300 BLK as first/only rifle?

AR/M4 Beyond 5.56/.223
1

So I’ve been thinking recently that it is time to go ahead and get my first rifle, indeed, it is probably long overdue. I’ve felt for a long time that is is every American’s civic duty to own and be proficient with one, and now that I more or less have my pistol squared away (still need more range time, but who doesn’t?) it is time to make it happen. I’ve spent some time searching through the rifle fora here, and have a couple more weeks before I’ll have the scratch together for the purchase to keep researching and think it over some more.

Realistically, whatever rifle I get will likely be my only rifle for some time, though I would like to add a bolt gun down the road. Between my job and my health, range time can be hard to come by. I don’t expect to do much if any shooting past 100 meters, so planning to focus on iron sight proficiency. My experience with shooting rifles is limited to those owned by friends: one AK-47, a SPR, and a suppressed SBR. I preferred the ergonomics and functionality of the ARs, and while shooting suppressed is nice, with the substantial costs and ATF hassles I am more inclined to a 16" Recce. Budget is preferably around $1500, but up to $2000 for the rifle, which will leave money for mags and ammo and such. I’m in AZ, and I’d like to get to Gunsite for some carbine and pistol courses, health and time permitting.

The logical side of my brain says get a Colt AR6720, a stack of PMAGs, and a truckload of ammo. Or if I have to have a Noveske or similar, keep it to a basic one in 5.56 within the budget.

The other side of my brain is seriously coveting 300 BLK. Between DD and Noveske there are good options within the budget. Given the easy interchangeability of 5.56 and 300 BLK, my primary hesitation over 300 BLK is the cost of practice ammo, which as of this writing is still quite a bit lower on 5.56, with a smaller difference with defense loadings. Given that I won’t be shooting heavy volumes it is probably not a huge deal, but still that money ain’t growin’ on my lawn.

I’d originally wanted a 7.62 NATO for whatever reason, probably the old mouse gun prejudice (mostly over that now, past the big bore/magnum mania and now carry a 9mm), but of course good rifles in that caliber are way over budget and the ammo is costly. Having always wanted an AR, 300 BLK seems an excellent midpoint especially considering the ranges I’ll be shooting at, and of course if for whatever reason I’m not happy with it 5.56 is just a barrel change away. So I’ve been flopping back and forth between 5.56 and 300 BLK for at least a week, but can’t come to a clear decision. So would it be crazy to go 300 BLK for a first and only rifle? Or, life’s too short – go for it?

2

I would purchase an AR in .223 first, the ammo is much more widely available and affordable. You can always purchase a .300 BLK upper in the near future. I just think it is a better idea to have a .223 first, then focus on the specialized round.

Just my .02

3

I agree with Slopes. Start off simple and use .223/5.56 which you can easily acquire, especially if SHTF. you can always throw the 300blk upper on later.

4

Yep, your logical side has the right idea :wink:

I love my 300blk, but wouldnt want it as my first or only rifle.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

5

It is not crazy, because, as you said - if you change your mind you can get a 5.56mm barrel.

If you did you would not be the first person to get 300 BLK as a first rifle.

6

i would go with a 5.56/223 caliber gun first. that way the training and range ammo is cheaper and more readily available while you train ad become proficient with your new rifle.

i do agree with you that all americans should own and be proficient with a military rifle. thats the basis of the 2nd ammendment to me. that said, you already have a 9mm and the 5.56 would give you the 2 calibers most prevalent in the military today.

now from that basic pair, i would branch out as you see fit but my glock 17 and 5.56 carbine are the last two i would ever get rid of. the 40/45/10mm/etc… and .300AAC/6.8/.308/etc will come later for a perceived need based on your actual experience. inside 100 yards, there is not much any can do better than the other. thats close range in my book so the lighter and faster cartridge will be easier to shoot as well as cheaper.

7

no…

8

I concur with the recommendations to start with .223/5.56. Also, the only person in this thread so far suggesting you get the 300BLK stands to gain from that monetarily.

9

Let me put it another way. Three months ago my friend asked me the same question. I said to get 5.56mm for your first rifle. He ignored me and got 300 BLK. I learned from that. I learned to listen and read between the lines a little at what someone really wants.

10

I vote no too.

11

5.56mm…

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

12

Getting your only rifle in an exotic caliber that cannot readily be purchased locally and is commonly in short supply online seems like a pretty unwise choice.

13

To be honest with the OP, the 300 would not be a bad choice given your limiting factors. I have had my share of health problems too.

But I could not in good conscious say get it as your first. Money, time, logistics of each and health? It is a bitch. But let me give you a reverse of your argument. A 300 BLK is a barrel change away. Steel case 223 is cheap.

I’m really liking both, it is still your decision. Hint, if you plan on shooting a lot of 300, reload. Much cheaper.

ETA: 300 BLK is made for subsonic/suppressed shooting. If you are not going to put out for the tax stamp and the can you might be better off with 223/5.56.

14

It was less the cost of the tax stamp and wait time that dissuaded me, than the sticker shock of suppressor prices running from just under $1k up to $2k. So my only interest in 300 BLK would be in supersonic from a 16 inch barrel.

15

Now that is surely a benefit to many people, but not for everyone. I have never bought steel-cased 223 in my life, as far as I can remember. The cheapest 5.56mm ammo I buy is XM193 or Q3131/Q3131A.

16

Right, because when the Mayan calendar prophecy comes true, you will be able to go into your safe, take out those gold coins you saved for when the world falls apart, and trade them for a case of 223 ammo whereas if you only had a 300 BLK rifle would would have needed to think of ordering what you will need in advance.

17

300 BLK is made to shoot 30 caliber from an AR15. In fact, it is the most powerful way to do so which retains 30 rounds capacity in normal magazines. It no more needs a suppressor than a 30-30 or 7.62x39mm does.

18

I vote no. If you find you really need a .30 caliber bullet it’s all to easy to buy another upper and have commonality between the two.

Get a good 5.56 rifle shoot it and then decide if you need the new “hotness”

2 people have suggested the .300blkout, 1 of them being R&D for AAC, what does that tell you? He’s supposed to think that .300 is for everyone. I’m not implying to you to follow the lemmings of 5.56, but it makes sense to get the standard for the AR platform, then decide if you want new “hotness”.

ETA: not meaning the lemmings metaphor to demean any 5.56 shooters, just a herd mentality, in this case it makes perfect sense to follow the herd. poor metaphor

19

Most people are going to say 5.56mm - and for good reason - it is more common and less expensive. These are the same reasons that have always been given to buy a PC over a Mac. Think Different.

20

carolvs
Do you reload? If not I’d not have the 300 Blk as your first and only rifle. Cause unfortunately the 300 Blk is so new the ammo stream hasn’t caught up with demand and ammo is hard to find and is not cheap. Also unfortunately for you your into to the election rush on regular 5.56mm AR’s as well and prices for them and ammo if you can find it are going up. So reloading for the 5.56mm is also going to be a must soon as the price of ammo for it will get stupid exspensive as well.:rolleyes: