When does my 168 go subsonic? - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


When does my 168 go subsonic?

This is a discussion on When does my 168 go subsonic? within the Bolt Action forums, part of the Gun Forum category; Shot NRA Long Range matches, Palma Matches for number of years and in those days the 168SMK was not the preferred bullet for such ranges. ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Bolt Action

24Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old October 29th, 2016, 02:18 PM   #16
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Charleston, WV
Posts: 2,293
Shot NRA Long Range matches, Palma Matches for number of years and in those days the 168SMK was not the preferred bullet for such ranges. The actual bullet design at that time was originally for 300 meter matches as in Olympic level shooting, not for extended ranges. The current 168 SMK 308 bullet may well be a different design now but only inexperienced competitors in Long Range matches would use the 168SMK back in the day.
I well remember when first started using 190 SMK's was told they would not stay supersonic, stable in flight, at 1000yds and accuracy would decrease. This was in a bolt gun and 30" barrel(Palma rifle) and load was 42.2grs of IMR4064, Lapua brass, Fed. 210M primers and if I did my part many of those bullets landed in the 10 or X ring, unstable or not?? For the M1A/M14 to be used at extended ranges believe the 175 SMK would be the preferred bullet, Sierra bullets that is and perhaps there are better selections of brand of bullets these days?? Just a suggestion.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
Instructor is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 29th, 2016, 02:32 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,462

Awards Showcase

Not one person brought up humidity..........

Phil McGrath is online now  
Old October 29th, 2016, 02:45 PM   #18
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2336USMC View Post
So my first SWAG in my first post was low, by quite a bit. I edited that out so people don't waste their time reading it.

According to the Sierra Infinity ballistics software which uses all of Sierra's own measured BCs for their bullets, moving from 300 ASL to 5000 ASL will gain about 150 yards before the bullet goes transonic, if everything else stays the same. But, since it's typically colder at higher alt, the air is denser so you give up some of that. If the air temp at 5000 is 30 degrees colder, you gain about 125 yards range.

Sierra's BC numbers are neither G1 nor G7, they are actual numbers measured by firing at various velocities. However, in this case, the lowest number Sierra measured for their 168 SMK was tested at a boundary of 1600fps, so their last BC is just a single number that applies at 1600 and below. That doesn't tell us what happens to the BC of the 168 at transonic/subsonic velocities.

There are smart guys at Sierra who will answer ballistics questions over the phone and I bet they know what the BC of the 168 SMK is at 1200 FPS, they just haven't published it. Also, my copy of Infinity is pretty old now and I bet they may have done more low-velocity testing of some of their .30 cal bullets specifically for guys loading .300 AAC Blackout, where a 168 might only launch at 900-1000 fps for subsonic loads.

Bryan Litz is the chief ballistician at Berger. He's also personally tested several other manufacturers bullets. His BC ratings are more accurate than almost all other manufacturers listings. He lists a G1 BC of .427, and a G7 BC of .218. Sierra lists only a G1 BC, which is velocity dependent, of .462, pretty optimistic, and higher than what has been actually tested downrange. Even Hornady in the past has listed BC's higher than wat has actually been tested. Potential buyers look at BC numbers, and they're in the business of selling bullets.

It has been proven time and time again, that the 168smk does not transition well at all through transonic range, which depending on temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc. occurs at around 1340fps. The bullet, more often than not, begins to lose stability and may begin to tumble through transonic range.

So with a density altitude (what actually matters vs. ASL) of 7342, whereas my ASL is 6200, a 168SMK using a G7 BC curve, goes transonic at 925-950 yards. That's with a muzzle velocity of 2700fps.

Let's compare this to a 175smk going 2640 using a G7 BC of .243 (Litz tested). The 175 handles transonic velocities far better than the 168, it's been proven. It starts to go transonic at around 1000 to 1050 yards using the same DA (density altitude).

And finally 155 Palma (Sierra #2156), Litz tested G7 BC of .229, velocity of 2800, all other weather and altitude variables the same. This bullet starts to go transonic at 1050 to 1100 yards. Hands down, the 155 Palma is better than the 168smk.

Ballistic software such as Applied Ballistics, Shooter (smartphone app), JBM, and Hornady's new 4DOF, Trasol, BallisticArc, are all good programs. But with any ballistic program, inputs need to be as accurate as possible. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.

Thanks from arcticdog and JEFFJP_N_JJ
JMGlasgow is offline  
 
Old October 29th, 2016, 02:47 PM   #19
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
Not one person brought up humidity..........
Humidity isn't as critical as other weather factors. Powder temperature stability is more important, so is barometric pressure. Density altitude is very important.

JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 03:40 PM   #20
Lifer
 
2336USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Road
Posts: 3,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGlasgow View Post
Sierra lists only a G1 BC, which is velocity dependent, of .462, pretty optimistic, and higher than what has been actually tested downrange.
Not sure where you got that. Here is what Sierra actually lists for the 168 SMK:

.462 @ 2600 fps and above
.447 between 2600 and 2100 fps
.424 between 2100 and 1600 fps
.405 @ 1600 fps and below

It is not a single number, and it is velocity dependent which is why they list 4 different numbers in 4 different velocity envelopes. If you use Sierra's software, it uses all of those numbers in calculating the data.

A person using this kind of data should be able to understand that in a .308 Winchester application, he will only see that .462 BC for maybe the first 25 yards of the bullet flight. The rest of the way downrange, the BC will be lower, as Sierra's testing indicates.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
2336USMC is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 04:29 PM   #21
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Charleston, WV
Posts: 2,293
This discussion reminds me of shooting at Perry some years ago and ended up with fellow on my firing point for a 1000yd. match and both using bolt guns but he had a lap top computer with him, probably only second time I had ever seen one. Actually any electrical device is not permitted on the firing line, but fine with me. He would attempt to calculate all manner of data prior to shooting and would tell me all about it but was very frustrated for his score was way down the pole and he could not understand why his data was not being helpful. Later that evening back at the "huts" he showed up and wanted to talk about his experience. Told him I was not unfamiliar with the data he was generating, but what he could not factor in for the data was the "trigger puller" factor. Discovered in our conversation that this match was his second time shooting at long range and he felt that such data would compensate for his lack of experience. He asked me how in the world did I shoot a 197 w/8 X's and not use such data? Told him I had shot many matches with scores worse than his over the years and there is no substitute for "time behind the gun" and while shooting only thing in my mind is the wind and sight picture, no ballistics given a thought. Big difference between academic and practical applications.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
Instructor is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 05:11 PM   #22
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2336USMC View Post
Not sure where you got that. Here is what Sierra actually lists for the 168 SMK:

.462 @ 2600 fps and above
.447 between 2600 and 2100 fps
.424 between 2100 and 1600 fps
.405 @ 1600 fps and below

It is not a single number, and it is velocity dependent which is why they list 4 different numbers in 4 different velocity envelopes. If you use Sierra's software, it uses all of those numbers in calculating the data.

A person using this kind of data should be able to understand that in a .308 Winchester application, he will only see that .462 BC for maybe the first 25 yards of the bullet flight. The rest of the way downrange, the BC will be lower, as Sierra's testing indicates.
I know that G1 coefficients are extremely velocity dependent, and the article I posted below gives a good explanation as to why.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between G1 and G7 BC's. And as I stated earlier, Sierra is pretty optimistic with their published BC's. The numbers I posted were actual tested BC's, by Bryan Litz.


A Better Ballistic Coefficient
Posted June 17, 2009
For centuries now, science has been helping us gain a more accurate understanding of our world. The branch of science we care about as shooters is known as ballistics. The science of ballistics is well developed and understood by those who study it, but the tools and information being used by average shooters is not necessarily optimal for the shooter’s applications. In other words, there is a better, more accurate way for shooters to use ballistics to help them predict trajectories and hit targets. The purpose of this article is to present a better way for shooters to calculate ballistics.
What is a Ballistic Coefficient?
Most shooters, especially long range rifle shooters, are familiar with the Ballistic Coefficient (BC). Without getting into the math, I’ll define the ballistic coefficient in words as: The ability of the bullet to maintain velocity, in comparison to a ‘standard projectile’. A high BC bullet can maintain velocity better than a low BC bullet under the same conditions. All measures of ballistic performance including drop and wind deflection are related to the bullet’s ability to maintain velocity. In short; the higher the BC, the better the all-around ballistic performance of the bullet will be.
How a Ballistic Coefficient is used
Details of ballistic trajectories can be predicted with computer programs using all the relevant variables, including BC. As with all prediction programs; the accuracy of the outputs depends on the accuracy of the inputs. Here is where we have to examine the real meaning and implications of using a Ballistic Coefficient to characterize the bullet’s ability to maintain velocity.
It’s a relatively well known fact that the BC of a bullet is different at different velocities. Not many shooters know why it changes, or what the consequences are. To understand why a BC changes at different speeds, we have to go back to the definition of BC, which is: The ability of the bullet to maintain velocity, in comparison to a ‘standard projectile’. It’s the ‘standard projectile’ part of the definition that we need to key in on. What is the ‘standard projectile’? What does it look like?
To date, the ‘standard projectile’ used to define BCs for the entire sporting arms industry is the G1 standard projectile. The G1 standard projectile which is shown in Figure 1 has a short nose, flat base, and bears more resemblance to a pistol bullet or an old unjacketed lead black powder cartridge rifle bullet than to a modern long range rifle bullet.

The reason why the BC of a modern long range bullet changes so much at different velocities is because modern bullets are so different in shape compared to the G1 standard that its BC is based on. In other words, the drag of a modern long range bullet changes differently than the G1 standard projectile, so the coefficient relating the two (the ballistic coefficient) has to change with velocity.
There are several ways to manage the problems caused by the dependence of BC on velocity. One way is to use a G1 BC that’s averaged for the speed range you’re interested in. This will get you close, but what if the BC of the bullet is advertised for a speed range that’s different than what you’re interested in? It’s not easy to adjust the BC for different average velocities. Another way to deal with the problem of a velocity dependant BC is to give the BC in several velocity ‘bands’ (Sierra bullets uses this approach to advertise the BCs of their bullets). This can be an accurate approach, but it leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. For example, many shooters don’t understand why there are different BCs and choose the wrong one. Furthermore, not all ballistics programs allow you to input multiple BCs. In short; the use of the non-representative G1 standard (Figure 1) to define BC is responsible for the velocity dependence and associated problems with BCs.
A better standard for long range bullets
If you look at the G1 standard projectile again in Figure 1, you might think; “it’s too bad there isn’t a standard that’s more representative for modern long range bullets”. In fact, there are several standard projectiles, all with different shapes, that are much more representative of modern long range bullets than the G1 standard. The standard that bears the closest resemblance to most modern long range bullets is the G7 standard, shown in Figure 2.

As you can see, the G7 standard projectile, with its long boat tail and pointed ogive bears a much stronger resemblance to a modern long range bullet than the G1 standard projectile. As a result, the BC of a modern long range bullet that’s referenced to the G7 standard is constant for all velocities! In other words, a trajectory that’s calculated with a ‘G7 BC’ doesn’t suffer from the same velocity dependence problems and inaccuracies as calculations that are made with a G1 BC.
Another benefit of using G7 BC’s is that it allows a more fair comparison between bullets. For example, consider two .30 caliber 168 grain match bullets from different manufacturers. Even if both projectiles are identical in shape and weight, it’s possible for them to have different advertised BCs if the BCs are calculated for different velocities. For instance, if one of the bullet’s BC is calculated for a 3000 fps (muzzle velocity) and the other is calculated for an average velocity between 3000 fps and 1500 fps, then the BC that’s based only on muzzle velocity will be higher, but less relevant for long range shooting than the average BC. In other words, the two bullets actually have the same BC, but the ‘smoke and mirrors’ that results from the velocity dependence of G1 BC creates the illusion that one bullet is better than the other. If you considered the G7 BC of the two bullets, it would be the same for all speeds.
You may observe that not all bullets look more like the G7 standard, and that’s true. For the short, flat based, blunt nosed bullets, the G1 standard is actually more representative. For that reason, BCs for flat based bullets should continue to be referenced to the G1 standard. In other words, the G7 BC is better for boat tailed bullets, while G1 BCs are better for flat based bullets.
Why were we stuck with G1 for so long?
One obvious difference between G1 BCs and G7 BCs is that the numeric value of the G7 BC is lower than the numeric value of the G1 BC. For example, if a bullet has a G1 BC of .550, the G7 BC will be close to .282 (same bullet). Even though the G7 BC of .282 is a much more accurate representation of the bullet at all speeds, the numeric value of the G7 BC is lower. If you know anything about marketing, then it’s obvious why we’ve been stuck with G1 BCs for so long. Since the G1 standard projectile is the highest drag standard, BCs referenced to that standard will be higher than BCs referenced to any other standard. As we know, when it comes to marketing, the facts and quality of information is often compromised in order to present a more favorable advertisement. For many years, bullet makers have known(*) that the G1 standard is a poor standard for long range bullets but continue to use it. Why? One reason is because it’s believed that the first company to advertise G7 BCs will ‘confuse’ people, and the lower numeric value of the G7 BC will push people away from their product.
It’s easy to understand the fear of being the first to do something new. It will take time to explain and it may hurt sales at first. That’s OK. At Berger Bullets we are committed to the success of shooters. Mostly that means making the best bullets possible. That commitment also includes providing shooters with the most suitable and accurate information so they can use those bullets most effectively. Berger’s commitment to the shooter is why we are making the leap to G7 referenced BCs. The change will take time to get used to, but in the end, shooters will be empowered to make better informed decisions about their equipment. In the end, shooters will be able to calculate more accurate trajectories. In the end, the other bullet companies will follow and provide G7 BCs for their long range bullets because it’s the right thing to do. In the end, this change will mean greater success for shooters.
(*-Sierra bullets wrote an article which acknowledges that G7 referenced BCs are more appropriate for modern long range bullets: http://www.exteriorballistics.com/eb...oefficient.pdf )
Using the G7 BC: Calculating trajectories
Most modern ballistics programs are being created with the ability to use BCs that are referenced to different standards (G1, G5, G7, etc). Calculating a trajectory with a G7 BC is as simple as selecting “G7 BC” in the program, and giving the program a G7 BC instead of a G1 BC. All the other inputs are handled the same. There are many free ballistics programs that can calculate trajectories using G7 BCs including the well known free online calculator from JBM (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.0.cgi). The JBM program is extremely accurate when given accurate inputs. JBM’s page also has links to free ballistics programs that can be downloaded and run on your computer when not connected to the internet. One program that’s free for download and has the ability to use G7 BCs is AlBal (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/software/software.html).
Using the G7 BC: Comparing bullets
One way that BC is used by shooters is to compare the relative performance of bullets. Comparing bullets by BC is only possible if the BCs are referenced to the same standard. For example, if you know the G1 BC of one bullet is .500, and the G7 BC for another bullet is .230, it’s impossible to tell which is better just from the BCs. Since other bullet companies don’t yet advertise G7 BCs for their bullets, how is it possible to compare other brands bullets to Berger’s G7 BC? Ideally, one tester would test the bullets from all the companies using the same method, and report the G7 BCs. I have recently completed such a study and the test results including G7 BC’s for over 175 bullets of all major brands are published in one book. The book is called: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting and is available from Applied Ballistics, LLC (http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/...files/Book.htm). I began the testing and writing of this book 2 years before I became the Chief Ballistician for Berger Bullets. I used the same test procedure (repeatable within +/- 1%) to measure the G1 and G7 BCs for all brands of bullets so meaningful comparisons can be made between brands.
Conclusion
Science has a good track record as a method for reaching accurate conclusions. Ballistics is the science of shooting, and the use of the G1 standard has been a glaring error in the way that we shooters apply our science. For too long now, the unfortunate influences of marketing and advertising have kept us from being able to use our science to its fullest potential. As part of our commitment to the success of shooters, Berger Bullets is bringing the application of small arms ballistics out of the marketing hype and G1 dark ages and offering accurate and properly referenced G7 BCs for our long range bullets.
All of the pieces are now in place for shooters to take full advantage of this more accurate kind of BC. Berger now provides G7 BCs for our bullets. The book: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting provides G7 BCs for all other brands of bullets. Ballistics programs are available that can calculate trajectories using the G7 BCs. In conclusion; everything is now available for shooters to take immediate advantage of this new type of BC and do everything that was possible with the old G1 BCs, only better.
Bryan Litz
Ballistician

Here is a limk to the actual article

http://www.bergerbullets.com/a-bette...c-coefficient/

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 05:23 PM   #23
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instructor View Post
This discussion reminds me of shooting at Perry some years ago and ended up with fellow on my firing point for a 1000yd. match and both using bolt guns but he had a lap top computer with him, probably only second time I had ever seen one. Actually any electrical device is not permitted on the firing line, but fine with me. He would attempt to calculate all manner of data prior to shooting and would tell me all about it but was very frustrated for his score was way down the pole and he could not understand why his data was not being helpful. Later that evening back at the "huts" he showed up and wanted to talk about his experience. Told him I was not unfamiliar with the data he was generating, but what he could not factor in for the data was the "trigger puller" factor. Discovered in our conversation that this match was his second time shooting at long range and he felt that such data would compensate for his lack of experience. He asked me how in the world did I shoot a 197 w/8 X's and not use such data? Told him I had shot many matches with scores worse than his over the years and there is no substitute for "time behind the gun" and while shooting only thing in my mind is the wind and sight picture, no ballistics given a thought. Big difference between academic and practical applications.

I would hope we all know that the shooter plays a huge factor in accuracy. I didn't think it needed to be said. But ballistic software goes a long way toward finding elevation and wind adjustments as long as the inputs are correct. Then the shooter can verify at distance, and fine tune the program from there.

Here are some videos of Hornady's new software, 4DOF (4 degrees of freedom)




This new software takes BC's out of the equation, instead it uses drag coefficient. The bullets are also tracked using Doppler Radar.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 05:25 PM   #24
Rifleman
 
Gort lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: united states
Posts: 66
I shoot mostly 168g fmj, btj horn.
How would you calculate for ..
high humidity and temperature say around the gulf coast states.
62 ft above sea level and say 85 degrees and 90% humidity. ?
What would be a more preferred weight bullet?

Gort lives is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:07 PM   #25
Old Salt
 
Killashrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Polk County, Florida
Posts: 1,258
I use 168's rarely because I use either HIRT or 175SMK handloads. But I would use the 168 to 800 yards after that it is just not great. the 175's I use out to 1100 or so. I use the HIRT at 600.

Killashrub is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:11 PM   #26
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
So according to a density altitude chart, you should be using a DA of 1400 to 2000 feet.

Assuming your velocity is 2700fps, a scope height of 1.9" and a 100 zero your elevation and full value (3 or 9 o'clock, 10mph) wind adjustments in MOA would be:

100 0 .7
200 1.75 1.5
300 4.5 2.4
400 7.5 3.3
500 11.25 4.3
600 15.5 5.4
700 20.25 6.7
800 25.5 8.0
900 32 9.4
1000 39.25 10.9

A 155 Palma (Sierra #2156) would be a better bullet, so would 155gr bullets from Barnes, Hornady, Berger, etc. You would also experience less recoil as well. From a bolt action, try a 175gr bullet from Hornady, Sierra, Barnes, Berger, or whichever you choose. The Berger 185 juggernauts are also a great bullet for a bolt action, and with some of the new powders out now, velocities are quite impressive.

JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:12 PM   #27
Old Salt
 
JEFFJP_N_JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California, USA?
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killashrub View Post
I use 168's rarely because I use either HIRT or 175SMK handloads. But I would use the 168 to 800 yards after that it is just not great. the 175's I use out to 1100 or so. I use the HIRT at 600.

HIRT? I am at a loss here but am thinking to load Hornady 155 Amaxes for short range and load Sie 175's for the long stuff?

JEFFJP_N_JJ is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:17 PM   #28
Lifer
 
2336USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Road
Posts: 3,856
Yes I do understand.

I give you a piece of wood and 2 rulers. One ruler is calibrated in inches, the other is metric. You measure the same piece of wood with both rulers and get 2 different numbers, one in inches and the other in centimeters. Which number is more correct than the other? Neither, they are exactly the same, just expressed in different units. Because they came from actual measurements, not an estimates.

When Litz says that G1 BCs are less accurate, he referring to manufacturer data that gives only a single G1BC for a bullet, and that number is often an artificial computer estimate, and/or exaggerated for marketing purposes. Simply plugging that number into a single BC software program will give poor results. GIGO, as you said.

It may be true that the G7 BC is more accurate if one wishes to use only a single BC number to describe a bullet. Sierra doesn't use a single BC number, they use 3 or 4 for different velocities. "But the G1 BC is velocity dependent." Yes it is. That's why Sierra uses 3 or 4 numbers, velocity dependent.

When one gets BC numbers by actual test firing of the actual bullet, it doesn't matter whether you state it in G1 or G7, the numbers come from reality, not estimates. As you have pointed out, Litz gets his BC numbers by actual test firing of the bullets. So does Sierra. You seem to be repeating that Sierra's numbers MUST be wrong just because they are expressed as G1. What I am trying to point out is that G1 or not, they come from actual test firing. Reality is reality.

I have had the opportunity to test Sierra's BC numbers and software in the real world, and they are very accurate. A first shot X using elevation and wind charts built on Sierra's published numbers, using their bullets and software, is good enough for me. Xs are reality.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
2336USMC is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:27 PM   #29
Old Salt
 
JEFFJP_N_JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California, USA?
Posts: 1,698
I am quite new to all of this but I saw right away with the on-line calulators you needed to 'calculate' the numbers with your 'real world' results on paper!

JEFFJP_N_JJ is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:33 PM   #30
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
danthman114's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yuma, Az
Posts: 5,240
Wow this went a different direction.

danthman114 is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Bolt Action

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
168 grain bullets and their ballistic coefficient. TheShooter Ammunition 37 April 3rd, 2016 08:17 PM
M80 pulls in reloading tokiwartooth Ammunition 21 February 21st, 2015 01:27 PM
Another range report 155 VLD vs 168 VLD SteveInOregon Accuracy 6 March 5th, 2014 07:13 PM
anybody have experience loading subsonic? linegrunt Ammunition 2 July 6th, 2013 03:18 PM
Use Hodgdon's H335? arcticdog Ammunition 11 May 24th, 2013 03:34 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List