CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Of course there are better options for supersonics. There are not, however, too many better options that do BOTH heavy subs and light supers. The .300 does very well on game within its limitations.
Why .300 blackout?
- Thread starter BigBore45
- Start date
- Status
DannyLandrum
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2017
- Messages
- 439
"There are not, however, too many better options that do BOTH heavy subs and light supers."
True - but that hints at the problem. To *me*, a gun should be (and mine are) dedicated to one load, period, that it shoots well and the scope is sighted in for. Other people may have time to change stuff up all the time, but I don't. I'd rather get a 2nd complete gun, dedicated to one task (and therefore one load) - in which case a fighter will be in 5.56 nato, .224 valk, 6.5 grendel etc. This idea of lots of different tasks (or even 2 tasks) for just one gun is antithetical to my entire gun-owning paradigm; that's just me; hence the source of my comments. At least it's not a jack of all trades; master of none. It is in fact a master of one - but only one trade - "triple-S" guns. To me, doesn't make sense to try to force it into a stretch role for it. Exception would be that it's truly your only centerfire rifle, *and* you have some job in LE where a triple-S gun is needed. That's a rare set of circumstances.
True - but that hints at the problem. To *me*, a gun should be (and mine are) dedicated to one load, period, that it shoots well and the scope is sighted in for. Other people may have time to change stuff up all the time, but I don't. I'd rather get a 2nd complete gun, dedicated to one task (and therefore one load) - in which case a fighter will be in 5.56 nato, .224 valk, 6.5 grendel etc. This idea of lots of different tasks (or even 2 tasks) for just one gun is antithetical to my entire gun-owning paradigm; that's just me; hence the source of my comments. At least it's not a jack of all trades; master of none. It is in fact a master of one - but only one trade - "triple-S" guns. To me, doesn't make sense to try to force it into a stretch role for it. Exception would be that it's truly your only centerfire rifle, *and* you have some job in LE where a triple-S gun is needed. That's a rare set of circumstances.
We've only talked about the .300 subs from a supressor.
The load I used in my RAR was a 265 (edit:245)mbc bullet, over 4.5- 5gr of 231. It was much more pleasant to shoot with no hearing protection, than anything I own, even my hipoint 9mm running 147s at about th same speed.
I don't really have any use for such a loading/round, so it didn't stay in my stable long, but I can see how others DO appreciate it.
The load I used in my RAR was a 265 (edit:245)mbc bullet, over 4.5- 5gr of 231. It was much more pleasant to shoot with no hearing protection, than anything I own, even my hipoint 9mm running 147s at about th same speed.
I don't really have any use for such a loading/round, so it didn't stay in my stable long, but I can see how others DO appreciate it.
Last edited:
I was only aware of a 245gr bullet from MBC. Perhaps you are referring to the 265gr from Acme?
Opps, miss typed, 245MBC is correct....not sure where i got 265 from.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's pretty short sighted. With a change in load, or even just the bullet, one can go from varmints to elk or moose. The one gun, one load concept may work for you but I would never even consider it. Only in fixed sight handguns.
That said, in the case of the .300BO, I shoot subs out of the braced pistol AR and supers out of a Ruger American.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
The 7.62x39 is a horrible fit in the AR. Too fat in the butt, so feeding is a problem and material is stolen from the bolt to make space for the larger rim. The AR is already limited by bolt strength (it is THE limit on the pressure of military rounds) despite MP testing. Removing material from the bolt simply makes the problem worse.
The .300BLK does exactly what it's supposed to do, providing a correctly sized .308 round for the small AR platform.
jf89
Member
There seems to be more options for premium 300 BO ammo. Also, if you are running a can , wouldnt the .300 BO have an advantage? The x39mm is a cool round that is dirt cheap, this is probably just another apples to oranges thing. I know Rob Ski of the AK Operators Union claimed there was activity from politicians to ban Russian ammo. If that is true ,I am not sure how the American market would fill that void.
Sushigaijin
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 43
I have a hard time finding x39 bullets or loaded ammo other than imported FMJ type ammo - the imported hollow points and SP are steel core so they are effectively FMJ too. .308, on the other hand, I have a dozen different choices of bullet and even more loaded ammo at my local Bass Pro. I have a hard time shipping bullets/ammo due to where I live, so cash and carry is a huge advantage for me.
Pistol powders and standard primers and easy to find brass are big advantages. I've been shopping the Cabela's sales (30% off Hornady bullets/reloading supplies
) and buying loaded UMC .300aac target rounds for $17/20 pc as my source of brass. By the time I reload the cases a half dozen times, each round costs just over 10 cents. They usually shoot sub MOA out of my 16" 300aac. I have the math around here somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up.
An 8" SBR or pistol in .300aac shoots a 110g vmax at about 1900 fps with hardly any extra muzzle blast, and very mild concussion and recoil. The x39 throws a huge fireball (slow burning rifle powders) and the recoil, while still relatively light, is much heavier than 300aac. Quite frankly my home defense gun shouldn't be longer than 8" bbl, and for that purpose there are substantial benefits for reduced muzzle flash and recoil. Either round has enough power for HD, so all things being equal I'll take the one I can find on the shelf, with less flash and concussion, out of a smaller gun.
It's not a 30-06, but I don't need that type of power in an HD gun.
Pistol powders and standard primers and easy to find brass are big advantages. I've been shopping the Cabela's sales (30% off Hornady bullets/reloading supplies
) and buying loaded UMC .300aac target rounds for $17/20 pc as my source of brass. By the time I reload the cases a half dozen times, each round costs just over 10 cents. They usually shoot sub MOA out of my 16" 300aac. I have the math around here somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. An 8" SBR or pistol in .300aac shoots a 110g vmax at about 1900 fps with hardly any extra muzzle blast, and very mild concussion and recoil. The x39 throws a huge fireball (slow burning rifle powders) and the recoil, while still relatively light, is much heavier than 300aac. Quite frankly my home defense gun shouldn't be longer than 8" bbl, and for that purpose there are substantial benefits for reduced muzzle flash and recoil. Either round has enough power for HD, so all things being equal I'll take the one I can find on the shelf, with less flash and concussion, out of a smaller gun.
It's not a 30-06, but I don't need that type of power in an HD gun.
DannyLandrum
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2017
- Messages
- 439
With a change in load, or even just the bullet, one can go from varmints to elk or moose.
Right, and I think that's great for you, if that's what you think you really need. I just want to point out and emphasize to relative-newbs who may perhaps be reading that this whole giant industry theme / meme of "changing this one gat into many different things/ calibers/ configs with uppers, slides, ammo choice, etc to do everything" is way overblown and not really practical for the vast majority of people. If you're not rich enough to have lots and lots of leisure time, who on earth has time to switch stuff out all the time and re-zero scopes all the time? It's way way more efficient, for our short lives here, to simply buy a different gat and dedicate each the one load that represents that gat's purpose. The bottom line is that .300 BLK makes no sense to try to push into two roles (instead of just the one triple S role) unless you're in one of these extraordinarily-tiny fractions of the population:
1. Very very poor; so much so that you can only afford one gun; and yet you have a lot of free time somehow; AND you have a job or mission that requires stealthy house-clearing or some such , where a triple-S gun is needed; AND you're a hunter too (or want supers for self-defense);
2. Very rich affording you plenty of free time to switch stuff out and re-zero constantly, But yet somehow you refuse to buy more than one gun (totally irrationally), or you're in a jurisdiction which only allows the ownership of only one rifle yet still somehow allows tacti-gats; AND you have a need for stealthy house-clearing type capabilities, AND you're a hunter too (or want supers for self-defense)
Since realistically like 12 people on the planet are in one of these categories, that makes touting the dual-role capabilities of .300 BLK a non-issue.... not a check in the pro column as widely claimed. In my opinion.
Whereas getting a .300 BLK and dedicating it to the one role it's great at makes perfect sense (even if you cannot afford the tax stamps for two of the Ss, it should be subsonic). It's a great option for that. Everyone does realize that the ideal twist rates are different for each role, and that re-zeroing a scope takes up a lot of time? Even if you don't hunt, but just want supers for self-defense role, are you really going to ever re-zero your self-defense super gun for subs, taking away its self-defense readiness? I doubt it, unless you have other self defense guns... but remember, we've already established that if you can afford more than one, this makes no sense. This industry-marketing-driven silliness is the actual short sightedness; the actual bucking of reality. Maybe if we could revert to a time when taxes and the rent weren't too damned high, and we didn't all have to work so much, this would make sense. But this is not the society we live in.
Just trying to help buck this silly trend of changing everything out on one receiver (or in this case, changing ammo and scope zero) to do multiple roles - this is something that helps the industry sell stuff, but does not help the average person. This is one of many many examples.
Right, and I think that's great for you, if that's what you think you really need. I just want to point out and emphasize to relative-newbs who may perhaps be reading that this whole giant industry theme / meme of "changing this one gat into many different things/ calibers/ configs with uppers, slides, ammo choice, etc to do everything" is way overblown and not really practical for the vast majority of people. If you're not rich enough to have lots and lots of leisure time, who on earth has time to switch stuff out all the time and re-zero scopes all the time? It's way way more efficient, for our short lives here, to simply buy a different gat and dedicate each the one load that represents that gat's purpose. The bottom line is that .300 BLK makes no sense to try to push into two roles (instead of just the one triple S role) unless you're in one of these extraordinarily-tiny fractions of the population:
1. Very very poor; so much so that you can only afford one gun; and yet you have a lot of free time somehow; AND you have a job or mission that requires stealthy house-clearing or some such , where a triple-S gun is needed; AND you're a hunter too (or want supers for self-defense);
2. Very rich affording you plenty of free time to switch stuff out and re-zero constantly, But yet somehow you refuse to buy more than one gun (totally irrationally), or you're in a jurisdiction which only allows the ownership of only one rifle yet still somehow allows tacti-gats; AND you have a need for stealthy house-clearing type capabilities, AND you're a hunter too (or want supers for self-defense)
Since realistically like 12 people on the planet are in one of these categories, that makes touting the dual-role capabilities of .300 BLK a non-issue.... not a check in the pro column as widely claimed. In my opinion.
Whereas getting a .300 BLK and dedicating it to the one role it's great at makes perfect sense (even if you cannot afford the tax stamps for two of the Ss, it should be subsonic). It's a great option for that. Everyone does realize that the ideal twist rates are different for each role, and that re-zeroing a scope takes up a lot of time? Even if you don't hunt, but just want supers for self-defense role, are you really going to ever re-zero your self-defense super gun for subs, taking away its self-defense readiness? I doubt it, unless you have other self defense guns... but remember, we've already established that if you can afford more than one, this makes no sense. This industry-marketing-driven silliness is the actual short sightedness; the actual bucking of reality. Maybe if we could revert to a time when taxes and the rent weren't too damned high, and we didn't all have to work so much, this would make sense. But this is not the society we live in.
Just trying to help buck this silly trend of changing everything out on one receiver (or in this case, changing ammo and scope zero) to do multiple roles - this is something that helps the industry sell stuff, but does not help the average person. This is one of many many examples.
Last edited:
jf89
Member
.300 B0 might surpass x39 in availability in a few years. There is more R&D going into it since some groups in our military and some LEAs use it. The x39 is a good round but its past its time while the .300 is still new and has room to grow.
rbernie
Contributing Member
For home / self defense, supersonic 300AAC 125gr varmint loads would seem to be equivalent to pre-expanded 223/5.56 NATO in terms of terminal performance, without concerns regarding any potential for 223 loads to penetrate without expanding or fragmenting.
For hunting use, supersonic 300AAC has proven to be about as useful inside of 200 yards as 7.62X39. While the chrono tells me that the 125gr supersonic 300AAC lags the equivilent 7.62X39 loads by about 5% in muzzle velocity, nothing I’ve ever shot has been able to tell the difference.
For the reloader, bullets and brass for 300AAC are far more plentiful and easier to find than 7.62x39.
For the armoror, magazine and bolt compatibility with 223/5.56NATO reduces the number of unique parts needed on hand to keep the rifle collection running.
All in all, I think that it’s a pretty useful and versatile chambering, even in supersonic guise. I don’t understand why it seems that some people need to bag on the chambering.
For hunting use, supersonic 300AAC has proven to be about as useful inside of 200 yards as 7.62X39. While the chrono tells me that the 125gr supersonic 300AAC lags the equivilent 7.62X39 loads by about 5% in muzzle velocity, nothing I’ve ever shot has been able to tell the difference.
For the reloader, bullets and brass for 300AAC are far more plentiful and easier to find than 7.62x39.
For the armoror, magazine and bolt compatibility with 223/5.56NATO reduces the number of unique parts needed on hand to keep the rifle collection running.
All in all, I think that it’s a pretty useful and versatile chambering, even in supersonic guise. I don’t understand why it seems that some people need to bag on the chambering.
Sushigaijin
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 43
I think you're overgeneralizing. Supers out of a carbine length barrel are roughly equal in energy to 6.5 grendel or x39. Think 125g SST @ 2400 FPS. That's a solid pig or deer gun. At hunting ranges (100-200 m) the grendel, 6.8spc, 300aac and x39 are all very similar terminally. I agree that it is foolhardy to expect one gun to perform equally well at several different niche uses, but the 300aac performs adequately outside of triple-S. You could do worse for a pig or dig caliber out of an AR carbine - I think 5.56 NATO qualifies as worse (against deer and pigs). Ballistically, the 300aac arcs with a similar graph to the x39 - one is not substantially more aerodynamic than the other, and they both hustle along at similar speeds with similar momentum. Once the non-ballistic advantages/disadvantages are weighted, it surely comes down to synergy with the users' life - convenience, price, etc. I certainly wouldn't discount supersonic carbine bbl blackout because it doesn't do supersonic well - it does supersonic just as well as x39, and is a toss up with the other common AR calibers. Edit: I was composing this as rbernie was. Seems we offer the same conclusion.
someguy2800
Member
The russian 7.62x39 ammo is steel jacketed, not steel cored. The jackets are an anealed copper plated steel, but yes not all of them reliably expand. .308 diameter bullets shoot great from a .311 bore. I have 3 different rifles I handload for with .311” or greater bores and they all shoot as well or better with .308 bullets.
the simplist answer is that it can do everything the 7.62x39 ACTUALLY does (yea I know some hot ComBlock states loaded it to 2400FPS), with better accuracy, reliability, and compatibility than the X39, and can do it cheaper than good quality X39. Every factory round of X39 I have chronoed, and every listed load tested from an actual firearm seems to be right exactly where the BO is in speed and weight. For handloaders, the BO makes more sense, for non handloader the X39 does, but they do the same thing. My BO feeds 30M1 bullets fine, so I can load it for 19c per round, about the same as the X39 is loaded, but the BO wont flatten rifling nearly as fast, wont eat the lead as fast, and my BO rifle weighs in at 6.2LB. I do like the X39 by the way, but the BO is a lot easier to use in an AR. Of corse I hear good X39 mags are available now, the lack of them was probably the biggest driving force for the BO. I do not recomend the BO to anyone who does not reload.
someguy2800
Member
Buy a scope that has turrets with dials and write down how much adjustment is needed to go from subs to supers. It’s not rocket science.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I can't believe I'm responding to a post referring to firearms as "gat".
Gimme a break. It literally takes minutes. It's no different from the guy who takes his .243 from hunting varmints to deer. Or his .30-06 from deer to moose. Especially in this age of modern optics.
My posts regarding the dual role the .300BO serves don't have a damned thing to do with marketing hype. Not everyone who disagrees with you has fallen victim to hype. That's the "hype" I'm tired of hearing.
Newsflash, most "rich people" (whatever that means) do NOT have "lots of leisure time". I don't know how you came up with that.
Sushigaijin
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 43
Are you sure? I seem to recall that the cheap x39 had a steel rod beneath the point - I could be mistaken, I know that there is conflicting information on the web. I do know they are steel jacketed (copper plated) as well, but I thought the steel rod was the reason they don't like the imported stuff at the range. Edit: Nevermind, seems like consensus is steel jacket, with steel core ammo being limited to old milsurp and now expensive.
Yep, there used to be a lot of steel core Chinese 7.62X9 on the market, super cheap, along with $150 AKs, but no more. And if you can find it, as you posted, it's expensive.
captain awesome
Member
Personally if I were looking at a subsonic hunting rig I would look elsewhere. Large diameter bullets like 45 cal in heavy weights like 350 grains or more. In a cartridge that can push them to just under the sound barrier. In a platform that can be cycled easily and quickly with out the guaranteed noise of a semiautomatics action every time its fired...sure you can turn off the gas cycling system in some, but then cycling an ar15 manually isn't all that quick compared to say, a lever action.
In another thread, someone just posted that Primary Arms is selling Anderson lowers for 29.99. The obvious solution is to build a .300 BO, then a 7.62x39, a 6.5 Grendel, a 6.8 SPC, a .224 Valkyrie, a .458 SOCOM and a .450 Bushmaster. Surely, each of us can afford roughly $250 in lowers and then spend about $500-1000 for each build. It is for scientific research to prove with mathematical certainty which one is the true righteous cartridge. Sure, you might not be able to afford a place to sleep or be able to buy food by the time you build these out and buy sufficient ammo and reloading supplies but that is the price of scientific advance.
Then, we musn't forget the wildcats--the sharps, the wolverine, etc.--it would be unfair to not explore these potential revolutionary cartridges that overturn all others. Also, we just need to get the price and parts compatibility down for the AR-10 and we have all of those larger cartridges to play with and perhaps wildcat? Let a thousand cartridges bloom which will spur new ammo production, new AR parts, sales of reloading supplies and equipment, and ensure full employment for everyone.
In a more practical vein, cartridge and caliber wars while amusing will never produce the "aha" moment and satisfaction of proving the heretics who depart from the righteous cartridge that they are wrong. As for me, viva la difference and let the readers separate the facts from opinion in these threads.
Then, in one hundred years, our descendants will be arguing the virtues of particular laser wavelengths and energy levels for a personal laser blaster. There is nothing new under the sun.
Then, we musn't forget the wildcats--the sharps, the wolverine, etc.--it would be unfair to not explore these potential revolutionary cartridges that overturn all others. Also, we just need to get the price and parts compatibility down for the AR-10 and we have all of those larger cartridges to play with and perhaps wildcat? Let a thousand cartridges bloom which will spur new ammo production, new AR parts, sales of reloading supplies and equipment, and ensure full employment for everyone.
In a more practical vein, cartridge and caliber wars while amusing will never produce the "aha" moment and satisfaction of proving the heretics who depart from the righteous cartridge that they are wrong. As for me, viva la difference and let the readers separate the facts from opinion in these threads.
Then, in one hundred years, our descendants will be arguing the virtues of particular laser wavelengths and energy levels for a personal laser blaster. There is nothing new under the sun.
Jessesky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
- Messages
- 981
At this point might as well get a pistol caliber carbine and take advantage of the larger wound channel, cheaper ammo, and better everything over a subsonic .300. Only advantage is you can also load supersonic with .300. And if you handload the x39 can do everything the .300 can but cheaper. .300 never caught on when it was the .300 whisper, I don’t think it will be around in large numbers for much longer.
If it’s primarily for subsonics, get the performance of a .45 caliber bullet. If it’s for supersonic Just as often, then go for it.
The reason Blackout never caught on as the Whisper was because the latter was a proprietary design. To get parts (ie barrels, reamers, etc) you had to buy it from one source. AAC changed the leade and out it on the market open source. Blackout isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
So the .300BO sucks because you can do what it does with a .45 AND a 7.62x39??? You make the case for it perfectly.
Jessesky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
- Messages
- 981
Well I don’t think it does as well as a .45 is what I’m saying.So the .300BO sucks because you can do what it does with a .45 AND a 7.62x39??? You make the case for it perfectly.
- Status
Similar threads
