In your 1:12 don't exceed 155gr.

The 168gr stuff (pretty much any brand or type I tried) is a disaster from 800+ with a 2+ moa drop more than even 175 and up to 4 moa more than 155gr.

175 is better than 168 but not ideal for consistency at or after 800.

Stick to 150 or ideally 155 stuff. You get better ballistics, better stability hence better consistency and accuracy from 800 to 1,000.

155gr Factory ammo will suffer at 1,000yds but not to the extent as to make it useless, which 168 and even 175 can possibly suffer from. This is due to it becoming transonic and even subsonic at 900 and 1,000 yards.

So while more expensive I'd stick to 155 in some form of match grade round with a muzzle velocity of at least 2,900.

The reason I recommend this is you want a single, dependable round that will perform from 600 to 1,000 as it leaves you with a single set of dopes to learn.

175gr at the minimum, but I'd lean towards 185 to 200gr.

Also stick with a match grade bullet. Even BT but steer clear of HP. I found them a little worse , even unpredictable, in the wind.

I'm sure there have been improvements to all bullets since I was competitive but I cannot emphasize how poor the 168s are compared to ever other bullet.

At 1,000 yards I was ammo testing rounds from 155 to 200gr. The 155s, 155,5s, 175s were pretty much on the nose. The 185s, 190s and 200s had about 1-1.5 moa lower point of impact but the 168s were just about staying on the board.

That's a 3 foot drop compared to the 155s and almost 2 foot compared to the rest. The second worse performing were the 190s but they were, at worse, 2 moa lower than my point of aim.

The 168s were also as terrible in the wind. Of course the 155s were more prone to drift, and the heaviest such as the 185s and 200s were the least affected, but the 168 were not just badly affected but unpredictable. Same wind conditions and wind call and you were looking at MOA+ in point of impact.

I assumed it was to due with the transonic/subsonic nature of the round after 800 yards, it's "stubby" design, stumpy bearing surface and even though they were match bullets they were HP but evidently so. Meaning it was quite larger than the HP nature of the comparable 155s. Iow if you were into "pointing" your bullets it made the 168 more aggressive in bearing surface design.

@fish slapped "Ah Cass what would you know"

Not much to be fair. The blonde hair is not just for show. 😁

How are ya btw, long time no hear.

I used 175 gr A-max in my 1:11.25 twist Remington to great effect. MOA (or less) at distances to 600 yards. Never used it for anything further as I had my FTR rifle for that and she was running heavies in a 1:10. However the 175 A-Max has a more secant ogive and longer bearing surface so better ballistics.

That being said you'll get decent performances with anything in the 150-155 range out to a certain distance, but it'll show any shortcomings the further out you go. I'm still, as is evident from the above, not a fan of the 165-168 range of bullets. The bearing surface is shorter, a lot shorter in some cases, and the tangent ogive seems worse than other bullets so does not give good ballistics.

Please understand that my long distance shooting days are well behind me so my information is probably out of date by about a decade. In other words there may be other alternatives to the brands I'm discussing but the weight range of the round should remain close to what I'm suggesting as ballistics have not changed.