Why do big box store carry Remington .300 Blackout ammo in supersonic but not Subsonic?

[dogtown tom]

Supersonic loads are going to be so regardless of barrel length.

Not true at all.

It's not gonna drop from 2400fps to 1000fps in an 8" barrel. More like 2000fps. Remember, we're talking about pistol powders here.

Who said supersonic velocity is only 2400fps?
"Supersonic" is anything faster than the speed of sound....roughly 1,100fps. A .300 Blackout going 1600fps is still "supersonic", as is the one going 2400fps. But the one going 1,600fps from a 24" barrel likely will not exceed 1,000fps from a 10.5"bbl.

Not at all like .22LR, which is barely supersonic in a rifle length barrel.

Well, its exactly like .22LR, or any other round. And to say .22LR is "barely supersonic..." is like saying your wife is "barely pregnant", you either are subsonic or you are supersonic.

An AR with a suppressor is not 'that' long.

Well, yeah it is. If they were popular you would see them in the field or at the range. 24" AR's in any caliber are as common as fangs on a chicken. The reason is there is little benefit vs lotsa downside. This is why 10.5" .300Blk is so popular.

The balance of a 24"AR with 10" silencer would be awful.

I hunt with muzzleloaders that are longer and heavier.

Which has nothing to do with a comparison of barrel lengths on AR's does it?
Which muzzleloaders have a receiver as long as an AR?
And what muzzle loading rifle do you have that weighs more than a loaded 24" AR with 10" silencer?

 

[dogtown tom]

They used to stock it. Now they don't. What that means is that nobody was buying it.

This.
And every WalMart that carries firearms or ammunition can order whatever their distributor carries.

 

[CraigC]

Good God almighty, are you just trying to pick a fight? Factory supersonic loads for the .300BO are typically going to range from 2000-2400fps. Since this thread is about Remington factory ammo, there are basically two options cited and I'm assuming we're not talking about the one loaded with Barnes bullets but the same applies. The 220gr subsonic and the 120gr supersonic are the two least expensive. The 120gr load is rated at 2200fps. It makes no difference if that number is quoted for a friggin' 40" barrel, it's going to be supersonic in an 8" barrel. Period. In fact, it's going to tickle 2000fps, as I said.

So yeah, unless you have a link to Bob's Ammo in Podunkville, NW that's 1200fps, ANY supersonic load for the .300BO is going to be so regardless of barrel length. As I said, we're talking about the .300BO, which is loaded with handgun powders like H110, not rifle powder which need more barrel length to work well. Even so, BBTI reports over 1500fps out of the .223 in a 4" barrel so I think we're okay.

The point to the .22LR comment that you clearly, cleanly missed, is that they are usually around 1200fps from a rifle and need only drop 100-150fps to go subsonic. Which actually happens from rifle to pistol. It doesn't happen with the .300BO. I don't understand the point of your post #23 whatsoever. It's not accurate or productive.

 

[Hookeye]

Not to thread jack, but CraigC...............there was a guy locally doing .45 winmag ARs.
Back before IN allowed HP rifle for private land, our rifle option was PCR.
And the .45 winmag was an easy change.
Chamber acp bbl, drill for gas port.
I suggested it to the manufacturer when he swung by the shop........and no, I didn't get anything out of it.
Not even a loaner upper for deer season

He was asking about market for a .44 automag AR.........like Tromix did.
Wanted .44 mag ballistics.
I said "why not a .45 winmag?"
Mod ACP bbl and see what mag stuff needed changed. Might be easy.
And it was.

 

[Hookeye]

One other local Manufacturer still carries the .45 winmag upper.
Bazooka Brothers.

 

[Hookeye]

Lots of new folks wanting to deer hunt now (so it seems).
Am on other forums, one local (state).
Recoil a topic that repeatedly comes up ( wimps).
I can see that if having kids or the wife wanting to hunt.
Goodness, my 760 in .35 rem is rather mild, w buttplate.
Don't think a .243 win any shoulder terror.
If a kid so small they can't handle it.........might be too young to be killing stuff.

But black rifles are cool with the new shooting folks, and .300 blk goes with it.
Do wonder how many pop a deer or two with it and go to something else.
Initially, here, before the HP rifle allowance (private land only)............the allure of the .300 blk was using it in handgun form on deer.
Eh, something new and w a brace........no doubt folks were using them as rifles.

Awkward and clunky, think better options for deer hunting.
Like a sleek rifle, pointability. Reflexive.
But the whole idea is to have fun and if somebody wants to do it a different but legal way, have at it.

I've got AR's, shot AR pistols and SBR's. Have buddies with all sorts of toys.
Bambi comes trotting through my popper of choice is not an AR.
Rifle or handgun, I like other stuff better.

 

[mgmorden]

I think to a large degree its because a lot more people have .300 Blackouts than have suppressors for them. If your gun isn't suppressed there just isn't a lot of benefit to subsonic.

.300 Blackout in supersonic makes for a decent moderate range hunting round - better than .223 IMHO (and legal in many places .223 isn't), yet aside from just the barrel itself every other AR part is bog standard.

I will say that I have a .300 Blackout and have no interest at all in the subsonic rounds. The gun was mostly configured as a hunting option for my young nieces (the adjustable stock on an AR can yield a LOP less than almost any "youth" model of bolt gun, and the recoil is fairly mild).

 

[CraigC]

A relatively lightweight .45WinMag or .44AutoMag semi-auto carbine would be great! Or even the bottlenecked .357AutoMag.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There's a lot to be said for the availability of factory ammo......and cost. That's because most shooters don't reload. It takes a $1000 to get set up properly and lay in a supply of components. It also requires some time to learn the ropes and reload. Most people aren't going to get that deep into a cartridge for the sake of shooting 300 BLK or any other cartridge for that matter. That was the OP's complaint and probably the reason for the post I would guess.

There is no point in discussing the merits of 300 BLK if the ammo isn't available to the average shooter at a store like Cabelas or someplace else that sells ammo and firearms. Some people shoot so little that they are willing to pay 0.50 or even $1/rd but it has to be available.

Personally I think we are going to see the popularity of that cartridge fall off because of that. The 300 BLK can do many things but if the ammo isn't available it matters very little. Right now I think it's still a re-loaders cartridge. The cheapest 220 I can find is 0.50/rd and the 125 is about the same price. The price and availability of the ammo is driving lots of people away from the cartridge. Subsonic has it's uses but it's a very small market. Retailers no doubt are beginning to see that and pulling it for lack of sales volume.

It's no big deal. That happens to a lot of new cartridges. Doesn't mean 300 BLK isn't a good one, just means it isn't profitable for most retailers. I can reload it but I don't have a use for it. I already have a 30 carbine. I like straight wall PCC's for subsonic better anyway.

 

[Hookeye]

http://bazookabrothers.com/pages/shop/7?page=3&

.45 winmag upper in case anybody interested

 

[Texas10mm]

There's a lot to be said for the availability of factory ammo......and cost. That's because most shooters don't reload. It takes a $1000 to get set up properly and lay in a supply of components. It also requires some time to learn the ropes and reload. Most people aren't going to get that deep into a cartridge for the sake of shooting 300 BLK or any other cartridge for that matter. That was the OP's complaint and probably the reason for the post I would guess.

There is no point in discussing the merits of 300 BLK if the ammo isn't available to the average shooter at a store like Cabelas or someplace else that sells ammo and firearms. Some people shoot so little that they are willing to pay 0.50 or even $1/rd but it has to be available.

Personally I think we are going to see the popularity of that cartridge fall off because of that. The 300 BLK can do many things but if the ammo isn't available it matters very little. Right now I think it's still a re-loaders cartridge. The cheapest 220 I can find is 0.50/rd and the 125 is about the same price. The price and availability of the ammo is driving lots of people away from the cartridge. Subsonic has it's uses but it's a very small market. Retailers no doubt are beginning to see that and pulling it for lack of sales volume.

It's no big deal. That happens to a lot of new cartridges. Doesn't mean 300 BLK isn't a good one, just means it isn't profitable for most retailers. I can reload it but I don't have a use for it. I already have a 30 carbine. I like straight wall PCC's for subsonic better anyway.

It doesn't take anywhere near $1,000 to get the tools and components to reload.

 

[CoalTrain49]

It doesn't take anywhere near $1,000 to get the tools and components to reload.

That's about what I have into just components for 6 cartridges. I probably got into it for $500 but we all know that if you load for one cartridge you might as well load for all of the ones you shoot. I had a hard time paring it down to 6. When you figure out you can load .223 for 0.20 and 45 acp for 0.15 that's a window looking into a whole new shooting universe.

But yeah, you can get into it under 1K. Good luck staying under 1K for a year.

 

[CraigC]

There's a lot to be said for the availability of factory ammo......and cost. That's because most shooters don't reload. It takes a $1000 to get set up properly and lay in a supply of components. It also requires some time to learn the ropes and reload. Most people aren't going to get that deep into a cartridge for the sake of shooting 300 BLK or any other cartridge for that matter. That was the OP's complaint and probably the reason for the post I would guess.

There is no point in discussing the merits of 300 BLK if the ammo isn't available to the average shooter at a store like Cabelas or someplace else that sells ammo and firearms. Some people shoot so little that they are willing to pay 0.50 or even $1/rd but it has to be available.

Personally I think we are going to see the popularity of that cartridge fall off because of that. The 300 BLK can do many things but if the ammo isn't available it matters very little. Right now I think it's still a re-loaders cartridge. The cheapest 220 I can find is 0.50/rd and the 125 is about the same price. The price and availability of the ammo is driving lots of people away from the cartridge. Subsonic has it's uses but it's a very small market. Retailers no doubt are beginning to see that and pulling it for lack of sales volume.

It's no big deal. That happens to a lot of new cartridges. Doesn't mean 300 BLK isn't a good one, just means it isn't profitable for most retailers. I can reload it but I don't have a use for it. I already have a 30 carbine. I like straight wall PCC's for subsonic better anyway.

Ten bucks a box is cheap. Nothing will ever be as cheap as .223 but ten bucks is cheap compared to everything else. Good centerfire ammo is usually about double that.

You can easily get into reloading for less than $500 and components shouldn't be counted towards the cost of entry.

Remington sells .300BO in their buckets so it's safe to assume that people are buying the stuff in bulk.

So we can't discuss the merits of a cartridge that reaches its fullest potential through handloading???

 

[CoalTrain49]

You can easily get into reloading for less than $500 and components shouldn't be counted towards the cost of entry.

How do you reload without powder $20 lb, bullets $15/100, primers $32/1000 and brass. If you find a way to do that let me know. I would surely be interested.

The fact is it takes anywhere from 1 year to two years to recoup your equipment cost to reload, depending on how much you shoot. If anyone tells you any different they don't reload. Most people just don't want the cash outlay nor do they have the time.

 

[CraigC]

The additional cost of getting into reloading is in the equipment, not the consumables. Just like with ammo, you either pay as you go or you stockpile. I wouldn't count the cost of components any more than I would the cost of a new vehicle's first tank of fuel. If you're gonna shoot, you're gonna pay for components (or ammo); if you're gonna drive, you're gonna pay for gas. Just because I have $10,000 worth of equipment and $20,000 worth of components doesn't mean it costs $30,000 to start reloading.

Nobody starts reloading to save money but to shoot more. Or to shoot something they either normally couldn't or couldn't do economically.

 

[Archie]

Why do big box store carry Remington .300 Blackout ammo in supersonic but not Subsonic?

This will sound rather mean hearted, and I'm sorry. Why don't you reload your own ammunition? At least for .300 BO? You can get just about anything you want.

 

[Texas10mm]

How do you reload without powder $20 lb, bullets $15/100, primers $32/1000 and brass. If you find a way to do that let me know. I would surely be interested.

The fact is it takes anywhere from 1 year to two years to recoup your equipment cost to reload, depending on how much you shoot. If anyone tells you any different they don't reload. Most people just don't want the cash outlay nor do they have the time.

I "save" enough money reloading and casting my own bullets to buy a complete Dillon 650 setup every year.

It all depends on how much you shoot.

I'm loading 9mm for $5/100, 45 ACP for $5.75/100, 10mm for $6/100. My last range trip I burnt 350 rounds of 45 ACP. I "saved" $70.25 that trip. The trip before that a buddy and I burnt 700 rounds of 9mm, 100 rounds of 45 ACP, 100 rounds of .327 Fed Mag. I "saved" well over $100 that trip.

 

[Aim1]

This will sound rather mean hearted, and I'm sorry. Why don't you reload your own ammunition? At least for .300 BO? You can get just about anything you want.

Couple of reasons. Too busy with kids and family, already have other hobbies such as fishing, rifle hunting, archery hunting, work, and other things.

Second, just no interest at all in reloading.

Third, nowhere to do it. We live in a very small place.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The additional cost of getting into reloading is in the equipment, not the consumables. Just like with ammo, you either pay as you go or you stockpile. I wouldn't count the cost of components any more than I would the cost of a new vehicle's first tank of fuel. If you're gonna shoot, you're gonna pay for components (or ammo); if you're gonna drive, you're gonna pay for gas. Just because I have $10,000 worth of equipment and $20,000 worth of components doesn't mean it costs $30,000 to start reloading.

Nobody starts reloading to save money but to shoot more. Or to shoot something they either normally couldn't or couldn't do economically.

Reloading equipment is useless without components. You're telling me that the cost of reloading has nothing to do with the cost of components. I disagree. One has to figure in the cost of components when reloading because that's what you buy with factory ammo, components already assembled. Why do you think factory ammo costs so much? It sure as heck isn't just the cost of labor and machines to produce it.

If you were comparing the cost of buying a loaf of bread vs actually baking the bread yourself would you not consider the cost of the flower and yeast? If you don't buy the flower and yeast how are you going to bake any bread?

I certainly hope you aren't a business owner. Components or "consumables" as you call them are a business expense. Check with the IRS if you don't believe me.

 

[CraigC]

Obviously you don't run a business but I run two. Not that it's even relevant. In your analogy, the initial startup cost, the cost that you are not accustomed to shouldering, would be the oven, not the raw materials.

You're already accustomed to buying ammo. Buying ammo = components. If you're spending $100 a month on ammo, you would just allocate that money towards components. That hundred bucks will go a much longer way buying components than loaded ammo. You can easily get by on $50 a month on components, if need be.

The greatest component in the cost of factory ammo is absolutely the labor to put them all together. The factory and equipment that does so and the people that run it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Obviously you don't run a business but I run two. Not that it's even relevant. In your analogy, the initial startup cost, the cost that you are not accustomed to shouldering, would be the oven, not the raw materials.

You're already accustomed to buying ammo. Buying ammo = components. If you're spending $100 a month on ammo, you would just allocate that money towards components. That hundred bucks will go a much longer way buying components than loaded ammo. You can easily get by on $50 a month on components, if need be.

The greatest component in the cost of factory ammo is absolutely the labor to put them all together. The factory and equipment that does so and the people that run it.

You're trying to make an argument for reloading. The difference here is I'm not. Weather you buy the components pre assembled or not, your're still buying components one way or the other. If the cost of a round of factory .223 is 0.40 and the cost of a round of home rolled is 0.20, the cost of powder, primer, case and bullet has to be included in both examples because it's an expense that you pay for in either case.

The equipment costs can be depreciated over time, because in most businesses that has to be replaced periodically. The cost of labor and components can't be depreciated. If you're in business you should know that.

I reload and have been for at least 15 years. The cost of my equipment has dropped to a point where it really isn't a factor anymore because it was spread out over many years. My major expense now is components. I don't put a cost on my labor. Labor and marketing is probably the biggest difference between reloaded and factory. You can make factory ammo in a building that you have owned for many years so the cost there would be negligible. I'm sure that some major ammo manufacturers have owned their facilities for a very long time. Maintenance would be their only overhead there.

To not consider your component costs is ridiculous and hiding your head in the sand to make a case for reloading.

 

[CraigC]

Not at all, I look at reloading more objectively than most because I don't "hide my head in the sand" with regards to the value of my time. Look around this forum, you'll see multiple times I've gone to the mattresses with bullet casters on this. I just don't agree with your assessment that it costs $1000 to start, because it doesn't. You're completely disassociating the cost of factory ammo from the cost of components. You miss my point entirely.

If you're shooting let's say $100/month in factory ammo and you only shoot one cartridge. If you set yourself up to reload, the cost of components is INSTEAD of the cost of ammo, not IN ADDITION TO. Only difference is that your'e spending your hundred bucks on components instead of ammo. It wouldn't be counted as part of your startup cost because it's money you're spending anyway. Not to mention the fact that your component cost is going to be way lower for the same number of rounds. Plus, if you have any sense at all, you've already been saving your brass. I didn't buy brass for probably the first five years I reloaded. Brass is often reloaded enough times that its cost is irrelevant. You're trading one expense for another, which is a basic accounting concept.

If you think that the mortgage payment is the only major cost in running a manufacturing facility, you're dreaming. You obviously have no idea what those machines cost or how much it takes to maintain them. The costs associated with manufacturing ammunition are exorbitant and the margins are narrow. There's a reason why there aren't factories popping up all over the place to make ammo. All of which is entirely off topic.

 

[Texas10mm]

Reloading equipment is useless without components. You're telling me that the cost of reloading has nothing to do with the cost of components. I disagree. One has to figure in the cost of components when reloading because that's what you buy with factory ammo, components already assembled. Why do you think factory ammo costs so much? It sure as heck isn't just the cost of labor and machines to produce it.

If you were comparing the cost of buying a loaf of bread vs actually baking the bread yourself would you not consider the cost of the flower and yeast? If you don't buy the flower and yeast how are you going to bake any bread?

I certainly hope you aren't a business owner. Components or "consumables" as you call them are a business expense. Check with the IRS if you don't believe me.

I prefer to use flour to bake bread.

As CraigC said the cost of components is the same thing as buying ammo. The equipment is a one time thing that's quickly paid off. After that you buy components. However like CraigC said you can get a lot more ammo reloading than you can buying ammo.

If factory .223 is $0.40 a round and reloaded is $0.20 a round that $0.20 a round INCLUDES the components. I "save" enough money every year by reloading and casting I can pay for a new Dillon 650 setup. Since I don't buy a new Dillon every year it means the equipment I currently have has already been paid for.

As for the big guys, even if they own the building there's still property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and labor to cover.

We're not "not considering" our cost of components to make a case for reloading. We're just saying that it's not as expensive as you seem to want to make it out to be. We're saying that the ONE TIME cost isn't near $1k, and the cost of components shouldn't be figured into the ONE TIME.

Say you spend $1 to get started. $500 on equipment and $500 in components. Now let's take your numbers. Factory ammo is $0.40 and reloads are $0.20. That $1k will net you just as much ammo as spending $1k on ammo would and the equipment is paid for. Now let's say you shoot $100 worth of ammo a month. You've just reloaded enough ammo for 10 months.

10 months down the road you spend $100 on components and reload 2 months of ammo....but in actuality you don't need to spend $100 to load for 2 months because the most expensive component, the brass, is reusable. So instead you only need to spend $50 on components to load 2 months of ammo.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If what you say is true then everyone should start reloading.

With factory ammo you're paying for a bunch of stuff like bullets, powder, primers, cases, facilities, equipment, labor, marketing, etc.

If you reload you're only paying for the equipment. Given that I'm surprised more people don't reload.

 

[Texas10mm]

If what you say is true then everyone should start reloading.

With factory ammo you're paying for a bunch of stuff like bullets, powder, primers, cases, facilities, equipment, labor, marketing, etc.

If you reload you're only paying for the equipment. Given that I'm surprised more people don't reload.

Where did I ever say you don't have to buy components?