Something new is coming..... updated - 300 AAC BLACKOUT – New Caliber, New Mission?

[Mike]

What does it do that is any different ( in terms of mission not ergonomics, accuracy or any other thing related to the platform itself) that an AK won't do?

Probably nothing.

But most probably it will do everything that an AK does but just a bit better (accuracy, quality, variety of ammunition/bullet options) and while doing so in an AR-type (or any other system in 5.56 format as well, I guess) platform using existing accessoirs (starting from magazines ending with suppressors).

[Wondering Beard]

M4 + MP5 + MP7 or 300AAC


I wrote "new mission" because it is capable of replacing all three of the above in their various mission capabilities.

I think I understand except that I thought the short barrelled M4s (10.5" and the like) were meant to replace the MP5 and MP7 PDW type weapons.

Maybe I'm just confused (which happens easily) but aren't we basically talking about an AR/M4 platform with short or long barrels depending on use? the only difference with the original platform is then the caliber.

From what I can read and understand (and thus be easily mistaken), this new caliber is better at penetration and, with the right load, at being suppressed. How much of an improvement is that really?

On the other hand, this new caliber reminds me of the old 30-30, maybe making the M4 platform as versatile as the Winchester M94 once was, if not more.

[Wondering Beard]

Probably nothing.

But most probably it will do everything that an AK does but just a bit better (accuracy, quality, variety of ammunition/bullet options) and while doing so in an AR-type (or any other system in 5.56 format as well, I guess) platform using existing accessoirs (starting from magazines ending with suppressors).

Ok, I see that.

I guess that's where all the points about ammo price lead to: if it's not affordable, it's not going to worth the changes.

[Paulo_Santos]

The problem that a lot of these new calibers are having/going to have in beating, or trying to replace the 5.56, is that there are so many bullets available for the 5.56 to make it work from the 8"-24" barrels. Plus training ammo is very cheap and reloading is even cheaper. So these new calibers have a lot of catching up to do and they can't afford to mess it up, like the 6.8 messed it up in the beginning and it is now trying to get back on the right track.

[m249saw]

No idea, I'm not really sure. I know that it rates a bit better than some of the other .30 cal cans, so I would imagine its going to be a bit more money. The nice thing about a 30 cal can is that you can use it on your 5.56 weapons also......

The 762-SDN-2 was listed at $895 MSRP on one of those data sheets.

[todd.k]

with the right load, at being suppressed. How much of an improvement is that really?

Huge. Subsonic with a silence is very quiet.

[Stickman]

I think I understand except that I thought the short barrelled M4s (10.5" and the like) were meant to replace the MP5 and MP7 PDW type weapons.

You would think so, but the MP5 & MP7 are used for different missions, and very often ones that involve the use of cans.

[Wondering Beard]

You would think so, but the MP5 & MP7 are used for different missions, and very often ones that involve the use of cans.

I assume that you mean missions were discretion (and thus blending in) is paramount.

Size would matter in those and the M4 platform, irrelevant of caliber, would be too large, correct?

[Wondering Beard]

Huge. Subsonic with a silence is very quiet.

Doesn't that narrow its niche?

[Stickman]

I assume that you mean missions were discretion (and thus blending in) is paramount.

Size would matter in those and the M4 platform, irrelevant of caliber, would be too large, correct?

I'm sitting here with it right next to me, so from first hand experience in running a gun for a living, and having it by my side, I think I can safely say that I am comfortable with its size.

[Stickman]

Doesn't that narrow its niche?

It would, until you figure that by switching back to supersonic ammo, the regular game is back on.

[TehLlama]

And the niche widens immensely when you're in the process of rolling out modular AR uppers and conversion kits for ACR's, especially if you're also viewing this in the context of using something like a modular Colt/MGI style lower or SCAR-H w/ short conversion and being able to utilize a 30 caliber suppressor for either a small .300 round as well as 7.62x51 NATO.

I see what they're on about - it's really going to come down to the right circumstances for compatible platforms to get the round in frequent enough use that surplus ammo starts happening - something that didn't occur with 6.8 and look at how quickly it languished.

I see more potential with this than 6.8SPC honestly, but it's contingent on hardware with very little connection to the round being made and marketed correctly.

[jmart]

Just what we need for Afghan, a 7.62x39 in a different twist, but same ballistics.

If we're serious about changing calibers, just go all out and pick 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. I don't care which one, but you get better velocity, better long range performance, a much more verstaile cartridge. This just doesn't pass the common sense test unless we're abandoning the 300 meter-and-out envelope for small arms and utilizing some other weapon to handle these situations.

[Paulo_Santos]

300 AAC BLACKOUT Trajectories with a 16" barel and using the Winchester 123 FMJ Bullet (.256 BC) with a MV of 2300 FPS and a sight height of 2.6":

Using a 100 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: -0.3" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 0" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: -6.3" (1696 FPS)
300 Yards: -24.8" (1443 FPS)

Using a 50 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: 0" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 0.7" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: -4.9" (1696 FPS)
300 Yards: -22.7" (1443 FPS)

Using a 200 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: 1.2" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 3.2" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: 0" (1696 FPS)
300 Yards: -15.3" (1443 FPS)

Using a 25/250 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: 2.4" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 5.5" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: 4.7" (1696 FPS)
300 Yards: -8.3" (1443 FPS)

Using a 275 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: 3.1" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 6.8" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: 7.4" (1696 FPS)
250 Yards: 3.3" (1502 FPS)
300 Yards: -4.3" (1443 FPS)

Using a 300 Yard Zero:
50 Yards: 3.8" (2138 FPS)
100 Yards: 8.3" (1983 FPS)
200 Yards: 10.2" (1696 FPS)
300 Yards: 0" (1443 FPS)

After checking the Ballistics, I would say that if you are only shooting out to 100 Yards, I'd use the 50 or 100 Yard Zero.* I'm a big fan of the 100 Yard Zero, so I'd pick that one.

If I was shooting out to 200 Yards, then the 50 or 100 Yard Zeros would be best.* Again, I'm a fan of the 100 Yard zero, so I'd still choose the 100 yard zero as it is still pretty flat trajectory.
(Note that the 50 and 200 yard zeros do not produce the similar trajectories like in the 5.56.).

If I was shooting out to 300 yards, the 250 or 275 Yard zero offers the FLATTEST Trajectory and it is the one I would use.

[B4RAZ]

300 AAC=300 whisper/300 fireball. I believe it to be a mission specific weapon. I have several friends who shoot/reload 300 fireball and it is very very quiet, but in our testing we could not stabalize a 125gr bullet with a 1/8 twist with a 9'' barrel. The 190-220gr smk's shoot great at subsonic velocities but I dont see how you can expect a single twist rate to stabalize a 123gr as well as 220gr. I really dont see the purpose unless your shooting subsonic. For general military purposes Id much prefer 6.5 or 6.8. Just my 2 cents. Stick, please let us know if you get the chance to do some accuracy testing with the different bullets(123gr,155gr,220gr) that AAC/Remington says they are going to offer.