rskent
Member
Well, Take a G19 a G23 and a G38. One is a 9mm. One is a .40. And one is a .45.
They are all the same size. Pretty sure that was what Gaston wanted to accomplish.
Rounds that make you wonder, "what's all the fuss about?"
- Thread starter Jason_W
- Start date
- Status
Well, Take a G19 a G23 and a G38. One is a 9mm. One is a .40. And one is a .45.
They are all the same size. Pretty sure that was what Gaston wanted to accomplish.
GunnyUSMC
Member
I have shot the M&P Shield in both 9mm and 40 S&W. I really hate to shoot single stack compact 40, but that's for another topic " Guns l have no use for". I like the shield in 9mm. For years I really didn't care for the 9mm cartridge. It was cheap to shoot , but ammo for self defense was lacking. Now days there is some really great 9 mm ammo on the market and I carry Speer Gold Dot on and off duty.
For myself, I see no need foe 380 Auto.
I think as my daughter's hand gets stronger, she will go back to her S&W SD9VE, but for now the 380 is keeping her safe.
Now what about the 257 Roberts? I wanted one years ago, even bought a new set of CH dies for reloading, but never got one. I guess I really didn't need one.
FL-NC
Member
I agree completely. I've seen many rounds come and go over the years, with little if any "staying power". They usually just fade away or settle into obscurity as "niche rounds" or "boutique calibers". Take a look at the history of the 38 Super. All of these rounds were "the future" and the "way to go" when they were new. Pistol rounds: 10 mm, 357 Sig, 41 AE, 327 magnum, 480 Ruger, 45 GAP, and so on. The 40 largely worked out though. Rifles- 6.8 SPC, the short mags, 204, and many more. The 300 B/O looks like it will hang around a while due to the suppressor crowd, like another poster stated. But its essentially the same as the 300 Whisper that came out years back- just marketed better by AAC and pushed to the front due to the increasing popularity and availability of suppressors.
Lots of good points brought up.
For me, the .300 Whisper makes a lot of sense but again, this is just for me. First of all, as has been mentioned, it is relatively easy to turn your 5.56 AR-15 into a .300 Whisper (or Blackout). I build my own ARs, so I buy a barrel, take a half hour to install it, and I am off to the races.
I don't really care very much about terminal performance. I am not an avid hunter, although I do hunt on occasion but here where I live the .300 isn't a legal cartridge for deer hunting so again, I don't really care about terminal performance. I shoot frequently at my local club and I am lucky in the fact that I can go during week days when nobody else is there. I am also lucky in the fact that I can and do own suppressors. So, when I am at the range and nobody else is there shooting, I use a suppressor and I don't have to wear hearing protection; which for me is a very nice thing. I happen to really enjoy the AR-15 and the .300 Whisper makes it something that I can shoot at longer ranges, and still have the rifle very quiet. I do own a 5.56 suppressor but am almost always using it with supersonic ammo. It is much quieter with the suppressor than without, but I still feel that I need to wear hearing protection. If I download the 5.56 to subsonic velocities, it is fun but severely limits the ranges that I can shoot it with any degree of precision.
Plus, I have to admit that I enjoy playing with different things. I get bored shooting the same thing all the time. I also enjoy playing around with handloading and seem to always be looking for something new and interesting to mess around with. Right now, the .300 Whisper does that for me. I don't know of any other relatively common cartridge that does for me what the .300 does. And the fun factor is reason enough for me to own and shoot it. If I was the type of guy that had to provide hard evidence as to why I NEEDED some particular thing: I would own two or three guns because in all honesty, two or three guns could do anything I might possibly do with a gun. But, I am not that kind of guy: variety is the spice of life. It keeps things interesting for me. It is the reason I look forward to going to the range or to the reloading bench. It is the reason I read gun forums on-line. If all we were going to talk about was the .30-06 or whatever; that would get real boring, real fast.
So, as has been said: what works for one person might not make any sense to someone else.
For me, the .300 Whisper makes a lot of sense but again, this is just for me. First of all, as has been mentioned, it is relatively easy to turn your 5.56 AR-15 into a .300 Whisper (or Blackout). I build my own ARs, so I buy a barrel, take a half hour to install it, and I am off to the races.
I don't really care very much about terminal performance. I am not an avid hunter, although I do hunt on occasion but here where I live the .300 isn't a legal cartridge for deer hunting so again, I don't really care about terminal performance. I shoot frequently at my local club and I am lucky in the fact that I can go during week days when nobody else is there. I am also lucky in the fact that I can and do own suppressors. So, when I am at the range and nobody else is there shooting, I use a suppressor and I don't have to wear hearing protection; which for me is a very nice thing. I happen to really enjoy the AR-15 and the .300 Whisper makes it something that I can shoot at longer ranges, and still have the rifle very quiet. I do own a 5.56 suppressor but am almost always using it with supersonic ammo. It is much quieter with the suppressor than without, but I still feel that I need to wear hearing protection. If I download the 5.56 to subsonic velocities, it is fun but severely limits the ranges that I can shoot it with any degree of precision.
Plus, I have to admit that I enjoy playing with different things. I get bored shooting the same thing all the time. I also enjoy playing around with handloading and seem to always be looking for something new and interesting to mess around with. Right now, the .300 Whisper does that for me. I don't know of any other relatively common cartridge that does for me what the .300 does. And the fun factor is reason enough for me to own and shoot it. If I was the type of guy that had to provide hard evidence as to why I NEEDED some particular thing: I would own two or three guns because in all honesty, two or three guns could do anything I might possibly do with a gun. But, I am not that kind of guy: variety is the spice of life. It keeps things interesting for me. It is the reason I look forward to going to the range or to the reloading bench. It is the reason I read gun forums on-line. If all we were going to talk about was the .30-06 or whatever; that would get real boring, real fast.
So, as has been said: what works for one person might not make any sense to someone else.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'd say you don't get out much. The .480 has always been popular and Ruger has introduced two new guns chambering in the last two years. It has been poorly marketed and largely eclipsed by the cartoonish X-frame, though the .480 is the most practical of the three cartridges. Same for the .327 once they finally put it in the platform it should've been introduced with. The 10mm continues to be popular among the hunting crowd with new guns chambering it as well. The new Remington offering is very tempting. The .204 has been a huge success. The .41AE is dead but I don't know enough about the .357Sig and .45GAP to comment on them. Except to say that a .45 that fits into a 9mm frame is definitely a good idea. Especially where Glocks are concerned.
I have never understood the resistance against innovation. Some folks seem to trip all over each other to be the first to critique anything new.
Jason_W
Member
I don't know that it's resistance to innovation, just that we all likely have a different idea of what innovation is. Most of the new rounds to emerge in the last 50-70 years have been minor tweaks to do one or two things slightly better than extant rounds, or to fill a very small niche. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. It keeps life interesting and gives us all something to bicker about online. That said, with maybe a few exceptions, there hasn't been a round released in a very long time that could be called revolutionary or groundbreaking (opinion, of course).
What would I call revolutionary? .30-06 ballistic performance from a cartridge that's no longer than a .223 in OAL. Maybe a truly viable caseless ammo system. I know, I set the bar high
I will say that I do understand some of the excitement behind the current 6.5 craze. For example, the Grendel, while not a super powerful round at a glance, holds onto energy to a surprising distance for such a small cartridge. It was also pretty smart to design the creedmoor so that bullet seats far forward so as not to take up too much powder space. Still, these were again minor relatively tweaks to a very old technology.
I know, I'm jaded, cynical, often drunk, and just overall unpleasant to be around.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Not at all but some folks are. 'Some' just can't wait to run the newest thing into the ground without ever even considering anything positive attributes.I know, I'm jaded, cynical, often drunk, and just overall unpleasant to be around.
We're a long way from anything revolutionary. There is very little 'need' that can't be fulfilled with what's already out there. Minor tweaks are all we're going to get. Like I said before, this is a sport of increments. There simply are no huge improvements to be made anywhere, within current technology. So what you're going to get is a 30° shoulder here, 100fps there and continually improved bullets. What I don't understand is this attitude that people are being duped into buying something, before they even know what it is or what it does. Take the .327 Federal for example. Probably the worst reception in recent memory. Everybody in an uproar saying that it wasn't going to replace their .357's. That it did nothing the .357 didn't. It's almost as if they were offended by its introduction, as if there were a law requiring them to buy one. Where were all those people decrying a five shot revolver when they could have six? Those thoughts never even entered my mind. What I saw was the realization of what the .32H&R should have been in the first place, had it not been hampered by H&R's own weak revolver design. Rifle-like performance out of a cartridge that fit into the tidy little Single Six. Probably the best small game and varmint handgun cartridge to ever exist but a lot of folks didn't want to hear that. The list goes on and on.
And these things shouldn't be judged by sales either. Just because an idea didn't sell well enough to stay on the market doesn't mean it was a bad idea or wouldn't have something to offer the individual. The shooting public is fickle and cynical and popularity doesn't necessary correlate with good or bad. Which is true of anything. There are lots of great ideas that are seen as failures due to poor marketing, lackluster sales or just poor timing. Not because they lacked merit.
Further, lots of folks who are interested in new guns/cartridges say they want to wait and see if it takes off. Huh? If half the people who want one think that way, it never will! Then there's this irrational fear of having a gun they can't feed. This is typically completely unfounded and if it is, just as the above, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, if thousands of firearms are made for a particular cartridge, it won't go away in your lifetime.
Now I'm not saying that everything new is wonderful, or that people should buy something just because it's new. I certainly don't. I'm just saying I don't want to be a perpetual critic just for the sake of being critical. Judge based on merit and if it doesn't do anything for you, keep moving. I don't see the point in some of them but I'll be damned if I'll waste five minutes complaining about it. I just don't want to live my life that way. I'm just glad I'm not in the firearms business in any capacity, as a dealer or manufacturer because the cynicism of shooters would make me nuts.
We should consider ourselves lucky to have such a prolific firearms industry. Most of the world doesn't.
Jason_W
Member
We should, but . . .
Interestingly, There's been a good deal of scientific research indicating that ironically, too many choices actually makes a person less happy. Maybe the irrational hatred of new rounds is partially due to that. Maybe gun guys are just often a very change averse bunch.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes but if they were already happy, more choices wouldn't be such a monkey wrench. What I think is closer to the truth is that people just like to have something to complain about.
I'm pretty sure what Glock wanted to accomplish was getting a lot of additional LE contracts for 45-GAP based guns.
Or they're reacting to the gun "journalists'" puff-pieces. We all know that most gun media types are more or less there to be salesmen for the gun industry. That's OK, but every once in a while the claims or coordinated hype gets a little ridiculous and begs for some "argument" from the audience.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's debatable and an entirely different subject. I've met and/or spoken to a number of them and don't find that to be the case at all. It seems to me that the audience needs something from the writer that they cannot give. They obviously expect the writer to do all their thinking and decision making for them and I don't understand that. That's why I suggest judging based on merit, not marketing or 3rd party opinions. Who gives a rat's ass what the marketers say? Just because they do what marketers do does not necessarily mean what they plug is useless. Buy the gun, not the story.
Discussing the merits is fine and highly encouraged. Sometimes we have to figure out what something is good for. Sometimes it's good for something it's not marketed for, like the .327 that is a whole lot better hunting round than it is a self defense cartridge.
Arbitrarily dismissing every single cotton picking new offering just because it's new is counter-productive.
I agree with a lot of that.
Re: gun writers: I haven't spent much time talking with gun writers. I can, however, read. And I understand a little about business. I can use those reading skills to determine that 95+% of articles about a new gun (or variant or cartridge) will be positive. I can make a reasonable guess that this is because most gun writers are, directly or indirectly, reliant upon advertising buys by gun makers. This is typical in the word of specialty media. Most reviews of wines by wine journalists will be positive, because a lot of the associated advertising is from wineries. Most reviews of drums and cymbals by drum writers will be positive... etc., etc.
Few makers are interested in a review that says, "This is a fungible consumer good. It is neither better nor worse than most products available in its category. It's fine. If you already have something in this category, you probably won't get anything new out of it, but it wouldn't be a complete waste of money." Yet that would be an accurate review of a great many guns (or other products, for that matter). That's OK. Some people like to read glowing reviews of every new polymer framed service-caliber pistol or every new variation on an AR or whatever.
But it's also OK to call BS on it. Because sometimes it is BS. And calling it out can be fun.
Agreed about the merits actually standing on their own. I would say that's harder to do when large numbers of users don't have any "merits" in mind beyond liking it, or "functioning flawlessly" for X rounds, or whatever. But in a free society, just liking something is reason enough!
FWIW, a single six in .327 is on my list of to-get guns. I like .32-cal revolvers. I wish the .327 had been (or maybe still will be) a raging success so that companies will crank out lots of .32's. I like 10mm, I like .41 magnum, I like a lot of "oddball" stuff.
FL-NC
Member
Every round you referenced is often not available in gun shops and in my experience- where available- higher priced than comparable rounds from which they are compared. Smart shoppers consider all of these things before they buy. This resulted in more "traditional" or "established" calibers like 9mm, 38 sp. 357 mag, 45 ACP, 44 mag, etc. continuing to hugely eclipse the latest and greatest. Maybe not at first, but fairly quick. The next thing that occurs is that the guns in the "boutique" calibers start drifting around the used market. Lack of demand (at least in my area and where I worked) makes these things sit around a shop forever with low price tags, often having been bought by the shop for a song. The hunting crowd IS a niche crowd- at least as it applies to handguns. The majority of people who do hunt with a handgun (the minority of hunters) use those magnum revolvers. MOST handguns are bought for personal protection from humans and/or target shooting. This (and better laws to permit CCW) is why the market for smaller handguns in 380, 9, and 38 Sp. (and to some extent 40 S&W and 45 ACP) is so competitive. As for the 327, a couple of weeks ago my local crime lab (county population (303,000 in 2000) had to have 327 magnum ammunition overnighted to the shop in order to test ballistics on a crime gun. Because they didn't have a single round on hand to perform any tests with, as to date one had never been used in a crime anywhere in the area, and none could be found on hand from any other agency. The county seat has an overall crime stat of 11- 100 being the safest.
Most people who shoot guns in unusual calibers in any kind of volume become reloaders. Once you're a reloader, the "easy availability" of ammo makes no difference at all.
As stated above, the .300BO is highly misunderstood. Where it really shines is with suppressors. No, the average 200-220gr .308" bullet is not going to expand at subsonic velocities because they're designed for the .300 magnums and people shooting game with those bullets has contributed to any negative reputation it might have. If those folks had used bullets designed to expand at subsonic velocities, the story would be very different. The bonus to the .300BO is that it can also be used to great effect on deer-sized game at supersonic velocities and for this, bullets like the 110gr Barnes do very well. The .300 is able to play this dual role that the .223 is not very well suited to, because a subsonic .223 is just a .22LR. It's a specialized cartridge, not intended to replace your .308 or .223. The .30 Carbine comparison is invalid as well. The Carbine is not only slower with 110gr bullets but it is completely unsuitable for 220gr bullets due to limited overall length and twist rate. Not even in the same ballpark.
You got most of them right. I will add to this:
Ease of finding a bullet in the myriads available from 100-220gr selection available in .308, esp with varmint type projectiles like Vmax and Hornady ELD-X that will expand in subsonic flight.
*** Capacity in an AR platform remains at 30+ rds in the SAME MAGAZINE. *** Quality AR mags are cheaper than almost anything else available.
Ease of converting an existing 5.56 gun (literally a barrel change)
Whether or not you have a supressor, the .300BLK is a nearly perfect SUB-GUN cartridge. It hits harder than 45ACP with more range, and available in a better more modular and familiar platform.
I don't hear too many people complaining that their Thompson or MAC10 in .45ACP won't shoot between mountaintops.
This cartridge is a result of it's platform and not the other way around. It's here to stay, unlike many other boutique cartridges made for the AR15 platform.
And unlike 7.62, 5.56, and a whole lot others, doesn't loose much when shot from an 8.5 inch barrel with an 8inch can on it.
Last edited:
.308 Norma
Member
True, but that's similar to the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I mean, did we become handloaders because we had guns in unusual calibers, or did we buy guns in unusual calibers so that we could become handloaders?
In my case, I love handloading, and will admit to buying a gun or two that I knew full well I'd have to handload for if I was going to shoot it.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Magazines are dependent on advertising dollars, that's a fact but it doesn't meant hat they're helping the industry festoon crap onto the unaware consumer. Writers don't do positive pieces on every new gun just for that reason. They're not going to intentionally piss them off but they're not going to lie on their behalf either. The reason you don't see negative reviews is because bad guns get sent back. In this day and age, a lemon is a relatively rare thing and not representative of any product line, no matter how poor. If a manufacturer can't provide a firearm that works, they don't do articles on them. Nobody wants to write them and despite the rhetoric, nobody wants to read them either. No one's pretending they don't exist, they just don't get published. Then one guy buys the one bad sample and proclaims that not only is the entire product line garbage but any writer who wrote a positive article on them is a liar and just a schill for the industry. I depend on articles for general information and pictures I can lust after. Not my decision making process. I rely on my own judgement for that.
It's 2017, that shouldn't even be a factor. I value my time and wouldn't spend half the day running around town trying to find ammo when I can order it online. That said, anyone who wants to be proficient with anything bigger than .38Spl will be handloading.
There are new bullets designed specifically for subsonic use in the .300 that will expand. I don't believe any standard +200gr .308" bullet will expand at subsonic velocities. I know for a fact that the 220gr V-Max won't.
True, but that's similar to the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I mean, did we become handloaders because we had guns in unusual calibers, or did we buy guns in unusual calibers so that we could become handloaders?
In my case, I love handloading, and will admit to buying a gun or two that I knew full well I'd have to handload for if I was going to shoot it.
For me : I became a handloader (and bullet caster) because of unusual calibers.
After that, unusual calibers were not a problem, and often led to great deals on dusty guns in the LGS.
Magazines are dependent on advertising dollars, that's a fact but it doesn't meant hat they're helping the industry festoon crap onto the unaware consumer. Writers don't do positive pieces on every new gun just for that reason. They're not going to intentionally piss them off but they're not going to lie on their behalf either. The reason you don't see negative reviews is because bad guns get sent back. In this day and age, a lemon is a relatively rare thing and not representative of any product line, no matter how poor. If a manufacturer can't provide a firearm that works, they don't do articles on them. Nobody wants to write them and despite the rhetoric, nobody wants to read them either. No one's pretending they don't exist, they just don't get published. Then one guy buys the one bad sample and proclaims that not only is the entire product line garbage but any writer who wrote a positive article on them is a liar and just a schill for the industry. I depend on articles for general information and pictures I can lust after. Not my decision making process. I rely on my own judgement for that.
It's 2017, that shouldn't even be a factor. I value my time and wouldn't spend half the day running around town trying to find ammo when I can order it online. That said, anyone who wants to be proficient with anything bigger than .38Spl will be handloading.
There are new bullets designed specifically for subsonic use in the .300 that will expand. I don't believe any standard +200gr .308" bullet will expand at subsonic velocities. I know for a fact that the 220gr V-Max won't.
The problem there is adding the cost of shipping onto a box or two of ammo.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I just about guarantee a better price online than any gun shop. In which case you have to factor in sales tax. Versus how much time are you spending driving around to gun shops looking for a box? How much gas are you burning? I have four boxes of ammo in my cart at Midway right now, for one of those unpopular chamberings, totaling $144. Shipping is $14. Even if the local shop could match their price, which they can't because they don't carry it, it'd be $14 just in sales tax. Buy online and there are no wasted trips.The problem there is adding the cost of shipping onto a box or two of ammo.
If I gauged my purchases according to the ammo and components I could source locally, I'd have to cut my collection by 3/4's and would be able to do virtually no cast bullet shooting. I sure as hell wouldn't be looking at 9.3's!
CraigC, that's not even what I'm talking about. You're right that, at this point, the huge majority of guns are functional, and the ones that aren't are generally aberrations. As I said above, most of them are fungible consumer goods, and most are generally capable of performing their intended task. In order to seriously evaluate them past that, you'd have to have a serious set of evaluation criteria, which means having specific goals in mind for the guns. But different people have different goals, and so what you get a recitation of features (which can be pulled from the manufacturer's website, and probably were) and then something about how "controlled pairs were easy" or how the trigger had a "tactile reset" or how "cleaning a plate rack was no problem." OK, any of several dozens of service-caliber pistols would meet those criteria, so that's kind of meaningless.
By way of comparison, here's what I would consider to be a meaningful gun-product review. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/04/jeremy-s/ar-15-drop-in-trigger-roundup/ That's a lot different than most of what makes gun magazine pages.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
So what do you want them to say? Most people aren't handloaders so a bunch of test data regarding handloads isn't going to interest them. Most people don't shoot off the bench so that will bore them too. I guess that's why I subscribe to Handloader and not G&A.
Most magazines aren't going to go into that amount of depth on something like AR triggers. Paper costs money, bandwidth is cheap.
Most magazines aren't going to go into that amount of depth on something like AR triggers. Paper costs money, bandwidth is cheap.
There are new bullets designed specifically for subsonic use in the .300 that will expand. I don't believe any standard +200gr .308" bullet will expand at subsonic velocities. I know for a fact that the 220gr V-Max won't.
The ELD-X is what I was referencing that will expand reliably at subsonic velocity. It replaces the A-MAX that has a reputation for expansion under 1100fps. I'd stick to supersonic light weight varmint rounds for SD use since they explode and will limit overpenetration.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked