The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013 ... cial-ammo/

Firstly, I know that a, most if us could not afford it and b, it will be a long time to arrive in the UK, but that is not what i want to talk about.

I read that the round uses a 170gn projectile?

Clearly I have taken my eye off the ball recently as I was not aware of this weight being an accurate round, anyone else seen it or using 170gn?

DM

Reading the blog the ammo is designed for short barrelled S/A rifles (and I'm guessing aimed at the military L/E market) - so the bullet itself (and ammo) might be better at shorter ranges.

True, however the reason the 7.62 platforms started gaining popularity was to engage targets at greater ranges than the 5.56 round could. It seems strange to me that they would use a round that goes wibble after 300 meters and restricts the round to the same distances that the 5.56 can reach.

I'm not forgetting the benefits of the 7.62 round over the 5.56

DM

Dangermouse wrote:It seems strange to me that they would use a round that goes wibble after 300 meters and restricts the round to the same distances that the 5.56 can reach.

But offers far greater power and stopping ability/penetration at shorter ranges, perhaps?

As an aside with heavy bullets, a lot of people don't know is that the 168gn Sierra Matchking was originally designed as a 300m bullet for UIT!

Dangermouse wrote:It seems strange to me that they would use a round that goes wibble after 300 meters and restricts the round to the same distances that the 5.56 can reach.

What makes you think that is the case?

..

Well, as I said, I may have taken my eye off the ball, but,

If the 170gn projectile was a "good un" then they would have been pushing it in the target world. Indeed with loaders always looking for the next big thing, we would already hearing about it.

The 155, 168 & 175 are all well documented.

DM

I was thinking out to 600m with the greater energy that the 7.62 offers, but even if you restrict it to 300m I'd rather be hitting someone with 170gn 7.62 than the heaviest 5.56 round.

Dangermouse wrote:The 155, 168 & 175 are all well documented.

Exactly, and all these weights work well all through the ranges. The only exception is that the boat-tail angle used by the Sierra 168 SMK (and it's clones) causes instability at long range, but that is nothing to do with the weight (though it is a common misconception that "any 168 grain bullet won't work at long range"). There is no sudden weight gap between 155 and 175 that 'doesn't work' at long range. In fact even the Sierra 168 is great to 600 yards with moderate beans.

..

I'm doing some quick google searching

Appears the 170gn was designed for the AI out to 1000 yards, however from the first few posts I'm reading people are not getting better results than the 175SMK.
I wonder if it was just released at the wrong time with Berger and SMK offering better options?

DM

Lapua also produce the factory HPS round (High Performance Sniper) which uses the 170 grain Lockbase bullet. This was my favourite of all Lapua bullets for a long while and worked very well at 1000 yards with my AI. The factory Lapua HPS used Bofors powder however N550 gives very similar results. Last time I looked they over GBP1.50 each.