168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Ammunition, reloading, shooting, etc
Post Reply
Galvinator77
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:58 pm

168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Galvinator77 »

Want to try 168gn Sierra HTBT Matchkings in my Carbine. Looking for load recommendations from folks who have shot them. I realize this has probably been asked already. If so please point me in the right direction w/ a thread title or date and I will go through the archived pages to find it. I have 4895, 4064, Varget, MR-2000 and Reloader 15 powder available. I tried 147gn M80 Ball bullets w/ 39 gn of 4064. It didn't like that load. Probably more due to the bullet than the powder.





My carbine is one that has been talked about in the Military page. I removed the rubber recoil pad and spliced a section of donor stock back to the correct length so I could reinstall the standard butt plate. Still looking for another donor as the bottom of the butt plate sticks below the stock.

Thanks,
Airborne,
Mark

Griff557
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:34 am

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Griff557 »

Ive been using Hornady 168 FMJBT and 36.5gr IMR 4895 with my Krag rifle. It shoots real close to MOA

https://imgur.com/a/UEG3MiE

madsenshooter
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:00 am
Location: Upper Appalachia aka SE Ohio

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by madsenshooter »

All the powders you've listed should work good with a mid weight bullet like the 168 and with a shorter barrel like the carbine. I don't know a thing about MR-2000 however. I'm not finding it on the burn rate charts I often use. I did however find a paragraph saying it was comparable to RL15, so same neighborhood as the others you've listed with 4895 being a bit faster than the others. I'd try Varget first, lots of fellows dote on the accuracy they get with the powder. About all the cast bullet benchrest shooters up in MI were using Varget a few years back.

Capt. Frank
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:33 pm

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Capt. Frank »

Read my recent post One More Test, this load gave good results.

Galvinator77
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Galvinator77 »

Thanks for the inputs. Took it to the range on Friday w/ some 168 gn bullet loads. Had a heck of a time trying to get a consistent sight picture. Old eyes and an aperture on the barrel were not working well together. My buddies carbine (converted rifle) shot decent groups My best was a 3" lateral string at 50 yards with 38.6 gn of 4064 w/ the 168's. I had a mystery load of a light (under 150 grains and 1900 FPS round nose and
wouldn't feed from the magazine that actually shot the best just, under a 2" group. Barrel shows rifling, it may be one of the barrels that is over .308. I will have to slug it and see.

Airborne,
Mark

User avatar
butlersrangers
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by butlersrangers »

'Galvinator' - For some of us, low-power 'Readers' (1X to 2X), used as Shooting Glasses, helps make Krag sights clearer.
It doesn't matter, if the 'Bull' is a bit fuzzy, when front and rear sight are in sharp focus.
Try experimenting with different power glasses.

Galvinator77
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Galvinator77 »

I tried it w/ my 1.75's but I think I need to get my old sight blacker out and blacken the rear of the front sight. One of the previous owners had painted it orange which did nothing for me.
When I removed the paint the rear of the sight is a little shiny. Thanks for the tip, I have other powered Cheaters. Will experiment.

Airborne,
Mark

Galvinator77
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: 168gn Sierra HTBT Krag Carbine loads

Post by Galvinator77 »

The light load was a 90 gn partially jacketed
bullet over 9.5 grains of a flake powder possibly bullseye at 1900fps.

Post Reply