.300 AAC for a youth deer rifle?
- Thread starter IdahoSkies
- Start date
- Status
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
my favorite load when i was experimenting with this caliber in an AK (just a barrel swap with a 5.56 AK) i was using 150 grain hornady SSTs with 23 grains IMR 3031 and getting a tad over 2100fps... which was nearly identical to 154 grain 7.62x39, loaded to 57.4mm COAL
this is about a 62,000 PSI load
climbnjump
Member
Also, SAAMI max average pressure for the 300 BLK is 55,000 psi, not 62,000 psi...
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
quickload?
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
well theres your problem.. the brass can handle 62kpsi (i use 5.56 nato brass), the rifle can handle 62kpsi, but youre loading it 7kpsi short
I don't face palm much but I am making an exception for this thread.
Yes, You can hunt deer with a 300 BO. Good factory loads are the Barnes bullet Tac Tx , the Varmageddon, and Hornady VMax. You can hot rod any of the 110's up to 2500 FPS if you don't mind going overpressure a bit and even some of the factory loads are notably a bit over pressure and show signs of such.
Yes, You can hunt deer with a 300 BO. Good factory loads are the Barnes bullet Tac Tx , the Varmageddon, and Hornady VMax. You can hot rod any of the 110's up to 2500 FPS if you don't mind going overpressure a bit and even some of the factory loads are notably a bit over pressure and show signs of such.
Just how compressed is this load?
The industry standard interior ballistics software.
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,153
Sorry Justin22885; I have to call your bluff on your b.s.
I didn't think your numbers jived. They don't.
I just checked three random .300blk cases. Weighed capacity of IMR3031 to top of case mouth:
R-P .300BLK ofb (not sized or decapped, not trimmed). 21.6grn
FC-10 mil spec. (". ). 21.8grn
R-P reformed from .223... 21.8grn
A far cry from what you claim !!!
FC-11 5.56 case. Held 26.8grn IMR3031.
I built a .300blk upper for same reason as original poster. I got a used bbl with mid-length gas port. Only Acc5744, Acc1680, and Reloader7 will adequately gas the system, but don't match the velocities of H110/Win296.
I suggest you check your notes a little closer...
I didn't think your numbers jived. They don't.
I just checked three random .300blk cases. Weighed capacity of IMR3031 to top of case mouth:
R-P .300BLK ofb (not sized or decapped, not trimmed). 21.6grn
FC-10 mil spec. (". ). 21.8grn
R-P reformed from .223... 21.8grn
A far cry from what you claim !!!
FC-11 5.56 case. Held 26.8grn IMR3031.
I built a .300blk upper for same reason as original poster. I got a used bbl with mid-length gas port. Only Acc5744, Acc1680, and Reloader7 will adequately gas the system, but don't match the velocities of H110/Win296.
I suggest you check your notes a little closer...
Jlr2267
Member
This is why I ask Justin22885 for a specific recipe. Thought we should give him/her a chance to make their case. The numbers don't work. Now we know what we're dealing with...
Your physics must not be right. All you have to do is jam more rifle powder in there and fire in in his vaporware AK.
Try IMR 4227 and 4198. Both work very well in short and long barrel AR's.
Yep, really irresponsible IYAM.
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,153
I've actually tried both 4227's, and both IMR and old stock H4198. Not enough port pressure! (Old H4198 is in rectangular cardboard/metal containers... Got several pounds at '70's prices!).
Even tried #2400, BlueDot, and others!
Even tried #2400, BlueDot, and others!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
To be fair, that's NOT what Justin said. He said if you form a .300 AAC/BO case you can get that much water in it, not that much IMR3031. And that the case will hold more water than a 5.56NATO case.
Here's the quote:
What Justin has missed here is the difference between "usable case capacity" and the volumetric measure of grains of water to fill a case to its mouth. So that case, with its blown open neck, will hold more water than a 5.56NATO case, with its much smaller neck. (The necks, and a bit more than that usually, being full of BULLET, not powder, in a loaded cartridge.)
Now what he DID say about powder was that he gets 23 grains of 3031 in it. And that seems to be a little over a grain beyond what should ever fit.
Last edited:
The thread is about hunting and 200m shots at live game.
For that, the 6.8 or 6.5 would be better as they are offered in hunting ammo, have about 5 years more development toward that goal, and the market offers more hunting choices.
In use, the gun could be sighted in for a longer point blank range which would reduce the holdover guesstimation a younger shooter would need for the slower .30 bullets.
This really isn't a discussion of how one or the other would handload it - it's about choosing the better live target application. 6.8 or 6.5 is a better choice, and between the two, 6.8 offers a lot more ammo diversity. Go 6.8.
This is a false claim by AAC. The .300BO was originally developed by SSK as a suppressed round, not supersonic. It was predated by early 3Gun wildcatters trying to get the AR15 into competition. The rules then expressly prohibited anything but .30 and up as Real Men didn't use poodleshooters. Regardless that some competitors came up with a rules legal .30 x 5.56 round, they were tossed off the courses. Eventually the AR15 was accepted - but nobody bothered to make .300 WHISPER a competitive round, because, it isn't. Higher loaded ammo costs and more bullet drop aren't attractive qualities.
As for "who" came up with a hunting round to use where .223 wasn't allowed, NONE were "developed" for that purpose. The early .300's were a dodge around competition rules, 6.8 was a Special Forces/AMU project to increase power 50% over 5.56, and the 6.5 was intended and did earn long distance precision target competition awards. Only the 6.8 was intended for use on live targets at range - which should be enough reason to choose it. And many many do.
What we have is a market place that pushes the lastest Cartridge of the Month, vs calculating what cartridge you need for that specific task. If it's a live target, go with ballistics, not some arcane discussion of handloading. It's about reach and power, not what bullet neck it might have. 6.8 has the reach and power above and beyond 5.56, which is where it counts. .300BO might show some nice numbers if you pick and choose them, but the amount of long range hunting ammo on the market shelf is much more limited because a lot of .300BO shooters aren't creating much demand. 6.8 did and has.
Here's the "metric" to consider - how far will the round hold 1,000 foot pounds of force? That's the commonly accepted ethical minimum, and at that range, it's also an example of how efficient the bullet shape will be holding it. Look at the numbers and also the hold over to keep it on target, then choose. At least it will be based on it's actual reach and power, not an internet discussion between two players attempting to pull rank in their imagined social hierarchy. The goal is a downed animal taken cleanly.
For that, the 6.8 or 6.5 would be better as they are offered in hunting ammo, have about 5 years more development toward that goal, and the market offers more hunting choices.
In use, the gun could be sighted in for a longer point blank range which would reduce the holdover guesstimation a younger shooter would need for the slower .30 bullets.
This really isn't a discussion of how one or the other would handload it - it's about choosing the better live target application. 6.8 or 6.5 is a better choice, and between the two, 6.8 offers a lot more ammo diversity. Go 6.8.
This is a false claim by AAC. The .300BO was originally developed by SSK as a suppressed round, not supersonic. It was predated by early 3Gun wildcatters trying to get the AR15 into competition. The rules then expressly prohibited anything but .30 and up as Real Men didn't use poodleshooters. Regardless that some competitors came up with a rules legal .30 x 5.56 round, they were tossed off the courses. Eventually the AR15 was accepted - but nobody bothered to make .300 WHISPER a competitive round, because, it isn't. Higher loaded ammo costs and more bullet drop aren't attractive qualities.
As for "who" came up with a hunting round to use where .223 wasn't allowed, NONE were "developed" for that purpose. The early .300's were a dodge around competition rules, 6.8 was a Special Forces/AMU project to increase power 50% over 5.56, and the 6.5 was intended and did earn long distance precision target competition awards. Only the 6.8 was intended for use on live targets at range - which should be enough reason to choose it. And many many do.
What we have is a market place that pushes the lastest Cartridge of the Month, vs calculating what cartridge you need for that specific task. If it's a live target, go with ballistics, not some arcane discussion of handloading. It's about reach and power, not what bullet neck it might have. 6.8 has the reach and power above and beyond 5.56, which is where it counts. .300BO might show some nice numbers if you pick and choose them, but the amount of long range hunting ammo on the market shelf is much more limited because a lot of .300BO shooters aren't creating much demand. 6.8 did and has.
Here's the "metric" to consider - how far will the round hold 1,000 foot pounds of force? That's the commonly accepted ethical minimum, and at that range, it's also an example of how efficient the bullet shape will be holding it. Look at the numbers and also the hold over to keep it on target, then choose. At least it will be based on it's actual reach and power, not an internet discussion between two players attempting to pull rank in their imagined social hierarchy. The goal is a downed animal taken cleanly.
This seems to be the key point. I ran his charge weight in QL, and the velocity was basically what he claimed and the pressure somewhat less than he claimed. But I don't see how you actually get it in the case. It's got a filling/load ratio of about 130%. It seems to me you'd either get a bulged case or the bullet wouldn't stay seated.
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
heres the problem i see with .300 blackout and its probably the similar problem i see with 154 grain 7.62x39 ammo and that is that at 100-200 yards the velocity of the 300 blackout fired bullet is about the same as youd get at 600 yards or further if fired from a .308 (which almost all these bullets were designed for) and hunting bullets are designed to be optimal at the 100-200 yard mark for the cartridge they were designed for, which puts the velocity these bullets need something like 600fps faster than what youre actually going to get... just something to consider
from seeing the ballistics tests of 154 grain JSP loads that i use in my AK, the wound track looks no better at close to point blank range than what youd expect to see from a 9mm handgun.. certain .223/5.56 bullets like the 65 grain sierra SPBT and 75 grain hornady HPBT have better wound tracks than 7.62x39, and probably also .308 bullets fired from a .300 blackout
can it be used to hunt with?.. sure, is it ideal? probably less ideal than even 5.56 with the proper ammo.. there may be a HUGE bullet selection for .308" bullets, but only an incredibly small amount of them will perform optimally at 300 blackout velocities... the 125 grain SST may be your best bet for a blackout hunting bullet, i believe these were made specifically for hunting with the blackout.. use these, and you should be all set
from seeing the ballistics tests of 154 grain JSP loads that i use in my AK, the wound track looks no better at close to point blank range than what youd expect to see from a 9mm handgun.. certain .223/5.56 bullets like the 65 grain sierra SPBT and 75 grain hornady HPBT have better wound tracks than 7.62x39, and probably also .308 bullets fired from a .300 blackout
can it be used to hunt with?.. sure, is it ideal? probably less ideal than even 5.56 with the proper ammo.. there may be a HUGE bullet selection for .308" bullets, but only an incredibly small amount of them will perform optimally at 300 blackout velocities... the 125 grain SST may be your best bet for a blackout hunting bullet, i believe these were made specifically for hunting with the blackout.. use these, and you should be all set
Ibmikey
Member
If you can find one of the Ruger American Ranch rifles in 300 Blackout you would have the perfect youth rifle for northern Idaho hunting. I have had one on BO for months, the .223 is everywhere but not the 300.
There's one on gunbroker now.
Theres one in the gun shop down the street. Actually saw the sales guy tell a buyer that it was hard to get ammo for them. They had 4 different types on the shelf which is ironically more varieties than they had of 7mm. I was up in Yakima yesterday at the mini cabelas up there and there were 13 different types of 300 BO on the shelf.
The caliber has gone mainstream.
The caliber has gone mainstream.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
There's a Ruger American Ranch in .300 BO at the gun shop near me too. And it's a tiny little town (but surrounded by farms and ranches). I was tempted to buy it. Very tempted, but after a whole bunch of research of both factory and handloads, I've decided on the 7.62x39 instead.
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
Newtosavage, not a bad choice considering ammo costs, cant even handload 300 blackout cheaper than you can buy 7.62x39
farmerboy78
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2010
- Messages
- 946
1680 and 296 seem to be the go to powders from my small amount of loading for a .300BO...
- Status
