edit: I'm speaking about 168g

I have a 20 inch barrel on my VTR. My last load I built was hitting 2550, but Hornady Tap comes out 2650 almost every time. I still need to chrono my Federal Gold Medal Match SMKs.

I have the program "shooter" for my android phone. It's my favorite thing about the phone. It seems to me that a lot of though was put into it. It has a lot of G1 and G7 profiles for bullets by Litz. Anyway I can't wait to see this round. I took my furthest shot this weekend at 650 yards. It's the furthest place I've found to shoot.

Sorry for the ramble, I just love shooting at distance.

Just paraphrasing, but it seems that a shorter, heaver, lead based bullet (no solid copper) that has a high rpm shot from a barrel with shallow, rounded grooves will pass through the transonic zone better than other sorts of bullets. Some posters claim their bullets are accurate 100s of yards beyond the transonic zone, with a couple of Englishman claiming they are shooting targets 2500 yds with .308 subsonic bullets.

Of course, the thread then degenerates into conversations about sabots with fins, true Mil sighting systems, solid copper bullets, etc. In my experience, some of these threads have the same structure as a herd of cats, and not just in that forum.

I’m sure there are people on this board who know about this stuff, but it sure isn’t me.

I suggest you sign on that board if your interested in rifle shooting. It’s free and they have some very interesting threads going.

I talked to a USASOC buddy today who has tested some of the AB rounds - he said they shoot very well at 1000m.

If you go and read what Gene and Richard are saying about the old M118 Special Ball in the M14 thread it is very interesting being as the M21 is still widely used (I pulled that thread up with a stupid but true story as the best one I could find on this forum about the M21 and Special Ball). The 173 grain Full metal Jacket Boat Tail bullet itself was made by Lake City or Frankfurt arsenal. The stuff was really great at extreme ranges well past the transition zone. Even if you could get the M118LR stuff to be stable at the same distances the hollowpoint is not going to expand so expansion is not a consideration. Very few people do well with a 1/3 inch diameter hole through them so the FMJ BT was just as good as any other style bullet at those ranges.

It would be interesting to compare the shape of the Berger bullet with the 173 SB but I am sure Bryan L changed the nose profile in order to get a G1 of 0.5 but I bet the boat tail is the same

I think the price is pretty fair as well. My brother in law shoots, .257 weatherby Mag. It's around $70 a box! So far I've been doing well w/ 168g rounds, but then I also have only shot out to 650 yards.

Bob:

Took a look and it is marketing more so than anything else in my opinion. 7% improvement in BC? Show me how and prove it equates to a significant improvement of performance at those 'extended ranges'. Close down the tip and you will get four or five percent without any other change to the design.

What I find as being somewhat deceptive is the marketing. The marketing inferrs that because the numbers indicate 7% improvement in BC that one will see a 7% improvement at 'extended ranges', 'Improvement' "performance', and 'extended range' are vague and misleading when the implication is a significant improvement over what already exists.

One selling point is the length of the bullet but one can seat longer bullets deeper to feed from a magazine too and with the .308 it doesn't mean a thing where in other cartridges, increasing seating depth may mean dangerous pressures. The .308 is pretty forgiving.

I also read the SWAT article and they claimed 16 FPS per inch of barrel lost under 20" but only went down to 18". That by no means is enough information to make any conclusions but like most rags, they imply which is intellectually dishonest. Some cartridges need every foot per second of speed they can get and others don't. For SWAT purposes they don't need a 30" barrel. For Palma purposes given the rules of the sport plus the technology of today, one needs that barrel length to get speed.

The plus side is the brass is great and I am sure the bullets are just fine. Two dollars a shot is appalling for us who handload but for guys who don't or want to stock up on brass, the price really isn't bad at all. More power to Litz on this. No doubt he designed the bullet and no doubt the bullet is as good as any other top end 175 grain .30 caliber match bullet on the market.

However, maybe the real key to this discussion isn't technology or design but rather 'market'.

Gene

Gene

I would ask you two questions just so we start at the same point of departure.

1. Do you believe the 175 SMK is stable through the transonic zone as it is my understanding that it is not; although, I have never personally verified it?

2. Do You believe the old M118 SB (173 gr FMJBT) was stable through the transition zone; as it is my understanding that it was, and that was my observation of it?


The official Americal record in RVN with the 308 is 1600 meters (not yards) and the unofficial is further.

Remarkable.

With an M-21 or something else?

Attached is an Adobe file about the Chu Lai Sniper School and, other than a few CIA test rifles, the snipers routinely used the M21 and Lake City M118 SB.

Lones Wigger is easy to find on the internet and we exchanged emails once about RVN records.

http://www.sports-reference.com/olym...-wigger-1.html

http://www.facebook.com/people/Lones-Wigger/1537531224

Virgil Umphenour runs a guide service with his son and daughter in Alaska

http://www.huntalaskawithus.com/about_huntalaska.htm

One day in RVN, Virgil sent word that he was going to court martial a "raggedy ass, wet behind the ears lieutenant" if I did quit being an asshole. :D I had tactical control of the snipers in the field but he had administrative control.


I would just say that my experience was about as the adobe file says. Lots of 100 - 500 yards kills and wounded and only very, very seldom are you in a situation to get a really good extreme range shot.

I believe the Iraq record with the 308 was set at 1250 meters with a M24 bolt gun using the M118LR (not M118 SB) with the 175 SMK and is borderline super sonic range but I don't know the atmospheric conditions so I would not make any definitive statement about it other than a good shot is a good shot.

Bob:

I don't think anything is stable through the transonic zone. Not being a wise guy about it. The differences are probably in the degree of instability. I also figure twist rate and velocity would play a role as that determines nutation or precession -- both of which probably have something to do with stability when transitioning.

I can comment on my observations of consistency at 1K though.

I would give the 118LR an edge over the 118 SB at 1K in terms of consistency given shooters who are relatively new to distance shooting. The difference is evident but in my opinion both are more than adequate for combat demands. However, neither are competitive in today's precision shooting sports.

I can say with certainty that 118LR and 118 SB held considerably better at 1K than the old 852 Match. However, that old 168 grain bullet from the 852 had transitioned completely to subsonic under most environmental conditions. Also, the bullet design of that one simply wasn't focused towards performance much beyond 300.

I kind of look at it like this. Maybe one percent of the competitive side of long range shooting will be good enough at those distances where results can be conclusively shown to be due solely to instability caused by transonic passage. So, the 'so what' factor plays a role at least in my terms.

As for a 1600 meter shot with a M-21 and the old 118 Match you guys used in Vietnam. With an ART scope? You are looking at about ten minutes per hundred after 1K meters with that cartridge out of a 21 so somehow the guy held about sixty minutes over? Man, I can't see how the shooter could even see another human with an ART scope at that distance unless they were in a high desert right at sunrise with absolutely no wind or mirage. Not to mention someone being able to spot the shot.

I do defer to Rick or Sinister on the transonic issue and the 118's though. To me, the discussion is a technical one that can't be predicted and certainly can't be changed by the shooter. So, it just doesn't hit the level of importance for my purposes and in my conditions.

Gene

I count it as a good day when I actually learn something new about long range shooting. And your comment is really intriguing to me so I am going to keep it in mind as it would seem to be a good assessment.

So, I am about to the end of my knowledge base on the subject and only have a few thoughts and observations left.

You mention optics used back then and that certainly is important. In about 1977 I began noticing that the animals I hunted were often over othe next ridgeline so I bought a 3X9 Redfield Accutrac. That thing was so great under 500 yards that I built up a whole rifle and topped it off with a 6X18 Redfield accuRange. In its day and in my early years it was great glass. I sold the 6X18 about three years ago because it was trash compared to the new Luepolds and Nightforces. Whether is was the coatings and glue deteriorating or my eyes deteriorating or both I do not know. I also had a friend who built a USMC M24 clone and topped it with a RVN correct Redfield and I looked through it at 300 yards and it was trash although I never adjusted the eyepiece so that judgement is flawed. I have a Wilde Rangefinder (WWII vintage) and I can see clearly to 3K with it. So I am not at all certain about the optics of the RVN era versus what I use today.

However you make this comment
As I mentioned earlier, there is the 1600 M official Americal record and then there is the "unofficial" record. After the Americal left RVN, the 196th LIB operated as an independent unit. The whole long story of how that record was broken is hilarious but I will save it for another day.
I will preface my remarks that everything hinges upon my memory which is about as reliable as my other body parts. :D

The firing position was the top of a perimeter bunker at Bn Firebase on a ridge and downhill to the old French RR. The background was a water filled rice paddy. Target was two NVA solder walking ( Can you believe shooting a guy walking at over a mile with a 308?) along the RR. Shooter was a second tour sniper using a M21, ART and M118SB with his regular partner spotting on the Bn arty spotting scope. Spotter was calling adjustment based upon splashes in the rice paddy and the NVA reactions. Fourth and fifth round hits on the same guy. One more for the Body Count Board!

Unusual and unique circumstance under which the shots were made and for certain no other sniper I ever had was good enough to do it.

So before I conclude, I will say that my son and my daughter and myself have won mantel trinkets shooting the 175 Sierra MatchKing in long range F-class and several animals have been killed with it which have been posted on this forum. Its a great bullet and I have some loaded right now just for hunting. I also shoot Bergers and have killed several animals beyond 1K with them so they are also good bullets.


Conclusion

Given the great improvements in metallurgy and barrel making and the great improvement in optics, rangefinding, atmospheric meters and handheld ballistic computers and given the continued widespread use of the 308 as a sniper cartridge is seems that one would stop and think whether the bullet in use is limiting the effective range of the snipers because it will not transition well. Back in the good ole days Sniper School was three weeks. Nowadays it is much longer and much improved (I would hope) and the snipers should be capable of outperforming those of my generation. Why aren't the RVN records being broken? Is it because of bullet design?

Bob:

Don't want to make a mess of this one so will be careful about what I say.

I have shot the 24 with the issued M-3 optic at about 1250 - 1300 meters and had to put on all elevation and hold at the base of the duplex. That got the 118 SB out to about 1300. If I had to push it another hundred meters, it would have been impossible for me to see the target through the optic. It brings up something. How could the shooter have seen the targets with that ART scope at that distance? From what I can recall about the ART Scopes, you maxed them out at 1K and I can't see how someone could see a target through their scope at 1600 meters using the type of hold over needed. Just food for thought.

As for guys doing or not doing what this one team did in Vietnam I can only offer some potential reasons. First is that the guys today must ID the target as a threat. Since the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, this means they must see a weapon. Hard to do at those distances with a 10X optic. Also, the conditions you mentioned are very unique. Team on a hill, enemy crossing a rice paddy. Ability to see the bullets literally splash in the water which is way more precise than seeing dust kick up. And in a ten year long war it happened only once.

Technology has gotten better but not significantly better unless you get into night vision and thermals. The old 173 grain service bullet was designed in the 1930's and improvements in design have happened but not enough to make a significant difference in danger space -- which equates to hit probabilities. Basically, the 118 SB and LR are 600 meter shooters and I would bet that if accurate records were kept you would find the majority of one or two shot engagements with 118 SB or LR resulting in a hit happened under 600 meters with the majority at 500 or less.

Another thing to consider and also is probably a reason why no one cares about record keeping is this. When does a shot stop being due to skill and more due to luck? Three shots -- four -- five? That is the big problem if the goal is to see who got the longest shot with a 7.62 rifle.

About the only thing I can say with certainty is that the guys will take the shot if they are allowed to under what ever ROE they must follow and if it means a shot past a reasonable distance, they will certainly try. I can not speak for SF here so understand I am talking about the Infantry. Maybe some SF guys have done the same? I would not know but I do know that some Infantrymen have been successful at distances past 1K but it certainly isn't the rule.

Gene

SF shooters have also been successful beyond 1000M in the current conflicts, sometimes with .308s, more often with .300s and .338s. I think there's even a couple of .50s out there. I'm not aware of any one-shot kills beyond about 1200m by anybody with any weapon/ammo combo. Even the "records" touted here in other threads. All (that I'm aware of) have required adjusting fire and using compensated aimpoints (and targets that accept "enshalah" as a fact of life). It doesn't count as "sniping" when it amounts to the same thing as hitting a target in a MG's beaten zone.

I like the M21 as well as anyone - it's the first DM rifle SF taught me to shoot. It's a sweet 600m rifle despite the POS ART II scope (OK - so I'm nostalgic about wood stocks). Hitting targets with one at 1200m+ (especially with M118SB) is luck and claiming otherwise is the same as claiming a shit shot in a pool tournament.

BO:

Any of the match grade 155's are excellent bullets. Note they were designed very specifically for Palma shooting. Generally they use a 1 turn in 13 inch twist, 30 inch long barrel in order to stabilize that specific bullet and to get the 2950 plus FPS needed to ensure it is above the speed of sound at 1K. International Plama rules demand a bullet of 155 grains or lighter and 7.62 / .308 cartridge. US Palma lets you shoot any bullet weight but it must be .30 caliber and I believe is restricted to the .308 cartrdge. Understand that Palma rifles are also restricted in weight.

So, in a way you see why those bullets were designed the way they are. To feed a very specific need of a very specific sport. Would they be fine for military purposes? I don't think so because you don't see 30 inch long barrels on M-24's and you need that speed for that shorter and lighter bullet to stay above the speed of sound.

Personally and for military applications I see .30 caliber bullets weighing in the 170 - 180 grain range is about ideal to maximize danger space given 20 inch + - barrel lengths, a requirement to keep the bullet length down to maximize available cartridge capacityand magazine seating, while allowing for a fast enough velocity for performance to practical combat ranges -- which I see as 600 meters or less but the Army sees as 800 meters or less.

Another thing you need to consider is recoil effects. The higher the recoil, the more negatively it affects the shooter. A 155 Palma load is very hot -- too hot to blast regularly from standard receivers but its recoil is still noticeably less than a round of 118 shot from a 24 or 110. That means a-lot when talking about blasting those antique 190's and 220's.

Oh yes, note I did not get into BC comparisons. Although they are of value in decisions on ammunition that shooters make, you will never see them become the primary factor. Accuracy, velocity, and terminal effects are generally the primary issues going into a decision on some sort of cartridge and bullet. Those three get mixed up in priority based on the specific need but those are generally the three issues involved with decisions. BC's get involved after initial decisions are made and a guy has narrowed down his potential choices. Even then, they may not mean anything.

As a general rule, from the barrel to 300 the BC has very little meaning. From 300 - 500 it has some meaning and from 600 out it does have meaning you can actually see in reality. But only when you are looking at equal velocities and BC differences of at least 5 %.

Gene