Hard toss-up caliber choice

[justin22885]

there are some people who say you cant hunt deer with anything less than a 30-06 (some may even say win mag) but this simply isnt true.. curious where you live where you cant get closer than 400 though

 

[cobra246]

I live in tennessee and can get within 50 or so yards, id jus rather have the range and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[Robert]

Since you didn't answer either question I'll assume that means no.

 

[Paul7]

Not sure just what the appeal is with the .300 Blackout, why not just use a 7.62x39? Cheaper ammo. The owner of a hog hunting camp I recently was at said he saw a recent client use the .300 Blackout on hogs and was distinctly unimpressed.

 

[eldon519]

I got the impression from your post that you have just recently started reloading. If so, I would recommend that you resist the urge to get into lots of calibers that basically do the same thing, at least early on. And I know that it seems like they all do something unique, but in reality, the differences are not that huge. Assuming you like the full spectrum of guns, I'd get yourself setup for a good, common intermediate caliber like .223 or 7.62x39, a good full power rifle round like .308, .30-06, .270, etc, a good pistol caliber like 9, .40, or .45 and a good revolver caliber like .357, .44 or .45 Colt.

I remember thinking I'd unlocked the world when I got into reloading and got into all number of bizarre variations on the same theme. Consequently I just have too much stuff. I wish I'd just focused on fewer rounds and mastered all facets of those rounds. So many of them seem different in conversation or on paper, but at the range will do about the same thing. Just my $.02.

 

[rbernie]

Not sure just what the appeal is with the .300 Blackout, why not just use a 7.62x39? Cheaper ammo.

I hunted with a homebuilt AR15 chambered in 7.62x39 for almost a decade and have largely made the switch to 300AAC for my thirty cal AR-15's, so I'm modestly qualified to address that question.

300AAC is not actually quite as energetic as 7.62x39, so on paper it's not as good a choice. In reality, that difference has not proven to an issue in the field. More to the point, 7.62x39 in an AR platform specifically was never a great fit.

The straight magwell of the AR doesn't accommodate the round stack tilt caused by the tapered 7.62x39 case, and the only fix is to allow excessive tilt and slop in the mag follower to compensate. As well, the larger rim diameter of the 7.62x39 (.447) relative to the 223/300AAC (.378) thins the bolt face to the point where the 7.62x39 bolt life is shortened - not a big deal for an occasional shooter but more important for higher mileage rifles. Finally, it turns out that the really cheap (steel cased) ammo doesn't actually fire reliably in 7.62x39 ARs due to the steel cased ammo's deeper primer pockets, and so either modified bolts and/or firing pins are needed to make that combination reliable.

In the end, the 300AAC is valued because it doesn't require special magazines, doesn't require special bolts or firing pins, and is almost as good ballistically.

 

[Tirod]

I built a 10.5" AR pistol because even tho there were 250m shots - I never got any. And all the bolt gunners and AK shooters in the same parcel never did either. The majority of deer I have seen taken in that section have been 50-80m shots. All those .30-06's, .30-30's, and .308's never went further, including mine over the last 40 years.

400m capability is great working mulies but in typical whitetail conditions its only an open field opportunity. It's relying on something contrary to what most deer do in the rut, as they prefer denser cover after leaf fall. They can forage open fields after dark.

There is one specific safety concern with a switch barrel - will the different cartridges chamber in the other? Cranking a .300BO into a 5.56 barrel isn't a safe practice, and the point of the outfit is to have both together at the same time.

Not that anybody actually goes out into the field doing that. It's been an internet argument for nearly a decade that a switch barrel would be the cat's pajamas for a soldier, why, if he saw a longer range target he could deactivate his weapon, install the other barrel buried in the back pack he was carrying, store the first, swap out the mags in the additional ten extra he was carrying, load up, and ? The enemy doesn't stand up out in the open long. And the rest of the opposing force is trying to fire and maneuver at the same time the soldier is taking his gun out of action.

It boils down to being an expensive gimmick with some disadvantages in safety of use. Not considering them would be important. A .300BO chambered into a 5.56 will explosively destroy the gun and there won't be many parts left to salvage.

I don't often carry two guns to go hunting but when I do the ammo isn't capable of causing a kaboom in either one. The AR is an intermediate action and the choices of ammo for hunting largely overlap. There's little advantage in barrel swapping to gain an incremental opportunity to shoot a different cartridge. If anything that is the flaw in most of the arguments over which is best? - it's a variation inside the same niche application.

 

[rbernie]

So you're making the case for 6.8SPC?

 

[cobra246]

A 6.8 with a 5.56 parent case

 

[rbernie]

Tirod seemed to be making the (valid) point that one of the detractions of 300AAC is the fact that you can (by report - I've never tried it) inadvertently load a 300AAC round into a 5.56 rifle, pull the trigger, and get a KaBOOM. The 6.8SPC avoids that - the case will not fit/feed in a 5.56 bolt face and chamber.

The 6.8/5.56 wildcat will, same as the 300AAC.

 

[eldon519]

I don't think the .277 Wolverine has the same problem. The issue with the .300BO is that the case is drastically shortened so that the case mouth of the .300 is below the shoulder of a 5.56 round meaning the case will fit into a 5.56 chamber and the only thing stopping it from doing so is the bullet which can set-back/telescope into the case. If you look at a .277 Wolverine, the case mouth is about even with the bottom of the 5.56 caseneck and is bigger in diameter. It would not appear to fit into a 5.56 chamber without deforming the brass itself.

 

[rbernie]

Ah, OK. Very good.

 

[MDWS]

Hey all, MDWS here for anyone with 277 Wolverine questions. Saw it mentioned, though I would post up. Happy to help. Thanks!

 

[FL-NC]

I would go with the B-O even though I personally don't care about it. If for no other reason, it seems like one of the few rounds made in the last decade or more that has the real potential for "staying power", as in going beyond "fad" status. As far as the 16" barrel, what harm can more velocity do?