Selmer,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure you have had great results with 168's @ 600 yards and shorter. The problem with them is that they are often notorious for tumbling as their velocity nears or goes transonic & subsonic.

Secondly, there are bullets just a wee bit heavier than the old 168 that are much more aerodynamic, thus carrying velocity & energy and wind bucking ability better, and further down range. They shoot flatter. To me it's like hanging onto antique .22 rimfire "long" loads, when technology has given us the "Long Rifle" load which is better overall, at the same cost of the former.

Per altering, modifying, combining or making this information I have assembled availible for up/downloading, I'll leave that to the MODERATORS who have my permission to do anything with my post, including delete it. (highlighted to get their attention)

Thanks and happy shooting,
T

Last edited by tresmon; 05/24/10.
-Tres
NOTE: I'm a machinist, gunsmith, writer, and instructor of many outdoor topics looking for gainful employment in any geographical cool place to live. Resumes available.. Please inquire

John 14:6