Absolutely agree on the terminal effect side of the discussion, neither 7.62 or .300 BLK is going to be pushing a round fast enough out of a 14" barrel to really tell the difference. Neither is going to dramatically fragment, and both will be dependent on bullet design to do the job at impact velocity. So, if they're both going to perform essentially the same, why bother with 7.62 and the associated blast?
ETA- I only discussed velocity because that's what was brought up, and I care far less about energy than I do about what the bullet actually does when it hits.
We're not talking about a gunfighter's carbine, so the discussion of weight carried and magazine capacity isn't much of a factor in the problem, agreed.
Mk319 Mod 0 works well out of short barrels (14" range), but everything else is built around a longer barrel, which means more blast, which also means more suppressor wear. It is also an issue of rotational stability. The 175 grain lengths at 14" barrel velocities, even out of a 1:10 twist, is perilously questionable as far as stability. .300 BLK has a faster twist rate to compensate for slow, long bullets, from short barrels which translates to really nice performance when the barrels are lengthened to what would be a dangerously short 7.62 barrel.
The interesting thing is that 16" 7.62 guns perform well (in both precision and function if talking gas guns, which we aren't), and I prefer them to pretty much any other 7.62 option. It's odd how much difference 2" can make.
Bookmarks