Is .300 Blackout AAC >aka 7.62.35MM Nato just a meme or is

>>34887629
It's the best AR round for barrels <10.5"

best AR is 6.5mm grendel

>>34887725
*6.8 spc

>>34887704
Was about to ask if .300BO is better for SBR's due to the ballisitc disadvantage past 300m, but terminal ballistic advantage within that range vs .223, which couples nicely with the smaller rifle.

It's stupid and will be relegated to the dustbin of history after too many people die from popping off rounds in 5.56 chambers.

>>34887747
*.50 beo

>>34887961
LMAO brainlets can't even figure out what cartridge their gun is chambered in

>>34887629
>best AR round
there is no best round. 300 blk has a specific purpose and it's good for that purpose. other rounds are better for other things.

>>34887961
>It's stupid and will be relegated to the dustbin of history after too many people die from popping off rounds in 5.56 chambers.
How is that even possible? Like how do you get the bolt far enough forward when the bullet is being shoved into a 5.56mmm hole so that the BCG gives enough hammer clearance for the firing pin?

>>34890645
That's pretty much what happened several times already. Idiots get a 300 AAC mixed up with the regular stuff in a mag, then when the odd round doesn't chamber they just mashed hard enough on the FA until the bullet was pressed into the brass. You can imagine what happened next

>>34888080
*5,56mm

Like 7.62x39, it is less lethal and less accurate, yet is much more expensive compared to 5.56.

File: 300-ACC-Blackout72.jpg (121KB, 560x392px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 560x392px

>>34892676
You can actually easily chamber .300 blk in a .223 chamber. Pic related.

>>34892682
.50bmg

>>34893103
Properly made/loaded 300 blk ammo won't allow the bullet to overseat like in your pic.

As the round becomes more popular, so will commercial loadings that will not erroneously chamber.

>>34893215
Well, I watched an AR pistol go kaboom when using Sig .300 blk ammo. I guess I wouldn't think their ammo would be "improperly" made. I can't imagine a 300 blk round that would be somehow immune to that setback.

>>34893255
That is surpising, but I guess I have to point to Sig's ammo in that case. Your average AR bolt closing should not have enough force to move a properly crimped bullet.

Maybe he dropped the ammo? Lol.

>>34894142
I'ma test it when I get home. I've got some Sig 300 that I'll chamber in my .223 and see if the bolt sliding home can induce setback.

>>34893115
*14.5mm

File: SWVLm.jpg (178KB, 968x1998px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 968x1998px

This whole retard fucking board:

>Is this round good as an AR round?
>"Instead of posting objective information regarding the rounds performance let me shit post about civilian only issues that have nothing to do with your question like cost and dumb fucks misloading the round into the wrong gun"

Literally only one person in this thread has not outed themselves as a full on retard so far.

>>34894285
*20mm

>>34894161
I imagine it could.

File: IMG_0757.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>34887629
dont be posting my shit

>>34896516
>Dont talk to my son ever again.

>>34896462
*7.62x63mm

File: IMG_20170818_040834~2.jpg (3MB, 4048x3036px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4048x3036px

>>34896471
Round on the right was chambered with the bolt sliding home via bolt release. Normal round on left. So no repeated battering of forward assist necessary to cause enough bullet setback for chambering a 300 in a 223 chamber.

>>34887629
>7.62.35MM Nato
You fucking mongrel, there are FOUR NATO calibers, which are 9x19, 5,56x45, 7,62x51 and 12,7x99. NO OTHER.

>>34896427
Welcome to /k/ anon, I'll be your guide