7.62x39 vs 300 blackout upper for AR

[NOShooter]

A 240gr bullet won't penetrate at low velocities like you would get from this platform. I have no use for a 110gr or a 240 grain bullet. 122-154 has worked just fine for me. You call me narrow minded yet a $5 hammer spring and a $20 firing pin allow me to shoot ammo for less than $.30/rd and you would rather follow the crowd and spend more than twice that. I am looking for reliability, economic pricing, accuracy, and penetration. I have no desire to run it suppressed because a suppressed 300blk has diminished performance and runs closer to a 45acp than a 7.62x39. I would run my x39 rifles up against any 300blk for accuracy, relaibility, and price every day.

It's not narrow minded...it's experience. Actual first hand experience firing thousands of rounds from multiple rifles. The kind of experience that costs a fortune if you're shooting something as cool and ridiculous as 300blk. I forgot to mention earlier, I've been reliably running these platforms since before the 300blk was developed and available for sale.

1. no one hunts with subsonic ammo if they are even close to an ethical hunter.

2. i have bought 300aac ammo for .$32 per round. factory new, 147gr. like anything, you watch pricing if you are too lazy to reload. in this case, you can keep your $.02. :-)

3. you do realize that you can run suppressed supersonic ammo, right? if anything, many times a suppressor actually ADDS velocity, instead of diminishing it. i've never seen 45acp run at 1800fps, have you?

lastly... most of us have been shooting since well before the 300aac round was brought to market. it doesn't have to mean we have to lock ourselves in 1989. 7.62x39 is for AKs, leave it that way. There is a reason that people bring new things to market.

If you want to plant firmly on you internet generated opinion, have at it, we promise, none of us will mind.

 

[Harrisracing]

1. no one hunts with subsonic ammo if they are even close to an ethical hunter.

2. i have bought 300aac ammo for .$32 per round. factory new, 147gr. like anything, you watch pricing if you are too lazy to reload. in this case, you can keep your $.02. :-)

3. you do realize that you can run suppressed supersonic ammo, right? if anything, many times a suppressor actually ADDS velocity, instead of diminishing it. i've never seen 45acp run at 1800fps, have you?

lastly... most of us have been shooting since well before the 300aac round was brought to market. it doesn't have to mean we have to lock ourselves in 1989. 7.62x39 is for AKs, leave it that way. There is a reason that people bring new things to market.

If you want to plant firmly on you internet generated opinion, have at it, we promise, none of us will mind.

Wow where did you find .300 blackout factory loads for that cheap?! That's a killer deal. That would sway a few for sure if it could be had off the shelf for that price. HOWEVER, the cheapest I see on gunbot is .45 per round and that's RELOADS. most factory stuff is in the .60 per round range on the cheap side of the scale. This is roughly 2-3x the cost of 7.62x39. Meaning range days start costing WAY less (or get you 3x the range time) for 7.62x39.

Performance-wise, the .300 blackout is the best choice. Cost-wise the 7.62x39 is the best choice, but you'd need to be shooting a lot to be justifying the previously mentioned "extras" you'd need to make 7.62x39 run very well (mags, firing pin, etc). AND the caveat here is that we are ASSUMING you already had a 5.56/.223 rifle (and magazines) as well. If you don't have either, then the additional costs are a moot point because mags cost roughly the same for each.

7.62x39 is a fun and effective round (AND CHEAP!) and .300 blackout is a very versatile round (but expensive). Both of them are proven to medium to large quadrupeds and bipeds.

Also you may want to just look into an AK. (Used to be) a less expensive rifle that is pretty much guaranteed to work until the end of time. Most AK's I have handled have impressed me.

The funny thing is, if you shoot 1,200 round a year (which actually isn't that much IMO), then you are likely better off going 7.62x39 now, shooting it for a couple years and pocketing the $400+ difference in ammo costs you'd be spending to buy another rifle setup within 3 years.

Cheap AK/ qty/ price per/ initial cost/ cost to shoot
Rifle 1 600 600
total magazines 10 8 80
rounds per year 1200 0.25 300
680 300 Total 980

Nice AK/ qty/ price per/ initial cost/ cost to shoot
Rifle 1 1200 1200
total magazines 10 8 80
rounds per year 1200 0.25 300
1280 300 Total 1580

7.62x39 AR/ qty/ price per/ initial cost/ cost to shoot
Rifle 1 600 600
total magazines 10 15 150
rounds per year 1200 0.25 300
750 300 Total 1050

.300 blackout AR/ qty/ price per/ initial cost/ cost to shoot
Rifle 1 600 600
total magazines 10 10 100
rounds per year 1200 0.6 720
700 720 Total 1420

 

[bigjakewelch]

it took me literary 30 seconds to find it for 0.39 a round. Just saying.

 

[Harrisracing]

View attachment 61472it took me literary 30 seconds to find it for 0.39 a round. Just saying.

Which is still roughly DOUBLE the cost of ANY NON-RELOADED 7.62x39, and still FAR away from the .32 per round cited originally. Just saying.

 

[Harrisracing]

And it should be noted that I have them all.

7.62x39 AK's
7.62x39 AR's
7.62x39 Sig Sauer (my personal favorite)
5.45x39 AK's
5.45x39 AR's
5.56 (.223) AR's
6.5 Grendel AR
.300 Blackout AR's

I mean why choose? I'm giving unbiased results here.

 

[bigjakewelch]

At an ammo cost of .60 and the cost of .39 is $252 cheaper. I'm not saying you're biased I'm just saying your math is wrong. I have them all also and each of them have their applications. I've been Gunsmithing for over a decade and have seen many more problems come in the shop dealing with an x39 running on an AR platform than I have seen a 300blk. The 300blk was designed to run in an AR and the AK was designed to run x39.

 

[Harrisracing]

At an ammo cost of .60 and the cost of .39 is $252 cheaper. I'm not saying you're biased I'm just saying your math is wrong. I have them all also and each of them have their applications. I've been Gunsmithing for over a decade and have seen many more problems come in the shop dealing with an x39 running on an AR platform than I have seen a 300blk. The 300blk was designed to run in an AR and the AK was designed to run x39.

OK great thanks for pointing out my "roughly double the cost" and "hundreds of dollars cheaper to shoot per year" as being wrong. Lol.

.300 blackout reloads : 1200 x .39 = $468
7.62x39 factory loads: 1200 x .21 = $252

7.62x39 non-reloads are $212 cheaper per year to shoot than the cheapest reloaded .300 blackout currently on the market if you only attend 6 range days and only shoot 200 rounds per range day. With these savings you can buy another whole rifle (or double the ammo) in 3-year's time from ammunition cost savings alone.

This math is unbiased.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[bigjakewelch]

I don't disagree with your math now. I still am not swayed by your opinion though. The fact is that the rounds are purpose built and designed to preform a certain job. The AK was designed to run the x39 and the 300blk was designed to run in the AR. If the x39's designed purpose was to run in an AR then I'd leave be, but the changes necessary to make it run (some what) reliably in the AR are at the changing the weapon design in mag,bolt, extractor, and under gassing. With that said your argument is no longer valid to me. Cots and reliability are two things that shouldn't be compared when you're deciding on a weapon system reliability should always be put before anything else because if it stays broken all of the time you're going to save a whole lot on ammo. This is a professional observation not a personal opinion.

 

[Harrisracing]

I don't disagree with your math now. I still am not swayed by your opinion though. The fact is that the rounds are purpose built and designed to preform a certain job. The AK was designed to run the x39 and the 300blk was designed to run in the AR. If the x39's designed purpose was to run in an AR then I'd leave be, but the changes necessary to make it run (some what) reliably in the AR are at the changing the weapon design in mag,bolt, extractor, and under gassing. With that said your argument is no longer valid to me. Cots and reliability are two things that shouldn't be compared when you're deciding on a weapon system reliability should always be put before anything else because if it stays broken all of the time you're going to save a whole lot on ammo. This is a professional observation not a personal opinion.

Re-read: Cost wise (and reliability-wise) I said buy an AK if you want AK power in a semi-auto (or better yet front the money for a Sig 556xi or 556R!).

My PSA 7.62x39 upper with their bolt and "enhanced" firing pin runs flawlessly with ASC magazines. The link for this unit is here: http://palmettostatearmory.com/review/product/list/id/18999/category/4458/

Also my M&P 15R (5.45x39) runs flawlessly.

As does my MGI Hydra when I put in my 7.62x39 barrel and bolt that came with it (no idea which brand it is).

And again the sig 556xi or 556R series in 7.62x39 are flawless (and have the benefit of running AK MAGS!).

I'm sorry your customers have had so much trouble, maybe you can tell us which ones to watch out for?

 

[HogHunter1203]

Ok folks let's get the wad out of everyone's panties. The OPs post was about experience with each platform for Shooting and possibly hunting. EMGunslinger and bigjakewelch have mentioned the most important functional issues with the x39 which may lead to failures. These are facts and not internet lore. Some modern designs seem to have made these a mute point. We can all do math and see the $.2-.25 is cheaper than $.32-1.0. Simple fact is 300blk was designed to be fired in standard AR configuration. 762x39 has been adapted to it several times with mixed results. Some work, some don't. Hell I have a buddy who shoots 762x39 on an AR upper full auto with a registered lower receiver. He buys several bolts at a time bc he just expects them to fail after a couple hundred rounds. He can afford it and just doesn't care. OP can decide if he wants to chance it with a x39 for his applications. Shooting x39 may be cheaper if you shoot often and plenty. 300blk has excellent options for hunting and can be had for not terribly much more expensive. I say get both and sell the one you don't like.

 

[US Infidel]

Should I buy a Ford or a Chevy?

 

[sylvest]

Subaru. On to the next honest question that will end with everyone arguing using anecdotal evidence of what their buddy, brother in law, and neighbor did.

 

[Hot Pepper]

A 240gr bullet won't penetrate at low velocities like you would get from this platform. I have no use for a 110gr or a 240 grain bullet. 122-154 has worked just fine for me. You call me narrow minded yet a $5 hammer spring and a $20 firing pin allow me to shoot ammo for less than $.30/rd and you would rather follow the crowd and spend more than twice that. I am looking for reliability, economic pricing, accuracy, and penetration. I have no desire to run it suppressed because a suppressed 300blk has diminished performance and runs closer to a 45acp than a 7.62x39. I would run my x39 rifles up against any 300blk for accuracy, relaibility, and price every day.

It's not narrow minded...it's experience. Actual first hand experience firing thousands of rounds from multiple rifles. The kind of experience that costs a fortune if you're shooting something as cool and ridiculous as 300blk. I forgot to mention earlier, I've been reliably running these platforms since before the 300blk was developed and available for sale.

I beg to differ that a 240 won't penetrate, it might not expand but I'd expect it to surpass the x39 in penetration.l if shooting 154 soft points.

 

[Harrisracing]

I beg to differ that a 240 won't penetrate, it might not expand but I'd expect it to surpass the x39 in penetration.l if shooting 154 soft points.

My experience is the same. Not enough velocity to make even the softest of "match hollowpoints" expand. I'd rather be shooting a 230 gr .45 acp to be quite honest (at least they are made to expand at the low velocities and already start with more diameter to begin with. Bullet technology needs to catch up with the high sectional density subsonic blackouts (and I think hornady is now offering some other solutions for supersonic, not sure anyone is filling the void for subs).

I shot this boar with a 220 gr remington 700 AAC-SD right in the center of the skull at 75 yds. NOTE the entry hole. The LARGE hole is after I went to get him 2 hours later (after the hunt) and shot him in the back of the head with a 110gr hornady to finish him off (this is an exit hole). He was paralyzed mostly, but NOT DEAD after getting shot right in the head with the subsonic bullet. I honestly think the bullet went through the brain and into his spine. The spine shot is what paralyzed him. Maybe this is a total fluke...but I wouldn't recommend to anyone using the subsonics to shoot anything. I've had better luck on hogs with a .22 segmented subsonic hollowpoint (no kidding).

 

[pangris1]

Thanks guys! I will look into a 300 blackout does it matter if it is a 16 inch barrel?

Anything past 9" = diminishing returns. 300 BO uses pistol powder, same/similar to a 357 magnum if I recall, so it burns out in the first 9" of the barrel. Past that velocity gains are minor. I use 12.5" ish bbl but I have my reasons = +50 yards of range with expansion using Barnes black tip. If you aren't worried about having a 350 yard range vs a 300 yard range, go as short as you can. I have a buddy using a 6.5" who uses it to good effect.

To give you an idea, at 9" you are going to be running 2100 ish, 12.5 2280 ish, 16" 2400 ish. Factory barnes 110 gr black tip.

 

[pangris1]

My experience is the same. Not enough velocity to make even the softest of "match hollowpoints" expand. I'd rather be shooting a 230 gr .45 acp to be quite honest (at least they are made to expand at the low velocities and already start with more diameter to begin with. Bullet technology needs to catch up with the high sectional density subsonic blackouts (and I think hornady is now offering some other solutions for supersonic, not sure anyone is filling the void for subs).

I shot this boar with a 220 gr remington 700 AAC-SD right in the center of the skull at 75 yds. NOTE the entry hole. The LARGE hole is after I went to get him 2 hours later (after the hunt) and shot him in the back of the head with a 110gr hornady to finish him off (this is an exit hole). He was paralyzed mostly, but NOT DEAD after getting shot right in the head with the subsonic bullet. I honestly think the bullet went through the brain and into his spine. The spine shot is what paralyzed him. Maybe this is a total fluke...but I wouldn't recommend to anyone using the subsonics to shoot anything. I've had better luck on hogs with a .22 segmented subsonic hollowpoint (no kidding).

I'd put any slug into any hog I thought I had a 5% chance of tagging on my property...

If using subs for game, expanding ammo is available but expensive. Get ready to go looking as well - you won't have the shock produced by velocity.

 

[BlueShamu]

Personally, I'm all about hunting ethics....but, not with nuisance animals like a hog.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harrisracing]

I'm down with it. Trust me it was a study! (I wouldn't shoot a biped with a subsonic blackout)

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[US Infidel]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13590Silvers.pdf

 

[Harrisracing]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13590Silvers.pdf

Nice AAC ad!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk