This is the interesting thing to me. So many guys are running 16"+ barreled 300 BLKs and shooting Barnes 110 Tac-TX ammo, raving about how awesome the 300 BLK is. The reality is that when using a 16" barrel, a 77 grain 5.56 load carries more energy once you get past about 50 yards than that Barnes 110 Blackout load everyone is in love with.

The numbers don't lie. If you are planning to shoot a 16" AR-15 unsuppressed, the 300 BLK is far from the best choice. The point blank reality is that pretty much every other AR-15 caliber is a better choice for hunting in this configuration. Is the blackout "good enough?" That's relative, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't get why someone looking to hunt with a 16" AR style rifle who doesn't plan to shoot suppressed would ever end up with a 300 BLK.

I own a 300 BLK rifle, and I think it is a great round when used as it was intended. It shines when you go with a short barrel (because it is so darn efficient), or if you want to run suppressed. I just think it's interesting that so many people are using it in a way that utilizes none of its benefits.

My go-to pig gun used to be a 16" 5.56 but ran 64 & 68 grainer's, never ran the 77's. That gun became a 300 blk and I wish I would have done it sooner. CNS shots, of course no difference. Body shots = huge difference in performance. I went with the 18" barrel for better accuracy. Some shots in the farm country can be kind of long, and it is definitely more accurate now. I can cover a 3 shot group with a quarter @ 100 yrds w/digital night vision. I couldn't do that when it was a 16" 5.56. I have always planned on shooting it suppressed. I just picked up another 5.56, I may try the 77's in it. If that doesn't tickle my fancy it will probly become a 300 blk too. The real life difference in performance sold me. I like the 6.8 too, but quite a bit louder than the 300.

Oh & yes, it's gonna be pretty long after I put my can on it.

Nothing wrong with shooting whatever gun you want, so I totally respect your decision to shoot the 300 BLK in whatever iteration you like. I wasn't trying to change your mind specifically about what you want to shoot, I just don't like that so many people seem to buy a BLK without really knowing what they are getting or why they are buying it. I have heard so many crazy misconceptions about this round when I am at my LGS, Cabela's, etc.

If you understand the reality of the 300 BLK and other AR calibers and want to buy a 16" BLK to kill pigs, knock yourself out. It will kill pigs with a good shot just like pretty much any other centerfire rifle caliber. Like I said earlier, I own one, so I am by no means a hater of the caliber. I just think it has a specific niche, and is often used in roles where it is not well suited and there are much better options available.

Side note - no difference in accuracy between a 16" and 18" barrel. A slight difference in muzzle velocity, sure, but no difference in accuracy whatsoever.

thanks for the conversation.

What I was talking about as far as accuracy....the 64-68 gr 223 w/a 16" barrel grouped "OK/acceptable". Made the swap to the 300 w/the 110 Barnes and 18" barrel...BIG difference in grouping. 16-18" in 5.56 yes Sir you are right.

I'm not saying the 300 blk is the best in the world, I'm just saying that my 300 outperformed all of my 223's on body shot pigs. The 6.8 IMO equals or slightly exceeds the performance of the 300 on pigs. If it's just me and the guys, we can take pretty much any rifle to the field and kill pigs....but with clients that don't shoot much I like it because....very little recoil, they can stay on target easier, that copper 30 cal bullet hits hard & penetrates well. Down side is it's a little slower, so after that first shot and they take off you have to lead them a little farther than you would with the 5.56 or 6.8. But when that bullet hits it hits like a sledge hammer.

Let's look at that. Here is a chart below for comparison of both rounds out of an AR-15 with 16" barrel in both calibers. A 77 grain will run about 2700 fps in a 16" AR, and the blk out with a 125 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip runs 2230 fps in my AR-15 with my ammo (link HERE). (and my 125 grain load in a suppressed bolt gun runs 2350 fps, which will increase energy even more!)

At no point does the .224" 77 grain bullet have more energy than the 300 blk out with a 125 grain bullet. The blk out does have more energy throughout the flight path within hunting distances of 300 yards. The 77 grain only catches up to the energy of the 110 Barnes at around 120 or 150 yards, but you have a much better bullet once it hits.

Now, let's look at bullet terminal performance (the performance of the bullet once it enters soft tissue). From the multiple pictures customers have sent me, and my personal bullet recoveries, the 125 grain bullets in the blk out will have perfect mushroom shaped expansion. If you do not get a full pass through (which often happens), the bullet will often be recovered under the far side shoulder under the skin. This means that you get full penetration with a fully expanded 30 caliber bullet. With a 223/5.56, you have a 77 grain match bullet that comes apart once it hits bone or enters soft tissue. This will greatly limit penetration and effectiveness. These results are very common in a 223/5.56 match bullet, and I have had the same experiences when shooting pigs and other critters with a 223/5.56 and target bullets. The bullet terminal performance is lacking in penetration with a 223/5.56, and often not very effective (in comparison to other better AR-15 rounds).

So, what does this mean? You have a dedicated 30 caliber hunting bullet much bigger in diameter and heavier than a .224" bullet, with more energy than a 223/5.56, and easily out penetrates a 223/5.56 round. If the numbers don't lie, tell me how a 223 is better than a blk out?

After years of personally shooting lots of critters with a 223/5.56 and a 300 blk out, there is no doubt the 300 blk out is a better choice for energy, penetration, and terminal performance on animals. IMO, it's one of the best overall rounds available for hunting and plinking in a bolt gun or an AR-15.

All rounds out of a 16" AR-15

77 grain @ 2700 fps
Range Velocity Energy
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs)
0 2700 1246.3
100 2455.2 1030.6
200 2224.8 846.3
300 2006.1 688.1

125 grain @ 2230 fps
Range Velocity Energy
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs)
0 2230 1380.2
100 2013.3 1125
200 1809.9 909.1
300 1621.5 729.8

110 Barnes @ 2370 fps
Range Velocity Energy
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs)
0 2370 1371.9
100 2088.7 1065.5
200 1827.2 815.4
300 1589.6 617.1

I know a lot of 300 BLK shooters like the Barnes bullets, and the Hornady VMAX 110 is another popular choice.
I've been using both the Hornady 110 VMAX http://www.hornady.com/store/30-Cal-.308-110-gr-V-MAX/ and also Hornady 110 SP Varmit bullets http://www.hornady.com/store/30-Cal-.308-110-gr-SP/. The SP's are cheaper, so I tend to favor them, and I'm wondering if anyone has opinions as to if the VMAX are worth the extra cost. I'm really just looking for 'Good Enough' or I'd be buying the Barnes or some kind of premium bullet.

Thoughts?

My son runs a 300 Whisper (ballistic twin of the BO)with 125 grain Ballistic Tips and he kills everything that steps into his target area with one shot. Most of his shots are under 200 yards. It's a deadly efficient round.

If the SP's are working for you I'd stick with them. Bout to load up a bunch of 125 grain Sierra TMK's and give them a try on pigs (looking to save money). They should perform well at 300 blk velocities.

The 110 SP should hold up a little better than the V-max. But any of the 125 grain bullets are very effective on deer and pigs.

Hmm, interesting. Maybe I'll try the Hornady 130 grain SP. The ballastics out to just over 100 yards look good at 300 BLK velocities, and since this rifle will eventually be wearing my Photon NV scope, that's about as far as I'll be shooting. Hornady bullets are on sale right now at Cabela's. Did I mention that I'm a cheapskate frugal?

As Chad stated you numbers are off, but either way energy alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example, 44Mag with a 300 grain xtp has less energy than either one, but will stop a hog without issue.

I've owned and hunted with three different 300blk rifles/carbines. Sbr ar lower with a 10.5" And a 14.5" both suppressed, and a savage 10 with a 16.25" barrel also suppressed. I loved the cartridge for a while but I quit shooting 300 blk. Here's what I figured out. The 10.5" barrel is all you need, heavy subsonic loads with common commercial bullets are quiet and not deadly (pass through with no expansion kills very slowly and they ricochet like crazy). Subsonics are totally worthless for run and gun shooting hogs that cover 100yds in a few seconds. For jump shooting ferals and Javelina the supersonic 110's-125's are great to 150 yds, past that I don't have time to keep up with bullet drop when the heat is on I shoot pretty good but don't have time to come up, I have shot front legs out from under hogs more than once at 160-200 yds. Past 200 the 300 blk is just worthless unless it is a shot you can take the time to estimate and hold over. For me and the type of shooting I do a 5.56 with 55-75gr bullets is more effective (I'm taking about jumping 10-50 pigs in a wheat field at 100yds and slinging lead at them until they are out of sight.) I need something flatter shooting than the 300. I've killed several deer with the 300blk in a bolt gun with Barnes 110's and they are effective but I prefer any of my 6.5's over that round. For suppressed sbr in a cqb scenario the 300blk would be my choice, hope I never get in that situation.

Actually, Chad's numbers are off - which I assume was done intentionally since he is a huge 300 BLK fanboy and selling 300 BLK ammo is a big part of his business.

For some reason, he chose to add 20 FPS to the 110 Barnes 300 BLK loads actual speed (He quoted 2370 when it is actually 2350), and he took 50 FPS off the speed of virtually any 77 grain 5.56 load (he quoted 2700 when it is actually 2750). Just google the loads and see for yourself.

When you run the ballistics on the actual numbers quoted by the manufacturers (0.372 BC and 2750 muzzle velocity for 77 gr. 5.56 / 0.295 BC and 2350 muzzle velocity for the 110 Barnes BLK) you will find that the 5.56 load surpasses the BLK in energy somewhere between 50 and 75 yards. This is why I said the 5.56 load carries more energy after "about 50 yards."

I don't care about Chad's handloads, because I specifically mentioned the 110 Barnes factory offering. I did not say anything comparing 77 grain 5.56 loads to Chad's handloads. I am not sure whey he chose to bring them up, other than that he was trying to sell some ammo. Funny how when I very specifically wrote about the 110 grain Barnes BLK loading he jumps right to talking about his own handloads (which he sells), isn't it?

I also am not arguing that the 5.56 is a good pig round - I am arguing that both the 5.56 and 300 BLK are below average hunting rounds. Can you kill stuff with either? Of course you can! But there are much better options, so why choose to limit yourself?

Why don't you go run the numbers yourself instead of blindly believing Chad, and then get back to me?

Here is the direct quote from Chad where he manipulated the numbers. You can google the 110 Barnes and 77 grain 5.56 and you will see for yourself that he subtracted velocity from the 5.56 load and added velocity to the 300 BLK load when running his data.

I can only see one reason why someone who profits from selling 300 BLK ammo would manipulate the numbers in this way.

Actually I get around 2410 with the 110 barnes, 2700 is is fair game for a 77gr and I can see some guns getting to 2750. However, most folks are shooting 223 pressure loads. I guess to compare apples to apples you could always load some 300BLK to 5.56 pressure. Both your and Chads numbers are within what most could expect to see.

My issue is that you are relying on energy alone, and energy alone does not kill animals...

The real answer is 6.5 GRENDEL.

I believe this is accurate, but I acquired a 300 BLK anyway because I plan to use it at night where my shots are no longer than 125 yards. For daytime hunting I'll bring my bolt action or my AR-10. I'm hoping that some day it'll be popular enough so that manufacturers make low cost expanding bullets for subsonic use.

I'm quoting exactly the speeds I get out of an AR-15 platform, which is 2370 fps with my ammo and 110 Barnes (which often runs faster than this). Most factory 300 blk out ammo runs slow. I engineered my ammo for top speed, and to shoot good. And, if I go to my 16" 300 blk out bolt rifle, add about 150 fps over the 2370 fps of the 110 Barnes. The last 77 grain I played with was running exactly 2700 fps in a 16" AR. Some runs 2700, some may run 2750. I'm trying to keep an equal playing field staying with AR-15 speeds. 20 fps won't make a hill of beans on either one.

See speeds here:
http://dallasreloads.com/product/110-grain-barnes-tac-tx/

When comparing 300 blk out to 223/5.56, there is absolutely no question the blk out will penetrate better, provide more energy on target, and be more effective in killing.

I have also provided thousands of rounds to helicopter hunters who hunt pigs with AR's. Everyone of them that switched to a 300 blk out noticed a significant difference in one shot kills over a 223/5.56. Sure, the 223 is cheaper to shoot, but it is not near as effective as the blk out. The rounds they were using was the 125 Sierra SP. I think the 125 grain lead bullets are the best bullet weight, or the 110 Barnes solid copper. But I like the shock better of the lead bullets. My personal testing bewteen the 223 and blk out has also seen the same differences. My son will be using a 223 for deer hunting this season, but he will be shooting an 87 grain SP bullet about 2550 fps, which should provide good penetration and decent energy.