Help a (somewhat) newbie, what is the advantage of 300blk in a non SBR platform

[Nightvisionary]

Here is some additional first hand data from my notebooks. It compares my clone of the 5.56 77 grain MK-262 to the 300 BLK using Barnes 110 grain TTSX bullets. I don't have access to blended powders and TAC gives piss poor accuracy. Because of that my velocity is limted to 2600 FPS with the MK-262 clone.

The 300 BLK has significantly more muzzle energy and at 300 yards the 5.56 only has a 1 MOA advantage in bullet drop. At intermediate ranges they seem pretty equally matched.

[TurretGunner]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from but they are wrong. This is my standard load for my 300 Blackout. Foot pounds of energy at 200 yards are double what you stated they were. My numbers are real world through my own carbine.

I was refering to the factory 208Gr Amax Horndady load, as using this rifle with a 16", with supersonics defeats the purpose. A 6.5G or 6.8SPC is a much better choice, and you can actualy get ammo for it.

As I said in the begining, suppressed, subsonics with a shorter barrel to ensure you don't go super.......this rifle has a very small niche and most owners are ignorant to what it really does.

The ballistic tables don't lie. Make as the snide and smart ass remarks all you want. Doesn't change the facts.

[Littlelebowski]

Your practical, hands on experience is indeed vast given the amount of advice, you hand out, TurretGunner.

[mig1nc]

Why is it that nobody ever mentions round fragmentation when comparing 5.56 and .300Blk? It would seem to me that ft/lbs is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to hunting two-legged game.

Not trying to be a smart ass, as I'm completely unqualified for that status.

[TurretGunner]

Your practical, hands on experience is indeed vast given the amount of advice, you hand out, TurretGunner.

Stopping by to contribute nothing to the thread like always? Good to see ya.

[MistWolf]

Jack.... You would feel comfortable taking Man size game and using it for 2 legged work at that distance? Ballistics aren't the greatest and the factory ammo is all tested with a 16" barrel. Good chance of staying supersonic with a 16" and 208gr amax.

This is a ridiculous statement. Anyone knows you match the ammo to the job. If a shooter needs to take a 300 yard shot that the subsonic ammo is a poor choice. Not that the bullet would not reach 300 yards, just that it wouldn't have the best terminal performance

At 200 yards its got less than 425 ftbs of energy and a good amount of elevation travel. I know its a moneymaker the last few years with the industry.... I just don't see the allure.

AAC comes out, claims they invented the round (its AAC what do you expect... they will probally sue me for calling them out) and pumps a bunch of money into marketing.....and all the tards coming running thinking its the next big thing.

AAC never claimed they invented the round. They developed it in it's current format and marketed it. Nothing wrong with marketing something.

I'm gonna get up on my soapbox for a moment-

If someone has a reason to dislike a product or company, that's ok. But to come on to this forum and beat them down with half baked accusations and misconceptions does all of us a dis-service. The 300 BLK and the 7.62x39 are nearly ballistic twins. The biggest difference is that the 300 BLK enjoys greater versatility because the industry supports it with a greater range of bullet selection. Yes, it's been marketed heavily, yes RSilvers is very excited about this new caliber. How else are they gonna get it off the ground? If any of you knew firearms history, you'd know exactly why so much effort is put into making this round fly.

Do you know why the .270 Winchester is so popular while the .280 Remington is an also ran, although the .280 is more flexible? Because of better marketing and the .270 was championed by Chuck O'Connor. Do you know what the biggest criticism leveled against Remington? That while they come up with great new cartridges, they didn't give them the support needed to be successful. It would be stupid for AAC to bring a new cartridge into being without marketing and giving it full support. It's stupid to bash the 300 as being a niche cartridge, yet giving it's ballistic twin a pass. It's ridiculous to label the 300 as Useless when so many shooters and hunters use it daily for hunting hogs and deer, both with subsonic ammo & suppressors and unsuppressed with super sonic ammo and both through SBRs and carbines.

There is a reason M4C has a negative reputation with the folks on other sites and this kind of crapola- bashing the 300 without facts- is an example of the attitude that eats away our credibility like a cancer.

Moving on-

Why is it that nobody ever mentions round fragmentation when comparing 5.56 and .300Blk? It would seem to me that ft/lbs is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to hunting two-legged game.

Not trying to be a smart ass, as I'm completely unqualified for that status.

Because fragmentation is only useful when talking about ammo the .gov has blessed for use in warfare.

For hunting, it's about expansion and penetration. Bullet fragmentation is not desirable when hunting larger game because you want the bullet to stay together. Varmints is another story. Varmint hunters want violent expansion and often bullets will come apart to achieve this.

In fact, we wouldn't have to worry about bullet fragmentation at all if bullet construction for warfare was not artificially limited by the Hague.

What makes the 300 BLK useful is that is puts a caliber that can be thought of as a 30-30 Lite in a lightweight, handy fast handling, quick shooting reliable carbine that can mount any optic or sight needed

[holdover1]

The ballistic tables don't lie. Make as the snide and smart ass remarks all you want. Doesn't change the facts.

As an aside, this is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read all day, and it's only 0830.

Ballistics tables are close, don't get me wrong, but there are so many variables that go into shooting (and shooting comparisons between calibers, no less), that even the best software will never be 100% accurate.

Now, NightVisionary's table is his actual load data, which he has (presumably) trued and vetted, and thus holds a bit more water than two random tables pulled from JBM's website.

[TurretGunner]

As an aside, this is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read all day, and it's only 0830.

Ballistics tables are close, don't get me wrong, but there are so many variables that go into shooting (and shooting comparisons between calibers, no less), that even the best software will never be 100% accurate.

Now, NightVisionary's table is his actual load data, which he has (presumably) trued and vetted, and thus holds a bit more water than two random tables pulled from JBM's website.

What the hell are you talking about. Where did I say that they are always 100%?....... Please show me, I will be waiting.

I said the ballistic tables don't lie. Plug in the variables and you are going to get just everything short of penetration with a specific load. BC/SD/Alt/AD..........all the way to the Coriolis effect play into it. All of these can be calculated and will get you very close, accounting for wind changes. That is for a firing solution.


What I was talking about when I replied was the energy/velocity/drop of a given round. So again, tell me where I am wrong?

I swear everyone just has to drop in and throw their .02 in.... while not even reading the damn thread.

EDIT: And nice troll account...... at least be a man and have the guts to post from your real one.

[TurretGunner]

This is a ridiculous statement. Anyone knows you match the ammo to the job. If a shooter needs to take a 300 yard shot that the subsonic ammo is a poor choice. Not that the bullet would not reach 300 yards, just that it wouldn't have the best terminal performance

At 200 yards its got less than 425 ftbs of energy and a good amount of elevation travel. I know its a moneymaker the last few years with the industry.... I just don't see the allure.



AAC never claimed they invented the round. They developed it in it's current format and marketed it. Nothing wrong with marketing something.

I'm gonna get up on my soapbox for a moment-

If someone has a reason to dislike a product or company, that's ok. But to come on to this forum and beat them down with half baked accusations and misconceptions does all of us a dis-service. The 300 BLK and the 7.62x39 are nearly ballistic twins. The biggest difference is that the 300 BLK enjoys greater versatility because the industry supports it with a greater range of bullet selection. Yes, it's been marketed heavily, yes RSilvers is very excited about this new caliber. How else are they gonna get it off the ground? If any of you knew firearms history, you'd know exactly why so much effort is put into making this round fly.

Do you know why the .270 Winchester is so popular while the .280 Remington is an also ran, although the .280 is more flexible? Because of better marketing and the .270 was championed by Chuck O'Connor. Do you know what the biggest criticism leveled against Remington? That while they come up with great new cartridges, they didn't give them the support needed to be successful. It would be stupid for AAC to bring a new cartridge into being without marketing and giving it full support. It's stupid to bash the 300 as being a niche cartridge, yet giving it's ballistic twin a pass. It's ridiculous to label the 300 as Useless when so many shooters and hunters use it daily for hunting hogs and deer, both with subsonic ammo & suppressors and unsuppressed with super sonic ammo and both through SBRs and carbines.

There is a reason M4C has a negative reputation with the folks on other sites and this kind of crapola- bashing the 300 without facts- is an example of the attitude that eats away our credibility like a cancer.

Moving on-



Because fragmentation is only useful when talking about ammo the .gov has blessed for use in warfare.

For hunting, it's about expansion and penetration. Bullet fragmentation is not desirable when hunting larger game because you want the bullet to stay together. Varmints is another story. Varmint hunters want violent expansion and often bullets will come apart to achieve this.

In fact, we wouldn't have to worry about bullet fragmentation at all if bullet construction for warfare was not artificially limited by the Hague.

What makes the 300 BLK useful is that is puts a caliber that can be thought of as a 30-30 Lite in a lightweight, handy fast handling, quick shooting reliable carbine that can mount any optic or sight needed

AAC has done some very shitty and shady stuff in the past.

Taking an exsiting round, and marketing it as the 300BLK AAC, is in fact, stealing the ****ing round, It was a wildcat that has been around for a while. And don't give me this bullshit that its not exactly the same. Both rounds (300 whisp) work in the same chamber. They used their market power with the freedom group to saturate the market with BS claims and products. Never once had I heard them claim that they arent the inventors of the round.

Or the Fact that they have sued good companies for making claims against them , and calling their bullshit. They are bullies in the industry and get zero sympathy from me. Feel free to do some research on your own........its all out there. Hell, they have sued various forums members and even supenoed AR15.com to turn over account information so they could sue individuals for critisizing their products.

I like their products (SDN6 lead the way to affordable, smaller .308 cans with QD), they do have some shitty QC and design flaws like their mounts not locking up..... as evidenced by going from 18 >51 tooth, and not 90tooth. Its cool leaving the legacy customers to have to buy new cans.


As to the round.......AAC DIDNT INVENT IT. They are just marketing it as their own. So stop saying they brought it to market.

How many non combloc rifles do you see chambered for 7.62x39? How many of those nations have ditched that round? How many manufactures even make a rifle in that round outside of cz and maybe one or two others, despite it being one of the most prolific firearm rounds in the entire globe? How many people are hunting with an AK or that round, who have other means?

If it wasnt the "flavor of the month" then no one outside of those wildcaters ans niche caliber shooters would be shooting it.

Chris Costa or Larry Vickers or Travis or any number of those guys in that industry/following could claim that the new .15 Operator rimfire round is the shit, and half of the blind lemings in this industry would have their credit cards out of their pockets so fast they would get assburn. (Not that those guys would pump up a shitty product for money, but many companies and less ethical instructors/Industry Proffesions would).

[holdover1]

What the hell are you talking about. Where did I say that they are always 100%?....... Please show me, I will be waiting.

I said the ballistic tables don't lie. Plug in the variables and you are going to get just everything short of penetration with a specific load. BC/SD/Alt/AD..........all the way to the Coriolis effect play into it. All of these can be calculated and will get you very close, accounting for wind changes. That is for a firing solution.


What I was talking about when I replied was the energy/velocity/drop of a given round. So again, tell me where I am wrong?

I swear everyone just has to drop in and throw their .02 in.... while not even reading the damn thread.

EDIT: And nice troll account...... at least be a man and have the guts to post from your real one.

First, my point was that the energy/velocity/drop of the two rounds may be a lot closer in reality than what the software says. For the purposes of this discussion, a difference of 100 ft-lbs. is a bit of a nebulous concept when people are talking about actual performance against barriers of varying materials as well as terminal ballistics on live targets. Honestly, a comparison of hits on steel (sound, splash pattern, etc.) would be a bit more concrete than numbers from a ballistic program. Even so, comparisons between rounds in a ballistic program really doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether .300BLK is a viable cartridge outside of a supressed/SBR platform. Tangible evidence of a .300BLK bullet doing X to a target while a comparable 5.56mm bullet did Y would give an argument far more ass than monkeying around with ballistic software.

Second, thank you for explaining a ballistic table to me, I was unclear on the core concept. By the way, saying that they don't lie is pretty close to saying they're 100%.

Finally, thank you for outing me as a troll. I am definitely another user, who has nothing better to do on a Saturday than create bogus accounts to troll you, a person of such import and superior intellect as to warrant the effort. Consider your Junior G-man badge awarded.