12" 6.5G vs 12" 300Blk

[Jorge0272]

What do you guys think.

I have:
12" 5.56 with Eotech EXPS3
12" 300Blk with 4-4X44 FFP Scope (Should this change to a 12" 6.5G?)
16" 5.56 With a 1-6X24 Scope
18" 6.5G with a 6-24X50 Scope

I am thinking about consolidating ammo and cutting down on reloading. Should I turn the 12" 300Blk into a 12" 6.5G?
I do have a suppressor, but I never shoot subs. Just don't care for subs at all. So that is not a PRO towards keeping the 300Blk.
300Blk is my "One day if I ever go Hog Hunting" rifle. I know with Barnes 110gr black tips, its devastating on Hogs.
Would the 12" 6.5G be good at that role? I have the 18" 6.5G for longer range, so no need for this rifle to go past 200 yards at all.

[Bigs28]

My 12" grendel killed the biggest hog ive ever seen np. It's posted on here somewhere

[lazyengineer]

The whole point (IMHO) of .300 blackout is maintain full-suppressed operations while maximizing terminal performance. Should subsonic ammunition not appeal, then the advantages of .300 blackout pretty much go away. So in your case, I would suggest just dumping it and going 6.5 Grendel.

Also, .300 Blackout Kabooms are far more common then you might think; as the wrong mag gets loaded into a 5.56 chambered gun, and KABOOM. This is happening quite a lot in fact; and I don't judge - when out at the range or in-field things get grabbed and mixed up - I can see it happening. 6.5 Grendel won't fit in a 5.56 chamber, and so there's no risk of Kaboom from grabbing the wrong mag. .300 BO, not so much... [not my photos]. This is actually one of the reasons I went 6.5 G and skipped .300 BO

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq5yuHqHxV7/

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/9/avoiding-the-300blk-ar15-kaboom/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cVPAd4k7UU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbfIkaNlECo

https://mygunculture.com/r-i-p-one-ar-15-rifle-another-300-blackout-223-kaboom/

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?342017-KABOOM-300-Blackout-gt-gt-gt-BLOWS-lt-lt-lt-lt-in-a-556-What

[STXjake]

[41bear]

The whole point (IMHO) of .300 blackout is maintain full-suppressed operations while maximizing terminal performance. Should subsonic ammunition not appeal, then the advantages of .300 blackout pretty much go away. So in your case, I would suggest just dumping it and going 6.5 Grendel.

Also, .300 Blackout Kabooms are far more common then you might think; as the wrong mag gets loaded into a 5.56 chambered gun, and KABOOM. This is happening quite a lot in fact; and I don't judge - when out at the range or in-field things get grabbed and mixed up - I can see it happening. 6.5 Grendel won't fit in a 5.56 chamber, and so there's no risk of Kaboom from grabbing the wrong mag. .300 BO, not so much... [not my photos]. This is actually one of the reasons I went 6.5 G and skipped .300 BO

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq5yuHqHxV7/

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/9/avoiding-the-300blk-ar15-kaboom/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cVPAd4k7UU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbfIkaNlECo

https://mygunculture.com/r-i-p-one-ar-15-rifle-another-300-blackout-223-kaboom/

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-in-a-556-What

Surely would NOT want to hunt with or be around any of those people. Always use KISS, no 223 when shooting the 300 BO plus black metal/Lancer mags for 300 and fde magpul for 223. JM2C

[dpete]

Surely would NOT want to hunt with or be around any of those people. Always use KISS, no 223 when shooting the 300 BO plus black metal/Lancer mags for 300 and fde magpul for 223. JM2C

^^ This! In my case black P-Mags for blackout, FDE P-Mags for .223, and I am the only one who touches the mags and bullets when loading them.

[Klem]

Lazy,

How common is 'far more common than you might think'? What stats are we looking at?

[lazyengineer]

At one range they describe it as a "common" event. One employee alone has already blown up 2 guns. They call it "common". At one range

[Klem]

At one range they describe it as a "common" event. One employee alone has already blown up 2 guns. They call it "common". At one range

Hmmm...You see where I'm going with this. The same guy making the same mistake twice, A couple of other guys who are also prone to making mistakes...The type of clientele and range culture will have something to do with it.

Sounds a lot like operator error and self inflicted.

As for your opinion on the 300BO relative to other AR calibres, I agree, it is a poor cousin to 223 and 6.5. Took a few years for the fan boys to wake up and finally go quiet. Great innovation but unless it is better than what's already available it eventually gets relegated.

[lazyengineer]

Hmmm...You see where I'm going with this. The same guy making the same mistake twice, A couple of other guys who are also prone to making mistakes...The type of clientele and range culture will have something to do with it.

Sounds a lot like operator error and self inflicted.

Valid question Klem, appreciate the reply sir! Please forgive the long reply below!

In general there is no repository of statistics on these matters, so all one can go on is anecdotal reporting. So it's difficult to prove. Stepping back though, when one looks at the frequency of AR KABOOM reports (forums, youtube, range officers, etc); , there is a general frequency of KABOOM reports that one gets a feel for (almost all of which are ammo quality related in one way or another). Failure modes teach us the most, and I always study every KABOOM report in depth, to see what went wrong (I really need better hobbies; maybe drinking and socializing more...). Anyway, the volume of 5.56 ammo fired is orders of magnitude more than .300 BO: to make up a number, I'd bet by at least 1000 to 1. And by a broader base of users. Yet over the last years, the frequency of .300 BO KABOOM stories that have been coming up to my eye, has exceeded, or at the least equaled, the number of 5.56 KABOOM reports. The NRA even has articles on the topic. Considering the tiny fraction of .300 BO rounds fired compared to 5.56 rounds, I find that astounding enough to start drawing conclusions; and was part of the reason so many links of KABOOM's were posted, based on a pretty quick search. In comparison, doing a search for 6.5 Grendel KABOOM's comes up with very little. There are some references to an early Wolf Kaboom, but you get the point; the frequency of other specialty round KABOOM reports compared to .300 blackout, is almost nonexistent. There's something going on. Similarly, I've never seen a Steyr AUG Kaboom report anywhere ever, even though it's been around since the 1970's. It uses its own unique magazines for 5.56 (i.e. harder to grab the wrong mag). Yet, as we saw above, there's already a TAVOR Kaboom (which uses AR Mags); and that Kaboom was due to .300 BO making it into an AR mag, that made it into that Tavorl.

As to operator error. Agreed. Nonetheless, .300 BO is a specialty round, with a larger portion of users who are more serious, rather than casual (i.e. should know what they are doing). IMHO, there is an systemic safety defect in the concept, and it's materializing - .300 BO KABOOM reports at about 1000(?) times the rate-per-round as 5.56 KABOOM reports.

My extreme straw-man argument is if I take red-button that will blow up in a room, and label it "red button that will blow up the room", and leave that in the break-room; it's a matter of time before someone pushes that red-button. I can blame the guy for pushing the red button, but as an engineer who designs dangerous equipment, I have to look at that go: could I have designed this system better so that red button didn't get left in the break-room? That's how I view .300 blackout. It's like if the .357 Magnum developers deciding to color all the casings red, and then just make the casing .38 special length. Mechanically that's equal and would be more efficient after-all, right? Do that, and a lot of people are going to KABOOM. Recognizing that reality, they designed it so you just can't fit a .357 magnum into a .38 special. The engineers of .300 blackout... did not. And guns are KABOOM'ing. In my observation, they are KABOOM'ing a lot..

Another example of blaming operator error on a development safety defect, is a certain brilliant gun designer who makes a plastic gun-case with a post that fits inside the trigger guard of his gun-case, to help secure the structural strength of his case. And then blames users for discharging their guns when they case them; which happened a lot. But because the manual clearly states not to store a loaded gun in the gun case, it was operator error. This actually happened to Mr Gaston Glock, who called his early American purchasers idiots and it was their own fault, until his staff forced him to redesign his beloved Glock 17 TupperWare pistol case anyway, because it kept happening. Sure it was operator error, but it was an inherently unsafe concept that was readily prone to operator error.

My opinion: the developers of the .300 Blackout engaged in systemically unsafe engineering that is prone to operator error, that is resulting in a lot of KABOOMs - no different than if they made .357 Magnum's fit into .38 Special revolvers. And unless one is going to shoot suppressed with subsonic, one is well advised to stay the Hell away from that .300 blackout pistol round. I would rather they did a 10mm version shooting standard 10mm casings, but loaded long (if you wanted to) with subsonic pointy 230 gr bullets; or standard 10mm ammo if you wanted, but that's just me.

They let the design criteria of fitting into a standard AR magazine well using a standard 5.56 AR bolt, overrule the safety consideration of the inevitable KABOOM's that thing is going to be doing; and now is doing. The only silver lining is AR's are so inherently safe, that most KABOOM's don't result in any injuries (it's actually pretty impressive, Eugene Stoner was a genius).

Anyway, that's just my opinion - and my very long winded basis for why I would advise anyone trying to decide between the .300 BO pistol-ballistics round, vs the 6.5 Grendel rifle power round; to go with 6.5 Grendel pretty much every time; even suppressed.

[montana]

IMHO, there is an inherent safety defect in the concept, and it's materializing - .300 BO KABOOM reports at about 1000(?) times the rate-per-round as 5.56 KABOOM reports.

The same logic could be used for certain reloading powders. Many pistol shooters, "when reloading" will use a powder that is obvious if double charged. I use TITEGROUP for my limited STI pistol, "that can be easily double charged if not careful" resulting in a catastrophic explosion. Does this mean TITEGROUP powder has an inherit safety defect as a pistol powder? I'm sure the process of reloading ammunition itself has a much higher rate of kabooms compared to factory ammunition. Does this mean the practice of reloading ammunition, "in of itself" is a inherent safety flaw? I reload using TITEGROUP for the advantages it gives, knowing full well the consequences that will result if not done properly. Using the 300BO is no different. Judging by the lowest common denominator is not always the best way to measure the value of things.

[Klem]

If someone mixes mags up and blows their gun that's entirely their fault. If someone points a gun and accidentally shoots themselves or someone else because there's a note on the gun that says 'Don't shoot someone' that's on them too. The gun is only as dangerous as the person using it.

[BCHunter]

If most every other cartridge is designed so you cant fit the larger diameter bullet in the smaller one, there is merit to lazyengineer's point. If this isn't a design safety issue why isn't the .308 family of cartridge all using the same brass?

Add that you can swap uppers easily on the same rifle, and you increase the likelihood of making an error.

I agree it's operator error but you have to make things idiot proof.

[lazyengineer]

The same logic could be used for certain reloading powders. Many pistol shooters, "when reloading" will use a powder that is obvious if double charged. I use TITEGROUP for my limited STI pistol, "that can be easily double charged if not careful" resulting in a catastrophic explosion. Does this mean TITEGROUP powder has an inherit safety defect as a pistol powder? I'm sure the process of reloading ammunition itself has a much higher rate of kabooms compared to factory ammunition. Does this mean the practice of reloading ammunition, "in of itself" is a inherent safety flaw? I reload using TITEGROUP for the advantages it gives, knowing full well the consequences that will result if not done properly. Using the 300BO is no different. Judging by the lowest common denominator is not always the best way to measure the value of things.

It is for this reason I do not use TITEGROUP. I use CFE Pistol, 231, or #5. I can use Tighthroup, and have when I end up with some. But the elevated risk does not come with sufficient benefit for me to make it my standard powder.

Also, I misspoke, .300 BO is not "inherently" unsafe, it is more "systemically" unsafe. The system is readily prone to catastrophic failure from operator error, which is now happening on a far more frequent basis than any other round.

[Klem]

It...The system is readily prone to catastrophic failure from operator error, which is now happening on a far more frequent basis than any other round.

Do you have a source for this bold claim?