>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtL3hWzYgGw
>300AAC most versatile intermediate cartridge
>easily convertible
>even with ammo cost it's cheaper than having multiple rifles for subsonic suppressed and supersonic shooting because 300AAC does it all
When did you realize this meme caliber is here to stay and will bring a new renaissance of AR versatility?
>pic related, I just bought 600 rds of 300AAC
>>28215926
I don't care what he says, even if he is a self-titled expert. .300BLK is never going to be fundamentally better than **.45ACP**, and it's never going to be a legitimate rifle round, because subsonic speed is just a huge limitation and the only way to make it better is to use a far larger bullet than thirty-caliber. The 9x39 Russian subsonic is getting close because the bullet is enormous, but it's still comparatively shit because it's subsonic.
There is no advantage that a .300BLK carbine will give you that a smaller .45ACP carbine can't give you more efficiently. None at all.
762>300
>inb4 which 762
Both.
>>28215986
Your missing the point... 300 blk isn't to replace your 45 carbine.
>>28215986
You narrowing your argument to a single load of 300 blackout. When the whole point is the many different roles it can fulfill with the swap of a magazine. You can't turn your 45 carbine into a supersonic rifle round with a mag swap can you?
>>28215986
I feel like I'm obligated to argue with you because I have a 8" 300blk upper (but that's because I'm almost legally obligated to if I'm going to have a .30 cal suppressor and an AR with a SBR stamp), so I will.
The supersonic 125's do quite well for any real application besides awesome suppressed shenanigans.
If it were easy to, I would have absolutely gone with the .458 socom instead, but .45 cal rifle suppressors aren't common and don't work well with .223 like a .30 cal can does.
>>28216030
x54, x51, x39, or x25?
>>28215926
300 Blackout was never a meme caliber, it's always had exceptional utility, and the only reason /k/ hates it is because /k/ is full of poorfag retards who hate anything they can't make enough money to shoot, even though they almost never fucking shoot anyway because they're too busy shitposting on this dumbfuck website.
I'm on the 300 train too, I see no reason to ever shoot 5.56 ever again since it's outperformed by supersonic 300 anyway, and I also like to shoot subsonic suppressed in my rural backyard range.
Congrats on the ammo score, what was your ppr?
>>28216105
x63
don't forget .30-06
>>28216030
>7.62x39mm >.300 WIN?
>>28216089
>I would have absolutely gone with the .458 socom
>dat 15 round mag capacity
>dat fucking outrageous weight
>dat obscene cost per round
Any faggot who plays with .458 SOCOM and isn't a literal operator is a jackass. There is not a single application a civilian would ever, ever have where .458 SOCOM is a rational choice over essentially every single other AR-15 alternative caliber.
>>28215926
post the ballistics compared to 5.56. Im looking at getting a 300 BLK but I want to know what kind of range I can get out of a 10.5 inch or 14.5 or 16 inch barrel first
>>28216030
last I checked .300aac = 7.62x35
>meme
Anyone who uses this term is a nogunz
>>28216195
>http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php
Here bro, have at it. You can find all the load data at the manufactures websites.
>>28216195
Practical shooting out of an AR-15 is 300m. 5.56/6.5/6.8/7.62, whatever caliber you choose your max practical range is 300m. You can build precision AR-15s that will reach out to 500m+ easy, sure. Is that practical though? No. You'll do well at a bench and no where else, certainly not anywhere under stress.
Ballistically the 6.5 SPCII is the best overall round out the AR-15, but it's not going to do subsonic suppressed effectively like the 300BLK will do, and the drop from a 16" barrel between the two rounds (supersonic) is going to be almost identical at combat ranges.
>300 BLK
Looks like the bad guys are about to get BLACKED
>>28216339
It's also really convenient for lots of shooters that have any 30 cal weapon and an AR and any interest in suppressors. A suppressor looks a lot more practical when immediately you can use it on at least 3 of your weapons.
>>28216339
Oh also the 6.5 requires a different bolt and has lower mag capacity.
The real allure of the .330BLK is that you can adapt a stock AR-15 with just a barrel swap. You can even reuse 5.56 brass if you reload, making it even cheaper.
I'm in love with the cartridge, There's literally no reason to invest in any other AR-15 caliber at this point imo. I think the .300 BLK has perfected the AR-15 and beyond .300 BLK we'll be getting into exotic ammo like telescoping and/or caseless ammo.
>>28216375
Yeah that's precisely why I jumped on 300 BLK, because I already have an AR-10 and suppressor for it.
Did you know that 220gr .300 BLK with a 50m zero has the same trajectory at 200m as 175gr 7.62x51 does at 400m with a 100m zero? This means I can even swap my 7.62x51 BDC scope onto my .300 BLK gun and just double the drop for marksmanship training with subsonic .300 BLK, which I can shoot in my backyard range instead of driving out to the sticks where the sonic shockwave from 7.62 NATO won't bother anyone.
Also interesting is that 40gr .22LR with a 100m zero has the same trajectory as 220gr .300 BLK with a 50m zero, so you can even practice your subsonic marksmanship with .22LR and have it perfectly carry over to .300 BLK, which means I can also use my 7.62x51 BDC scope to shoot .22LR out to 200m with just doubling the drop, just like with .300 BLK.
I mean goddamn it's like all the pieces have finally all come together for shooting enthusiasts with the .300 BLK.
>>28216473
Preaching to the choir my brother. Love what you listed though I never realized that. 300blk picture time? Now I just need that suppressor which I plan to get myself an omega with Christmas bonus :)
>>28216543
Sorry no pictures for me I'm at my relatives house for Christmas already.
>>28215986
>not realizing full power loads of 300BLK have more energy at all ranges than x39
>>28216714
How did you register for your suppressor? My friend has me on his trust so I'm kinda shopping for the best option on setting mine. I know silencerco and silencershop.com have trust options but I've heard of some mistakes on them. My LGS has a lawyer they use and recommend as well. It just seems the NFA has fucked up too much at this point to really review and redact anything on probably hundreds of thousands of trusts they've cleared at this point. I don't really feel I can go wrong either at way at this point. I'm sure these companies consulted lawyers and paid them first their trusts so I can't see what's keeping any one lawyer from making mistakes let alone me being able to catch them as I'm not a lawyer.
>>28216897
Still not really worth bothering with IMO even with the supersonic loads and light bullets that'd make it reasonably effective - it's not nearly as cheap as x39 so you can't shoot as much of it, and if you want more power and distance in a more expensive round just use 7.62 NATO. I still think it's a gimmick round that tries to do too much and excels at nothing, even after all of these arguments.
>>28217053
x39 has the benefit of being one of the most widely produced cartridges in history.
300BLK is coming down in price year after year, and it's not even a cartridge adopted by any military body.
>>28217053
>not loading your own 300 Blackout for 30 cents a round
>>28215926
5.56x45mm vs .300 AAC blackout
5.56x45mm
>flatter trajectory
>bullets fragment instead of expanding like .300 BLK, why people who like .300 BLK want ammo that performs like handgun ammunition who knows but fragmenting rifle ammunition > expanding rifle ammunition
>ammo weighs less
>ammo is easier to find locally if needed
>ammo is less expensive
>less recoil
>will still fragment out to 50 yards when fired from a 10.3" barrel if you're using the right ammunition
.300 AAC Blackout
>can use subsonic ammunition without an adjustable gas system
>better barrier penetration
>better performance than 5.56 out of sub 10.3" barrels, but is still shit and performs like handgun ammunition from shorter barrels like every other rifle round so there's no point in using it over handgun ammunition unless you are also planning on shooting past 100 yards with that short gun
Yeah, I don't know why someone would want to use .300 AAC Blackout over 5.56x45mm unless they had more money than sense.
>>28215926
Why do I need imitation 8mm when you could have just revived 8mm?
>>28217106
my 223 reloads are around 20 cents a round. i may play around with 300blk some day but it's not high on my list right now.
>>28217106
>reload for .300 AAC Blackout
>costs the same as new production M193
>doesn't really do anything better
Why?
>>28216543
That's a nice looking rifle.
Pic related, my 300 blk
>>28217110
Modern 5.56 duty loads like Hornady TAP and Federal TBBC have excellent performance through barriers and out of SBRs. The 5.56 market is so well-catered-to that the juice of alternative calibers really isn't worth the squeeze.
>>28217110
It's not really a one vs the other debate. If you shoot a ton or can only afford one caliber then no it doesn't really make sense. But outside of that all its options are pretty damn cool. No one's being forced to make a decision on their caliber it's just a fun new round with a lot of options that start to make sense too for people that own multiple calibers and or a suppressor.
>>28216194
>Any faggot who plays with .458 SOCOM and isn't a literal operator is a jackass
My friend took his first deer with an AR in .458 socom due to my states horrendous cartridge laws for hunting.
>Waddle into my local range with mu trusty ak underfolder
>wearing my best graphic tee and cargo shorts
>girls shooting their pink lcps giving me "the look"
>after I get set up some faggot walks in wearing all the latest and greatest gear
>SBR AR with Suppressor slung across his chest
>300BLK emblazoned on the dustcover
>smugly ask him how much 300 blk cost per round
>71 cents he proclaims as if it's some kind honor
>I take out a 2 liter filled with steel wool and duct tape it to my AK
>he tells me that's illegal you have to have the proper tax stamp
>#1 is crudely written in magic marker on the side of the 2liter bottle
>unzip my fanny pack and pull out my the tax stamp for my suppressor
>load some wolf and silently dump the mag into a 12" target at 200 yards
>wolf is so under-powered it's subsonic
>this fag would know this if he knew anything about gun and wasn't just pretending
>the AK cycles the under-powered rounds perfectly
>He is visibly shaking, he's gripping his AR so tightly that his knuckles are white
>He takes aim down rang so he can demonstrate the full power of his gear
>the suppressor explodes and the magazine blows out sending his precious 300blk everywhere
>he crumples to his knees verging on tears
>pack up my work is done
>as i walk past i whisper
>"shame about that baffle strike"
>he yells back
>you're a big asshole
>i smile and tell him
>for you
>>28216543
i am waiting on my stamp for an omega right now
>>28217456
10/10
>>28215926
>caring
5.56 is good enough for me. I don't suppress and if i did i would run normal supersonic ammo through it anyway because i don't care.
>>28217255
The thing is, only role that .300 AAC Blackout fills that can't be filled better by 5.56x45mm or 9mm is shooting subsonic ammunition through a suppressor at over 100 yards, which is an extremely specific role that I'm willing to bet very few people who own a gun chambered in .300 AAC Blackout actually use it for.
>>28217456
kek for a story that didn't happen
>>28217659
yet.
>>28217677
>>28217692
>>28217677
>>28217659
>100+ yards suppressed
great for the upcoming happening soon
>>28217765
Oh, I see now, you're just retarded.
>>28217781
what's not to like about shooting long range suppressed?
>>28217834
The happening part.
>>28217659
.300 BLK supersonics can solve every issue that front line soldiers have been complaining about in 5.56, namely lack of penetration of barriers and poor lethality outside of 150m.
>>28217911
So could .308. So why did we go to 5.56 in the first place.
Also
>14.5 inch barrel
>Expecting your bullet to do anything.
>>28217110
5.56 NATO
>Lacks penetration of objects (Obstacles, Car windshields, etc)
>Light in mass, influenced by wind drift easily
>Fails to suppress enemies (i.e. Doesn't cause hostiles to flinch by the stimulus, nor cause auditory pain)
>Fails to stop hostiles under influence of drugs (More ammo lost in one target) when shot in center mass
>[citation needed] Right ammo for fragmentation of 10.3" barrels in 50 yards
>>28217944
.308 is almost 3 times heavier, 4 times larger in volume, heavier weapon, lower mag capacity.
That's why we moved to 5.56, because the military learned that number of rounds fired in a gunfight generally determines success rate.
Unfortunately they chose the 5.56 which is shit, but at least they got the case length and capacity about right.
>>28217994
>.308 is almost 3 times heavier,
The obviously solution is to improve logistics so doods don't have to carry double their weight in shit.
So here's the question
I'm really considering a 300aac. Do I just get an upper or do I build another AR around it?
Lowers aren't that much. Just not sure if its worth having both since you can just swap uppers/bcg in 2 minutes.
>>28217911
Keeping the M16 instead of moving to the M4 would have done this too. They're not major issues anyway since we have learned to DMR.
>>28217944
7.62 NATO
>Logistic issues between troops with 7.62 and 5.56
> Uncontrollable recoil in full auto (Suppression is key)
>less ammo capacity in magazine and weight.
.300 AAC Blackout
>More ammo capacity for magazine and more ammo for same weight if 7.62 NATO
>Controllable/Tolerable recoil when fired full auto (Suppression, m8)
>>28218035
>>Logistic issues between troops with 7.62 and 5.56
No i mean just stick with 7.62 across all troops.
>Uncontrollable recoil in full auto (Suppression is key)
See Scar H. This also doesn't stop our GPMGs from being chambered for RFN.
>>28217962
>>Fails to suppress enemies (i.e. Doesn't cause hostiles to flinch by the stimulus, nor cause auditory pain)
[citation needed]
>>Fails to stop hostiles under influence of drugs (More ammo lost in one target) when shot in center mass
[citation needed]
>implying blk is any better in these scenarios
>>28218025
I would build another AR if your budget allows it just to have another gun. Besides the lowers the cheap part.
>>28218035
I think it's worth saying that .308 you can't accidentally toss it in a 5.56 rifle and blow it up...that can't be said for current 300blk ammo.
>>28218125
The best safe guard against that is that thing between your ears. I'm not sure y oh can use that as an argument against blackout...
>>28218125
tfw troops cant even keep from NDing into the barrel when putting their guns away--300 blk would be a disaster
>>28218161
>that thing between your ears
Which troops don't have.
>>28218161
True accidents can be had with any firearm without precautions. I label my 300blk mags and can say I've emptied a few 556 mags double checking I haven't mixed anything up in the past.
.300 Blackout is a meme round. Instead of having one round good with one thing you now have one round that is shit at two different things.
>worse than 7.62x39mm when using sonic rounds
>worse than .45 auto when using sub-sonic rounds
Also fuck off with the whole "hurr durr you can change loads" bullshit. Both the sub-sonic and sonic rounds have completely different ballistics which means your zero'd scopes and ironsights are fucked up if you want to swap loads around.
>>28217911
So can the M855A1 that's starting to be issued, and it does so without sacrificing the flatter trajectory of 5.56 or resulting in soldiers being able to carry less ammunition and both of those issues are much more important than a slight increase in lethality.
>>28217962
>Lacks penetration of objects
>what is M855A1
>Light in mass, influenced by wind drift easily
Still has less wind drift than 125 grain .300 AAC Blackout due to its higher velocity, also has less drop. See pic related.
>Fails to suppress enemies
Which is why a ton of countries use it in light machine guns?
>Fails to stop hostiles under influence of drugs (More ammo lost in one target) when shot in center mass
.300 AAC Blackout expands like pistol ammunition instead of fragmenting not only wouldn't be much of an improvement over 5.56 when it doesn't fragment but would also perform worse than 5.56 when it does fragment. M855A1 would shit all over it and solves all of the lethality problems M855 had.
>Right ammo for fragmentation of 10.3" barrels in 50 yards
Mk262 Mod 1 stays above the fragmentation threshold out to 50 yards from a 10.3" barrel.
>>28218082
>No i mean just stick with 7.62 across all troops.
>Seriously suggesting a single general purpose caliber
kek
http://196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-case-against-general-purpose.html
>>28218325
>http://196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-case-against-general-purpose.html
green text it. I need to get my license renewed tomorrow and nobody got time for all that shit.
>>28218245
>worse than 7.62x39mm when using sonic rounds
>worse than .45 auto when using sub-sonic rounds
Uh, it's actually ballistically better than both by a nominal margin in the case of x39 and vastly more effective in the case of .45ACP.
You need to do some actual research.
>>28218346
>by a nominal margin
So not really. Or do you not know what either the words nominal or margin mean?
>>28218346
Don't know about .45 ACP, but 9mm performs better unless you're trying to use it at over 100 yards in which case .300 BLK as an advantage due to its flatter trajectory.
>>28218344
> In conclusion, the General Purpose Cartridge concept is one that is attractive only on paper. When rigor is applied, the cost of such re-armament in dollars, hours, and pounds is not justified by the new cartridge's performance. Mr. Williams' proposed cartridges utilizing the .30 Remington and 6.5 Grendel cases are unfeasible as they are conceived, and a cartridge resulting from his performance requirements is too heavy and has too much recoil to replace 5.56mm for most applications.
>>28218402
>When rigor is applied, the cost of such re-armament in dollars, hours, and pounds is not justified by the new cartridge's performance.
But this can apply to 300blk. If we rewind time to 1962 and the US adopted the AR-10 would we even be having this discussion?
>>28218439
The US wouldn't have adopted the AR-10, that would be fucking stupid.
>>28218346
No it's not "vastly more effective" than .45acp hardball. They're traveling at the same speed and the .45 has more mass, so it's going to outperform the .300blk.
>>28218476
>that would be fucking stupid.
Well shit the m16 was just as stupid.
>>28218488
When I consider the weight difference between 3 30-round 5.56 magazines and 3 20-round 7.62x51 magazines, along with the weight differences of the rifles, I must respectively disagree.
Especially if I were an industrial engineer trying to figure out how much I could ship of each by air.
>>28218488
>>28218439
>>28218476
>>28218488
we would have adpoted mini 14s by now if we had the ar-10
or just the ar-15 again because they still wanted 5.56--remember that the m14 was picked over ar-10
>>28218559
>-remember that the m14 was picked over ar-10
This was the only real mistake here.
>>28218367
It means by a margin that can be named, i.e. a margin that exists and can be verified.
.300BLK outperforms x39 at every range.
Sorry you like shitty slavshit that's like 80 years old.
.300BLK is better
>>28218658
>It means by a margin that can be named, i.e. a margin that exists and can be verified.
Neither of those words together form that opinion.
You basically said 300blk is not effectively better than either 5.56 or 7.62x39.
Read a book desu
>>28218381
You really fucking think any handgun cartridge is going to outperform pic related?
no nigger. no.
>>28218681
inb4 g2 RIP shill.
>>28218480
>I know nothing about terminal ballistics whatsoever the post
>>28218681
>thinking that people will actually use $2+/round ammunition in any quantity
kek
>>28218681
are any 308 loads sold with these bullets?
I love anything that do interesting things on impact.
I have a 8.5 300 blk upper coming in the mail. Already have a 223 ar. Just seemed logical to have it in 309 with being so short. Really dig watching people pop coyotes and hogs with them out at decent distance.
>>28218764
Have fun with your pistol tier terminal ballistics. You would have been better off with a CX4 Storm.
>>28218681
What, do those come with a tiny chain and a winch so they work like grappling hooks? Interesting anyway.
>>28218696
It's basic physics, kE=0.5mv^2. Given equal velocity the higher mass does more. If the tests are indicating something different, there's probably something wrong with the tests.
>>28218790
But travis haley shoots em to 750 meters suppressed tho?
I seen a video by a guy named James Yeager on youtube saying pistol caliber rifles are stupid.
You must not know what you're talking about, friend.
>>28216194
>There is not a single application a civilian would ever, ever have where .458 SOCOM is a rational choice over essentially every single other AR-15 alternative caliber
Is someone mad they can't afford .458?
6.8spc master race reporting in.
>>28218325
>M855A1
>Wears the bolt and barrel 50% faster
>Expensive to develop and fire
>Can blow up in your face from malfunctions of bolt wear
Yeah, I'd prefer a bullet that has more mass and diameter.
>>28218094
>>28218325
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf
Even if .300 AAC Blackout has its shortcomings, there's also the 6.5-7mm range
>>28218476
>>28218559
The M14 was adopted over the AR-10 because The aluminum barrel that Stoner's partner placed on the prototype (despite Stoner's advising against it) cracked during field trials. Had it been with the original barrel, the AR-10 would have been chosen over the M14.
>>28218245
>>worse than .45 auto when using sub-sonic rounds
up close
>>28218886
.45 has more kinetic energy compared to subsonic .300 AT THE MUZZLE, but .300 retains its velocity MUCH better and has better penetration and terminal performance.
So, in practical terms, .300 is ballistically superior to .45.
>>28216030
Homie speaks the truth.
>>28216053
Yeah, the .300 was meant to replace the weak ass .223.
And if that wasn't the reason, it was to end Russian 7.62x3 dominance in the .30 caliber intermediate category because why spend less when you can spend more?
>>28217074
Dutch SF uses 300 blk
>>28218025
if you got the cash, go with a full rifle, you'll feel a lot better knowing you got two guns instead of one and a half. especially if the liberals decide to ban that shit down the road.
>>28221508
when u have to compare a rifle round to a pistol caliber?
>immaright?
>>28221738
I was just pointing out how retarded that new tripfag is.
Also why does /k/ have so many fags abusing trips?
>>28221698
Cheaper to replace a few tools than the whole tool box to go from 223 to 300
>>28217053
You dont know what you're talking about.
Build one,actually shoot one, STFU.
>>28221235
You left out
>has already been used by the US Army since 2010 without any problems with excessive wear or guns blowing up because maintenance schedules are a thing
>I want heavier, slower bullets with more drop that I won't be able to carry as much of
Have fun with significantly reduced combat effectiveness.
>>28222797
>Have fun with significantly reduced combat effectiveness.
B-b-but muh 7.62! All the goatfuckers in Durkadurkastan use 7.62, so it must be the best cartridge for that environment!
>>28221738
>when you need to go subsonic out of a rifle for speschul operaschuns
Name a better subsonic intermediate rifle cartridge that gives you everything you need with just a barrel swap of a standard AR-15 you fucking trisomic imbecile.
>>28218886
>It's basic physics
Right. So, why are you so fucking stupid that you didn't incorporate ballistic coefficient into your formula?
Oh right, you don't actually know about what you're trying to comment on.
>>28222137
>Also why does /k/ have so many fags
That's a good question anon, one I've never figured out in 3 years posting here.
>>28217184
>doesn't really do anything better
Do you faggots actually believe this or am I taking the bait?
Because 110-125gr .300BLK loads outperform the terminal ballistics of 5.56 at every practical engagement range (i.e. <300m).
>>28223046
>Because 110-125gr .300BLK loads outperform the terminal ballistics of 5.56 at every practical engagement range (i.e. <300m).
Any actual evidence of this? Pretty much all the gel tests I've seen of .300 BLK have the ammo just expanding instead of fragmenting like 5.56 which is a superior way of producing large wounds and every time I've asked about fragmenting .300 BLK people tell me that it isn't supposed to fragment. When given the choice between ammo that produces larger wounds at under 150 meters (5.56 when fragmenting) and ammo that produces better wounds at over 150 meters (.300 BLK when expanding) I'd take the first any day, and that's before factoring in .300 BLK having more recoil, more drop, and being heavier so you can't carry as much ammo.
>>28223093
What is so difficult for you people to understand that 5.56 has the luxury of almost 60 years of R&D and still performs like shit?
There are fragmenting .300 BLK bullets:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Lu49CRMGo
There are expanding bullets:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuu5OMNy2gs
There are supersonic non expanding, there are subsonic expanding, there are supersonic fragmenting, there are subsonic fragmenting, there are ballistic hollowtips, there are roundnoses, there are rounds designed to tumble, there are rounds designed for armor piercing, there are rounds designed for barrier penetration.
.300 BLK literally fills every fucking light carbine role imaginable and does it comparably well or better than all the alternatives which do one thing and one thing only.
I'll really never understand you anti-BLK faggots. We have SOLVED the light carbine conundrum with .300 BLK, it's the best thing to happen to the AR-15 platform ever, and yet the internet is full of you fucking fags who nitpick shit that isn't even a problem.
>>28218325
>.300 AAC Blackout expands like pistol ammunition instead of fragmenting not only wouldn't be much of an improvement over 5.56 when it doesn't fragment but would also perform worse than 5.56 when it does fragment.
Only military uses fragmenting 5.56 because conventions. FBI and other LE choose expanding 5.56. Expanding .300 > expanding 0.223
>>28223093
>more recoil,
If you think the recoil of .300BLK is any less manageable than 5.56 you're a fucking sissy faggot.
>more drop,
The drop of 110gr supersonics is only 12% lower than 77gr 5.56 at 500m and it hits with 68% more energy at that range. Are you such a fucking retard you can't compensate for a teeny bit more drop?
>and being heavier so you can't carry as much ammo.
The weight difference between 300 rds of MK262 and 110-125gr .300BLK is approx 1.2 lbs.
If you need to carry 300 rds and can't cope with a mere 1.2 lbs more, you're a fucking sissy faggot or your name is nutnfancy.
>>28223325
lol. nutnfancy is a fag about poundage isnt he?
>>28223355
MUH
ESS
AYY
DUBYA
SEE
>>28223325
Can't comment on a .300blk as I haven't shot it yet. I do hear it's a nice whitetail and hog cartridge.
But I do know I have a significantly harder time keeping my reticle on target for a follow up shot with 7.62x39 compared to .223. And the 7.62x39 is coming out of a 4lbs heavier AK as well.
Recoil matters, even if it's not she shoulder crunching kind.
>>28223223
>We have SOLVED the light carbine conundrum
What conundrum? 5.56 is fine.
>>28223223
>There are fragmenting .300 BLK bullets:
>posts $2+/round boutique ammunition
That's nice, but doesn't quite compare to the high end $.78/round Mk262 Mod 1 (see pic related) that is generally considered to be expensive for general issue.
>We have SOLVED the light carbine conundrum with .300 BLK, it's the best thing to happen to the AR-15 platform ever
I wouldn't consider it solved when .300 BLK has a worse trajectory, more recoil, heavier ammunition, and the terminal ballistic benefits don't even exist unless you're willing to pay more than twice as much per round.
>>28223307
If you ever did any research whatsoever you would realize that fragmenting ammunition that can penetrate deep enough into a person > expanding ammunition that can penetrate deep enough into a person. Having ammo that fragments is why rifles are so much more effective than pistols.
>>28223325
>.300 BLK has 50% more recoil than the M855A1
>thinking this will have no effect whatsoever on its use in machine guns
>comparing .300 BLK to a round that isn't general issue at distances outside of normal combat range
>thinking energy alone is what makes rounds effective
>not realizing that .300 BLK from a 16" barrel has 5 feet more drop than, or almost twice the drop as the M855A1 at 500 yards when fired from a 14.5" barrel as pointed out here >>28218325
>comparing weight to cartridges that aren't general issue
There's a 1.44 lb - 1.89 lb difference between M855A1 and .300 BLK at 210 rounds assuming the cases weigh about the same, a loaded 30 round magazine of 5.56 weighs about 1 lb so that's 20%-27% less ammo carried for the same weight. Now remember soldiers are already overloaded and they also have to carry more ammo for belt fed guns where the difference will be even more noticeable than the weight difference for the magazines for their rifles.
>>28223420
the .300 BLK is a much more efficient cartridge than the x39 and a piston AK is going to kick harder than a DI AR, or even a piston AR, just due to the design.
I know my AR technically has more recoil when shooting .300 BLK than 5.56 but I don't notice it, not in felt recoil and not in target acquisition. Maybe I've adapted already but I don't remember ever feeling a big difference even when I did start shooting .300BLK.
>>28223491
>5.56 is fine.
Is this bait?
>>28223223
>>28223534
More pictures of the Mk262 Mod 1 fragments. Kind of sad that .300 BLK can't even achieve this level of performance for less than $2/round when the 5.56x45mm can achiever it for $.78/round.
>>28223534
>If you ever did any research whatsoever you would realize that fragmenting ammunition that can penetrate deep enough into a person expanding ammunition that can penetrate deep enough into a person.
FBI and Dr. Roberts for whatever reasons believe otherwise.
>>28216371
I keked
>>28223534
>>28223559
Alright now I know I'm arguing with a teenage faggot, because no adult who's been shooting for any length of time is going to fail to compare loads accurately.
.300BLK is not a single load you fucking imbecile, which you keep talking about it like it is, and then comparing loads that don't have the same objectives.
Then you fail to consider what I fucking said earlier about the 5.56 having 60 years of R&D behind it and the economy of scale being the NATO standard.
You fucking dipshit /k/iddos are all the same. Just enough information to think you know what the fuck you're talking about, but too little experience to keep from making yourself look like a fucking jackass.
Also the .300BLK doesn't kick 50% harder and your weights are wrong.
You're a dumbass.
>>28223549
>I know my AR technically has more recoil when shooting .300 BLK than 5.56 but I don't notice it, not in felt recoil and not in target acquisition. Maybe I've adapted already but I don't remember ever feeling a big difference even when I did start shooting .300BLK.
You don't shoot on the auto though.
>>28223615
Soldiers carrying the AR-15 don't either, dipshit.
Here's my recently completed 8.5" 'pistol' build.
Saving for buis and a pa advanced micro
>>28216030
300 is 7.62 genius
>>28216118
What can are you using?
>>28223656
I really like the anodizing on the upper anon, nice build.
>>28223622
SOF do. SOF are main target group for .300BLK.
>>28223690
You think SOF fire full auto?
What situation would SOF ever fire full auto where accuracy mattered?
You have be no older than 15, I refuse to believe it.
>>>/cawadooty/
>>28223589
Let me guess, you have only read about handgun ammunition. I'd recommend you read the works of Martin Fackler, aka the father of modern wound ballistics if you want to learn more about rifle wound ballistics.
>>28223606
>.300BLK is not a single load you fucking imbecile, which you keep talking about it like it is, and then comparing loads that don't have the same objectives.
Which is why I was comparing multiple loads in my post, from the $2 per round machined boutique fragmenting loads that managed to perform worse than the $.78 per round Mk262 Mod 1 that uses conventional manufacturing techniques and will always be cheaper than machined bullets to comparing the the lighter .300 BLK that would be more likely to be issued to the currently issued M855A1 for how much of a difference in weight there would be.
>Then you fail to consider what I fucking said earlier about the 5.56 having 60 years of R&D behind it and the economy of scale being the NATO standard.
Doesn't matter, you don't get to complain that another product is better because it has a head start and better funding, it's still a better product.
>Also the .300BLK doesn't kick 50% harder and your weights are wrong.
Go and plug the numbers into a recoil calculator, it does.
>>28223622
>what is the M249
>>28223727
>Doesn't matter, you don't get to complain that another product is better because it has a head start and better funding
>it's still a better product.
Those are two separate ideas. And you're still wrong.
>>28223676
Thanks! But its actually cerakote. I have an aluminum lower done in the same color that im going to sbr.
Also plan on swapping the rail because its a 10" rail on an 8.5" barrel. Figured I could at least get it cobbled together to have something to shoot while I plan/save for a can
What you .300 blackout fags don't realize is that there's a reason why Russia ditched 7.62x39mm and went to 5.45x39mm instead of trying to further improve on 7.62x39mm and China went to 5.8x42mm instead of trying to improve on 7.62x39mm. Flatter trajectories, lower recoil, and lower ammunition weight are all much more important issues for soldier effectiveness than the size of wounds that the ammunition produces.
>>28223764
Oh look, its the spray and pray fallacy again.
>>28215926
This guy's whole shtick appears to be posting intentionally inflammatory videos about something that should be discussed more rationally and less aggressively just so he can get clicks from people looking to be argumentative. It's sad that this a valid business practice.
>>28223775
>Oh look, its the spray and pray unavoidable fact of how gunfights actually work
>>28223775
Russian doctrine is burst fire mostly. You will be disqualified during Russian qualification course for conscripts if you try to shoot semi-auto from AK.
>>28223888
Which is why the AK's selector lever is specifically designed to require deliberate action to put it in auto vs. being able to easily slap it into semi under stress.
>>28223727
>Let me guess, you have only read about handgun ammunition
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf
>>28223920
>thinking Russians care more about ergonomics than about simplicity and realiblty
>>28223967
>skim through a few pages
>PDF recommends ammo that fragments over ammo that expands
Great job proving your point.
>>28224044
>If Barrier penetration IS an important factor (most of these should work with 1:9 barrels, but use common sense in regards to twist rate requirements)
Which is always the case for general purpose military and law enforcement round. So non-fragmenting barrier blind round is recommended as you staple 5.56 round.
>>28224098
Yes, ammunition that doesn't fragment is better for penetrating shit, however it isn't better for actually stopping someone which is made pretty clear by the recommendations to use fragmenting ammunition whenever possible directly before the pic you posted. If you would actually read about rifle wound ballistics you would realize that non fragmenting rifle ammunition that is better for barrier penetration will perform pretty damn close to pistol ammunition, at which point you might as well just go back to using MP5s for police shit as you've thrown away every bit of advantage you get from using a rifle.
>>28224214
This guy is so fucking stupid it hurts...
>>28224016
Newer versions of ak-12 are kind of ergonomic.
>>28224098
>not knowing about barrier blind fragmenting 5.56 like the m855a1
>>28217110
>performs like handgun ammunition from shorter barrels
Except it doesn't. Supersonic loads can still hit close to 2000 fps.
>>28224358
It doesn't matter if the ammunition has as much energy as an asteroid impacting Earth, it still performs like pistol ammunition in ballistics gel tests when used in shorter barrels. It doesn't matter how much energy a round has when the only bullets that effectively take advantage of that energy cost $2+ per round.
>>28216143
in that case, what about x67? (.300 Win Mag)
>>28224560
>7.62×99
>>28224214
A bit off topic, but after seeing multiple animal carcasses from .223 and .308 bonded spire point rifle bullets, I think equating them to pistol rounds is a gross exaggeration. Plenty of heavy, tough animals are dropped where they stand every year from a JSP.
As the saying goes, accuracy is king, penetration is queen, and the rest is angels dancing on pins.
>>28215986
Wtf are you smoking nigger. 300blk does everything 45acp does and more. Have you even looked at its supersonic capabilities?
>>28225124
>tfw no 300 BLK 1911
>>28224312
MK 318 is barrier blind. M855a1 is not. It breaks in the auto glass. Good penetrator =/= barrier blind.
>>28224214
>If you would actually read about rifle wound ballistics you would realize that non fragmenting rifle ammunition that is better for barrier penetration will perform pretty damn close to pistol ammunition,
>citation needed
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?75298-New-BH-5-56-mm-50-gr-TSX-initial-data
>>28222797
>Implying I would still just use .300 Blackout when there are other alternatives
Still doesn't solve the economic issue, nor does it solve for emergency situations. Please refer to >>28221289
>>28223223
>Lehigh Defense
There 's my problem, overpriced ammunition
>>28218035
Are you 14?
>>28225965
Price will come down, it's still early days for 300AAC. Now that it looks like 300AAC is here to stay, more companies are picking it up and the cost will continue to come down.
>>28226046
No, by logistic issues I mean by ammo sharing between troops in their platoons and supply of ammunition. Full automatic/burst fire with full size rounds for suppression is uncontrollable (Unless you have anti-recoil tools). If used in machine gunners, different story but they have to fire in deployed positions for adequate suppression/cover fire, reducing mobility compared to an automatic rifleman/rifleman
>>28223606
Says the kiddo that thinks your average solider will need all subsonic/supersonic/ pixie dust options and gear in his kit and ready to go. And that will increase his effectiveness.
>>28226240
>strawman the post
Barnes 110gr 300aac
Velocity: 2300ft/s
BC: .289
SD: .166
Hornady 75gr TAP
Velocity: 2600ft/s
BC: .395
SD: .214
I don't understand how the 300aac alleviated the problems people have with the 5.56/.223. Were they just looking for more KE on target due to a 50% heavier bullet?
Also, should I be looking at a different bullet for the 300aac? Because that SD is terrible, especially for a .30 caliber bullet.
>>28226789
>barnes blacktip
>2300fps
Out of fucking what, an 8" barrel? Im driving 125 noslers at 2370 from a 16" barrel. Factory blacktips chrono over 2475.
>>28226886
No idea on barrel length. Hornady seems to be the only bullets I usually find with test barrel information. 2300ft/s was the first velocity I could find for 110gr bullets.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/430384/barnes-vor-tx-ammunition-300-aac-blackout-110-grain-tipped-tac-tx-bullet-flat-base-lead-free-box-of-20
For 125gr, Nosler, Remington, PWN all list at 2200ft/s. Leigh Defense is closer to yours at 2325ft/s, but no idea what kind of bullet is in those.
Did you chrono the factory blacktims at 2475 yourself, and if so, what load so I can buy those when the time comes?
Regardless, I guess I overloaded my expections. 125gr ballistics data according to Nosler are better, but not that great.
From Nosler's data tables: http://www.nosler.com/nosler-load-data/300-aac-blackout/
Vel: 2200ft/s
BC: .366
SD: .188
>all these arguements about numbers and combat effectiveness
>by people who have never been in a firefight
inb4 thank you for your service
>>28227786
Where?
>>28227946
Marjah in 2010, pretty sure that's from a 38mm that hit the tent I was just in a minute prior
>>28227120
Yes, those are velocities I chronod myself this summer. The 125s are handloads with w296, the blacktips were Corbon.
This was a mild summer but I expect a 20-50fps decrease with current weather.
The handloads are not showing any signs of overpressure in hot weather. I had actually been a grain and a half higher but accuracy was abysmal.
>people acting like 300blk makes you any more dead than 5.56
>>28228188
Yeah, I assumed with something that hot you were hand loading.
I've been interested in the .300aac for hogs because I'd much rather carry my AR than a heavy .308. My problem is I don't trust the .223 to make it through a hog shoulder if my aim is off. But with an SD like that, I don't really trust the .300 on the shoulder either.
Guess I'll start looking at the 6.5 bullets instead.
>>28228421
.300 is increasingly the round of choice for hog hunting in Texas, at least in the hunting circles I move in.
We're taking hog with subsonics suppressed in the middle of the night. It's a fucking blast and personally I've never had to shoot twice on the same hog, though I do know someone who took two shots to take a ~270lb'er.
>>28228421
Try the remington hog hammer. 130gr tsx at a decent velocity. Decent sd, bullet is a known good penetrator.
>>28216105
x38R
>>28228482
What ammo?
>>28216194
alaskan, bear defense.....?
>>28215986
Ignorant post of the day from a self proclaimed expert.
>>28223764
But what about your average joe? Here in civvie land, does the .300 blk have a more capable role?
>>28226886
Isn't .300 burned completely at 9" or so?
>>28216194
>Any faggot who plays with .458 SOCOM and isn't a literal operator is a jackass. There is not a single application a civilian would ever, ever have where .458 SOCOM is a rational choice over essentially every single other AR-15 alternative caliber.
GTFO k, Nancy Pelosi.
>>28216194
>not wanting to fire something ballistically equivalent to modern standard pressure .45-70 from an AR-15 and uses standard .45-70 bullets
Are you gay or something?
>>28216030
Autism: The Post
>>28221698
Actually it was developed so that we could make a replacement for the mp5SD
>>28215926
>>28216118
>.223 outperformed by .300 in every way
LOL
https://youtu.be/9ZxMkV0XeoQ
>>28216339
>thinks you need a precision AR to plink man sized paper targets at 500m
ffs, anon
>>28215926
What's it cost to get started reloading 300blk?
>>28232570
>thinks all .300BLK are subsonic
>thinks all .300BLK subsonics are OTFB bullets
You are recursively fucking retarded. You're so fucking dumb I doubt there is a level of stupidity below you where a person is still capable of operating a computer.
>>28233155
>thinks he can actually hit anything with his shitty M&P15 at 550yds
Yeah sure thing, you fucking faggot.
>>28235197
>thinks he can actually hit anything with his shitty M&P15 at 550yds
Not him, but I've shot out to 440 yards with my Mosin Nagant using surplus ammo and was able to keep a good portion of my shots on a 12" plate. I have no doubt that someone could push out further using a rifle with a barrel in better condition than my surplus rifle from the 40s, good peep sights as opposed to notch sights, ammunition that is higher quality than Russian surplus from the 70s, and and a cartridge with a similar/slightly flatter trajectory.
meme cartridge with garbage ballistics
>>28235323
>Mosin Nagant
>7.62×54mmR
>comparable to 5.56 NATO
>ever
Goddamnit /k/ you get fucking stupider every fucking week. Goddamn this board is garbage.
Holy fuck.
>>28235372
Did you not look at the image I posted? It's comparing 7.62 NATO from a 22" barrel to 5.56 from a 14.5" barrel and the trajectories are within an inch of each other out to 500 yards.
>>28215926
>Ditch bitch loves a range queen caliber
Not surprised
>>28235421
Oh I forgot to add, he didn't know how to drive stick which got his buddies killed.
Some fucking man he claims to be.
>>28235409
I don't think you followed the comment chain.
Some asshole suggested that 500m was a practical engagement range for a carbine.
Of course you can fucking hit shit at 500m, relaxed, supported, and safe.
Can you reliably hit anything at 500m under stress, questionable stability or support, with fog of war?
Fuck no you stupid petulant children.
As was said earlier, 300m is the max *practical* engagement range for the AR-15 unless you've got a precision SPR setup.
>>28235468
>Can you reliably hit anything at 500m under stress, questionable stability or support, with fog of war?
those would be problems with other guns too, energy doesn't matter if your aim is off
>>28235468
All the poster said is that you don't need a precision AR to reach out to 500 meters and the point stands. Give an average soldier a precision AR in a firefight and you aren't going to see much difference in their effectiveness past 300 meters vs the M4 that they would normally be carrying unless they are doing their part, but give someone who is trained to shoot people out to 500 meters an M4 instead of their SPR setup and they will still hit people at 500 meters. Your mistake is that you think equipment capability plays more of a role in hitting the target than the person behind the gun.
>>28235490
It wasn't ever about energy it was about the fact that 5.56 zealots who shit on .300 BLK always complain about drop but the drop is negligible compared to 5.56, so the complaints are stupid.
>>28235565
> Give an average soldier a precision AR in a firefight and you aren't going to see much difference in their effectiveness past 300 meters
Which was that entire point to begin with, that .300BLK outperforms 5.56 at any range that actually matters for soldiers wielding a carbine.
Past 300m you're better served with a DMR in 7.62 NATO anyway.
>>28217053
Oh look, another tripfag who doesnt know what he's talking about.
>>28235584
>LMGs don't exist and/or don't get used past 300 meters
Also, even inside 300 meters .300 BLK has much more drop than 5.56 with a whole foot more at 300 meters according to this chart here >>28218325, which would make it significantly harder to hit anyone who isn’t completely exposing themselves.
>>28235647
>LMGs
Can either continue to use 5.56 or use 110gr 300BLK which again, is superior at every range than 5.56.
>even inside 300 meters .300 BLK has much more drop than 5.56
>comparing a 62gr to a 125gr
The problem with you fucking retards is you keep making shitty comparisons, because you're goddamn retards. A proper comparison is the 77gr OTM MK262 with 110gr V-Max. Run along now, go be less of a fucking imbecile and look at the data.
>which would make it significantly harder to hit anyone who isn’t completely exposing themselves
Have none of you fucking imbeciles ever learned milranging and holdover? It isn't hard. A little bit more drop isn't fucking difficult if you aren't a complete fucking moron and actually know your weapon.
>>28235799
>LMGs... Can either continue to use 5.56
>.300 BLK carbines, 5.56 LMGs, and 7.62 NATO DMRs
Holy fuck, can you even logistics?
>110gr 300BLK which again, is superior at every range than 5.56.
>round drops like a rock at longer ranges
>superior
>A proper comparison is the 77gr OTM MK262
>a proper comparison would be to a round that isn't general issue and has more drop than what is general issue
Yeah, sure.
>Have none of you fucking imbeciles ever learned milranging and holdover? It isn't hard.
Kek, if you actually knew anything you would realize that you aren't going to be that effective at doing so while you're being shot at and trying to range someone who is exposing as little of themselves as possible, and a larger margin of error on ranging = more misses, especially when your comparing to a round with twice the drop.
>>28235924
>Holy fuck, can you even logistics?
A .300BLK LMG is superior to a 5.56 LMG.
>110gr 300BLK
>round drops like a rock at longer ranges
You fucking imbecile, what's "longer ranges?" Past 300m 5.56 has shit for energy and gets pushed around by wind easy as fuck, making the .300BLK superior outside of 300m since soping for drop is easier than doping for wind. Under 300m it's irrelevant, since the drop is negligible and the terminal ballistics are superior.
>a proper comparison would be to a round that isn't general issue
The MK262 is very likely going to be the next general issue round since it makes up for the rest of the 5.56 garbage that everyone dislikes, faggot. That's the entire reason it was ever developed, because the 62 grain garbage can't cut it.
>, if you actually knew anything
I know that you're a fucking imbecile who is either no guns or only shoots at a seat at a range, because I milrange and calc for holdover every fucking time I hunt you ineffectual, inexperienced fucking moron. It's not hard when you're actually skilled at shooting, something you obviously are not skill at whatsoever, assuming you've ever even fired an actual gun and not just your pathetic airshit.
>>28235983
>Past 300m 5.56 has shit for energy and gets pushed around by wind easy as fuck
See >>28218325, the heavier 125 grain .300 BLK still gets pushed around by the wind at any range out to 1000 yards than the much lighter 62 grain 5.56.
>since the drop is negligible and the terminal ballistics are superior.
Already been proven wrong earlier in the thread.
>The MK262 is very likely going to be the next general issue round
Wrong, that's M855A1 which is still 62 grain. Where have you been the past few years?
>because I milrange and calc for holdover every fucking time I hunt
>hunting even remotely compares to a firefight
kek
>>28236074
>the heavier 125 grain .300 BLK still gets pushed around by the wind at any range out to 1000 yards than the much lighter 62 grain 5.56.
Lol, I don't know what that stupid shit came from but that's not fucking accurate whatsoever. That nigger needs to recheck his load data.
>Already been proven wrong earlier in the thread.
Nah faggot, every test shows superior terminal ballistics of supersonic .300BLK vs 5.56 with comparable bullet design. If .300BLK is ever more widely adopted by militaries you'll see more emphasis on rounds that meet military specs, like fracturing. There's no way to escape the fact that a heavier bullet moving at comparable velocities has much greater potential for damage.
>M855A1
Garbage that the forces hate. Literally years worth of complaints at how shitty this ammo is. Units in Afghanistan are using MK262 and MK262 Mod 1 because it doesn't suck ass. The Marines are using MK318 Mod 0, and hating it, and considering adopting MK262 Mod 1. None of this would be a problem whatsoever if they adopted a 110gr or 125gr .300BLK.
Were the fuck have YOU been faggot.
>>hunting even remotely compares to a firefight
>Implying you'll do either one a single time in your pathetic life.
>implying trained soldiers can't learn to holdover about half a mil to a mil more...
14 year old cawadooty faggots on the internet really grind my fuckin gears.
>>28236142
m855a1 is garbage huh? You know, what how about not take the opinion of faces you don't see and take a look at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVZJ-DEKNR0
>>28236174
>constant comparisons to greentip
>shooting paper targets
>while some faggot talks about marketing sales points
Nigger, we know it sucks because soldiers tell us it sucks.
You can look at all the fucking faggy ass videos of range fags having fun shooting paper and reciting talking points all you like. I prefer to listen to soldiers who say the shit is garbage, is not barrier blind, has terrible one shot stop, gets blown by wind, etc etc
Enjoy being underage while you can.
>>28236142
>but that's not fucking accurate whatsoever
Seems right to me, maybe you should look at actual data instead of just listening to marketing.
>Nah faggot, every test shows superior terminal ballistics of supersonic .300BLK vs 5.56 with comparable bullet design.
Then do what has been impossible for everyone else and show me .300 BLK that will fragment like 5.56 and doesn't cost $2+ per round, bonus points if it's from a sub 10" barrel, or are you excluding bullets that fragment from your comparison?
>Garbage that the forces hate. Literally years worth of complaints at how shitty this ammo is. Units in Afghanistan are using MK262 and MK262 Mod 1 because it doesn't suck ass. The Marines are using MK318 Mod 0, and hating it, and considering adopting MK262 Mod 1.
>all of that bullshit
The Marines are looking at whether to replace the Mk318 with the Mk318 Mod 0 or the M855A1, the Mk262 Mod 1 isn't even in the running.
>more bullshit about their hunting experience compares to being in a fire fight with people shooting at you and keeping as much of their body behind cover as possible which makes ranging significantly harder
>>28236199
Oh so instead of wanting the opinions of the more trained people that goes to the national rifle events that get awarded the fucking president's hundred badges you want a the opinion of an 11b? Ok cool guy, I bite your troll. You know what the common 17-18 year old privates care? You know what team leaders and squad leaders care?
Returning fire and battle drills.
When I was in RC East during OEF 2011-2012, there were no mother fuckers that would engage us directly.
All we got is IEDs and Mortar fires with multiple cases of House born IEDs.
You think ranges and all that terminal ballistics fucking matter?
You think grunts who are taught out of FM 3-21.8 fucking do?
Battle fucking drills. We rarely even fucking fire 5.56 outside of 400 meters. Hell it was mostly fucking 240limas that got most of the enemy casualties.
Bottom line, fucking typical Grunt opinions are as practical as asking a fucking boot who position you stand at when address a former command sergeant major than actually people who run guns harder and longer than we do.
>AR fags still creaming themselves over a light loaded 7,62x39
>>28236074
>125 grain
>Not being compared to 110 grain or other weights
>Not comparing the different propellants available to increase performance
>Not modifying the cartridge for research
>Not changing the primer types
There's your problem, you can't generalize for a round. Just because they're the same caliber doesn't mean their mass is the same. Each bullet has different performances for their mass/weight. They can be similar or entirely different.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/jim-barrett/comparing-sbr-calibers-5-56-223-versus-300-blk/
If everybody's done being name calling faggots, we have a comparison.
By comparing muzzle energies, it seems that .300 comes out on top and is the recommended cartridge for SBR.
5.56 still has the range advantage though. Quite frankly, when 5.56 outranges you, maybe it's time to reconsider your life as a rifle round.
>>28236617
>comparing cartridges by energy
>not comparing them by how various bullets from each perform in ballistics gelatin
This is how we get the faggots that insist there's a big difference between pistol calibres due to the energy differences when in gel there's practically no real difference despite the energy differences.
>>28236278
>We rarely even fucking fire 5.56 outside of 400 meters.
Yes jackass, this is because 5.56 is fucking garbage outside of 300m. Not sure why you're such a faggot and have 5.56 so far up your asshole you can think objectively about this.
>>28236673
>not comparing them by how various bullets from each perform in ballistics gelatin
I linked you videos of the boutique Lehigh machined ammo in gelatin that makes 5.56 look like garbage. You're right, those rounds are expensive, they're boutique ammo, but if they get more popular the price will come down, and you're not meant to practice with them, they're for short range self defense, not plinking.
You keep jacking yourself off over fragmentation. What you fail to realize is that fragmentation is NOT more desirable than expansion. Greater fragmentation is more favorable WITH 5.56, because 5.56 has nothing else going for it. You look at big wound cavities made by lots of tiny fragments deforming the gel without ever fucking using your shit-for-brains to remind yourself that gel is not a simulation of a body, it's a simulation of general flesh to test penetration and says nothing of actual stopping power, only a general guide.
When you look at what stops someone immediately, it's not fragmentation like what comes out of a 5.56, it's deep expanding bullets that cut through organs with large wound channels. All those pointless tiny 5.56 fragments get caught in bone, cartilage, adipose tissue, etc.
To kill someone you want massive, concentrated damage to internal organs, not a scattering of tiny particles in a localized area.
If the armed forces demanded a fragmenting .300BLK round, it would be VASTLY superior to 5.56 since it's 1.5x-2x the bullet weight at a comparable velocity.
No matter how you fucking try to pull shit out of your ass, 7.62 bullets are just fucking superior in a carbine, period. There's no argument, they just are. They kill quicker, penetrate more effectively, and TRULY barrier blind.
>>28237557
>but if they get more popular the price will come down
Machined projectiles will always be expensive when compared to traditional bullet manufacturing techniques, deal with it.
>All those pointless tiny 5.56 fragments get caught in bone, cartilage, adipose tissue, etc.
Are you saying that the human body is made out of nothing but bone, cartridge, and other harder materials, because as shown here >>28223534 and here >>28223559 from what a fragmenting 5.56 can do, the fragments don't all separate at one spot like the Lehigh fragmenting .300 BLK but rather separate and travel outwards at various distances throughout the bullet's travel. A bullet that leaves fragments throughout the wound tract that travel more than an inch from the path of the bullet will always do more damage and stop a person faster than a bullet that expands to .6" in diameter and has few to no fragments travelling away from the path of the bullet, if that wasn't true then submachine guns would never have lost popularity.
>>28237701
>Machined projectiles will always be expensive
If your a fragmentation faggot, and demand frangible ammo because you're fucking stupid, my point was that eventually someone will make a fragmenting round that's cheaper in .300BLK.
>A bullet that leaves fragments throughout the wound tract that travel more than an inch from the path of the bullet will always do more damage and stop a person faster than a bullet that expands to .6" in diameter and has few to no fragments travelling away from the path of the bullet
Here's the thing retard:
>The upper torso is surrounded by a cage of bones and the lower torso is full of intestines and fecal matter
So, let's think about this like people who aren't complete fucking idiots. If I take a shot at the upper torso, would I rather have a bullet that will cavitate deep into the body even if it hits the sternum and rip everything in it's path to shreds with an expanded bullet the diameter of a quarter, or have my bullet explode into micro-shrapnel and make a nasty surface cavity?
If I take a shot at the lower torso, do I want a bullet that will rip straight through all the intestines and perhaps strike the spinal column, or a bullet that will fragment into a powder of useless particles lodging themselves in intestinal tissues, adipose tissues and fecal matter?
This isn't even considering the interference of gear and/or armor.
You bet you're ass I'm going to go with penetrating as deep as I can with as wide of a cavity as I can, with as much energy as is possible, you fucking trisomic imbecile.
I don't even dislike 5.56, I shoot it. I have 2 ARs in it, I think it's great for what it is, especially for it's price. But I'm not such a fucking moron that I can't see clearly that .300BLK is a superior round, especially with how vastly more versatile it is with subsonic capability and such a giant range of bullet weights and bullet designs.
5.56 is always a dance of compromises.
Fuck that.
>>28237926
also fuck my grammar
>>28237926
>If your a fragmentation faggot, and demand frangible ammo because you're fucking stupid, my point was that eventually someone will make a fragmenting round that's cheaper in .300BLK.
What makes you so sure of that? There still aren't any fragmenting 7.62x39mm bullets made using conventional techniques, and that's ballistically equivalent and has been around much longer
>or have my bullet explode into micro-shrapnel and make a nasty surface cavity?
That's not how it works, 5.56 bullets like the M193, M855, and Mk262 that fragment do so by destabilizing and tumbling then fragmenting, they don't just explode on impact and they aren't going to shatter when they hit the rib cage.
>or a bullet that will fragment into a powder of useless particles lodging themselves in intestinal tissues, adipose tissues and fecal matter?
You do realize that in order for the fragments to lodge in the fecal matter inside the intestines they would have to tear up the intestines first. Your options are a bullet that tears up a ~.6" diameter wound tract or a bullet that tears up anything within a 2"+ diameter wound tract.
I built a .300blk pistol, 10.5" barrel. I really like it for hunting. My step-uncle breeds dogs for pig hunting. Trying to sprint full speed through the woods with a rifle on your back is rough, an AR pistol across the chest and a 9mm with lehigh penetrators in the waistband is so much easier. I like the variety of loads the 300blk offers while not losing effectiveness due to the short barrel length.
>>28238171
>There still aren't any fragmenting 7.62x39mm bullets
Gee I fucking wonder why? Maybe because when you have more than a .22 caliber pea shooter you don't have to rely on some asinine concept of fragmentation damage to fucking kill people. What a surprise. Also,
>Russia in charge of ballistic research
K.
>Your options are a bullet that tears up a ~.6" diameter wound tract or a bullet that tears up anything within a 2"+ diameter wound tract.
Look at pic related. Can you estimate the diameter of that expanded bullet? Look at the fragments. Can you estimate how much damage they'd cause when impacting with nearly 3x the energy at 200m versus 5.56?
That's a consumer grade bullet. It hasn't gone intensive research and development like a military round would have, and it ALREADY outperforms 5.56.
I don't care what you shoot fag, keep banging glorified .22LR all you like, but .300BLK is clearly the future of the AR platform.
>>28238452
>you can tell by a picture of the bullet how it performed with no other information on how far it penetrated and how the fragments acted in the gel
Are you honestly stupid enough to think that?
>>28238472
>thinks the only evidence of v-max performance is a single picture on the internet.
Go research it yourself, shithead.
>>28238405
>muh .22 peashooter
I don't care what you shoot fag, keep banging glorified 9mm all you like, but .50 BMG is clearly the future of the AR platform.
>>28238171
>Fragments at one spot
kek
>muh fragmentation
7.62 NATO doesn't fragment, yet one shot of that to the chest would incapacitate your average Jihadi John, just like 7.62 Soviet. You see, a larger diameter round with more mass/weight would have a greater force of energy, causing a greater hydrostatic shock spread in the body that causes blood pressure loss, organ rupture, etc. Adding more velocity with better propellant and primer formulas in a supersonic round and you would have an incapacitating killing round without decrease performance
>>28238517
>7.62 NATO doesn't fragment
It does with the right bullets.
>just like 7.62 Soviet
>calling it 7.62 Soviet instead of 7.62x39mm
>Implying that the 7.62x39mm M43 PS didn't leave the same size wounds as 9mm ball ammunition.
>hydrostatic shock
>implying that even exists
>>28238553
and here's the M43 PS
>>28218020
Because I want to have supply dinks in the middle of a fight asking me if I know about the proper handling of ammunition.
>>28238517
That pic
>thinking the tears in ballistics gel from the temporary cavity actually exist when shooting living things
Protip: they don't. Those tears exist even when shooting gel with pistol ammunition, and pistol ammunition doesn't generate enough of a temporary cavity to cause damage in actual muscle.
>almost all of the damage is done at the beginning of the wound tract instead of all the way through
kek
>>28238553
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
>inb4 wikipedia isn't a source
Check the references, it's already been proven
>muh permanent wound vectors
kek
>>28238553
303 british has a nice vagina
>>28238696
>Temporary cavity
That's a permanent cavity, and if you watched the original video, the ballistic gel represents deep tissue, watch it at 7:18.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrEmQNe-TrA
>>28215926
6.5 Grendel is superior for literally every non suppressed/sbr purpose
>>28238719
>Dr. Fackler claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.
Fackler aka the father of modern wound ballistics research, says otherwise.
>>28238772
>That's a permanent cavity
That's not how ballistics gel works.
>>28238814
Hydrostatic shock is a thing. But you'd need to be hit by something doing like 4000fps for it to be a thing.
>>28238808
You must hate bolts
>>28238885
I think you're mistaking damage from the temporary cavity stretching muscle beyond its breaking point for hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock is the claim that the pressure waves from the bullet hitting can cause damage in remote areas of the body, such as claims of bullets hitting the torso causing brain damage.
>>28238808
So is 6.8 SPC II, but both require new bolts and mags in addition to a new barrel, have less ammo capacity, are more expensive, and can't reuse 5.56 brass which exists in vast abundance. 6.5 and 6.8 Barrels are also vastly more expensive due to being made for precision target shooting. You can get a high quality, 16" button rifled melonited chrome alloy barrel in .300 BLK for $89 on sale. Good fucking luck getting any where NEAR that value in 6.5 or 6.8, PLUS the bolt, PLUS mags/mag parts.
And even after all that, the ballistic performance isn't THAT much better than 110gr or 125gr .300BLK loads.
And like you said, they don't do subsonic.
>>28238808
Oh, also 6.5 Grendel tears the fucking shit out of barrels. The highest quality barrels you can get for 6.5 Grendel are rated to about 6000 rds. That's no fucking joke. Bashes the AR-15 bolt pretty fucking hard too but I don't know the lifetime on that, but I know it's vastly lower than 5.56 and .300BO
>>28230754
Hunting and home defense
Since we arent soldiers in the field carrying 70 pounds of gear, ammo weight isnt really a limiting factor to civilians. We can afford to have larger heavier bullets in our carbines, which are generally better for most medium sized 2-4 legged animals you may need to shoot. 5.56 will get the job done, lots of proving on that one, but the shorter the barrel length, the less velocity and more blast you get with a 5.56, and lots of people are going for short barrel carbines these days. They're handier, and just cool. So 300 blackout fills a wide variety of roles, including suppressed in the same familiar carbine, while being just as capable (if not more so) as a 5.56 but from a shorter barrel length. All it takes is a different barrel too, so even if you end up not caring for it, its not hard to convert back to 5.56
Love 5.56, but the 300 blackout is earning its place among other modern rifle cartridges like the 7.62x39 and the 5.56 when its put into its intended role, which is a intermediate cartridge for use in an SBR out to ranges around 450 yards. You could probably have a longer effective range (like how people claim the 5.56 has an effective range of like 800 yards) but at that point you're better off shooting something more suited for those ranges. In its intended role, 300 black is probably my favorite intermediate rifle cartridge because of its versatility, low recoil and low muzzle flash out of short barrels, while still being effective for hunting and mid range work.
>>28232570
Out of a long barrel like 20 inches, with the right loading 5.56 can outperform the 300 blackout, but in a shorter barrel like 12.5 inches or less its almost always outperformed by the blackout. Just depends on the role you want your rifle to be in really
>>28232530
Lol no. AAC had a list of goals to accomplish when making the 300 blackout, and a few of them were to make a gun quieter than the MP5 SD using subsonic ammo (which it isnt, but its damn, damn close) to make it lighter than the MP5SD which it obviously is, and to have it be about the same size with a suppressor. They're other goal was to have the supersonic ammunition have as much energy as a 5.56 or more, but out of a shorter barrel than 16", again which they were successful in doing for the most part
>>28216194
this is bait, but...
you can hunt with 458 SOCOM in indiana and not much else in a rifle
>>28239351
You're going to have to clarify this for me.
Are you saying you can't hunt with anything but 458 SOCOM in Indiana? That's ridiculous and I don't believe you.
>>28216194
There is no real military purpose for .458 Socom, memes about shooting engine blocks aside. On the other hand, there's plenty of civilian applications for the round, from hog/bear hunting to bowling pin matches.
>>28223549
>>28236199
>>5.56 is fine.
>Is this bait?
As a man I who's credentials I respect very highly once told me, "Any warfighter who complains about the killing power of 5.56 is either an enemy or a shitty marksman."
The post combat evaluations for all of the major engagements of the post Vietnam era bear him out.
5.56 is an effective round, even out of short barreled rifles at long range, combat evaluations of engagements in Afghanistan include single hit kills with M855A1 out of M4 Carbines at over 800m. Certainly it is effective enough that it will never be replaced for general issue until there is an alternative that provides a significant logistical advantage over 5.56 (eg provides similar or superior performance in a smaller physical envelope or at a higher weight).
Don't get me wrong, .300 Blackout is a pretty nifty cartridge, it does a great job providing enhanced terminal performance in the suppressed subsonic subgun category, provides for a greater margin of error when hunting medium game with the AR-15 platform, and lets someone who wants to be a special snowflake buy less expensive proprietary parts for their AR, but let's not kid ourselves over the idea that it solves a problem the Military has except in limited application fields.
>>28238452
Lots of the Yugo surplus was fragmenting, actually. Commercial ammo is mostly aimed at hunters, who don't want fragmentation because it fucks up the meat.
>>28238517
>yet one shot of that to the chest would incapacitate your average Jihadi John, just like 7.62 Soviet.
I've seen the scars on a man who took a 7.62x39 from above, missing his armor plate, chipping his collar bone, deflating his right lung, and exiting just above his pelvis. It didn't take him out of the fight until he started having trouble breathing with his left lung, minutes later.
>>28217456
>>28218025
Make a pistol for the .300
>>28217456
>>28217456
showed this to my friend.
He's making an armslist advert right now for his 300 blackout upper and all of his handloads.
10/10 you broke his soul.
>>28240935
>300 niggerfags literally on suicide watch
>>28217456
>>28235490
Actually kind of does matter. You'd have more bullets to miss with with the 5.56
>>28242182
>more bullets
.300BLK and .277 Wolverine share the same parent case so you get the same amount of bullets, and your ballistics are better.
>>28240745
>minutes later
That's one tough nut, and if we can research Yugo surplus fragmentation rounds, we can make cheaper fragmentation .300 supersonic AAC Blackout without the flaws of M855A1 (Wind drift influence, Expensive manufacturing, increased barrel wear).
>>28244397
But it won't make any difference for the warfighter unless they can carry more rounds for the same volume and hopefully weight.
There is a cased telescopic 6.5 mm round that shoots like 7.5 Creedmore and carries in less weight space than 5.56.
That's the kind of thing with potential, but it'll still probably not displace the 5.56 cased telescopic concept the army prefers, because that one is smaller still, weighs less than half as much, and gives you another 500 fps over 5.56x45 out of a 14.5 inch barrel.
>>28244448
Telescoped ammo is cool, but do you really think it's going to displace traditional ammo anywhere in the next 30 years?
I don't.
