View Full Version : 300 BLK 300 yard 9 inch barrel gel test:
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/9338/300blk300small.jpg
Suwannee Tim
01-11-12, 17:26
That ain't bad. What's your estimate of the impact the velocities?
What was the velocities on those two rounds?
how far was the penatration difference ?
Probably impact around 1500 fps from the 9 inch.
This is Barnes Vortex factory ammo. It is for sale now from AAC, govt purchase only. Commercial sales in Feb or March.
how far was the penatration difference ?
The 9 inch went 20 inches. The 16 inch went 24 inches.
The goal is to control penetration, but at that distance it is difficult.
SomeOtherGuy
01-11-12, 20:10
I had been thinking of 300BLK as a 150-175 yard deer cartridge, based on energy numbers. This photo and the penetration numbers listed are making me think it's a 300+ yard deer cartridge for anyone who can estimate range and compensate for drop. Am I being too optimistic?
As for drop - use a 200 yard zero. You can shoot out to ~237 yards with no scope adjustments and it will be about 3.5 inches low at that range and never be more than 3.5 inches high.
That is apparently impressive, especially the 9".
Do you have the actual gel picture and the rest of the data i.e. NL, TC,?
foxjordan22
01-11-12, 21:16
Very nice. Will be ordering when available thanks for the heads up.
No this was just shot today - don't have a full test.
Nightvisionary
01-12-12, 05:55
Probably impact around 1500 fps from the 9 inch.
This is Barnes Vortex factory ammo. It is for sale now from AAC, govt purchase only. Commercial sales in Feb or March.
I would really like to see the actual test of these bullets fired into caliberated 10% gelatin.
The Barnes VOR-TX is just the factory loaded ammunition using Barnes TSX or in this case TTSX bullets.
Both bullets appear fully expanded yet the impact velocity from the 9 inch barrel was 500 feet per second below Barnes own minimum stated expansion velocity of 2000 feet per second for the TTSX bullet.
http://i40.tinypic.com/10gz8sw.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/whv8.jpg
Impact was probably about 1460 fps from the 9 inch.
Eurodriver
01-12-12, 10:01
Robert, what would you say the max effective range (both for incapacitation and for accurately hitting a target) of the 300BLK out of a 9" barrel is?
I don't have terminal effect data at far distances.
The US Military rates the Max Effective Range of the M4 as 500 meters for a point target.
If the max effective range of the M4 with M855 at 2900 fps is 500 meters, that has 100 inches of drop, 41 inches drift, and 291 ft/lbs of energy at that distance:
A 16 inch 300 AAC BLACKOUT 125 grain at 2220 fps has:
100 inches drop at 440 meters
41 inches drift at 484 meters
291 ft/lbs of energy at 700 meters.
While the 300 AAC Blackout has way more energy, the military goes by hit probability. If we consider that the drift and drop range is correlated with hit probability, and discount the energy advantage of 300 BLK, we get 462 meters for equal hit probability.
Using M4 military standards, the max effective range of 300 AAC Blackout from a 16 inch barrel is 460 meters.
From a 9 inch barrel (2049 fps):
100 inches drop at 410 meters
41 inches drift at 470 meters
291 ft/lbs of energy at 625 meters, so 440 meter max effective range for a 9 inch.
300 BLK from a 9 inch barrel has the same energy at the muzzle as a 14.5 inch barrel M4, and about 5% more energy at 440 meters.
Eurodriver
01-12-12, 10:28
Thanks. I'm not too concerned with muzzle energy but more with hit probability as I already know that the heavier 300BLK will give more of a thump than a 62gr or even 77gr 5.56 round.
Basically, I've been holding off on a 300BLK until more reports come in regarding its long range potential.
While I understand that one of the 300BLKs advantages is cycling quiet subsonic ammo that packs a punch, I don't think there should be a reason to limit its use only to that (as some others do). I would like to push the envelope of this round and not only have a quiet CQB weapon but a weapon that can make long range hits as well...300 yards being the absolute minimum with a more ideal range further than 400 yards.
I think I will just have to buy one and try it myself.
I shot a 16 inch AR at 600 yards and hit the 3 inch (1/2 MOA) X-ring with Remington 125 Match Ammo. There was a lot of drop and so it was not simple to get the scope zeroed. It was fine shooting that range as a fixed/known distance, but I would not have done it for live targets at unknown distance.
In real life 200 yards can be a very long shot. Sniping at unsuspecting that you are in the area bad guys is one thing, carbine fights is another.
I really, really, really, want to be deer hunting with this caliber come fall 2012.
Thanks for posting the bullet recovery pics.
I really, really, really, want to be deer hunting with this caliber come fall 2012
I REALLY REALLY REALLY Wish Indiana DNR would get its head out of its ass at knock off this bullshit of 357 minimum bullet diameter and 1.8 inch maximum case length crap.
300BLKOUT would be THE ideal hunting round for White tail in Indiana
The Barnes VOR-TX is just the factory loaded ammunition using Barnes TSX or in this case TTSX bullets.
Both bullets appear fully expanded yet the impact velocity from the 9 inch barrel was 500 feet per second below Barnes own minimum stated expansion velocity of 2000 feet per second for the TTSX bullet.
This bullet was specifically designed for lower velocities/300 BLK.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY Wish Indiana DNR would get its head out of its ass at knock off this bullshit of 357 minimum bullet diameter and 1.8 inch maximum case length crap.
300BLKOUT would be THE ideal hunting round for White tail in Indiana
You can't hunt with .30cal at all?
Here we have to use .23 or bigger. Truthfully I would just run a Doc recommended 5.56 load if it was legal, but the .300 looks to be what I need to be able to hunt with my carbine and keep out of trouble with the game wardens.
Nightvisionary
01-12-12, 15:34
Impact was probably about 1460 fps from the 9 inch.
No one at Barnes knows the minimum expansion threshold for this bullet, but we think it may be 1300 fps - which would mean about 375 yards from a 9 inch. It was shot for the first time yesterday at 300 yards - and you were seeing the photos the same day. This is a new bullet - not even out yet, and designed with my input specifically for 300 BLK.
See, new for 2012:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/coming-in-201/new-mle-militarylaw-enforcement-bullet-line/
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7161/300aacblkbarriersummary.jpg
That is very impressive then.
This has my attention..... I have been wondering if 9"-10" was enough for a hog gun.
Yes, 9 inches is enough. This was just with the Match ammo:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/314317_239137422799387_203519439694519_690817_57929820_n.jpg
Suwannee Tim
01-12-12, 16:08
Yes, 9 inches is enough.......
I'm guessing you didn't shoot that porker at 300 yards. I would be very reluctant to shoot at a large, tough live target at such a range with a 300 AAC. I'd much rather have my 30-06 if I even fired the shot.
You can't hunt with .30cal at all?
Here we have to use .23 or bigger. Truthfully I would just run a Doc recommended 5.56 load if it was legal, but the .300 looks to be what I need to be able to hunt with my carbine and keep out of trouble with the game wardens.
Nope. Minimum Bullet Diameter has to be .357 and the Maximum case length is 1.8 inches...... REALLY stupid law
DiscipulusArmorum
01-12-12, 21:51
Thanks for the pics and reports, Mr. Silvers. I know how much work you do to promote and improve the 300BLK, and I certainly appreciate all the info I can get about this interesting cartridge.
Suwannee Tim
01-13-12, 05:03
I think the 0.5 inch by 24 inch deep hole from the 9 inch 300 BLK would do the job......
You hit heavy bone and you are not going to get that sort of penetration. I and my buddies hunted with Ruger Mini 30s in 7.62X39,which is similar to the 300 AAC, a bit more powerful if anything. We killed a lot of deer and a couple of hogs . Several times one of us hit the deer in the shoulder, broke the shoulder but never penetrated past. Every time a follow up shot was necessary.
You are an experienced hunter, shooter and marksman, you know what you are doing and you will pass up a shot when necessary. You are pushing the envelope with this cartridge which is fine given your qualifications. For a typical user I think the 300 AAC is a 200 yard cartridge for small deer and hogs and 100 yards for large deer and hogs. Longer ranges and bigger animals, less favorable conditions call for something in the 30-06 class.
Don't get me wrong, I'm enthusiastic about what you are doing with the 300 AAC, just trying to add some perspective for the less experienced user. Not that they will listen.:(
I am getting ready to go to the range this morning. I haven't shot a bolt action in a couple of months. I've been wanting to shoot a couple of boxes of 30-06 just to see if I still know how. Thanks for reminding me.
You hit heavy bone and you are not going to get that sort of penetration. I and my buddies hunted with Ruger Mini 30s in 7.62X39,which is similar to the 300 AAC, a bit more powerful if anything.
It does not sound like you were using these bullets.
Take a close look at page 15: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session9/minisi.ppt; this directly addresses the official Army estimation of terminal effectiveness of the 5.56 mm M855 when fired from the M16, M4, and Mk18. Looks like the Mk18/M855 offers acceptable terminal effects to about 25m, M4/M855 to 125m, M16/M855 to 200m. If Mk262 is substituted for M855, then the Army data notes that Mk18/Mk262 offers acceptable terminal performance to around 65m; M4/Mk262 to 175m; M16/Mk262 to 250m or so.
Suwannee Tim
01-13-12, 12:58
It does not sound like you were using these bullets.
No, this was in 1980 to 1986 or so and the Barnes Vortex bullets were not available. We were using the Sierra 125 which we found to be the most strongly constructed 30 caliber in the 125 to 130 grain range. I never saw anything perform as well as the Vortex. Not even close. The Ruger couldn't shoot as accurately as an AR either. Not even close. We did a lot of damage with them though. Killed a lot of deer. Never more than 100 yards or so due to accuracy issues, if I could have been confident of a hit at longer range I would have shot farther. Nevertheless, even with an excellent bullet, this is a 30-30 class cartridge.
That is really impressive bullet expansion performance through glass and steel, better than most Barnes bullets I've seen. Looks great!
That is very impressive then.
How far were the targets from the muzzle on this test? Also, would you happen to have a drop chart for this load and barrel length?
Thanks
The gel was 300 yards from the muzzle.
Drop chart from 16 inch set up for max point blank range (+- 3.5 inches - MAXPBR 251 yards)
0 -2.6
50 +1.2
100 +3.2
150 +3.4
200 +1.4
218 0.0
250 -3.3
251 -3.4
300 -10.9
Drop chart from 9 inch set up for max point blank range (+- 3.5 inches- MAXPBR 229 yards)
0 -2.6
50 +1.4
100 +3.4
150 +3.0
198 0.0
200 -0.2
229 -3.4
250 -6.4
300 -15.8
Wow that is one nasty round! Cant wait for my build to get done!
I would like to see the gel blocks, with scale, for all of these too.
The gel was 300 yards from the muzzle.
300 yards or a 100 yards? Your chart says 100 yards. Either way I'm still impressed with the performance a AR15 with a 9" barrel.
ETA: 1st post shows 300 yards, chart with various barriers shows 100 yards, I'm squared away now.
The 300 yard test was at 300 yards. The 100 yard test was at 100 yards.
I would like to see the gel blocks, with scale, for all of these too.
as would I...
When can we expect data from Dr. Roberts on this factory load ?
I am going to get some high speed videos made.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.