.

A tool to use for calculations:
http://www.bergerbullets.com/twist-rate-calculator/

If your 700 is like mine, try loading some Sierra 125gr TNT rounds at the low end of the chart. I'm guessing it will like it more than the 168's. Not good for long range, but at <300 I bet they group even better.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

When Hayden Fry was the coach of the University of Iowa he was fond of saying "You have to dance with the girl what brung you" so shoot what you are familiar with. Don't worry about what the chattering class says.

 

[C-grunt]

I always thought the conventional wisdumb was that SMK 168's were the most accurate 308 load in general, but that a longer/heavier bullet would ultimately do better at long range, but the 308 was basically running out of steam by then due to its reduced case capacity.
TCB

This is what I have read as well. The 168s will be more accurate at closer ranges but goes transonic around 800 yards. The 175s go transonic around 1000 (obviously several factors at play can change that) and they stay on course better going through the transonic barrier.

So in a nut shell.... unless you are wanting to target shoot past 800 yards, stick with the 168s. If you are trying to hit 1k+, try some more 175/178s.

 

[Fishbed77]

When is it OK to ignore the conventional wisdom?

When internet commandos say ARs are unreliable.

When internet commandos say AKs are inaccurate.

 

[bikemutt]

Thanks all for your thoughts on the matter.

From Delmar:

I have found that in my rifle, the 175 grain bullets need to be closer to the lands for best accuracy. Why that is, I do not know for sure. I just know that it works.

This is similar to what the fellow I bought the rifle from said, but he hand loads. He mentioned the 175 gr SMKs he loads with, along with getting the bullets closer to the lands. I need to quit dreaming about hand loading and start doing it

 

[redneck2]

Handloading doesn't have to be complicated or expensive. Back long ago in high school I reloaded for my 22-250 using a Lee hand loader. All you need is a kitchen table and a few basic pieces. Not very fast, but it worked.

IIRC, David Tubb used one to win at Camp Perry.

 

[Delmar]

This is similar to what the fellow I bought the rifle from said, but he hand loads. He mentioned the 175 gr SMKs he loads with, along with getting the bullets closer to the lands. I need to quit dreaming about hand loading and start doing it

Bike, reloading will open up a whole new world and a whole new addiction too!

For whatever reason, Big Green likes a LOT of freebore in their 308s-can't speak to their other short action rifles, but the 2 Varmint Synthetics I have owned certainly do. The 168 grain Sierra is very tolerant of jump and seems to do just fine in my rifle.

I have an old Stony Point chamber gauge-now a Hornady lock n load sumpin or another, and upon checking Sierra's 175 MK bullets, they touched the rifling at 2.950", which are way too long for the magazine box (max there is 2.830"). So I loaded up some at 2.9" and it will shoot 1/2 inch groups all day long behind a max load of Reloader 15. Makes it a single feed proposition but the groups will make a shooter smile pretty big.

 

[stoky]

It's okay to ignore AR/AK fan boys that chime in on a bolt gun thread.

 

[DougW]

My 700 VTR hates 150's, loves 165/168's (half MOA@100 yards), and shoots 175's OK, but I haven't tested much because 168's work so well. If I am shooting past 500 yards it will be with the L1A1 and 147 FMJ's out of the 30 round mag. That or call in an air strike!

 

[1911 guy]

Conventional wisdom is nothing more than playing the lottery. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Just remember that every rifle is a law unto itself. Two identical rifles from the same manufacturer will have a slightly different "favorite" load. Maybe different bullet weights, maybe different powder, maybe same powder but different charge weight.

Just because "everybody" says it "should" like 175's, that doesn't mean 165 or 168 can't be the load for the rifle.

 

[Delmar]

Very good points, 1911 guy. I will be testing that very same theory in the coming weeks. I purchased a Remington Long Range rifle after seeing my youngest son's a few months back. The better half decided that she wanted one too in the same caliber as mine, 30-06. Will be doing load workups on both just to see which works best in what.