AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/17/2010 9:33:00 AM EDT
|
In case you haven't already heard, Hornady has released a 178gr BTHP .308 load in their Superformance lineup.
I got a quick minute to shoot a box of this ammo through my 16" KAC SR25 EMC this afternoon. COAL mic's right at 2.800 and the rounds fit fine in Magpul LR20 mags. Recoil is very stout, but I did not see any pressure signs on the brass, nor was there any problem with feeding or extraction. The Superformance certainly gets your attention when you're used to shooting Hornady 168gr TAP Amax. Also did not notice any untoward flash or blast - although it was right after noon so I probably would not have noticed any flash anyway, not matter how bright. With a 1:11 chrome lined match barrel, MV was 2545fps (corrected) at standard ISO conditions, 900' ASL. In comparison, my go-to 168gr TAP Amax factory load was at 2465fps (corrected). Driving a 10gr heavier bullet 80fps faster in a 16" barrel... That MV with the high BC 178gr projectile promise to turn the EMC into a creditable 1000 yard gun (at least for shooting steel). I'll confirm on our 1200 yard range when time permits. That's pretty darned impressive. I suspect I would not want to use this round for high volume shooting - the recoil tells me the gun is getting beat up a bit - but for measured shots at longer ranges, it has good potential. I'll post a follow-up when I can get additional rounds down the barrel. I have a few boxes left and plan to order more. 
|
|
Try them for what? 147/150gr ball ammo has a crappy BC. Velocity will run about 2600. When you punch that into a ballistic computer, its pretty clear why Nato ball is limited to 300m or so.
Surplus ball ammo is the opposite of "Superormance", instead of adding 100 fps to normal expectations, Nato surplus will subtract 100fps from what you expect from the same weight bullet. |
|
Quoted:
I asked in RustedAce's thread; but, could any of you try some surplus rounds such as Radway or the like? Both DAG 150gr and Port 147gr surplus ammo feed, shoot, and extract fine in the EMC. The DAG chrono'd at 2520fps (corrected to the muzzle) at 45degF, 900' ASL. I have only used the Magpul LR20 mags to date and have no issues to report. ETA: DAG MV. |
|
Quoted:
Try them for what? 147/150gr ball ammo has a crappy BC. Velocity will run about 2600. When you punch that into a ballistic computer, its pretty clear why Nato ball is limited to 300m or so. Surplus ball ammo is the opposite of "Superormance", instead of adding 100 fps to normal expectations, Nato surplus will subtract 100fps from what you expect from the same weight bullet. To see if they function, not an unrealistic expectation of accuracy; that's why. 
ETA: Thanks vmp... |
|
Here is my review if interested
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=499386 I didn't find the accuracy to be that great |
|
Quoted:
Here is my review if interested http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=499386 I didn't find the accuracy to be that great Which one is the 178 superperformance round in your review? Not sure, but is this your info for your accuracy review? The groups were from my knee Irons, at 50 yards with a terrible wind that blew the target as well a me around.
|
|
Quoted:
Which one is the 178 superperformance round in your review? Not sure, but is this your info for your accuracy review? no, I just compared the 168's since I had both, I was looking at the 178's today and they don't have the AMAX bullet in the SST. The accuracy was twice the size with the SST versus the Amax in the same weight I shot of a bench with a EoT, the irons/knee line was for the old test's, Im sure someone will tell me how you cannot shoot accurately with a EoT, but compared next to each the SST was worse, The SST was actually worse than DAG |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which one is the 178 superperformance round in your review? Not sure, but is this your info for your accuracy review? no, I just compared the 168's since I had both, I was looking at the 178's today and they don't have the AMAX bullet in the SST. The accuracy was twice the size with the SST versus the Amax in the same weight I shot of a bench with a EoT, the irons/knee line was for the old test's, Im sure someone will tell me how you cannot shoot accurately with a EoT, but compared next to each the SST was worse, The SST was actually worse than DAG No offense, but your review is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The ammo discussed here is the new 178 amax which is different than older 178's and is in the superperformance line. This discussion has nothing to do with the sst line and I will be the first to say a non-magnified optic is not useful for a precision test of ammunition. Not to bust your balls, but linking this thread and your other threads together in other similar threads doesn't really help or reveal anything. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which one is the 178 superperformance round in your review? Not sure, but is this your info for your accuracy review? no, I just compared the 168's since I had both, I was looking at the 178's today and they don't have the AMAX bullet in the SST. The accuracy was twice the size with the SST versus the Amax in the same weight I shot of a bench with a EoT, the irons/knee line was for the old test's, Im sure someone will tell me how you cannot shoot accurately with a EoT, but compared next to each the SST was worse, The SST was actually worse than DAG No offense, but your review is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The ammo discussed here is the new 178 amax which is different than older 178's and is in the superperformance line. This discussion has nothing to do with the sst line and I will be the first to say a non-magnified optic is not useful for a precision test of ammunition. Not to bust your balls, but linking this thread and your other threads together in other similar threads doesn't really help or reveal anything. fair enough, then the new amax in the SST superperformance doesn't shoot as well in my rifle, its something to be aware of-they changed the bullet. If the same is true in the 178, then it doesn't matter what velocity you achieve, if the bullet has worse performance Its something to be aware of. I also guess that the irons, since its non magnified is not a test of precision also. While not a "true" test of the ammo, it does have validity since its a direct comparison, hence the reason I didn't include the actual moa I got from it. It was worse than the 168 TAP with amax bullets in a direct comaparison. Can I say how well it really is, no, but my results were worse. I will be awaiting anything you find out. |
|
Quoted:
The ammo discussed here is the new 178 amax which is different than older 178's and is in the superperformance line. This discussion has nothing to do with the sst line and I will be the first to say a non-magnified optic is not useful for a precision test of ammunition. . The 178 has the amax are you sure? They advertise BTHP, not the amax, maybe not released The 168 line does not, just the sst and gmx The OP also say BTHP not AMAX- so what are you saying???? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ammo discussed here is the new 178 amax which is different than older 178's and is in the superperformance line. This discussion has nothing to do with the sst line and I will be the first to say a non-magnified optic is not useful for a precision test of ammunition. . The 178 has the amax are you sure? They advertise BTHP, not the amax, maybe not released The 168 line does not, just the sst and gmx The OP also say BTHP not AMAX- so what are you saying???? Sorry- I assumed the 178 was an AMAX as that's what the 178 has always been from hornady. Here is the linkto the bthp superperformance Good info in your post, but still completely different than the match superperformance discussed here and other places where it seems to be quite accurate, if not overpressure 
|
|
Quoted:
I asked in RustedAce's thread; but, could any of you try some surplus rounds such as Radway or the like? I would also like to know. I dont want to spend $1/rd on ammo I hoard away. I want to know what ammo like XM80, Q3130, and AE 168gr OTM chrono out of a 16in barrel so I know what distance to zero my LV reticle on my NF 2.5-10x32 for best results. Im almost at the point of sending someone a couple bucks to do so 
|
AR Sponsor