77 gr Sierra Tipped Matchking 22 caliber bullets? Good Bad?

[David2]

77 gr Sierra Tipped Matchking 22 caliber bullets?
Good or Bad?

 

[BlackburnBuccaneer]

I tested some in my .223 when they came out a few years ago, they grouped well(~.35-.4" @100y) and shot fine out to 600, never tried them further (bit low on BC compared to the bergers or the 90's I often use), I was shooting them about 2950fps out of my 28" barrel but they could probably go faster as I shoot 80 VLD's at 3050fps.

I can't remember the seating depth off the top of my head but can check my data if you want.

 

[284winner]

I tested some in my .223 when they came out a few years ago, they grouped well(~.35-.4" @100y) and shot fine out to 600, never tried them further (bit low on BC compared to the bergers or the 90's I often use), I was shooting them about 2950fps out of my 28" barrel but they could probably go faster as I shoot 80 VLD's at 3050fps.

I can't remember the seating depth off the top of my head but can check my data if you want.

What is the manufacturer bc ?

 

[BlackburnBuccaneer]

Sierra report
.420 @ 2400 fps and above
.415 between 2400 and 2000 fps
.395 between 2000 and 1750 fps
.380 @ 1750 fps and below

Brian Litz reports it as .395 G1 average and .202 G7

It is not bad - especially for a 77, just not what I needed (I had a few hundred so I tested them for the sake of it), really depends what you want to use it for.

Out of an AR I would imagine they are a very good option, but in a bolt action with a bigger mag or longer throat i would go with one of the 80's.

 

[loud_noise]

Is shot them from Tikka Varmint with. 24” 1:8 barrel and they performed well, group was in the order of about .580” a .780”. Can’t recall specifics but they were good enough to warrant buying another box. A quality projectile in my rifle.

 

[284winner]

Geez I'd like to think that there's a higher BC above 3000 feet per second but apparently not.

 

[Beau]

The Nosler 70gr RDF has a higher BC & can be driven faster.

 

[ronemus]

Geez I'd like to think that there's a higher BC above 3000 feet per second but apparently not.

The Hornady 75 gr BTHP has a higher BC, is much less expensive, and is very consistent and accurate. I get ~1/2" 10-shot groups any time, and the lot-to-lot consistency is good - no load changes needed.

 

[284winner]

The Nosler 70gr RDF has a higher BC & can be driven faster.

Ya I have had good luck with the 168 tmk in my 308s so considered the 77s for a couple .224 guns. Accuracy is very good with the
tmks. The Amax bullets also shoot well. Have to try some rdfs.

 

[Clancy]

I tested the 69 TMK and 70 RDF the same day, both on freshly cleaned barrels, from a front rest.

The 69 TMK averaged .625 and the 70 RDF averaged .301.

I further fine tuned the RDF into the low .2s and abandoned the TMK.

I have tried the tipped matchking in 3 Rifles now and have not had good luck in any of them. I read often where someone gets them to shoot, but this is just my experience.

 

[284winner]

Yes they shoot extremely well in one of my 308s. Was wondering how well they could shoot in my 223.

I tested the 69 TMK and 70 RDF the same day, both on freshly cleaned barrels, from a front rest.

The 69 TMK averaged .625 and the 70 RDF averaged .301.

I further fine tuned the RDF into the low .2s and abandoned the TMK.

I have tried the tipped matchking in 3 Rifles now and have not had good luck in any of them. I read often where someone gets them to shoot, but this is just my experience.

 

[Crosshair1]

I have tested some of the 77tmks in a tikka 8tw 223 and find them easy to load and not sensitive to seat depth (think they are tangent ogive), for me they are as easy to load for as the 77mk.

I believe the 30 cal tmks differ in that they are essentially a vld type bullet and are in no way similar to their mk brothers - attention to seating depth will give positive results.

 

[Beau]

I tested the 69 TMK and 70 RDF the same day, both on freshly cleaned barrels, from a front rest.

The 69 TMK averaged .625 and the 70 RDF averaged .301.

I further fine tuned the RDF into the low .2s and abandoned the TMK.

Clancy, what was your RDF load?

 

[Clancy]

I’m shooting them in a 22x47, so I don’t think it’ll help much.

Clancy, what was your RDF load?

 

[Curious]

77 gr Sierra Tipped Matchking 22 caliber bullets?
Good or Bad?

For what?

 

[Laurie]

I have tested some of the 77tmks in a tikka 8tw 223 and find them easy to load and not sensitive to seat depth (think they are tangent ogive), for me they are as easy to load for as the 77mk.

I believe the 30 cal tmks differ in that they are essentially a vld type bullet and are in no way similar to their mk brothers - attention to seating depth will give positive results.

This is a widespread issue with the 'new generation' of recently introduced bullets - raw BC has become the main objective these days, no doubt because that's what many shooters are basing purchase decisions on alone. Bullet form and 'temperament' has been forgotten or ignored by many.

At one time you knew that if you bought a Sierra MK it had an HPBT form with a relatively short nose section and a tangent ogive 7-9-calibres radius nose. Very easy to tune! There were a few exceptions - eg the 210gn 308 MK is a VLD type with a longer secant nose-form. Now though, Sierra's recent introductions have added a range of shapes ('forms') with no indicators as to whether they're tangent, secant, easy to tune or aggressive VLD types. (Berger by contrast groups the bullets by form under different names - BT (tangent); VLD; Hybrid.)

Hornady has to a certain extent done as per Sierra with its new ELDs. Although this manufacturer has primarily produced secant ogive types, the newer models appear to have moved to more 'aggressive' nose forms to reduce drag further.

77gn 224s and a few other comparable weights in the 73-77 range have usually been easy to tune / jump-tolerant forms as a primary use will be in magazine fed ARs in XTC or similar in rifles throated for 80s hence requiring large jumps for any 2.25/2.26 COAL loading.

One of the few ways now of knowing what you might be buying (other than user feedback on this and other forums which by definition has to be highly subjective) is Bryan Litz's Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets book whose third edition evaluates around 950 models. The key factor is the Rt/R ratio which is a metric that allows some valuation of how abrupt the nose to shank junction is.

1.00 = true and full tangent. (tolerant)
0.50 = traditional VLD form as first used by Berger years ago (often finicky)
< 0.50 = a really aggressive front-end form.

The TMKs and ELDs now exhibit a variety of values in this metric using Bryan Litz's measurements in his book.

Taking the 224 and 308 TMKs that have been mentioned in this thread you get:

0.224
69gn ........... 1.00
77gn ........... 0.96

0.308
155 ............ 0.55
168 ............ 0.54
175 ............ 0.55
195 ............ 0.46

So Sierra has very sensibly (IMHO) stayed with tolerant tangent forms in the 22s and sacrificed BC for jump-tolerance for bullets to be used in magazine operation. Hornady has adopted an aggressive 0.48 Rt/R form in the 75gn ELD-M and Nosler has moved from 0.98 for its traditional 77 to 0.62 with the 70gn RDF, not a full VLD form but trending that way.

The 308 TMKs are a very different matter though as all four are now VLDs, Hence the people who've shot the still on the go 168, 175 etc traditional SMKs with their wonderfully tolerant tangent forms (168 = 0.90; 175 = 1.00) now saying ... "I can't get these new TMKs to shoot well for me with my old SMK loads."

There is no necessary consistency anymore - some TMKs have much less aggressive forms and are therefore pretty jump-tolerant. I use the 0.284 160gn TMK (Rt/R = 0.84) a lot and it is an easy bullet to 'tune'.

What did intrigue me a little with the adoption of synthetic tips in TMKs, RDFs, and ELD-Ms over HPBT types was the resulting increase in bullet OAL which all other things being equal sees the bullet having to be seated deeper in the case for magazine use. The 77 TMK is 0.070" longer than its SMK stablemate for a modest 4.66% BC improvement. With an already very deeply seated bullet at the 2.26" COAL magazine length any further reduction in case capacity for powder seems very undesirable to me in - in theory anyway as I don't shoot 223 in this type of rifle these days. .......... and of course, the TMK saw a price increase too justified by the 'improvements'.

 

[Clancy]

Laurie,

For the record, the RDF is a hpbt.

 

[Laurie]

Laurie,

For the record, the RDF is a hpbt.

Thank you Clancy - but the primary point being made about it and other recent introductions (including some HPBT SMKs) is manufacturers chasing BC at the cost of flexibility. So the RDF is likely to be less tolerant than the older Nosler Custom Competition models.

So far as OALs and seating depth go you're quite correct - no tip adding yet more nose length. It does have a longer nose section though than the 77 Custom Comp model - an extra 41 thou'.

There is still loads of choice - huge amounts in fact as we've never had it so good in terms of bullet variety. It's more an issue to me of maker's description and customer awareness as Berger aside you may not know what you're buying.

To take three Sierra MKs, all HPBT form, the 7mm 175gn, 180gn and 183gn are vatsly different designs ranging from an easy to tune not quite traditional SMK (175 with a longer nose, 10.58 cal radius ogive and 0.84 Rt/R) to an out and out VLD (180) to a 'Super-VLD' (183 with its 27.84 calibres radius nose and 0.37 Rt/R)

 

[Clancy]

Thank you Clancy - but the primary point being made about it and other recent introductions (including some HPBT SMKs) is manufacturers chasing BC at the cost of flexibility. So the RDF is likely to be less tolerant than the older Nosler Custom Competition models.

So far as OALs and seating depth go you're quite correct - no tip adding yet more nose length. It does have a longer nose section though than the 77 Custom Comp model - an extra 41 thou'.

There is still loads of choice - huge amounts in fact as we've never had it so good in terms of bullet variety. It's more an issue to me of maker's description and customer awareness as Berger aside you may not know what you're buying.

To take three Sierra MKs, all HPBT form, the 7mm 175gn, 180gn and 183gn are vatsly different designs ranging from an easy to tune not quite traditional SMK (175 with a longer nose, 10.58 cal radius ogive and 0.84 Rt/R) to an out and out VLD (180) to a 'Super-VLD' (183 with its 27.84 calibres radius nose and 0.37 Rt/R)

There’s no doubt about what you’re saying. Bullets of all types are becoming increasingly more sleek, and thereby harder to tune. The RDF is tough, very tough, to tune but rewarding.

Plain SMKs of old were easy enough I’m pretty sure you could have hammered them in backwards and they’d work fine.

I’d still take a better BC with a little more tuning though, any day of the week.

 

[Beau]

There’s no doubt about what you’re saying. Bullets of all types are becoming increasingly more sleek, and thereby harder to tune. The RDF is tough, very tough, to tune but rewarding

Clancy, what did you have to do to tune the RDF?

I believe I have it tuned in a 223 AR, but that just consisted of seating it to mag length & finding the correct powder.