Berger 208gr LRHT - FTR
- Thread starter Tony1320
- Start date
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
If you haven't already seen it, this thread might be of interest:
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/berger-208-30-cal.3998092/
With the recent release of this bullet combined with COVID-19 issues, there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info available on their performance as yet. I keep my ear to the ground about such things and the preliminary reports I've heard have been very positive. However, I have heard no specific information regarding velocity, seating depth, etc. Solely based on my loads with 200.20Xs and 215s over Varget, my guess is the 208s ought to tune in somewhere close to 2600 fps from a 30" barrel. Obviously there are other faster/slower nodes, but 2600 fps with a powder such as Varget would be a good combination of case fill ratio, pressure, gun handling, performance, and brass life.
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/berger-208-30-cal.3998092/
With the recent release of this bullet combined with COVID-19 issues, there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info available on their performance as yet. I keep my ear to the ground about such things and the preliminary reports I've heard have been very positive. However, I have heard no specific information regarding velocity, seating depth, etc. Solely based on my loads with 200.20Xs and 215s over Varget, my guess is the 208s ought to tune in somewhere close to 2600 fps from a 30" barrel. Obviously there are other faster/slower nodes, but 2600 fps with a powder such as Varget would be a good combination of case fill ratio, pressure, gun handling, performance, and brass life.
Last edited:
I did see that thread
I was just hoping now that summer has started more people would have gotten a chance to try them
Always happy to hear a good report for the new 208s. I have yet to send any downrange, but I'm already pretty committed to giving them a good try... have a new 9.5 twist barrel at the smith being threaded and chambered, and if my calculations are correct, the dummy rounds I provided will require ~.250 freebore. Hope I got that right... with any luck, I'll begin load development later this month.
Must say though, for every good report I've heard, I've heard another where the 208s have been tried and rejected in favor of sticking with the 200.20Xs. Hoping that starting with a barrel purposely spec'd for the 208s will increase the odds of success.
Must say though, for every good report I've heard, I've heard another where the 208s have been tried and rejected in favor of sticking with the 200.20Xs. Hoping that starting with a barrel purposely spec'd for the 208s will increase the odds of success.
D-4297
Gold $$ Contributor
My personal thought on the subject is that some thought the 208 was the "silver bullet" that they could shoot in a shorter chamber , and give them 200 - 20's , and when that didn't happen , the bullet is junk . You know .....Like the golfer who buys a new set of the latest "flavor of the month" clubs , and blames the clubs cause he can't break 80 . 
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
The 208 Hybrid bearing BTO dimension is ~.011" shorter than the 215 Hybrid (0.788" versus 0.799" - from Berger website bullet information). I have been loading 215s in a .308 Win with 0.180" freebore and a 10-twist barrel and have been very satisfied with their performance. A 10-twist barrel with the 215s provides an Sg only a tick under 1.5 (1.48) at 2560 fps, 70 degrees, 1000 ft elevation, which are fairly typical of where I shoot. Given its dimensions, I'd imagine a 10-twist barrel would sufficient for the 208s in typical conditions. In my hands, the 215 boattail/bearing surface junction is still above the case neck/shoulder junction when seated at .012" off the lands. So I'd also imagine anyone wishing to try out the 208s could do so initially with a rifle having a freebore more typical for the 200.20X bullet of 0.170" to 0.180". However, I agree with @D-4297; a freebore greater than 0.200", perhaps even as long as 0.250" would be optimal for the 208s.
Initially, I struggled to comprehend a good reason for switching to the 208s. The BC is little higher than a properly-pointed 200.20X bullet. Yet with 8 gr more weight, velocities with tuned loads will probably be around 50 fps slower than with the 200.20Xs, meaning their performance [wind deflection] ought to be similar, or even slightly less. Likewise, the BC of a properly-pointed 215 Hybrid is approximately 4 to 5% higher than the 208 Hybrid, and with the slower velocity for the heavier 215 in a tuned load, the two should probably also exhibit comparable external ballistics in typical .308 Win loads. Nonetheless, the design of the 208 is noticeably different than the 200.20X, particularly its longer bearing surface. My current thinking is that if you have an F-TR already rifle set up optimally for the 200.20Xs, there is certainly no harm in trying out the 208s. As we know, sometimes a particular bullet just shoots better in a given rifle. It is often impossible to ever clearly define why that is true, but happens nonetheless. So I now view the 208s as simply another option to the fine 200.20X and 215 Hybrid bullets Berger has had in their .30 cal lineup for some time. I will probably be giving these a try in the near future in the rifle I'm using for the 215s, and will report any worthwhile findings here.
Initially, I struggled to comprehend a good reason for switching to the 208s. The BC is little higher than a properly-pointed 200.20X bullet. Yet with 8 gr more weight, velocities with tuned loads will probably be around 50 fps slower than with the 200.20Xs, meaning their performance [wind deflection] ought to be similar, or even slightly less. Likewise, the BC of a properly-pointed 215 Hybrid is approximately 4 to 5% higher than the 208 Hybrid, and with the slower velocity for the heavier 215 in a tuned load, the two should probably also exhibit comparable external ballistics in typical .308 Win loads. Nonetheless, the design of the 208 is noticeably different than the 200.20X, particularly its longer bearing surface. My current thinking is that if you have an F-TR already rifle set up optimally for the 200.20Xs, there is certainly no harm in trying out the 208s. As we know, sometimes a particular bullet just shoots better in a given rifle. It is often impossible to ever clearly define why that is true, but happens nonetheless. So I now view the 208s as simply another option to the fine 200.20X and 215 Hybrid bullets Berger has had in their .30 cal lineup for some time. I will probably be giving these a try in the near future in the rifle I'm using for the 215s, and will report any worthwhile findings here.
Down South
FTR Junkie
I'm planning on shooting a 1000 yard match next Saturday if they have it. I'll shoot the 1st & 3rd string with 208s and middle string with X bullets just to kinda compare. I know conditions are different every string but hopefully it'll give me a idea of what's going on. I know the X bullet load is solid so we'll see what happens. I'll report back with thoughts on the 208 load.
The barrel I'm testing 208s in is about 250 ish freebore. It was throated out with a throating reamer. 30 inches long and 9 twist.
The barrel I'm testing 208s in is about 250 ish freebore. It was throated out with a throating reamer. 30 inches long and 9 twist.
Last edited:
LRA? I'll be there (great place to shoot, always a good time!)...
On paper, the 208 sure looks good. At 2625 fps, the 208 offers an advantage over the 200.20x that approaches the difference between the 185 Jug at 2800 fps and the 200.20x at 2650 fps. Surprised there's not more buzz about it....
On paper, the 208 sure looks good. At 2625 fps, the 208 offers an advantage over the 200.20x that approaches the difference between the 185 Jug at 2800 fps and the 200.20x at 2650 fps. Surprised there's not more buzz about it....
Jdne5b
Gold $$ Contributor
They also require a much longer freebore than what most people may have. Sure, reaming a throat longer is possible but some people may be hesitant because then they will be locked in to the long throat and a few select longer bullets. If a user is pointing the 20x the gains of the 208 are even smaller.
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
For me it's a matter of economics and timing. Berger released the bullet about 12 months before when the FCWC was scheduled in SA, and with in 60 days of spinning up two new barrels and taking delivery of 4000 200.20x bullets of the same lot for shooting until after the FCWC as they were originally scheduled in April '21.
No way I was changing horses at that point.
Combine that with the WuFlu shutdown (there are a lot of shooters on the sidelines lately). I shot for the first time for score since SWN last weekend.... AND for me I'm burning up the 550 rounds I got returned to me that I had loaded and shipped to South Africa last yr for a trip in April that got canceled.
I have no doubt that the 208 will shoot, I haven't seen a bullet from Berger yet that I cant get to shoot. After I burn up the 5000+ 20x bullets i have I'm going to give it a whirl, heck, even if it's the same as the 20x if I I can stop pointing it's worth it to me.
No way I was changing horses at that point.
Combine that with the WuFlu shutdown (there are a lot of shooters on the sidelines lately). I shot for the first time for score since SWN last weekend.... AND for me I'm burning up the 550 rounds I got returned to me that I had loaded and shipped to South Africa last yr for a trip in April that got canceled.
I have no doubt that the 208 will shoot, I haven't seen a bullet from Berger yet that I cant get to shoot. After I burn up the 5000+ 20x bullets i have I'm going to give it a whirl, heck, even if it's the same as the 20x if I I can stop pointing it's worth it to me.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
The difference in BC between 200.20Xs that you point yourself and the 208s, which come pointed in the box, really isn't worth talking about. In my hands, pointed 200.20Xs routinely yield G7 BCs of 0.340 to 0.350 based on recorded velocity drop data. When combined with the slight velocity advantage enjoyed by the lighter bullet in tuned loads, the performances of the two bullets on paper are effectively identical.
FWIW - bullets that come pointed from the factory will still exhibit the same dimensional length variance as those that are not pointed. I personally prefer to point bullets myself for that very reason. In measuring the various dimensions of many, many different bullets over the years, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of bullet OAL variance resides in the nose segment, which is not surprising given the manufacturing process. Length variance within the bearing surface and boattail segments, although not zero, is typically much smaller than can be measured in the nose region. For this reason, as well as the purpose of generating uniform points, I always sort bullets into length groups based on OAL. I suspect that the length sorting process itself may help improve bullet consistency within a given length group, above and beyond the act of pointing them, sort of like a poor man's Bob Green Comparator tool.
Because pointing bullets squeezes down the bullet tip out to the meplat, pointed bullets are actually slightly longer than unpointed bullets. With pointed bullets from a different manufacturer, the points are noticeably non-uniform in length, because they have not been subjected to a length-sorting process prior to being pointed at the factory. I used to think this undesirable because it would seem to present a problem [source of error] with regard to sorting bullets by OAL. However, I have found that if you sort these bullets by OAL into length groups as I have always done for un-pointed bullets, the points within each length group become far more uniform in length. This should not have been surprising as the length of the points on different OAL bullets made with the pointing die on a single setting will vary with respect to the overall length of the bullet; longer bullets will have longer and more pronounced points. Because of this, even bullets such as the 208s that have been pointed at the factory can be sorted by OAL, which may improve dimensional consistency.
FWIW - bullets that come pointed from the factory will still exhibit the same dimensional length variance as those that are not pointed. I personally prefer to point bullets myself for that very reason. In measuring the various dimensions of many, many different bullets over the years, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of bullet OAL variance resides in the nose segment, which is not surprising given the manufacturing process. Length variance within the bearing surface and boattail segments, although not zero, is typically much smaller than can be measured in the nose region. For this reason, as well as the purpose of generating uniform points, I always sort bullets into length groups based on OAL. I suspect that the length sorting process itself may help improve bullet consistency within a given length group, above and beyond the act of pointing them, sort of like a poor man's Bob Green Comparator tool.
Because pointing bullets squeezes down the bullet tip out to the meplat, pointed bullets are actually slightly longer than unpointed bullets. With pointed bullets from a different manufacturer, the points are noticeably non-uniform in length, because they have not been subjected to a length-sorting process prior to being pointed at the factory. I used to think this undesirable because it would seem to present a problem [source of error] with regard to sorting bullets by OAL. However, I have found that if you sort these bullets by OAL into length groups as I have always done for un-pointed bullets, the points within each length group become far more uniform in length. This should not have been surprising as the length of the points on different OAL bullets made with the pointing die on a single setting will vary with respect to the overall length of the bullet; longer bullets will have longer and more pronounced points. Because of this, even bullets such as the 208s that have been pointed at the factory can be sorted by OAL, which may improve dimensional consistency.
Down South
FTR Junkie
I shot the 1000 yard match last weekend that i mentioned in the previous post. I used the 208s on 1st & 3rd string and 200.20 X bullets (pointed) in the 2nd string. Wind conditions were fairly close all 3 strings. Both loads shot well and my scores were very similar all 3 strings. As of now i'd say both bullets are pretty close accuracy wise and i didn't see much difference wind drift wise. I'll shoot more matches comparing the two bullets but from what i saw in this match there's not much difference between them. So with that said, i probably wouldn't run out and chamber a barrel for the 208s if you are already shooting X bullets or 200 hybrids well and have a known proven load. Just my .02
LVLAaron
Gold $$ Contributor
How hard are the 208's to tune and recoil manage vs the 20x?
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
I just bought some of the 208s. I'll post my experience with them in the near future once I've tested them.
FWIW, I've been shooting the 215s in the same rifle for some time. That load is running at ~2560 fps with Varget. Having shot that load on several range trips together with a load using the 200.20Xs running at ~2650 fps with Varget, I did not notice a huge difference in felt recoil. I'm guessing that the 208s ought to tune in somewhere in the neighborhood of 2600 fps with Varget in my setup, so again, I don't envision the difference in felt recoil between either the 215 or 220.20X loads is going to be dramatically different due to the slight differences in velocities.
FWIW, I've been shooting the 215s in the same rifle for some time. That load is running at ~2560 fps with Varget. Having shot that load on several range trips together with a load using the 200.20Xs running at ~2650 fps with Varget, I did not notice a huge difference in felt recoil. I'm guessing that the 208s ought to tune in somewhere in the neighborhood of 2600 fps with Varget in my setup, so again, I don't envision the difference in felt recoil between either the 215 or 220.20X loads is going to be dramatically different due to the slight differences in velocities.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
0.180". It's not ideal for either the 215s or the 208s. The boattail/bearing surface junction of the 215s at .012" off the lands is just barely above the neck/shoulder junction. However, the load shoots reasonably well. The boattail/bearing surface junction of the 208s at the same seating depth is noticeably farther above the neck/shoulder junction, due to its shorter BTO measurement. I'd estimate the 208s could easily be loaded more optimally for a rifle with a freebore of 0.225" to 0.250". QL predictions for the 208s using the Varget burn rate calibrated from my 215 load load suggests the pressure will be tolerable for the 208s in my setup using Palma brass and Varget at a velocity of ~2600 fps.
Last edited:
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.