[Old Grumpy]

I intend to build some .30-06 loads using the Sierra 168gr Tipped Match Kings. My Sierra manual does not show those specific bullets. Does anyone who has the most recent Sierra Manual and care to share a snapshot of that page? The older manuals have data for the 168gr bullets, just not data for any Tipped Match Kings of any diameter. So yes, I can safely build loads and work out any kinks, but I like to have the factory data (specifically their recommended OALs) just to give me a start.

Grumpy

 

[Kent Dorfman]

The TMKs have less surface bearing area so you should be good using any other 168gn data.

 

[GOLDWINGS]

I doubt this is exactly what you need, seventh edition Hornady manual.

 

[Comatoes]

I don’t have the sierra manual, but I did find this.

Load for .308 Win. (308 Winchester, 7.62 x 51) with .308 | 168gr | Sierra Tipped MatchKing bullet

 

[mdell49]

Grumpy you and I must have the same Sierra manual. Mine has data for the 168 MatchKing HP but not tipped. I doubt there would be any difference but that is not what you asked.

 

[USMM guy]

I would check the web site of the powder manufacturer that you plan to use. You might find something there.

 

[Swift1]

I intend to build some .30-06 loads using the Sierra 168gr Tipped Match Kings. My Sierra manual does not show those specific bullets. Does anyone who has the most recent Sierra Manual and care to share a snapshot of that page? The older manuals have data for the 168gr bullets, just not data for any Tipped Match Kings of any diameter. So yes, I can safely build loads and work out any kinks, but I like to have the factory data (specifically their recommended OALs) just to give me a start.

Grumpy

 

[longarm]

gah.. no pressure readings. Well, that's why I don't buy Sierra manuals.

 

[Swift1]

gah.. no pressure readings. Well, that's why I don't buy Sierra manuals.

What the man asked for. I've never had issues with their loads, or for that matter those from several other manufacturers manuals.

 

[longarm]

Yeah, I know. I have an ancient sierra manual that lists the same way. Just that it's irksome and when you pay that much, you'd like DATA.

 

[Old Grumpy]

Grumpy you and I must have the same Sierra manual. Mine has data for the 168 MatchKing HP but not tipped. I doubt there would be any difference but that is not what you asked.

I really didn't figure there would be a noticeable difference except for possibly the OAL.

Grumpy

 

[Old Grumpy]

gah.. no pressure readings. Well, that's why I don't buy Sierra manuals.

Hornady manuals also just list velocities, in 50 fps steps, no pressures. However, I have no way of measuring pressure, except for primer condition, ejection issues, or something more major. Give me a starting charge, a maximum charge, and an OAL. I can work from that.

Grumpy

 

[mdell49]

Grumpy let me suggest a load that a High-power match shooter shared with me about 40 years ago. It has been SUB MOA with every 06 it's been shot in by myself and friends. 46 grains of IMR 4895 168gr Matching. For hunting just switch to Game Kings 165gr. runs about 2700 fps. If you have the powder try the load and then see if you can improve on it?

 

[Old Grumpy]

Grumpy let me suggest a load that a High-power match shooter shared with me about 40 years ago. It has been SUB MOA with every 06 it's been shot in by myself and friends. 46 grains of IMR 4895 168gr Matching. For hunting just switch to Game Kings 165gr. runs about 2700 fps. If you have the powder try the load and then see if you can improve on it?

Just checked, I've got around 3.5 pounds of IMR 4895 and 180 +/- 168gr Tipped Match Kings. I will try this load out.

Grumpy

 

[DubfromGa]

I intend to build some .30-06 loads using the Sierra 168gr Tipped Match Kings. My Sierra manual does not show those specific bullets. Does anyone who has the most recent Sierra Manual and care to share a snapshot of that page? The older manuals have data for the 168gr bullets, just not data for any Tipped Match Kings of any diameter. So yes, I can safely build loads and work out any kinks, but I like to have the factory data (specifically their recommended OALs) just to give me a start.

Grumpy

From their cellphone app:

 

[Ivan1911A1]

Hello @Old Grumpy
I had not posted up to this point because I thought you were most interested in a cartridge OAL and not much else.
The IMR 4895 load is a pretty good one that was listed above. It is a pretty typical service rifle load. An alternate powder that seems to work about as well is IMR 4064 loaded to the same 2700 FPS muzzle velocity.

This is pretty much a duplication of the military M72 Sniper and Match load that was used for years by the military and in service rifle matches. If you read the boxes, it lists about 2640 FPS, but that is at 78 Feet instrumental and that corrects to 2700 FPS at the muzzle with a 173 Grain bullet. At this velocity, this is not a particularly hot load as you can see by the manuals, so there is a pretty decent safety margin. These loads will work fine in a bolt gun or a gas gun.

As for cartridge OAL, I personally don't get too hung up on that. I don't know what kind of rifle you are using the ammunition in, but you would be generally pretty safe if you stuck to the maximum OAL listed in SAAMI specs which is 3.340 inch IIRC. Generally for accuracy purposes, it is a pretty safe bet to be about 0.020 inch or so off your rifling lands if you can do it with the rounds still fitting in the magazine of the gun. I don't worry about going OVER SAAMI max OAL in my handloads and in some guns it really improves things.

As an example, if you use Sierra MatchKings in a .300 Winchester Magnum and try to seat the bullets to its SAAMI maximum OAL (also 3.340 inch), the bullet is mostly inside the cartridge case. The round looks pretty goofy loaded that way. I shoot that round in a Long Action Remington 700 which has a pretty long magazine box, so there is no issue seating the bullet much longer.

- Ivan.

 

[Old Grumpy]

Hello @Old Grumpy
I had not posted up to this point because I thought you were most interested in a cartridge OAL and not much else.
The IMR 4895 load is a pretty good one that was listed above. It is a pretty typical service rifle load. An alternate powder that seems to work about as well is IMR 4064 loaded to the same 2700 FPS muzzle velocity.

This is pretty much a duplication of the military M72 Sniper and Match load that was used for years by the military and in service rifle matches. If you read the boxes, it lists about 2640 FPS, but that is at 78 Feet instrumental and that corrects to 2700 FPS at the muzzle with a 173 Grain bullet. At this velocity, this is not a particularly hot load as you can see by the manuals, so there is a pretty decent safety margin. These loads will work fine in a bolt gun or a gas gun.

As for cartridge OAL, I personally don't get too hung up on that. I don't know what kind of rifle you are using the ammunition in, but you would be generally pretty safe if you stuck to the maximum OAL listed in SAAMI specs which is 3.340 inch IIRC. Generally for accuracy purposes, it is a pretty safe bet to be about 0.020 inch or so off your rifling lands if you can do it with the rounds still fitting in the magazine of the gun. I don't worry about going OVER SAAMI max OAL in my handloads and in some guns it really improves things.

As an example, if you use Sierra MatchKings in a .300 Winchester Magnum and try to seat the bullets to its SAAMI maximum OAL (also 3.340 inch), the bullet is mostly inside the cartridge case. The round looks pretty goofy loaded that way. I shoot that round in a Long Action Remington 700 which has a pretty long magazine box, so there is no issue seating the bullet much longer.

- Ivan.

I also will be running these through a Remington 700. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I will check the free bore in it.

Grumpy

 

[Comatoes]

On my Dad’s Rem 700 06 there was .25” freebore.

However, while researching your bullets I ran into a discussion about the TMK. Take this as a FWIW until you can verify. The TMK was developed using a different ogive. It is more like the VLD offerings from other companies. It does not respond well to the traditional.004 off the lands. That length ended up producing poor accuracy. Because the new shape reduces the brearing surface length. The shape in the case has also changed.

You are being redirected...

 

[ferrarif1fan]

Have you checked the website of the powder you're using? Typically, they publish online their latest and greatest reloading data. If I'm ever loading a new load, that is where I go.

 

[Ivan1911A1]

I also will be running these through a Remington 700. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I will check the free bore in it.

It may not be necessary to chase the lands. My .308 Remington 700 VSSF had such a long throat that I needed to seat bullets out to a bit over 2.900 inch OAL to get near the rifling and get under about 3/4 MOA for 5 shot groups. Of course a short action 700 has such a short magazine box that 2.82 inch was about all that would fit the magazine. I rebarreled a basically brand new rifle for that reason. After that, the 2.800 inch rounds were close enough to the rifling to shoot under 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups.....
My M1A also needs rounds no more than about 2.820 inch to fit in the magazine, but even at that length, the bullets are probably around 0.040 inch or more off the rifling. When I rebarreled that gun, I cut the chamber with a Clymer commercial reamer. The interesting thing is that even though it is a semiauto, with the same 1/2 MOA loads from the Remington 700, it does about a 5/8 inch 5 shot group average. So much for a much larger jump to the rifling.

I rebarreled the M1A many years before I bought the R700 and didn't think a lot before buying the reamer to finish chamber the barrel. I got smarter before doing the R700.

I have no doubt the Remington with a tighter chamber cut with a Palma Match reamer is more accurate, but from a practical standpoint, there isn't all that much difference. I believe the 700 will shoot more different loads well, but that is probably because it isn't a gas gun.

- Ivan.