.300 Blackout. Hickok .45 Approved. Man I Want This Guys Yard!!

[Solus]

Note that Tyler's charts have different scales and they make the 300 BLK look very short ranged.

On the second chart, the 300 BLK would be hitting bottom at about 375 yds., still short of the other cartridges on that chart, but not by the overwhelming degree suggest by the first chart.

[billt]

Over 1K for an upper? WTF! That is ridiculous!

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/832833/advanced-armament-co-aac-ar-15-pistol-a3-flat-top-upper-assembly-300-aac-blackout-762x35mm-1-in-8-twist-9-barrel-with-kac-urx-iii-modular-free-float-quad-rail-handguard-blackout-flash-hider

[Pathfinder]

Note that Tyler's charts have different scales and they make the 300 BLK look very short ranged.

On the second chart, the 300 BLK would be hitting bottom at about 375 yds., still short of the other cartridges on that chart, but not by the overwhelming degree suggest by the first chart.

I noticed that and just mentally made the adjustment - it demonstrates the point that the .300BLK is damn close to the 6.8 and Grendel ballistics without requiring a dedicated upper. And it hits the target with a .30 caliber bullet.

My original point was that you get enhanced performance from the .300BLK over the 5.56 which is not charted, as the 7.62x39 is not charted. On top of which, the AK round is reputed to have issues feeding in ARs due to the aggressive necking. I don't own an AK-based AR so I don't know for myself what all the issues are or might be with the AK/AR mix.

[Solus]

Agreed, Path.

I have a lower and a parts kit with a 5.56 barrel and I sure think I'll try to get a .300 BLK barrel for the assembly.

I have two other rifles that shoot .223/5.56, neither being an AR. 

Downside is that I'll have to gear up for reloading another caliber.   

Oh well, that's just my own personal hell.

[Magoo541]

Note that Tyler's charts have different scales and they make the 300 BLK look very short ranged.

On the second chart, the 300 BLK would be hitting bottom at about 375 yds., still short of the other cartridges on that chart, but not by the overwhelming degree suggest by the first chart.

Not too mention the parameters he used are different: altitude, temperature, zero distance and sight height.  At least hide the data before you try to skew the results...

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

This a bit like painting with too broad of a brush, but given the same caliber, gun and everything, ASSuming you are going to be pushing a heavier bullet, I am thinking that your range isn't always going to increase....your velocity will have to decrease, because that cartridge case and the gun can only withstand so much p.s.i. (or c.u.p.).

Stability is based upon matching up the correct rifle twist rate to the bullet weight....or vice versa.

My thinking was based on already having an AR in .223/5.56, .300 BLK is a better option than 7.62 X 39 which has a reputation for feed issues as well as possibly needing a new bolt for the larger casing base.

[Tyler Durden]

Note that Tyler's charts have different scales and they make the 300 BLK look very short ranged.

On the second chart, the 300 BLK would be hitting bottom at about 375 yds., still short of the other cartridges on that chart, but not by the overwhelming degree suggest by the first chart.

They are NOT my charts.  Just what I could readily find via an image.google.com search.

So if whatever changes there are in scale or atmospheric conditions were NOT of my choosing, because, like I said, I am on a MAC and finding a free downloadable ballistics calculator seems dang near impossible.  I would prefer not to try the bootcamp or parallels approach to get a Windows based ballistics program to work.

So there is nothing nefarious going on about the two charts I posted.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC ballistics either.  Especially all the hype they were getting about 2 years ago.

Hmmmn....maybe I am just anti-hype.   

[Solus]

They are NOT my charts.  Just what I could readily find via an image.google.com search.

So if whatever changes there are in scale or atmospheric conditions were NOT of my choosing, because, like I said, I am on a MAC and finding a free downloadable ballistics calculator seems dang near impossible.  I would prefer not to try the bootcamp or parallels approach to get a Windows based ballistics program to work.

So there is nothing nefarious going on about the two charts I posted.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC ballistics either.  Especially all the hype they were getting about 2 years ago.

Hmmmn....maybe I am just anti-hype.   

Did not mean to imply you were up to anything misleading.  And I should have said  "The charts Tyler posted".  But my intent was to be sure folks knew to take the different scale into account.  I didn't notice the different conditions and zero.

[Tyler Durden]

No problem-oh.

I have been to Winchester's, Remington's, Federal's, and Hornady's websites looking for what they are offering in .300 Blackout.

No luck, whatsoever.

I was hoping to find a muzzle velocity and barrel length published somewhere.

Arggh....

[Magoo541]

I blame Solus for my piling on.... I saw you were on a Mac and thought you used a purchased ballistic calc hence the piling on....

The reason I like the 300 AAC is I am not a fan of the 5.56/ .223 round and would love a 30 calibre in the AR platform since I have more trigger time and training with that platform.  There have been other 30 calibre offering with little support for a variety of reasons but the 300 BO seems to have some steam behind it.  It doesn't hurt that just the barrel needs to be swapped out either.

The 7.62 x 39 would be ideal if it worked better in the AR platform because of the price of ammo but I think reloading would diminish that point a little and a Dillion 650 is on my Christmas list