|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
I see no reason to get a 16" .300 unless you want a medium sized game upper, but magazine commonality is important to you. That and you can handload .300 cheaper if you work up 5.56 brass. I don't shoot enough rounds in my 16" 6.8spc to worry about it.
When I build an SBR, I'm going to go with .300 blk. I think an 8" .300 with a short, light can will have a lot of advantages over a short 5.56, even using the mor effective HV rounds. Sub's will just be for fun range use.
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
Member
stahljaeger:
"There may be more potential terminal effect than 5.56, but there isn't really any scientific study of performance of loads like there is with 5.56, where there has been a lot of professional testing done for the FBI/law enforcement and a huge variety of tested barrier blind loads."
There never will be, since the 300 BLK will never be adopted as the standard issue cartridge. The statistics are there for it's intended specialized purposes.
"I also realized that suppressed a 8.5" 300 blk, was going to be just as long as my 11.5" 5.56 with a mini can. While the 300 blk would most likely be, quieter, my current setup is sufficient."
Yes, length would be about the same. The 300 BLK is not most likely quieter, it is a lot more quiet. Your current setup is sufficient, of course, if you deem it to be.
"As far as suppressed for fun, a 9mm or even .22 will be much cheaper to run subs through. I could probably feed them for less than I can even reload 300 blk subs (and I don't currently have reloading equipment). To me, cheaper ammo= more ammo= more fun."
Of course .22 is a lot cheaper, whether you reload or not. Stick with your .22 for having fun inexpensively.
"I would have to get different mags if I am going to run those in an ar based rig, but I was going to get a separate type of mag strictly for 300blk anyway."
You don't need to buy different mags for the 300 BLK. Just mark some of them you already have and keep them separate from the 5.56 mags. Paint pens and markers are........cheap.
"As far as hunting goes, while I don't hunt currently, I am thinking of getting into it, but 300blk just doesn't cut it for most hunting where I live (New Mexico)."
The 300 BLK is a 250-300 yard gun, and most hunting occurs within that range. Not that the 300 BLK would be the best cartridge, but it depends on the specific game and range limitations.
"As far as 300blk being equivalent to 30-30; no, no not really, unless you consider .380 to be equivalent to 9mm, or 30-30 equivalent to .308 (does this mean that 300blk is equivalent to .308?)."
No one has ever said the 300 BLK is the equivalent to the 30-30, it is somewhat similar. The 300 BLK is very similar to the 7.62x39, but surpasses it in most areas.
If you read and understood what themonk posted, most of this should be clear.
Last edited by darr3239; 02-01-16 at 02:28.
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Site Sponsor
The Barnes VOR-TX has been thoroughly studied. See my link above that had the testing results. Here is Brass Fetcher's gel testing - https://youtu.be/nsRUfA1_AlwOriginally Posted by stahljaeger
Member
In what area does BLK surpass 7.62x39? Certainly not any ballistic area, unless you want to compare Tula steel 7.62x39 to Double Tap 300BLK.
Site Sponsor
Ability to be suppressed and ability to run in an AR mag at 30 rounds. Only change on an AR is the barrel.
Member
The amazing selection of projectiles would be enough but couple that with being bedrock reliable in a platform many of us are already trained with and you have a game changer(suppressed or not).
If I were working a road block or checkpoint I'd rather run a 300 full of AP rounds than an M249 full of M855 and that's saying a lot for me.
No it doesn't shoot as flat as 5.56 and it won't reach out as far but for mixed UO environments it's an easy choice.
Member
You can use whatever you want, hopefully if enough of you use it will actually become cost effective for me.
Themonks press release is where it claimed the 300blk was a 30-30 in an ar, so yes someone did say it.
I have looked at many 300blk gel test videos and none of them properly calibrate, the ballistics gel or report doing so, most don't even use actual ballistics gel.
In the video linked there is no measurements or anything else that would let me judge a comparative effectiveness. I am not saying that the round is no good, just that there really isn't any valid data to show it.
Another thing I have found difficult to find is dB ratings shooting subs. It may very will be much more quiet than my same length suppressed her in a hallway, but I can't seem to know for sure.
If anyone has links to good ballistics data actually following the FBI ballistics protocol, or dBm ratings with supers please post them.
Site Sponsor
The data is stated in the PDF linked above. If you are LEO/FED/DOD you can request the full report from the FBI.
Brass Fetcher (linked video above) states all their testing protocols on their website - http://www.brassfetcher.com/. By your comments I am assuming you don't know who Brass Fetcher is. I would encourage you to do research on them.
Member
Seems like a great resource, thanks for pointing it out.
Funny, if people like us really were the kind of people they like to portray us as, they would never dare say it. In fact, they probably wouldn't exist... -djejators
Senior Member
No comparison in loudness: suppressed subsonic .300 BLK is significantly quieter than suppressed .223/5.56 NATO - no nasty, sharp "crack".
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks