Disregard...

More
10 years 11 months ago - 10 years 9 months ago #32645 by 10-76
Disregard... was created by 10-76
...
Last edit: 10 years 9 months ago by 10-76.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #32648 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic The .300 AAC BLK
Lebben B who used to be a frequent contributor liked the 300 Blackout a lot. I think it was 300 blackout the Army Marksman unit said that about. The thing is, what are you comparing it to? A 7.62x51? It has less than half the case capacity, but you can carry 3 times more. To a 7.62 x 39? It is more accurate, has better ballistics, in a smaller case. Out to 300 yards, word is, it works. If it will take a pig out at that range, it works. For 500 yards no, but would you want to use a 5.56 routinely at 500 yards? Probably not. Everyone I know who has one likes it for what it is, a compact package that delivers more terminal ballistics than a 5.56 at 300 yards or less in an AR rifle.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #32650 by SOC
Replied by SOC on topic The .300 AAC BLK
Can be loaded to equivalent of the 30-30. Huge bullet selection from 90gn to 250gn not counting sabots.

I like that you can get more muzzle energy from a good 7.5" 300 BLK load than you can get from a 14.5" 5.56 even with MK 262.

This is thanks in part to H110 (A mag pistol powder) doing great with bullets the same weight as .357 and barrels of similar length.

I can cast 250gn slug and push it to 1050fps or so and give 600 ft/lbs. Good as the hottest 45 ACP.

It's quite the combo with a 7.5" barrel and an Osprey Suppressor.

I am impressed at the versatility of this round.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #32654 by faawrenchbndr
Replied by faawrenchbndr on topic The .300 AAC BLK
Like all calibers, the .300 BLK has limitations. It is an extremely effective CQB cartridge for an SBR.
Beyond that, I would have no use for it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #32659 by maskman228
Replied by maskman228 on topic The .300 AAC BLK

faawrenchbndr wrote: Like all calibers, the .300 BLK has limitations. It is an extremely effective CQB cartridge for an SBR.
Beyond that, I would have no use for it.

agreed

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #32818 by Lizardette
Replied by Lizardette on topic The .300 AAC BLK
Yep. With a 220 grain SMK, it's like an AR shaped .45acp subgun but with less recoil and better penetration characteristics - using all of the same components as a .223/5.56 except the barrel. With any of the better 110 to 125 grain bullets, the ballistics are pretty close to a 7.62x39, expect that it runs reliably in an AR and is a hell of a lot more accurate. You can do both out of the same barrel.

Iron sights for ranges past 50 yards are very problematic when switching between loads. Optics are a little easier to reset for different loads, but a dedicated reticule and a turrets with two separate sets of BDC marks (at the least) would really help.

I love shooting it.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #32824 by Lizardette
Replied by Lizardette on topic The .300 AAC BLK
Ok, so I just got around to watching that video in the original post.

HOLY F&*K!

750 yards?

I mean, there was some travel time, but he was hitting the damned target.

... and out of a 9" barrel (assuming that I'm right about that being a Spike's Tactical Compressor Rifle).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #32855 by OleCowboy
Replied by OleCowboy on topic The .300 AAC BLK
In watching the video I found some interesting data on the 5.56 NATO VS 300.

They say the 5.56 has a 90-100" drop at 500 yds same as the 300 and has 290 ft lbs of energy. I find different data: 50" drop at 500 and 340 ft lbs of energy.

I then go to Hornady for 300 data and get a 131" drop and 343 lbs of energy at 500

Both of these are zero'd at 100 yds.

I will assume this is some kind of a school or something that has the $$ to fire 100,000 rds at about $1 buck a rd even buying in bulk. Albeit there is no shortage of folks on gun forums that claim to shoot over a 100k rds a year, suppose they are independently wealthy.

Most of these videos are pushing something and showing it in the best possible light at best, many of the videos are outright fabrications. [want to see some AMAZING video's go look at the AK 47 stuff, better still get into a AK47 VS M4 thread you can come away with wondering why bother to develop laser weapons when an AK will shoot the moon out of the sky]

Always check the data source. I use: Winchester and Hornady for ballistics reference.

I want to like the .300 BLK, but videos like this only cause suspicion on my part.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lizardette

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #32867 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic The .300 AAC BLK

OleCowboy wrote: In watching the video I found some interesting data on the 5.56 NATO VS 300.

They say the 5.56 has a 90-100" drop at 500 yds same as the 300 and has 290 ft lbs of energy. I find different data: 50" drop at 500 and 340 ft lbs of energy.

I then go to Hornady for 300 data and get a 131" drop and 343 lbs of energy at 500

Both of these are zero'd at 100 yds.

I will assume this is some kind of a school or something that has the $$ to fire 100,000 rds at about $1 buck a rd even buying in bulk. Albeit there is no shortage of folks on gun forums that claim to shoot over a 100k rds a year, suppose they are independently wealthy.

Most of these videos are pushing something and showing it in the best possible light at best, many of the videos are outright fabrications. [want to see some AMAZING video's go look at the AK 47 stuff, better still get into a AK47 VS M4 thread you can come away with wondering why bother to develop laser weapons when an AK will shoot the moon out of the sky]

Always check the data source. I use: Winchester and Hornady for ballistics reference.

I want to like the .300 BLK, but videos like this only cause suspicion on my part.

Agreed I am suspicious of any body who tries to portray something as all things to all men. Give me 10,000 300 Blackout rounds, a chronograph, and a ballistic software program, and on a measured range I or any of us could eventually solve the ballistics issues and make successful 750 yard shots. The trajectory would probably look like that of a 60 mm mortar, but it could be done. Give us a 7.62x51 and it would be done in a half or a third of the time and ammo. The difference, is what is possible and what is practical with a cartridge and weapon.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #32870 by jtallen83
Replied by jtallen83 on topic The .300 AAC BLK
:I-agree: Facts is facts, this is a short range CQB cartridge for most average shooters. I just don't see a significant advantage overall, if I only got to choose one AR it would not be the cartridge I would pick. That said I would still like to have one some day. :usa:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.