Let’s Talk About .300 BLK and How Are You Using It?

[ndking1126]

https://www.quora.com/Can-I-shoot-a-...bered-5-56-223

Google search will give you many more examples. I don't own a 5.56. If I owned both, my personal rule would be that both of them never go to the range at the same time. Lots of little things to do to stay safe, but in the end just have to pay attention and always be focused on what you are doing (which is how you should be when shooting guns, regardless).

[michaeldarnold]

I think Sharkbite said what I was looking for: "Supersonic loads are full power loads that are in the same catigory as 7.62x39 and just a shade under 30-30 (with better bullets in the 300)."

I hunt in the brushy woods in Missouri. I've wanted 30-30 but don't have one. I have my FIL's 7mm Rem Mag. and I'll never get rid of it. It's a great gun and I hand load for it, but it's way over the mark for shots under 75 yards in the brush, out of a treestand.

I've got an AR in 5.56, so building a 300 long barreled upper is just calling my name. Plus, with the adjustable stock, my son can learn on it as he gets older.

Pointy bullets with 30-30 similarities in the brush in a mag fed gun. Sounds like fun to me.

[COSteve]

300 BO is important ONLY in that it will fit in an AR15 platform; period. Supersonicly, it dosen't measure up to the 7.62x39 at any range. As a handloader, it shows no more versatility nor lower costs than the 7.62x39 either.

So, if we're talking only in the AR platform, it has some use as both a sub-sonic load and for the fact that the 7.62x39 needs some love to feed from mag. Out of an AR, it can't compete to the 7.62x39 in any real way. Neither caliber is as effective as a 30-30 at under 150yds either.

Cold, hard fact.

BTW, I don't own a 300 BO or a 7.62x39. But the ballistics don't lie.

[disseminator]

300 BO is important ONLY in that it will fit in an AR15 platform; period. Supersonicly, it dosen't measure up to the 7.62x39 at any range. As a handloader, it shows no more versatility nor lower costs than the 7.62x39 either.

So, if we're talking only in the AR platform, it has some use as both a sub-sonic load and for the fact that the 7.62x39 needs some love to feed from mag. Out of an AR, it can't compete to the 7.62x39 in any real way. Neither caliber is as effective as a 30-30 at under 150yds either.

Cold, hard fact.

Seems more like an opinion.

300 Blk is made for the AR platform, but that isn't all it's good for.

The majority for 30-30 rifles are short barrels. If you compare factory velocities (rated from 24" barrels) then yes, the 30-30 seems to have the edge, but put them both in 16-18" barrels and the 300 will equal the velocities of the 30WCF and exceed it's ballistics all day long.

The 7.62x39, is cheap. It has VERY limited bullet selection, piss poor ballistics, and the brass is way more expensive to a hand loader and so you are relegated to the steel case ammo to realize it's greatness.

[Sharkbite]

As a handloader, it shows no more versatility nor lower costs than the 7.62x39 either.

Id say the plethora of .308 bullets avail to the handloader verses the small variety of .311 bullets avail disproves that statement.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by disseminator

Seems more like an opinion.

300 Blk is made for the AR platform, but that isn't all it's good for.

The majority for 30-30 rifles are short barrels. If you compare factory velocities (rated from 24" barrels) then yes, the 30-30 seems to have the edge, but put them both in 16-18" barrels and the 300 will equal the velocities of the 30WCF and exceed it's ballistics all day long.

The 7.62x39, is cheap. It has VERY limited bullet selection, piss poor ballistics, and the brass is way more expensive to a hand loader and so you are relegated to the steel case ammo to realize it's greatness.

Seems like a great argument for the 300 BO . . . . . however, the facts don't support the conclusion that the lower 300 BO velocities in 18" barrels are actually equaled by the 7.62x39 when shot from a 18" barrel.

If you review the following tests in RifleShooter.com, you'll note that the difference in velocities for the 125grn class 7.62x39 shot from a 24" barrel and a 18" barrel are minimal, 90fps for Brown Bear at 2,308fps and 70fps for TWC at 2,422fps. That's still faster than the fastest 125grn class 300 BO.

If you look at the .310"-.311" dia bullet selection available, you'll be surprised to see that it's more comprehensive than one would think. With just a cursory search, I found .311 bullets in 90grn, 123 - 125grn, 150grn, 174grn, 180grn, 200grn, and 215grn. So much for "...VERY limited bullet selection...".

As to the claim of "...piss poor ballistics...", that is just plain dead wrong. A spire point, 125grn, .311" dia bullet traveling at 2,450fps made by the same producer is going to be a tad better than a 125grn .308" dia bullet traveling at 2,200fps. Put both in a ballistics table and see for yourself.

Arm waving platitudes are great over beers talking about who should win a football game but you can actually measure the ballistics of a given caliber, bullet, load and unfortunately there is where disseminator's post falls apart.

[rickyrick]

I will repeat that the appeal of 300aac to me, is merely the simple fact that it plays well in the AR15. Just a different barrel; the parts commonality was the seller for me.

I would have probably went with something else if it shared bolts and magazines with 5.56 rifles.

[Sharkbite]

simple fact that it plays well in the AR15

That and its compatibility with short (<10”) barrels, sold me on the caliber. I get a rifle with a suppressor attached that is still shorter then a 16” .223 WITH fullsize ballistics.

[disseminator]

Arm waving platitudes are great over beers talking about who should win a football game but you can actually measure the ballistics of a given caliber, bullet, load and unfortunately there is where disseminator's post falls apart.

No offense Steve, but you said yourself you don't own or shoot either caliber so I'm not sure why you would take such a firm position with so little first hand experience.

The effectiveness of a cartridge vs another is more complex than simply saying: cartridge A is better than cartridge B because it moves the same amount of lead a little faster.

There are so many bullets available for the .308, I'm not even going to address that one.

If you don't like the 300, then fine, but why all the strong statements? The 300 Blk isn't going to obsolete the 30-30 or the x39, but then they don't really fill the same roll anyways do they?

[HALL,AUSTIN]

Just going to throw this out there... I didn't build my .300BLK to compete with any other gun. BUT if I did, my 7.5" barreled upper KILLS any other option for a car gun. The 10.5" barreled upper works better than most options for hunting really thick stuff, 110gr Vmax or tac-tx kill deer or hogs just as dead as my remlin 30-30 did, at less overall length and weight. Might not be a consideration for most people, but my son can use it from standing, unsupported. A longer gun, even of the same weight would give him problems (read leverage and fulcrum). Plus, sure... I absolutely agree with the "leatherman" argument. One tool can't and WON'T do it all the best. If that was the case we'd all own that one gun, because it'd do it all the best. Different strokes for different folks. I'd scoff at hunting with a .300blk in Montana or at a sendero hunt. But I'm in the thickets and pines, so it fills it's niche. When we say that any caliber isn't a "niche caliber" we're lying to ourselves. They all fill a role, give in one area to take in another, match your caliber to your need and terrain. My requisites were short, light, fast follow up shots, enough energy to get the job done at 75 yards. My 16" 5.56 works fine for the same thing but why not have a 6" shorter gun? A

[stagpanther]

The 300BO is really a pistol class cartridge--and that is what is was optimized for--performance in a short-barrelled pistol AR configuration. It's not competitie with--or even intended to be, as far as I know, a rifle cartridge out of a rifle-length barrel.

BUT--when you are looking for an easy-to-carry small footprint semi-auto that has a fairly wide choice of bullet configurations--I cannot think of a single pistol cartridge that competes with the 300 BO in terms of power, efficency and reliability. AND--this is why most people like em I think--it is comparitively soft recoil and easily suppressed. I shoot and load both the 300 and 7.62 ruskie--the russkie is going to win th over-all match in terms of rifle-length ballistics at rifle length distances, but not by much--and at 100 yds or closer (again, think small capacity pistol cartridge) the 300 BO delivers plenty of performance--and is VERY "shootable" compared to ANY other AR configuration. If you think there is no place for the 300BO--than you MUST think there is no place for handgun hunting either!

Are we beatimg dead horses yet?

[ed308]

My thoughts, if you are going to choose a rifle sized weapon, then choose one that can do what other similar rifle calibers can do. For the BLK, that would be supersonic only. But still equal to just a pistol caliber. I know people love it because it can shoot subsonic or supersonic ammo. And it does subsonic suppressed really well. But outside of that application, it just never made mush sense to me. And the BLK's ability to chamber and fire in a .223/5.56 AR is huge negative for me.

[Nathan]

7.62 x 39 vs 300 BO....depends what length barrel

IMO, 300 BO is all about PDW. in a PDW, the 7.62 benefits are cheap steel case ammo and maybe marginally better ballistics. Do we really know 10" 7.62 ballistics and reliability? ....of course in an AK, accuracy is bad to worse, but good enough under 100 yds. Hunting?? With a 7.62, you are looking at high end brass case premium bullet ammo at 308 prices. Reload?? Cases start at $400 per 1000, I believe.

300 BO....$11/20 plinking ammo; good short barreled 10" ballistics for 0-150 yd engagements; Hunting....lots of good bullets like the 110 Vmax, 125 TNT, etc; reloading works too with all the cheap converted brass available! $100/1000. Plus all the AR platform benefits like trigger selection, lego buildability, optics ready, good sights, nearly unlimited stock/brace choice.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

7.62x39 is faster than .300 BLK down to at least a 10.5” barrel. I don’t have a direct comparison but a 10.5” 7.62x39 throws a 123gr about 100-150fps faster than a 9” .300 throws a 125gr. Of course, the 7.62x39 will have a pretty impressive orange ball at the muzzle and the .300 won’t even be visible at dusk; but I’d guess even in shorter barrels the 7.62x39 maintains some advantage.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by disseminator

No offense Steve, but you said yourself you don't own or shoot either caliber so I'm not sure why you would take such a firm position with so little first hand experience.

No offense disseminator but you're misquoting me. What I said is, "BTW, I don't own a 300 BO or a 7.62x39. But the ballistics don't lie."

No where did I say or intimate that I haven't shot either or both. The fact is that I have, a lot. What I have done is give a real hard look at the performance of both calibers first hand using statistically accurate data to compare them ballistically. I then compared the measured performance with my real, first hand opinion of what I saw when I used each. It was an evaluation of both calibers to consider whether or not to add one or both to my collection. In either case, had I decided to add one or both, neither would have been in an AR platform.

The fact is I have long guns in 30 Carbine, 30-30, 300 Savage, .308/7.62x51, and 30-06 to name just my 30 calibers as well pistol calibers in 357mag, 40s&w, and 45 Colt. Plus I've also experimented with 10mm and 45 Super pistol calibers as well as the 7.62x39, 300 BO, 35 Remington, 38-40, 450 Bushmaster, 45-70, 45-90, and 50 Beowulf just to name a few. All while looking to see if I wanted to add any of those to my collection.

I'm quoting the statistical differences between the 7.62x39 and 300 BO because they can both be had in the same platform should I choose to add them (the Ruger Mini) so any platform specific differences would be negated. Further, both commonly launch 123-125grn class 30 cal bullets at supersonic velocities, both are capable of delivering higher velocities with lighter, 90grn class bullets, and both are heavy bullet sub-sonic, 200grn class, capable.

The primary difference between the 2 calibers isn't their bullet diameters, it's the fact that the 7.62x39 has a slightly larger case and uses rifle powders while the 300 BO has a slightly smaller case and uses magnum pistol powders. In all categories, in all bullet weights the 7.62x39 is capable of launching a similar weight bullet at a higher supersonic velocity than the 300 BO is.

Those are the facts. Make of them what you will. They may not matter to you, or they may. It's not material. None of the data indites the efficacy of the 300 BO in an AR, it's performance and use in the AR platform is a good tradeoff. It's ease of converting a std 5.56 AR is fact. So are the ballistic advantages of the 7.62x39 should one choose to exploit them.

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

All great points, though the 7.62x39 launches at higher velocity theoretically because of the higher BC of the 300Blkout bullets it should carry more energy down range at the 200 and 250 yard lengths.

Both rounds can be delivered out of the AR15 rifle now but in my experience the one big benefit of cheap ammo of the Russian variety that works great in the AK style doesn't work all that great in the AR15 rifle.

[rickyrick]

I think if 7.62 commie ammunition hadn’t been designed with such a dramatic taper, it would be dominating the AR world right now. Doing good on it’s own, for sure.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by Mr.RevolverGuy

All great points, though the 7.62x39 launches at higher velocity theoretically because of the higher BC of the 300Blkout bullets it should carry more energy down range at the 200 and 250 yard lengths.

You're joking right? Higher BC?

A comparison between a theoretical 125grn .308" dia bullet with the same ojive as a theoretical 125grn .311" dia bullet would yield a BC of .368 for the 300 BO and .362 for the 7.62x39. A third order difference isn't going to make a bit of difference vice the average 200-250 fps increase the 7.62x39 has over the 300 BO.

Per Handloads.com's Ballistic calculator with only a 200fps difference:

7.62x39: 125grn - MV = 2450fps, 300yds V = 1,794fps

300 BO: 125grn - MV = 2250fps, 300yds V = 1,640fps

[Nathan]

The primary difference between the 2 calibers isn't their bullet diameters, it's the fact that the 7.62x39 has a slightly larger case and uses rifle powders while the 300 BO has a slightly smaller case and uses magnum pistol powders. In all categories, in all bullet weights the 7.62x39 is capable of launching a similar weight bullet at a higher supersonic velocity than the 300 BO is.

... and this is why this is an apples to oranges comparison. I can build a 7" 308 win, but should I?

The value of 300 Blk is that it performs well in 7-10" guns....that is not where 7.62 commie or 5.56 do their best work...

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by Nathan

... and this is why this is an apples to oranges comparison. I can build a 7" 308 win, but should I?

The value of 300 Blk is that it performs well in 7-10" guns....that is not where 7.62 commie or 5.56 do their best work...

Once again, read carefully. I specifically stated that I was comparing a couple of carbines. The truth is, most people don't want an SBR. I've got the $$ and the legal ability to own one in my state. In addition, I've shot them a fair amount as well as a young friend of my son has 3 of them.

Lots of noise without a suppressor, poor balance with a suppressor, lots of hassle to get an SBR and double the hassle if you add getting a suppressor, lots of regulations to follow, lots of Big Brother as you are put "on the list", lots more liability, try to sell it, etc., etc., etc.

However, if you really want an SBR and go through all the hoops and expense to get one, then the 300 BO in an AR is a decent choice. As you said, it's the single thing it's good at.

[Sharkbite]

However, if you really want an SBR and go through all the hoops and expense to get one, then the 300 BO in an AR is a decent choice. As you said, it's the single thing it's good at.

I’ll admit my first foray into 300blk WAS with an SBR. After shooting that a bunch i picked up a boltaction (700) to see how quiet i could get the round to be. Subs loaded with the right powder give almost a dry trigger press level of sound at the rifle (ok, its not THAT quiet). Its a hoot to shoot.

If i was a hunter, piggies at close range would be no problem. Lots of youtube vids of guys doing just that. Most shots are bang/flop kinda kills. Now, with subs you are dealing with rainbow trajectories and pistol energy levels, but it will donthe job and not make any noise doing it.

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

Steve,

We all know you are brilliant so I will chalk it up to me not being clear in my communications. I agree with you on the same of everything but that is usually not the case. Meaning comparing factory ammo it is usually 123gr 7.62x39 vs the 125gr 300blkout.



So no I am not joking there is a difference in energy though very slight there is a difference in factory loaded ammunition.