1.) Bob Peck - 04/12/2020

WARNING:
If you're not into the technical aspects then skip this post!

[url]https://www.snipercountry.com/300-blackout-vs-308/#comment-2870[/url]

2.) bluecat - 04/12/2020

^^^ brilliant


This whole having to spend time with people you love thing really sucks.

3.) Swamp Fox - 04/12/2020

Hmmmm .... :cf:

4.) Bob Peck - 04/13/2020

Comment on that article from David Hedrick worth arguing about for 1 or 2 posts and then hijacking the thread:

I don’t know why this obvious information is not discussed at length.
Since the 300 uses .308 bullets, every bullet available for the 300 is also available for the 308.
Since the 308 has a larger case capacity, it can be either loaded with more powder, or less, or the same.
So anything that can be achieved with the 300 can also be replicated with the 308, but not the other way around.
So, in conclusion, the 300 is a useless, pointless and not needed round.
For example, you can load a 220gr RN in a .308 subsonic, have a round with exactly the same noise, ballistics, recoil, terminal ballistics, penetration, energy, velocity, absolutely everything exactly the same, except a longer case. A very common, cheap, tens of millions of rifles made to fit, anywhere in the world, case.
So why make the 300? Money. The manufacturers want something new to hype up and con people into thinking they need it, to increase sales for a pointless, redundant new round.

5.) Swamp Fox - 04/13/2020

I tend to agree with that, thus the the head-scratching emoticon above.

Of course, not everyone bakes their own cakes, so there is always some value in an off-the-shelf load of exotic variety.

Moreover, the article was well-done in an academic sort of way, but the whole thing is a matter of apples and oranges.

My immediate thought upon reading the headline was, "Why are we comparing these two?" and I got a little chuckle out of the author's note that he was limited on space (in a digital format, LOL).

But I was relieved that he would not be contrasting every single available load in this very pointless endeavor.

The two cartridges are for different purposes, and while the irrelevant tangent about the history of the 5.56 military round was weird and entertaining at the same time, this article reminds me that experience-driven opinion is more interesting and engaging than data-driven analysis, especially when the first impression and final conclusion turn out to be the same: that "One of these things is not like the other."

This is true even if the writer includes graphs and photos, and circles and arrows.






The interesting firearms discussions are on the edges. This is nowhere close to the edge.

And on a side note, as far as gun-writing in general goes, I'm sad to report that---from what I can tell-- the golden days of Jack O'Connor vs. Elmer Keith are over.

6.) Swamp Fox - 04/13/2020

[I][Two hours ago] [/I]

Was that too harsh?

7.) Swamp Fox - 04/13/2020

LOL ....

8.) DParker - 04/15/2020

[QUOTE=Bob Peck;60572]Comment on that article from David Hedrick worth arguing about for 1 or 2 posts and then hijacking the thread:

I don’t know why this obvious information is not discussed at length.
Since the 300 uses .308 bullets, every bullet available for the 300 is also available for the 308.
Since the 308 has a larger case capacity, it can be either loaded with more powder, or less, or the same.
So anything that can be achieved with the 300 can also be replicated with the 308, but not the other way around.
So, in conclusion, the 300 is a useless, pointless and not needed round.
For example, you can load a 220gr RN in a .308 subsonic, have a round with exactly the same noise, ballistics, recoil, terminal ballistics, penetration, energy, velocity, absolutely everything exactly the same, except a longer case. A very common, cheap, tens of millions of rifles made to fit, anywhere in the world, case.
So why make the 300? Money. The manufacturers want something new to hype up and con people into thinking they need it, to increase sales for a pointless, redundant new round.[/QUOTE]

It's almost as if he didn't even read the article.

That said, I'm going to go against the grain and pick a few bones with the author and the article. I'll subdue my inner grammar Nazi and ignore his generally poor English composition skills, except for this one:

[QUOTE]For short range work, the 5.56×45 NATO just didn’t have the right performance characteristics such as high velocities and horrible noise and flash in close quarter environments.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming that what he meant to say was something like, "5.56×45 NATO possesses qualities - like high velocities and horrible noise and flash - that are undesirable in close quarter environments." What he actually said is the opposite of that.

[QUOTE]The military had been using a standard 9mm round, but special-forces units were sometimes dissatisfied with the performance of the round. The .300 AAC Blackout was the solution to these problems.[/QUOTE]

This statement makes no sense. 9mm is the NATO round for sidearms. While some are/were dissatisfied with it as a [B][I]pistol[/I][/B] round, that has nothing to do with development of 300 AC BLK as an intended replacement for the 5.56x45 [B][I]rifle[/I][/B] cartridge.

[QUOTE]...the .308 Winchester has and will continue to have a loyal and dedicated market for the avid hunter. This is a larger bullet with excellent range, penetration, and stopping power.[/QUOTE]

".308 Winchester" refers to a cartridge, not a bullet. So why is he talking about the bullet as though it were the cartridge?

[QUOTE]It’s a great medium to large game caliber and can be used for just about any large game animal in the world under the right conditions.[/QUOTE]

Just about any (native) large game animal in North America (and most other continents for that matter)? Sure. Just about any large game animal in...say...Africa? Not so much.

[QUOTE]The velocity is an interesting category because it tends to have a lot of influence on other performance characteristics such as recoil...[/QUOTE]

Velocity and recoil are indirectly related in that there is some commonality in the other factors that influence each, but that does not mean that the former influences the latter...especially not "a lot".

[QUOTE]By just looking at the velocity, you can have a pretty good understanding of the full potential of the round.[/QUOTE]

Uhmmm...no.

[QUOTE]With that being said, velocity walks a fine line between high performance and being out control or even dangerous, and is especially important to remember if you ever find yourself diving into the world of handloading.[/QUOTE]

Again, no. Velocity is not what is dangerous (unless you're on the receiving end of it, of course, but then it's not walking any line with respect to firearm ammo...it's always dangerous). What's potentially dangerous is pressure. And while pressure is one of the factors that contribute to bullet velocity, the two are not interchangeable. One can easily increase a load's velocity by using a lighter bullet, which actually reduces pressure.

[QUOTE]When it comes to the ballistic coefficient, most people either put a lot of credence into it or they have no idea what it is.[/QUOTE]

And we're about to see that the author belongs in the 2nd group.

[QUOTE]The ballistic coefficient (BC) is a number that is derived from an equation using several data points related to the cartridge specs, with the bullet design being a major factor.[/QUOTE]

Once again...no. BC equations have nothing to do with cartridge specs. BC can (and usually does) change slightly in response to changes in velocity, and of course cartridge specs play a role in determining velocity...but cartridge specs do not play a part in the equations. BC is entirely a function of bullet design and a given velocity. And except for diameter and contribution to overall length (which is determined by more than just the projectile's total length), bullet design is not a part of the cartridge specs. And given that no two loads in the "Ballistic Coefficient Comparison" chart use the same bullet, the chart is pretty meaningless.

Under "Stopping Power" (wherein the author erroneously uses that term as though it were the same as "lethality" wrt hunting), we have:

[QUOTE]This transfer of this energy is also affected by how the bullet reacts on impact, such as expansion which also relies on velocity, but we will leave that topic for another time.[/QUOTE]

Wait...what? You're devoting a whole section to the subject of "stopping power", but are skipping over one of the most important factors in determining that?

There's a lot more, but I'll stop here before I fill an entire screen with complaints. And I'd look the other way on a lot of it if he'd just have someone proofread his stuff before publishing it.

9.) Swamp Fox - 04/15/2020

LOL...

10.) Swamp Fox - 04/15/2020

That's gonna leave a mark.

11.) Bob Peck - 04/16/2020

[QUOTE=DParker;60613]There's a lot more, but I'll stop here before I fill an entire screen with complaints. And I'd look the other way on a lot of it if he'd just have someone proofread his stuff before publishing it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but what about [I]" ... anything that can be achieved with the 300 can also be replicated with the 308, but not the other way around."[/I] and [I]"So why make the 300?"[/I]

I personally don't get my knickers in a twist over caliber debates. To each his or her own.

12.) DParker - 04/16/2020

[QUOTE=Bob Peck;60627]Yeah but what about [I]" ... anything that can be achieved with the 300 can also be replicated with the 308, but not the other way around."[/I] and [I]"So why make the 300?"[/I][/QUOTE]

That was the first thing I quoted and responded to with:

"It's almost as if he didn't even read the article."

The one thing the piece did well was explain why 300 AAC BLK was created, and what purpose it serves that .308 Win does not.

13.) Bob Peck - 04/16/2020

[QUOTE=DParker;60628]That was the first thing I quoted and responded to with[/QUOTE]
Well alrighty then.