|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Precision long range hunting and shooting
> 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?
168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?
@ 06:56 am (GMT) |
Taj ShoemakerI’m running low on factory loads for my 308 and building my brass supply. Time to work up a good load. Main purpose of the rifle is education - teaching myself to shoot better close and far. Of course once you shoot a rifle a lot there is a tendency to want to take it hunting. So bonus is a bullet that may be used on game. Until now it’s been mostly 168 SMK for paper and steel only.Rifle is an older Ruger 77 standard length action with a fresh 22” 10 twist stainless Bartlein. First thought would be go with 178s as there is no restriction on case length or twist. However, running both bullets through a ballistic program - 168 @ 2700, 178 @ 2600 - 168 comes out on top in all regards except wind and that’s 0.1 MOA @ 1000. I’m open to other options but the ELD Ms are cheap, readily available, and have a good reputation for extended range use, both target and game. Of course I could get some of each and try but I learned long ago as a professional pilot that it’s often easier to learn from the experience of others and move forward…. One other consideration is I do live and hunt on an island with the largest land-based predators on the planet. Whatever the load I will work up a counterpart load with similar weight Barnes bullets for carry and close range hunting. |
Replies
@ 08:42 am (GMT) |
Aaron PetersonRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?I’d go with the 178gr, as the extra mass will only help you if you do decide to hunt with it. Since the ELDM is really thin-jacketed, it’s going to have no issue shedding weight, and if impact velocity and the amount of resistance upon impact are high, it’s going to increase how much weight is shed. So, if you increase the amount of starting mass, you’ll retain sufficient material to ensure penetration vs expansion balance out well. For longer range shots either o d would perform pretty similarly, but if you end up with a closer range shot, the 178gr would have better potential in that scenario.So long story short, you have the twist rate and decent barrel length, so I personally only see going with the 178gr as a more positive approach. Others may tell you since it’s a 308 and MVs are pretty mild, you’d be okay with the 168gr too. And I wouldn’t correct them lol. Hopefully this is somehow actually helpful… |
@ 09:12 am (GMT) |
Daniel SchindlerRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Mr. Shoemaker,After reading your posts on other topics (very well done BTW), you are further down the hunting / ballistic experience than I. If you do not already have Nathan's new book - Long Range Hunting Cartridges - may I humbly suggest you acquire it to address some of your questions. IMHO, it is a veritable chest of invaluable information. Recently, I too have asked myself your same questions...only for my 300 Win. Nathan's book answered my questions. All offered to you respectfully Sir. Cheers...and looking forward to your updates on this. Dan |
|
@ 07:15 am (GMT) |
Taj ShoemakerRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Thanks guys, appreciate the replies.Aaron, that was my initial thought also but after running the ballistics on both bullets I started to question that thought. I'm sure the 178 would be better on heavier game but how much better? In my case game performance is not high on the list as I will use a dual loading for most hunting and closer ranges. This load is primarily just for shooting, but if I could use it as a 3-500 yard game load that's a bonus. Daniel, I'm no expert! Plus there is always more to learn, that's what makes it fun. Good call on the book - I do have the full collection and agree that they are of extensive value. I have read Mr. Foster's take on the bullets in both the book and the KB, I get the impression he may prefer the 168. He never says so, but mentions them much more than the 178s. Perhaps I am reading too much into it. After all my entire questions is smacking of 'how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin'..... |
|
@ 07:15 am (GMT) |
Taj ShoemakerRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Thanks guys, appreciate the replies.Aaron, that was my initial thought also but after running the ballistics on both bullets I started to question that thought. I'm sure the 178 would be better on heavier game but how much better? In my case game performance is not high on the list as I will use a dual loading for most hunting and closer ranges. This load is primarily just for shooting, but if I could use it as a 3-500 yard game load that's a bonus. Daniel, I'm no expert! Plus there is always more to learn, that's what makes it fun. Good call on the book - I do have the full collection and agree that they are of extensive value. I have read Mr. Foster's take on the bullets in both the book and the KB, I get the impression he may prefer the 168. He never says so, but mentions them much more than the 178s. Perhaps I am reading too much into it. After all my entire questions is smacking of 'how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin'..... |
@ 09:01 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Hi Taj. I have to consider bear protection, too. I assume your primary quarry is black tail deer, & possibly elk, too. I thought about dual loading copper, but I wasn’t convinced the penetration advantage for bear protection outweighed the disadvantage of unpredictable performance.. I would opt for a partition as your walking around load. If you get an opportunity for a long range shot, you’ll have time to load a couple ELD-Ms on top. As far as 168 vs. 178, whichever shoots the more accurately in you rifle. |
|
@ 10:29 am (GMT) |
Taj ShoemakerRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Blacktail and mountain goat are what I hunt the most personally. Black bear and caribou are also on the menu at times. Elk and moose need a bigger gun in my opinion. Not to kill them mind you; but because close-range, high-tension relations with bears are all too frequent when lots of meat is involved. There is very little I would feel under-gunned for hunting with a 308, but when used for last ditch bear defense after negotiations have broken down it is not my first choice.I was hoping to save $50 and just try one weight bullet, I think I'll start with 168s see how it goes. |
|
@ 03:32 pm (GMT) |
Aaron PetersonRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?I actually run a 195gr TMK as my go-to load in my 308. The up close and long range performance has been phenomenal.My personal experience with 168gr and lighter bullets of that construction type at close range gets iffy. I see a lot more expansion than penetration, sometimes to the point of shallow penetration, but that also really depends on where you actually place the shot and actually impact velocity. For lighter and less dense/tough game, and mild 308w loads, you’d likely be just fine, especially if you avoid direct shoulder shots at closed range. My philosophy, based on my experiences, is that you can’t really go wrong stepping up a bit in weight with soft constructed bullets. The extra mass typical only helps for the closer range, higher impact velocity, shots. Depending on what you can do with your load development, the extra weight, even with a bit of a boost in BC, might not gain you anything in max range, or could possibly even lower your max range slightly. It’ll just depend. Ultimately it’s up to you and what your most likely scenarios will be. If it were me, and most shots were going to be within 300 yards, and a few might be up to 500, I’d go heavier. If most shots weee likely to be in the 300-500 yards range, I think you’d probably be just fine with the 168 and wouldn’t need to change anything. Hell, you might be fine regardless. |
@ 04:10 am (GMT) |
Joshua MayfieldRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Hi Taj,I shoot a 30-06 so I've tinkered with some of the bullets that've been mentioned. I've had great experience, like Aaron, with the 195 gr. TMK. I don't think you can go wrong with the 168 or 178 ELD-Ms. But let me toss out another thought - you initially stated that your main purpose is education. I've loaded cheap 168 gr. Speer bullets for practice and been pleased. I've got 180 gr. BTSPs loaded but have not shot them yet. But Nathan's analysis of Speer offerings combined with the price made me willing to give them a go. Just a thought. |
|
@ 09:20 am (GMT) |
Taj ShoemakerRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Good stuff. I've heard good things about the 195 TMK locally. Might be a good way to go. Definitely if it was to be an all-range, all-purpose bullet. However, my idea was to have a cheap but accurate practice bullet that could also be used of long range (3-500, I know that is close or mid range for many on the internet but I have seen very little good shooting past 250yrds in real life, 300 is long for me). I'll load anything from 130tsx to 200 partitions for up to 250 yard hunting and probably won't shoot past that. But I am shooting to 500 on a regular basis for fun, and occasionally to 1000. I could stick with SMK and not worry about hunting with them but it seems like some of these newer match bullets are just as good but also work on game. The ELD-Ms were on my list only because they have been the cheapest and most reliably in-stock over the last couple of years.I had not considered the 165 Speer spitzer boat-tail. They have a published BC nearly identical to the 168 ELD-M, and are nearly half the price. Good idea. |
@ 07:06 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: 168 or 178 ELD Match in 308?Hi Taj, sorry for the late reply, been quite busy here.If you are dual loading with the TTSX, you'll find that it is possible to have the loads print to a similar height at 100 yards but with about .5 to 1" deviation laterally. Generally works out OK after a bit of a play with it, adjusting the POI to suit both loads. If you are wanting to run homogenous copper as your tough game load, the 168gr is probably the way to go (versus a 180gr) simply for the sake of speed / wound potential. Its only a small increase in speed over a heavier bullet but you may as well take it. The 168gr TTSX does work quite well (large wounds) at close ranges and doesn't take up a huge amount of powder space if using a relatively fast burning powder. The use of the 168gr TTSX dictates the use of a 168gr counterpart which hopefully answers your question. Give it a run for a while, see how it goes. If you need more penetration from the softer load, you can opt for a heavier bullet later on, noting that the key to increased penetration is not simply as a result of the very small increase in bullet weight or SD but also as a result of and in conjunction with the reduced muzzle velocity. Others have talked about different ways to approach this including all around loads. These can still be run in conjunction with the likes of the 200gr Partition. As you know, there are a number of ways to approach this. At the moment, it is simply a case of being grateful for whatever you can lay your hands on. |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |