Why the 168gr Bullet

[ScreaminEagle]

I was looking at Nosler's site and saw that they offer the e-tip and ballistic tip in 165gr and 168gr bullets for 30 cal. Sooooo... what gives? Why offer a bullet that is only 3 grains heavier than the last? I'm looking for a good bullet for my '06 as it's the only gun that I haven't reloaded for yet and would like to do something different with it. I'm leaning towards the 168gr e-tip. Thoughts?

 

[Guy Miner]

Other than the superb accuracy of the classic 168 grain Sierra Match King - I don't have a good idea. It will be interesting to see if there's a performance driven difference in 3 little grains of bullet - but I'd suspect that it has something to do with marketing - since the number "168" is virtually synonymous with accuracy when discussing the .308 Win cartridge.

These days there are many different match bullets avail for the .308, but there was a day when that bullet was The King among competitive shooters. Heck, it's still the bullet weight I reach for most often when building match loads for my .308 Win - just because it still works great, out to 600 yards anyway. There are clearly better choices for longer ranges - but now the discussion is going astray.

At any rate I tend to think that there's a 168 in the Nosler hunting bullet lineup because "168" is one of those classic weights in the .30 cal and people will think they're making the right choice when they select a 168...

Beats me. There's probably some other highly scientific explanation... I eagerly await it! :grin:

 

[Guest]

If I don't miss my guess, the profile of the 168gr is dramatically different from the 165. Just looking at the two bullets' BC's (.475 for the 165, .490 for the 168, and for comparison, .507 for the 180gr) shows that the bullet shape must be significant in it's departure from the traditional BT lineup. A jump of 32 points of BC from 165 to 180gr bullet weight, and a jump of about half that for the first three grains? And again, for comparison, the 150gr BT has a BC of .435, so the jump from one bullet to the next is pretty dramatic no matter how you look at it, for those three grains.

I'm sure there's something about marketing involved, but it's also a different ogive shape - much closer to the match bullet profile, if I don't miss my guess.

 

[onesonek]

I can't say for sure, but suspect some time ago, some ballistician sat down looking for an optimum .30 cal weight within some specific velocity parameters, and the 168 gr. emerged. It isn't totally unlike the 7mm's as a whole. Take a 7mm with a given SD,and compared to most any other caliber with a close or same SD and same profile,, it will have higher BC's (most generally). The .308/168 gr. just happens to be a sweet spot within the 30 caliber weight range. And due to trend of BC numbers selling bullets, it is mostly a numbers marketing game. Otherwise, American's have in the past like figuring their bullet weights in 5's, with some exception in the Hornady line.
Now whether the 168 gr. numbers are derived mathmatically or from time trials I do not know. That point would be rather moot, I'm thinking. Although I would be a fun experiment to shoot the 165/168 grainers in time trials, just to see.
To most of us, it wouldn't be suprising for a given rifle to like one over the other, even with only 3 grs. difference in weight. And not necessarily with the 168 gr being the favorite in all. That's just the nature of firearms having their own likes. Also, while I haven't looked at either, closely enough to see how much difference ther is in nose profile, I'm not sure it really matters. With a BC difference of only .015 comparing BT's, I would venture a bet, there is only a handful of shooters that can hold and shoot the difference at extended hunting ranges.
All in all, if the sales numbers support production of both weights, that's all that matters to the mfg.. And so imho, it is a numbers game for the consumer as well.

 

[SJB358]

SE, I was taken by the 168gr ET as well. When I saw they have a BC over .500 I decided it was worth a shot to buy a box and hold them for the 300WSM. I think, if they shoot well, a 168gr ET should be pretty awesome in the little 300 mag and excellent in the 30-06 as well. I did get some 180gr AB's as well, just as back up, but I am thinking I will get the ET's to shoot. Everyone else has pretty good luck with them too, so what the heck.

As for the reason for a 165 vs 168, yeah, not a clue. I am sure it lies with Guy's explanation, but would like to hear what the bullet makers say. Scotty

 

[russ808]

What do you say about that question Nosler gang?
Hope you can clear the muddy waters.
Russ

 

[ScreaminEagle]

Thanks for the input guys. It would be interesting to see what the Nosler guys have to say! I think I may be leaning towards the 168gr e-tip for my '06. I just wish there was someone here that used them to take game and could give me a report on performance. Anyone?

 

[Oldtrader3]

I am suspicious by nature and suspect that the magical number of 168 grains in match boatail bullets is not related to some ogive radius, mated to a specific bearing surface length with an 8 degree boatail and fixed metplat diameter tail. My bet is that there is some geometric ratio that leads to that exact bullet wieght in .308 caliber. It was around before Sierra?

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the input guys. It would be interesting to see what the Nosler guys have to say! I think I may be leaning towards the 168gr e-tip for my '06. I just wish there was someone here that used them to take game and could give me a report on performance. Anyone?

I haven't used the 168gr from an -06, but I have used the 130gr from my 270Wby. I was very pleased with the performance, but I also had the bullet moving quite a bit faster than you'll push the 168gr from an -06, too. I'm not sure (yet) what the reduced velocity impacts will look like. I hope to get a couple of longer shots once gun season opens here in Alabama so I can make some comparisons. I suspect it would be alright - as long as you're aware of the impact velocities out to the distances you'd likely shoot game, and they stay within the range recommended by Nosler.

On the other hand, I've had enormous success at the range with the 168gr Ballistic Tip in my -06, and hope to carry that over to the field this year, as well. In fact, that is the #2 rifle in the rotation this fall, so I'm optimistic I'll at least get a fat doe with it.

 

[BeeTee]

Military ballistics experts developed volumes of literature on the 308 & the 168gr bullet. Effective ranges, drop tables, drift tables, mil-dot references and tons of other data were all developed around that specific bullet at that specific MV. As a result, military training became entrenched with that cartridge combination. I suspect someone long ago decided the 168gr bullet was as close to a perfect ballistic form for the 30-cal as possible - that functioned correctly in the various military arms chambered for that cartridge. Just a guess...

 

[SJB358]

Military ballistics experts developed volumes of literature on the 308 & the 168gr bullet. Effective ranges, drop tables, drift tables, mil-dot references and tons of other data were all developed around that specific bullet at that specific MV. As a result, military training became entrenched with that cartridge combination. I suspect someone long ago decided the 168gr bullet was as close to a perfect ballistic form for the 30-cal as possible - that functioned correctly in the various military arms chambered for that cartridge. Just a guess...

That sounds pretty good to me. I know our sniper ammo is the 7.62x51 175gr SMK, but I couldn't tell you what the Machine Gun ammo is. Next time I have a chance, I will grab a round and pull the bullet to see what it is. Scotty

 

[clearwater]

Since the 168 BT is a new bullet, all those tables wouldn't apply.

Old military bullets I have are 170 and 150 grain anyway.

What's up Nosler? Why should I choose the 168?

 

[Oldtrader3]

M2 ball for the original M-14 (NATO) round was 152 grains.

 

[RiverRider]

Here's an interesting thing I have discovered...Hornady's 7mm bullets come in 139, 154, 162, and 175 grains. In grams, these weights are 9.0, 10.0, 10.5, and 11.3 grams. With the possible exception of the 175-grain weight, it appears to me that they were quietly following metric conventions when they designed those bullets. I could be wrong, though. I looked at their 6.5 mm and 8mm bullets, and they don't appear to have done this. Odd.