[PaulKersey]

I don’t understand the appeal and popularity of the 300 blackout. 7.62x39 is a flatter shooter...not by much but, flatter none the less. It seems to me that the 300 blackout is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Someone, anyone....please help me understand.

 

[hardcalibres]

300 Blackout makes the most sense in an AR with a short barrel with a suppressor.

It allows the use of Supersonic loads interchangeably with Subsonic loads (that can be suppressed quite effectively compared to supersonic rounds).

For people who like heavier bullets than are available for 223/5.56, they get that from 300BO.

I assume the reason the 7.62x39 did not get that gig was that:

1) It would have required a different magazine configuration in an AR to make it work
2) No one did the same subsonic load development work that was done on 300BO
3) The tapered side case was viewed as less optimal for what they were trying to do?
4) Necking up the 223 case would make the Blackout seem a less radical step?

 

[Aerindel]

Its because it has cool name and uses the same bolt as 556 in an AR.

And people didn't used to understand how to get .39 to run well in an AR so it got a bad name in the past.

My 7.62x39 AR is my favorite rifle. Mostly because its so cheap to shoot and I like how the heavy bullets knock stuff around down range.

 

[hardcalibres]

Here are a couple of youtube videos comparing 5.56 and 300BO unsuppressed, 5.56 suppressed and 300BO suppressed (sub and supersonic).

As they discuss, video camera mics don't do it all justice, but the down range camera shots demonstrate the most realistic difference.

The effect (they only briefly mention) of suppressors in making it very hard to identify the direction rounds are coming from is quite real.

They even mention survivalism - but fair warning, they also say the "f word" a few times too.

 

[Chuckleberry]

`

If I were to modify an upper to shoot 7.62x39, I not only need a new barrel, but a new bolt & mags & most of the AR style mags that feed 7.62x39 aren't usually as reliable as regular AR mags or AK mags. I can get an AR kind of looking rifle that shoots 7.62x39 that still needs a different barrel & bolt but will accept AK mags which also means I now need a special lower. I found that changing a barrel isn't that hard & swapping uppers while a bit more expensive is even easier still. I could still use the same entire BCG with the 300BLK so that would be one less BCG to buy if you are trying to save $. Also fewer varieties of spare parts to keep on hand with a 300BLK in an AR vs. a 7.62x39 in an AR, really just the barrel is the only spare you'd need that is different, so all the mags & other parts work fine. The minute bit of difference in ballistics isn't worth the hassle of dealing with all that other crap.

.

 

[Nomad 2nd]

Its because it has cool name and uses the same bolt as 556 in an AR.

And people didn't used to understand how to get .39 to run well in an AR so it got a bad name in the past. .

No offence intended, but I have yet to have anyone I know who runs one hard.... Like something I would depend on with my life claim any success with it claim that the new AR 47's make the grade.

Plinking and a fun gun: sure.


OP:
There's a lot of fads.

The ability of the .300 to be loaded with 556 brass and .30 bullets is a big factor.

The ability to be chambered in a semi (AR) SUCCESSFULLY (reliability wise) as well as a manual is big.
I bought a Remington model 7 before I bought a .300 AR upper.

The fact is that every AR that's NOT an AR15 has.... Long term parts issues.

I remember an AR10 that took HK91 mags. Great idea.
Now 15+ years later.... Good luck getting parts.

The AR10 is GETTING there in "Standardization" but isn't there yet.

So, crappy AR options in x39, long term parts issues, desire for a semi (AK's don't suppress well.) Needing different mags vs using 556 etc

I'm .sure you know that everything but the .300 barrel works with 556 with Ar's

Etc.


Also, 10 years ago the subsonic 7.62x39 offerings were crappy killers.

I was actually planning on starting a thread about good "killing ammo" projectiles that were .311, and performed well at subsonic speeds.

I recently picked up a Ruger American in 7.62x39 to go with my Model 7 in .300 blk, and intend on doing some compare and contrast.

I REALLY LIKE it's ability to use mini 30 mags (paid $15 for a 20 rounder today)


If your JUST using a manual, and just for fun.... X39

If your playing like me or have lots of different guns.... Meh

But if you don't have 40+ different types of ammo, commonality is a good thing. (If I were to use an AR pistol it would be in .300 or 9mm, NOT 556.) I
I HAVE 556 pistols, but as toys.


If there some good subsonic projectiles for the x39 I can see the (my) .300 guns going unused or going away.

Otherwise:

Have you HEARD a suppressed .300?
Add that to the above.... And that's why


$0.02, YMMV.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

Just tell everyone you are shooting 7.62x35. Most of them won't think twice and ask you why aren't you shooting 7.62x39.

 

[ksmedman]

300BO is a good round. It's a 300ish yard round like x39, or arguably .556.
Supersonic bullets are GTG, but it really shines suppressed.

Did you know that sub 220gr's have been shown to defeat "bullet-proof" glass?

https://www.80-lower.com/blogs/80-lower-blog/300-blackout-vs-body-armor-and-bulletproof-glass/

They slay deer in the 0-100 yard range too. :thumb:
Sectional density is a thing, yo.

 

[Aerindel]

No offence intended, but I have yet to have anyone I know who runs one hard.... Like something I would depend on with my life claim any success with it claim that the new AR 47's make the grade.

No offense taken. I have not taken mine to war so I can't speak about how it would hold up under that use. I just know mine has been flawless so far for hunting and plinking.

The minute bit of difference in ballistics isn't worth the hassle of dealing with all that other crap.

Its not the ballistics, its the logistics, 7.62x39 is cheap and common, .300blk significantly less so.

If .300 blk was as cheap and common as 7.62x39 there would be no argument, .300blk would be the obvious choice.

 

[Hick Industries]

I don’t understand the appeal and popularity of the 300 blackout. 7.62x39 is a flatter shooter...not by much but, flatter none the less. It seems to me that the 300 blackout is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Someone, anyone....please help me understand.

Shooting an AK, SKS, Mini-30, or bolt action rifle, the greater case capacity gives the 7.62x39 the advantage. Especially if you are handloading that larger case with soft point expanding bullets, and using it for hunting.

Shooting a short barreled AR pistol, whats the point? Its just a stupid toy anyway.

 

[Big_John]

I don’t understand the appeal and popularity of the 300 blackout. 7.62x39 is a flatter shooter...not by much but, flatter none the less. It seems to me that the 300 blackout is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Someone, anyone....please help me understand.

I can't...... Cause I feel the same way.

Sure, the 300BO is a fine round.

But the lovely 7.62 is well-performing load that is DIRT CHEAP!!!! $162 a 1000 was my last purchase. 300BO is going to cost you.

I am a HUGE FAN of a 7.62 Mutant AR..... When they are made with top-shelf components and steel mags... they are spectacular!!!!

I've even got a Howa bolt 7.62 that is an awesome gun.

........

 

[Chuckleberry]

`

The price for brass cased ammo, which as a reloader is what I buy is almost the same for 300BLK vs 7.62x39. Not to mention if you look for factory subsonic loads in 7.62x39 vs 300blk, the x39 stuff is hard to find and as expensive if not more expensive than the 300BLK. If someone already has guns that shoot 7.62x39 & especially if shooting steel case cheap ammo is good enough for them, then that is probably a better option for them. If you don't own any AK's, SKS's or anything else in 7.62x39 but are looking at getting an upper for your AR to shoot 7.62x39, you'd probably be better off with the 300BLK. Uses the same bolt as well as mags which can be had for a lot less than the x39 mags that aren't as reliable. Also the AR bolts for the x39 are thinner & aren't as rugged as the 5.56 bolts. You can spend even more for an ARAK, mutant, or other versions of AR looking guns that take AK mags & shoot x39 ammo, but at that point, I'd rather just have an AK.

.

 

[justin22885]

it exists because many AR-15 fanboys have been convinced 5.56 is inferior, and they need a 30 cal, but AKs are "commie" weapons that shoot 182 MOA, and oh god the recoil as you struggle to hit a barn!

as an actual weapon that will actually be used, yeah, 7.62x39 is better, and you can get good ammo for way cheaper, and is actually a proven caliber and will always be available, and plentiful

 

[justin22885]

`

The price for brass cased ammo, which as a reloader is what I buy is almost the same for 300BLK vs 7.62x39. Not to mention if you look for factory subsonic loads in 7.62x39 vs 300blk, the x39 stuff is hard to find and as expensive if not more expensive than the 300BLK. If someone already has guns that shoot 7.62x39 & especially if shooting steel case cheap ammo is good enough for them, then that is probably a better option for them. If you don't own any AK's, SKS's or anything else in 7.62x39 but are looking at getting an upper for your AR to shoot 7.62x39, you'd probably be better off with the 300BLK. Uses the same bolt as well as mags which can be had for a lot less than the x39 mags that aren't as reliable. Also the AR bolts for the AK are thinner & aren't as rugged as the 5.56 bolts. You can spend even more for an ARAK, mutant, or other versions of AR looking guns that take AK mags & shoot x39 ammo, but at that point, I'd rather just have an AK.

.

why would you reload for 7.62x39 anyway? fully loaded ammunition costs less than what you're going to buy .30 caliber unloaded bullets for, and the ammo isnt just inexpensive, but well suited to feed a rifle intended for fighting or defense.. you'll gain nothing from reloading 7.62x39

 

[Aerindel]

why would you reload for 7.62x39 anyway? fully loaded ammunition costs less than what you're going to buy .30 caliber unloaded bullets for, and the ammo isnt just inexpensive, but well suited to feed a rifle intended for fighting or defense.. you'll gain nothing from reloading 7.62x39

Indeed. Thats the best thing about it for me, 556 costs enough that I feel I have to pick up the brass and reload it, but x39 I don't worry about.

it exists because many AR-15 fanboys have been convinced 5.56 is inferior, and they need a 30 cal, but AKs are "commie" weapons that shoot 182 MOA, and oh god the recoil as you struggle to hit a barn!

as an actual weapon that will actually be used, yeah, 7.62x39 is better, and you can get good ammo for way cheaper, and is actually a proven caliber and will always be available, and plentiful

Well, I have an AK and an AR....I simply like the AR more, while I prefer x39 more than 556 so I see no reason not to have what I like in one gun as its no more expensive or challenging to build an x39 AR than a 556 one.

I'd like to build another AK too, but its been a long time since I saw a parts kit for any reasonable price.

 

[Nomad 2nd]

why would you reload for 7.62x39 anyway?

Because the cheap **** is cheap ****.
Amanda yea, it'll work for training and even for many uses. But sometimes you need APIT or something (illustration, not literal.)shot

WAAAY cheaper subsonics reloading for example


fully loaded ammunition costs less than what you're going to buy .30 caliber unloaded bullets for, and the ammo isnt just inexpensive, but well suited to feed a rifle intended for fighting or defense.. you'll gain nothing from reloading 7.62x39

yes you will, depending upon your intended useage.

No different than any other caliber.

 

[justin22885]

yes you will, depending upon your intended useage.

No different than any other caliber.

7.62x39 is a military cartridge for a military rifle.. if you are trying to make some kind of subsonic big game hunting rifle out of it, then you're using the rifles and the cartridge outside of its intended role, and cannot complain if the results are unsatisfactory.. but as a military rifle, in a military cartridge, that steel ammo in the rifle designed for it is reliable AF, and still more than accurate enough for its effective range

cheap 7.62x39 can be stocked deep, for cheap, and is good enough to trust and rely on for its role as a military rifle and cartridge

 

[justin22885]

Indeed. Thats the best thing about it for me, 556 costs enough that I feel I have to pick up the brass and reload it, but x39 I don't worry about.



Well, I have an AK and an AR....I simply like the AR more, while I prefer x39 more than 556 so I see no reason not to have what I like in one gun as its no more expensive or challenging to build an x39 AR than a 556 one.

I'd like to build another AK too, but its been a long time since I saw a parts kit for any reasonable price.

AR-15 mags are of such a poor design though, doubly so when you try to make them in 7.62x39. Nobody is going to make the claim that AR-15 mags in 7.62x39 are even in the same league as AK mags. When you've put your 7.62x39 AR-15 through 1% of 1% of the abuse AKs have been put through on a regular basis, and survive as they have, then maybe you could draw a comparison. But that isn't going to happen.

 

[hardcalibres]

........
Shooting a short barreled AR pistol, whats the point? Its just a stupid toy anyway.

The best gunfighters in the world disagree.

Virtually every SOF unit in the Western World (including Seals and Delta) have used 10.5" Barreled ARs as their primary CQB (Close Quarters Battle) gun for the last 15 years or so.

Most have been chambered in 5.56mm (often suppressed) and occasionally in 300BO.

M4s fitted with 10.5" uppers and Mark 18s fitted with Surefire cans are pretty ubiquitous in that world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Quarters_Battle_Receiver

Lot's of bad guys have been shot with those.....

Watch the last 30 minutes of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" to see a realistic portrayal of those sorts of guns being used on the Bin Laden raid.

 

[0002S]

Supersonic there is very little difference ballistically. The 300 is easier to run in the AR platform. The 300 is easier to acquire over the counter quality hunting ammo. The 300 is easier to reload (brass and bullet selection) for hunting.

I’ve shot a lot of deer and hogs with both rounds. The 300 is better, not because of it’s ballistics, but because of bullet choices.

All the above being said, the 300 is really best suited in a SBR, shot subsonic and suppressed.

Hunting with 190ish gr subsonic expanding bullets is where it’s at. I haven’t shot any game over 120 yards with this setup. The sound the bullet makes when it hits the animal is akin to the sound of a fastball hitting wet newspaper or a padded backstop. The bullets pass through and the wound channels are very similar to a broad head.