How close are we talking? 100 yards or 25 yards?Which would be more effective at close range out of AR 15 with 16" barrel? 556 NATO v. supersonic 300 BO.
Given the choice I'd use 5.56/223. 300 BO was designed to be quiet with a suppressor. At best it still 100-150 fps short of 7.62X39. And 5.56 has proven to be the better than 7.62X39.
Suppressed 300blk, Unsuppressed 556. For all intents and purposes, 556 is more than enough due to ammo cost, if ammo price is not a factor then 300blk…Which would be more effective at close range out of AR 15 with 16" barrel? 556 NATO v. supersonic 300 BO.
.300blk by a fairly large margin. This is what it was designed for.
This.I define effectiveness at close range as the ability of either round in the discussion to stop a threat immediately. Assuming hits are obtained where they need to be (which needs to happen with any round, BTW) I have never seen the 5.56 "fail".
The part about the ballistic results is accurate - bigger bullet more mass more foot pounds, etc.
.300 BO wasn't "designed", it was copied from .300 Whisper. It was widely reported at the time AAC came out with it. Whisper was originally based on a 3 Gun work around in the 1980's to get AR15's into competition because of a rule the rifles had to be .30 caliber. When competitor's arrived with a wildcat, .30 bullet in a 5.56 case, they discovered the rules meant nothing and they weren't allowed to enter competition anyway.
Imagine a governing authority who disregards written rules and tramples all over the participant's interpretations. Gee, that never happens.
That only lasted a few years, and the AR15 was allowed in with 5.56, at which point it quickly dominated competition as it has less recoil and quicker, more accurate follow up shots. At that point .30 x 45 went back to the loading bench as a concept as nobody was going to shoot it by handloading it for competition. 5.56 was cheaper and available, plus has flatter shooting long range capabilities, works good for competition. IE, paper. JDJ worked with it as a subsonic for suppressed use in the 90's, long before AAC.
The first .30 x 45 was really designed to get around a rule meant to keep AR15's out of competition. It was discussed on forums then how AAC just changed a blueprint number and invented a name for it. As have dozens of other "new" cartridges introduced by every manufacturer. Common practice, yet we tend to gloss that over a bit while still aware of .223 vs 5.56, or .308 vs. 7.62, etc etc etc.
Ever hear of the .264 LBC? You might know it as the 6.5 Grendel. That's what kind of games the cartridge makers play.
one uses speed the other use mass to achieve the same thing.
Cherry picking loads and shots taken I prefer a 556/223.
Actually..... personally id pretty much always take the 556. I was very disappointed in the performance I was getting from my blackouts, tho others have done quite a bit better.
If we're actually discussing x39 rounds with 125s at 2400 plus then I'd rather have that, But I never even came close with my blackouts.
Ive taken axis and pigs with the x39 quite a bit, but mostly with late 90s Winchester softpoints, nothing with the newer stuff besides a couple small pigs.Did you ever take any game with the blackout or X39? I know you do a lot of hunting. I've shot deer with my X39 and coyotes with 223. The damage a 50 grain v-max does to a coyote at short range gives me a healthy respect for what the lil 223 can do. Humans are pretty lightly constructed.