What's with the people who insist on .300 BLK for subsonic

File: 300 BLK vs 9mm subsonic wind drift.jpg (83KB, 800x489px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x489px

There isn't even much of a difference in wind drift under 150 meters either.

>>35180853
This may be the stupidest graph I've ever seen. No shit bullet drop will be identical if the velocities are capped to be subsonic...
This is basic physics

>>35180921
>No shit bullet drop will be identical if the velocities are capped to be subsonic...
Not quite, there's still the difference due to aerodynamics with the .300 BLK using an HPBT bullet vs a standard round nose or flat nose pistol bullet (as seen on the graph), which I've seen people regularly argue gives the .300 BLK an advantage over subsonic pistol calibers.

>>35180853

Good thing the 147gr 9mm has the sectional density to defeat bullet resistant glass

Oh wait...

>>35180984
Subsonic rifle ammunition performs like handgun ammunition against armor, .300 BLK won't either. You can find videos on youtube of kevlar vests stopping subsonic .300 BLK.

What about energy at impact?

Pro tip, that question is rhetorical. All projectiles fall at the same rate, so if their bullet drop is similar, that means their velocity is similar, that also means their energy is proportional to their mass. That means that it has 150% the energy of the 9mm.

>>35181000
>muh energy
That doesn't stop subsonic .300 BLK from just icepicking through unless you're spending a couple dollars per round on boutique machined ammunition.

>>35181018
My point is, you should delete your bait thread and make it about 45 acp being on par in ballistics with .300 BLK and you'd have a solid argument, but instead you focus entirely 9mm. Kill two birds with one stone and trash 9mm and .300 BLK. This thread is pathetic and you don't even know enough about ballistics to make a compelling bait thread.

>>35181043
>you should delete your bait thread
It's not a bait thread. I'm seriously wondering why I keep seeing people insist subsonic .300 BLK is so superior to subsonic pistol ammunition that the later shouldn't even be considered when all factors I've seen (comparisons of drop/wind drift, the capabilities of the bullets used in subsonic .300 BLK loads, the capabilities of subsonic rifle ammunition in general, etc.) point to there being very little difference unless you're trying to shoot at extended ranges.

File: 1452024225449.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>35180853
>.300 Blackout was makes about as much difference as buying a new pistol with a lower bore axis or whatever else the industry is pushing at the time and just exists as a new way of extracting money from people
God dammit. I'm getting really tired of finding out how much shit actually makes no difference other than getting people to spend more money.

>>35180853
I'm pretty sure the main advantage is in being able to change to considerably more powerful ammo on the fly.

>>35182147
read Guy Debord

Another thing to consider is that a larger diameter bore is louder with suppressors. A .300blk can be quieter than a .45 or 9mm suppressed. I kinda want to pick one up but can't stand to wait for suppressor paperwork desu

>>35182327
Honestly, from the tests I've seen it doesn't seem like there's much of a difference in practice between 9mm and .300 BLK guns, if there is in fact a difference.

>>35182464
yeah it's gonna be pretty close to 9mm in noise, but closer to .45 in mass/energy like other anon said. I'd do it just in a bolt action just for quiet hunting, there's some really good .308 projectiles out there. Supposedly about as loud as a .22lr rifle in suppressed bolt gun.

>>35182522
>but closer to .45 in mass/energy like other anon said
Except there's still the problem of shit bullet selection when it comes to actually making use of that energy and needing to buy expensive boutique machined bullets to actually achieve something other than icepicking and leaving a nice .30 caliber wound.

>>35180853

You get a lot more power and the ability to use hotter ammo.

230gn .300 blkout load @1062fps at 100m - 525 ftlbs

147gn 9mm load @ 1062fps at 100m - 300ftlbs

So quite a bit more power and it will keep that energy longer.

>>35181018
If you're going to be shooting meat you should be buying those boutique rounds.

>>35182765
but there are good .308 bullets, thanks to the wide variety of .308" calibers. They aren't prohibitively expensive, it's not like I'm plinking with my hunting ammo.
this guy gets it
>>35182797

>>35182798
>but there are good .308 bullets, thanks to the wide variety of .308" calibers
But as far as I know, all the heavier ones fail to expand when fired at subsonic velocities.

>>35182797
>just buy boutique loads that cost a few dollars a round so that you can actually get your bullets to do something other than icepicking through.

>>35180853

>What's with the people who insist on .300 BLK for subsonic use?

What else is there for an AR platform? All you need is a barrel swap. If you wanted to use 9mm, you'd need another lower (sometimes) and upper basically. That, and if you want to go loud, you can be much more effective than 9mm. (Plus, with the same magazines and similar capacity instead of using something like .458 or whatever and losing capacity big league.)

>>35185010
Why does it matter that you can use .300 BLK in an AR with just a barrel swap? How many people are seriously going to be just swapping their barrel instead of buying another upper? If the reason for doing so is cost, 9mm is the winner in that area since regular subsonic ammo costs around $.20 a round instead of $.50 (unless you're okay with commercial reloads that bubba sells online, in which case you should seriously reconsider your life choices) and you'll make up the cost of a new $800 gun vs a $125 barrel swap (assuming you go with a cheaper pistol barrel) by the time you shoot 2250 rounds.

>>35180853
>Use subsonic ammunition
>extremely quiet firearm with the ballistics of a handgun
>switch to magazine with supersonic ammunition
>suddenly have better ballistics than a 5.56 AR

The atttactiviness of .300 Blackout is the different capabilities it offers. Stop being an autist

>>35185181
9mm isn't better or even equal to .300blk at the same velocity.

>>35185258
Except when you're comparing subsonic velocities, in which case there's almost no difference.

>>35185181

A barrel or upper swap is easier than a 9mm conversion. As I said, versatility is another thing .300 Memeout has over 9mm.

I was thinking of this in more of a "tactical" mindset, but if you're just talking about personal preference for things like plinking, then you're a fucking moron, as, obviously, that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

You do you, let other people do whatever the fuck they want, stop being such a fucking turboautist.

>>35185293
Says your trajectory graph. I'm quite certain that a heavier bullet will be more lethal than a lighter bullet moving at the same velocity, assuming all other things are equal.

>>35185307
>but muh tactical
So basically whatever companies just shat out to sell you this week. How you choose to swap calibers isn't "tactical", and needing to actually use tools to change the barrel on your AR definitely isn't "tactical". It sounds like you're the one going on about things that are personal preference, in particular the things you feel fit your bizarre definition of "tactical".

>>35185315
>I'm quite certain that a heavier bullet will be more lethal than a lighter bullet moving at the same velocity, assuming all other things are equal.
Again, in practice there is no difference because .308 caliber 200+ grain bullets aren't made to expand at subsonic velocities and don't even tumble either. The only way you can actually take advantage of the extra energy .300 BLK has is with boutique machined bullets that results in a full 30 round magazine worth of ammo costing $60+, which is ridiculous for anything beyond hunting where you aren't going to be shooting much at all.

>>35185452
>...needing to actually use tools to change the barrel on your AR definitely isn't "tactical"

Then just get an upper, faggot.

>It sounds like you're the one going on about things that are personal preference, in particular the things you feel fit your bizarre definition of "tactical".

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8333/u-s-special-operators-want-a-tiny-assault-rifle

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/14/us-socom-seeks-new-300-blackout-m4a1-personal-defense-weapon-conversion-kit/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/21/breaking-news-sig-mcx-rattler-aka-mcx-k/

Suck a dick retard.

>>35185499
>but US SOCOM wants
They haven't even started trials yet, and keep in mind they also specify they want 5.56x45mm versions. It's completely possible that they'll drop .300 BLK by the time they get to adopting a final product, if the program even produces anything to adopt.

>>35185551

That's fine and all, I understand what you're saying, but as it relates to me having some personally twisted view of what is "tactical", I don't think I do, as it is well in-line with military and police trends. (Which tend to be influenced by civilian stuff anyways nowadays.)

(I wonder if the Saudis ever got their 6.8's...?)

>>35185693

Jordanians, not Saudis, my bad.

>>35185452
>Again, in practice there is no difference because

No, there is certainly a difference, be it with hollow points or plinking rounds. It's always going to ruin someone's day more if they get shot with a round that has 80% more energy, assuming all other things are equal. Subsonic .300blk rounds are behemoths that take full advantage of their dimensions and they'll easily out perform 9mm at taking someone down.

File: military assault rifle wound profiles.jpg (104KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 586x750px

>>35186521
>b-but muh energy
Pic related. Bullet construction makes all the difference in the world. It doesn't matter how much energy a round has if the bullets you're using can't take advantage of it.

>Subsonic .300blk rounds are behemoths that take full advantage of their dimensions
Except they don't.

File: 6.5mm carcano wound profile.jpg (91KB, 823x403px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 823x403px

>>35186521
And another example. Notice the nice tiny 6.5mm diameter wound that would continue for the entire thickness of a person, despite the 6.5mm Carcano having quite a bit more energy than the ammunition in the image posted here: >>35186573

File: 1501808373498.jpg (42KB, 481x236px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 481x236px

>this thread
>.300 AAC Blackout isn't needed and 9mm subguns are actually good enough so long as you aren't doing extended range shooting to the point where you need a scope with a BDC reticle, don't plan on swapping to supersonic loads (at which point you'd likely need the scope to deal with POI changes anyways), and can't justify spending ridiculous amounts of money just to get expanding ammunition
The comfyness of 80s tactical will never end!~

>>35184939
>using inferior bullets in inferior calibers just to save a couple bucks when you're getting hundreds of dollars of usable meat per shot

>>35187389
>when you're getting hundreds of dollars of usable meat per shot
Is human meat really that valuable now days?

>>35187412
I presumed it was for hunting, but if you're shooting people that's even more fucking retarded that you would be a jew about money.

>>35185010
>What else is there for an AR platform?
.458 SOCOM

>>35180853
.458 SOCOM

If you're gonna go heavy and subsonic go really heavy.

>>35187462
>video compares 9mm 115 grain FMJ to boutique machined supersonic .300 BLK
Could this test be any more biased? They might as well be comparing it to regular 5.56x45mm since they aren't even bothering to keep it subsonic.

>>35187476
>but if you're shooting people that's even more fucking retarded that you would be a jew about money.
But it actually makes sense in that case. If you're paying a couple dollars per round, then a combat load of magazines could easily be a few hundred dollars in ammunition (not to mention ammo for function testing if you're a normal person who doesn't benefit from the levels of gear standardization that military/police have). Any sort of suppressing fire with that ammunition would also be impractically expensive.

File: wpid-photo-jan-26-2013-1114-am.jpg (95KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x480px

>>35185315
>>35184807
they absolutely do. pic related is 235gr subsonics. Molds in the 220-240gr range are most popular

>>35188010
B-but muh lead shavings in muh gas tube. Seriously though, do those actually run well in an AR or are they just for bolt action rifles?

>>35188123
I'm not sure, I've never put bare lead projectiles in a gas operated gun before. Might be too long for an AR magazine anyway. Powder coating the lead is certainly popular, I ended up doing that with my 9mm casts as I just couldn't figure out how to stop leading any other way in that caliber.

Do AR's handle the switch from sub to super ammo just fine? Would the gas system need to be changed in any way? I'd think such a difference in pressure would be tough to handle without adjustable system but I have no experience with this.

>>35188200
>Do AR's handle the switch from sub to super ammo just fine?
Yeah, that was part of the reason for .300 BLK's existence. Prior to that the was .300 Whisper, but it was just subsonic.

>>35187730
So you're saying you literally put a price on your own life and are using boutique subsonic ammo for suppressing fire like retard when half the point of .300 is hot swapping super sonic

>>35180921
Not true, aerodynamics and projectile mass both affect velocity retention over range and thus time in flight and ballistic drop.

>>35180853
>yet I don't see a lot of scopes with a BDC reticle for subsonic
>what is mildot
>best scope for everyone

>>35188783
>when half the point of .300 is hot swapping super sonic
This keeps getting brought up, but in what situation would this be necessary? Also, how do you know how much of each you carry? What secret squirrel operation are you on where you need subsonic ammunition, but at the same time need to carry supersonic ammunition? Are you dealing with Nintendo bosses at the end of each operation where you need to change between supersonic and subsonic ammunition depending on what color they're glowing at the time to damage them? Is the next step in tactical operator equipment dual feed ARs that can swap between subsonic and supersonic ammunition at the press of a button instead of actually requiring a mag swap?

>>35188808
>true null tier operators do the math in their head and have their mil holdovers memorized instead of just using normal pleb tier BDC reticles designed for quick ranging and shooting like the ACOG has
lel

.300 blk is great and all, but if you want decent subsonic performance you've got to go .45-.50.

>>35188875
>but in what situation would this be necessary? Also, how do you know how much of each you carry? What secret squirrel operation are you on where you need subsonic ammunition, but at the same time need to carry supersonic ammunition?
You're the one that brought up using suppressing fire in the first place. As a civi using suppressing fire for whatever goddamn reason a bullet is a bullet so non of that shit matters. Of you are with some actual fireteam and you are using a can and subs, that's obviously for the quiet work where you don't need the hole world knowing you're in the area but, if shit gets hot, you go load on the reload. For shit like that all the user would need is one or two mags that are marked. One on the gun and one in the rig placed in either the first or last pouch.

Nobody is going INTO A firefight with subs, those are to avoid the firefight, sentry removal etc. Cost means fuck all . for literally anything else, there are supers

> have their mil holdovers memorized
Or taped to the stock, the lens cap, notebook or the mobile devices the average person , even grunts have attached to their body 24/7

>>35189645
>grunts using mildot holdovers with written down holdovers
>suggesting grunts take out their notebook or iphone so they can use proper holdovers
Not even that guy, but a BDC calibrated against a cartridge and barrel length is far superior to a mildot system for anyone but the DMRs and actual snipers. That's why the ACOG reticle is a thing.

>>35189686
Yup, which is why it's a good thing I'm not >>35188808
I'm just here to shit on OP. I don't care if people actually like buckhorns for whatever reason, just saying there's not reason not be able to calculate