This is absolutely false. This was standard factory ammo loaded below 55,000 psi. It is also false that I "admitted it" on 68forum and M4carbine.net. I am 100% certain that it was standard ammo, and I am 100% certain I never said otherwise.
Will this make the 300 Blackout obsolete?
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
This is absolutely false. This was standard factory ammo loaded below 55,000 psi. It is also false that I "admitted it" on 68forum and M4carbine.net. I am 100% certain that it was standard ammo, and I am 100% certain I never said otherwise.
http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?28596-Interesting-Read-Comments/page11 Post 105. Again deny if you want. How about when you said a 110 6.8 vs 110 bo the 6.8 has a 12% advantage which in your own words is "significant" Did you NOT say this also?
He was asking about this test which was done before the factory load was out in order to establish what the max recommended velocity was:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96366
That has nothing to do with the 300 yard factory-ammo test.
Any misunderstanding may be legitimate. In that m4carbine thread are gel results (photo and data) in which we later learn from the 68forum discussion that impact velocity was greater than SAAMI allowable pressures to achieve at the muzzle. For the purpose of pushing the limits of the bullet and finding the maximum performance velocity this is great. However, that piece of information was initially left out and the post shortly afterward showed the much vaulted Vortex pic with no data.
One could easily believe that these were from the same test and that the first picture is expected real-world performance. If what is said now is true, that may be an erroneous assumption, either from smoke and mirrors or muddy water.
Let me clarify - 2400 fps at 55,000 psi is well established as normal for 300 BLK. It has been tested many times in SAAMI pressure barrels. Even Barnes reloading data shows 2415 fps as a max load:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/300-AAC-Blackout-110gr-TAC-TX.pdf
That test was at 2411 fps. Why did I call it "over pressure?" I really should not have. I think I was being overly technical to call 2411 fps over pressure because I understood 2400 fps to be the normal velocity for max pressure. 11 fps is not really anything.
What I meant to say was that on that day, over-pressure loads were being used to establish at what point the bullet was being driven too fast for the petals to remain on. The goal was to design the bullet so that just over the normal attainable velocity, they would break off, so that one would have as much bullet function as possible at the low-velocity end (down to 1300 fps, for example). This is why the bullet works so well at 300 yards.
I should have said they were at max pressure. To be even more clear, the 300 yard test was done well after that initial experiment and was using standard factory ammo. Barnes loads their 300 BLK ammunition to not exceed 55,000 psi.
http://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/300-AAC-Blackout-110gr-TAC-TX.pdf
That test was at 2411 fps. Why did I call it "over pressure?" I really should not have. I think I was being overly technical to call 2411 fps over pressure because I understood 2400 fps to be the normal velocity for max pressure. 11 fps is not really anything.
What I meant to say was that on that day, over-pressure loads were being used to establish at what point the bullet was being driven too fast for the petals to remain on. The goal was to design the bullet so that just over the normal attainable velocity, they would break off, so that one would have as much bullet function as possible at the low-velocity end (down to 1300 fps, for example). This is why the bullet works so well at 300 yards.
I should have said they were at max pressure. To be even more clear, the 300 yard test was done well after that initial experiment and was using standard factory ammo. Barnes loads their 300 BLK ammunition to not exceed 55,000 psi.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If an autha had a flat tail ita been a beava. You seem to like leaving out tiny little bits of info because those tiny little things just screw the hell out of what you preach. Of coarse this is just my opinion. Formed after watching you back peddle and change details when called out on voodoo math on many forums. The 300 is a viable round on it's own merit so just stop fudging numbers and test to make it more than what it is. You have run off MANY potential buyers by your smoke and mirrors. Have a nice sunny day.
ny32182
Member
Does anyone have a link to a good discussion about 1:7 vs. 1:8 for this round?
This should be clear - the only bullet I said that was fired over-pressure was a different and earlier test (before the factory load was established) specifically to determine if the bullet construction was optimal.
Also, I only said it was over-pressure because it was 11 fps faster than 2400 fps. Barnes max load is published at 2415 fps, so it is really unusual that you are trying to make this seem like an issue when in hindsight, even that early test was not over-pressure.
I have not fudged numbers, and this one example where you thought you caught me turned out to not be the case.
R.W.Dale
Member
I think 300 BO has qualities to sell itself despite its being on the low end of power for intermediate rifle rounds.
In essence and a great way to describe the 300BO is that its a 357magnum that works great in an AR15 and fires bullets of exceptional aerodynamic efficiency.
This is not a bad place to be and IMO drawing comparisons to clearly more powerful rounds with fudged numbers and lopsided comparisons only hurts the 300's potential for growth. SELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS and not for what it isn't.
In essence and a great way to describe the 300BO is that its a 357magnum that works great in an AR15 and fires bullets of exceptional aerodynamic efficiency.
This is not a bad place to be and IMO drawing comparisons to clearly more powerful rounds with fudged numbers and lopsided comparisons only hurts the 300's potential for growth. SELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS and not for what it isn't.
I am always leary when a new cartridge comes on the market...I never jump in right away.
Will it go away...doubt it, but it might end up like the 327, or 220 swift...to give a new and older example.
They are still out there but they are not super popular....they have their small market.
To me I think the bottom line to this is the AR group wants to shoot something a little bigger then a 22 and this gives them that with little changes to their existing equipment. I don't think the guns linked will replace it just on cost alone.
It is all part of the fun in being in the gun hobby, it keeps everything new and fresh....only time will tell if the 300 will be the next best thing.
Will it go away...doubt it, but it might end up like the 327, or 220 swift...to give a new and older example.
They are still out there but they are not super popular....they have their small market.
To me I think the bottom line to this is the AR group wants to shoot something a little bigger then a 22 and this gives them that with little changes to their existing equipment. I don't think the guns linked will replace it just on cost alone.
It is all part of the fun in being in the gun hobby, it keeps everything new and fresh....only time will tell if the 300 will be the next best thing.
Actually it is pretty easy to compare them. You punch the numbers in to readily available software and it give a pretty good bases for comparison. If one is talking about supersonic loads yes the 300 BLK is notably more powerful, has more practical range, and better terminal ballistics.
The post to which you responded was comparing sub sonic loads. That is a very valid comparison.
With a 220 SMK bullet with a very favorable .629 BC fired at 1050 FPS it will drop 16.73” at 100 yards and 66.93 by 200 and 152.24 by 300. At 200 yards it has 483 ft/lbs of energy. It should also be noted that the SMK most likely will simply punch a 30 caliber hole and offer pretty horrible terminal ballistics.
A 230 grain Gold dot 45 caliber bullet with a .143 BC, fired at the same muzzle velocity, drops 17.94” at 100 yards 76.16” at 200 and 182.6 at 300. It has 366 Ft/lbs of energy at 200 yards. Importantly, for anything other than punching paper, that gold dot is going to offer vastly better terminal ballistics.
This is a little simplified and there is more we could look at; I encourage you to crunch the numbers yourself. However, when comparing sub sonic loads what I see is that out to 100 yards the trajectories are close enough that it doesn't really matter. However, the .45 would have much better terminal ballistics and components to load the 45 are cheaper.
By 200 yards the advantage of the high BC bullet is showing its self in trajectory. However, there has still been a ton of drop and a lot of drift. If one can correct for 67” of drop (33" lower impact w/ 100 yard zero), is correcting for 76” of drop ( aprox 40" lower impact with 100 yard zero) instead really a huge deal. There is more drift and thus errors in reading wind are likely to be more pronounced. The 300 BLK would be carrying more energy but the terminal ballistics, are with all likelihood, much worse than the .45’s.
This is why I fail to see the big advantage of the 300 BLK for subsonic shooting against anything more than paper (although maybe there is something I am failing to account for, if so hopefully someone will educate me). The comparison is easy enough to do, and out to distances that one is likely to shoot subsonic rounds (say 150 yards), there is not a huge trajectory advantage and the .45 has better terminal ballistics. Inside of 100 yards I see the 300 blk as having no advantage and yet costing more, and having very poor terminal ballistics.
Again if 220 grain 30 cal bullets that offered both a high BC and good terminal ballistics at sub sonic velocities were available the discussion might be slightly different.
R.W.Dale
Member
Gridiron one factor in favor of 30 caliber vs 45 caliber is the accuracy potential of the bullets themselves.
I've ran into this with a custom 45win mag (not 458) Stevens 200 bolt gun. Even a match pistol bullet isn't manufactured to the degrees of consistentcy to shoot the kind of groupings a match rifle bullet is capable of. In my experience with a custom barreled bolt gun if you can get a repeatable 3" at 100 from 45 caliber handgun bullets you're well well ahead of the curve
The higher BC not only contributes to a flatter trajectory but also is less affected by atmospheric variables
I've ran into this with a custom 45win mag (not 458) Stevens 200 bolt gun. Even a match pistol bullet isn't manufactured to the degrees of consistentcy to shoot the kind of groupings a match rifle bullet is capable of. In my experience with a custom barreled bolt gun if you can get a repeatable 3" at 100 from 45 caliber handgun bullets you're well well ahead of the curve
The higher BC not only contributes to a flatter trajectory but also is less affected by atmospheric variables
That is a factor I did not consider. If sub sonic, semi-auto, bench shooting, for groups with an AR is the order of the day then the 300 likely would be superior. I do wonder if the accuracy difference it going to amount to a practical difference in accuracy shooting inside 150 yard, and more like 100 yards, with a 4 MOA Aimpoint, and from field positions?
Saakee
Member
if going for accuracy, is there a reason to use subsonic versus supersonic loadings?
That is a loosing argument for this thread. Same site has 7.62x39 starting at $4.57. http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemListing.aspx?sort=priceLow&catid=606
R.W.Dale
Member
Apples to pomegranate
The same 7.62x39 ammunition as the 300blk listed above from the same source
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/66826-5.html
$15 a box.
I'm not one of those people
but lots of folks aren't overly concerned with shooting the absolute cheapest ammunition that'll go bang and send a bullet somewhere in the general vicinity of downrange.In the real world 10 mcchickens for a box of reloadable rifle ammunition is certainly cheap enough. And is in fact as cheap as 223 cheaper than 30-30/7.62x39 and far far cheaper than your usernames ironic namesake 6.8spc.
And again best of all a person only needs a barrel to be rocking n rolling 300blk style.
Last edited:
One of the selling points of the Blackout is that you can use it through a standard AR, using a standard AR BCG, with only a barrel change. If I were shooting suppressed, or if I hunted deer with an AR, I'd go with the .300 Blackout. There are several ammo companies that manufacture .300 Blackout, so I'd buy it in bulk...IF I weren't a reloader. I do reload, so the .300 Blackout's relative obscurity in retail establishments would be irrelevant to me.
Pomegranates if you say so, but his post was just stating how low the BO ammo is, not any particular style. The link he provided was for range loads, of which cheap is the name of the game. Loaders should take the brass value into account, but not everyone loads. After the linked load, the price comes up and isn't way, way cheaper than even the 6.8 SPC you named. Same site: Hornady 6.8 SST loads for 18.69 http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/60315178-1.htmlApples to pomegranate
The same 7.62x39 ammunition as the 300blk listed above from the same source
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/66826-5.html
$15 a box.
I'm not one of those people
In the real world 10 mcchickens for a box of reloadable rifle ammunition is certainly cheap enough. And is in fact as cheap as 223 cheaper than 30-30/7.62x39 and far far cheaper than your usernames ironic namesake 6.8spc.
And again best of all a person only needs a barrel to be rocking n rolling 300blk style.
Remington subsonics for 17.77 or hunting ammo for 25.30.
The Barnes Vortex that is always posted is 28.22 and the 6.8 TSX loaded by SSA is 27.13.
If that was directed at me, this thread has NOTHING to do with 6.8. Not sure why it even came up. "Why all the hate for" 6.8?
While I do reload some cartridges, I don't reload 223/5.56mm or 9mm, and I have always put my brass into the brass can at the range, and I don't think I have ever bought steel-cased 223.
Some of us just don't use steel-cased ammo.
But agreed - the availability of cheap steel-cased ammo for 7.62x39mm is very significant for the market in general.
I look forward to when 300 AAC Blackout is $5 a box. I will give it two years.
Some of us just don't use steel-cased ammo.
But agreed - the availability of cheap steel-cased ammo for 7.62x39mm is very significant for the market in general.
I look forward to when 300 AAC Blackout is $5 a box. I will give it two years.
R.W.Dale
Member
The saavy shooter even if he doesn't reload doesn't discard his rifle brass. Not when he can cart it home and sell it for 30/50% of what he bought the ammunition for here in the classifieds
- Status
