Sporting Systems
Defensive Arts
J&B Firearm Sales
Gun Deals
HighLine Firearms
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Simply Triggers
Low Price Guns
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Southwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
DSG Arms
Messages
629
Reactions
190
aac_300blk.jpg

Seems like the caliber we've all been waiting for. Hard hitting, quiet, and seats 30 in a standard GI magazine. Comes in 123gr, 155gr, and 220gr flavors. Here are some links:

<broken link removed>

<broken link removed>

What do you think?
 
Messages
237
Reactions
1
I expect a lawsuit to keep it out of production myself, but yeah, it's a 300 Fireball and nothing more from what I can see. Supposedly there is just enough change to require a reamer on your 300 Whisper chamber to use them, but why bother?

The only gain is factory ammo, and anyone with a 300 Whisper build is a reloader by default I would think?
 
All I can say is that I built one and am very happy with the performance ........ The 220Gr round is dang accurate out to 200 yards ...... Waiting on some 123gr Rounds to become available again. Also have a Hairtrigger Falcon 'CAN' headed in for it. Should be super quite with the 220gr Sub-Sonic rounds .... they also make a 175gr Sub Sonic.

Should be a great Pig Gun ..... :s0155:


 
.300 Whisper, .300 Fireball, .300-221, ect and now the 300Blk (saami) are all designed to use ALL standard parts on an AR other then the barrel to provide a quality SS round.

I really like mine .300 "Whisper",
DSC_0004-2.jpg

I have had mine a couple years now. Brass is easily made from cut down .223 brass. Any .223 brass I have that is under length for my target AR goes in the "Whisper" pile to be cut down. There are tons of reloading resources online.
 
Why not just convert to the AK 7.62X39? Me, I prefer the 7.62 NATO, why change a good thing? :D
Gas's original post has a <broken link removed> that explains the rationale behind the round. I think it is a good idea, but not as good as 7.62 NATO
 
Messages
5,126
Reactions
926
INFIDEL, not heathen. I say drop the 5.56 and equip our armed forces with the 7.62. It has the range and the power to get the job done, much more than the 5.56 or an imitation AK round. :s0112:

I think you're selling the 5.56 short. The gun is lighter, you can carry much more ammo, ammo is way cheaper as is the gun...

Military still qualifies with the 5.56 at 500 yds with iron sights. My son qualified expert with 5.56.

The 5.56 is deadly.

I only wish I had started with AK 74 instead of AR 15 because ammo is so much cheaper as are the rifles. Now I'm stuck because I have too much dough tied up in Ar-15's and 5.56 ammo.
 
Messages
1,352
Reactions
775
You would be more correct in saying that the Marines qualify at 500, I think. I know the Army doesn't...or at least, while I was in (1974 - 1988) we qualified with our max range being 300 meters.

I am NOT a believer in the 5.56 round as a military round. I know others may have different opinions, but I think that a round that is NOT able to provide killing shots at 500 meters is not a service round. (Please read http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) It is a paper written by a US Army Major that describes the whole 5.56 and up argument from an Army perspective...
 
Messages
544
Reactions
83
Wow. Great article. This statement struck me as funny: "The mission in Somalia further confirmed the ineffectiveness of the cartridge on targets that were malnourished and not protected by body armor. Unfortunately, these conflicts were of a short duration and the lessons learned had little impact on improving small arms lethality." I understand he's referring to the short duration limiting the amount of lessons learned, but I dont think a conflict being of a "short duration" is ever unfortunate.
 
Messages
5,126
Reactions
926
Experts, smexperts.

I haven't heard returning troops complain about their 5.56's and in fact, the AR 15 has only grown in popularity as a civilian rifle, even among ex-GI's.

I will strongly disagree that the 5.56 isn't good to 500 yards, and I think it's best in 55gr (XM193) form. I believe the only reason the military went to the ballistically inferior 62gr was so that it could be shot from the same barrel as the long tracers.

The military has increasingly produced 1:7 twist barrels solely because that's needed for the high aspect ratio tracers due to their ballistic co-efficiency, but that would tear up the 55gr bullets. Again, a compromise.

Remember, the first Armalites came out with 1:15 twist which was quickly replaced by 1:12 twist for the 55gr bullet. Now the 1:9 is most common for civilians because it will shoot both the 55gr and the 62gr.

When I start hearing returning GI's complaining about their M-16's, I'll pay attention.
 
Copeland Custom Gunworks
DSG Arms
Cerberus Training Group
Project Appleseed
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Southwest Firearms Forum
NW Custom Firearms

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top