Either my search-fu is weak or thereare no definitive answers here
I love the accracy of my 6.8…do the heavier bullets available for the 300 really get me anywhere for hunting???
No. The 6.8 shoots flatter and has better terminal performance across the board, the .300 is a step down in hunting performance.
To be fair the .300 has its advantages over the 6.8 (price, noise, compatible mags/bolt), but hunting performance is not one of them.
Depends on the range.
Does 300 get you anything MORE than your current 6.8? unless you are in a juristiction that requires a 30 cal bullet for hunting particular game, than no, not really.
the main benefits of the 300 BLK show up when you are either converting a 5.56 gun, or building a new one, and the 5.56 parts commonality helps with costs, etc.
Both rounds have been proven in the field. To me, the 6.8 does not have that much more performance over the .300 to justify a separate set of mags, bolts, etc. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
With the current load offerings for the .300 and with the new loads planned for next year, I think the .300 will have a great deal more variety to choose from to suit your needs.
If you’re concerned about the 6.8’s ability to kill then look here: http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?17900-2011-Hunting-photo-s-thread/page18
There are three/four years of hunting threads on there and it seems the results have only improved.
But to each their own—some people pimp out Civics others buy Mustangs. …
I don’t think 300 BLK is better than 6.8 for hunting, but it is very good for hunting - and the practice ammo is way cheaper. With a 200 yard zero, the drop is 3.5 inches at 237 yards - so you could have one zero and shoot to 237 yards with no sight adjustment.
rsilvers the above link goes to the UMC ammo. Do you know where the Barnes TTSX ammo is available? Thanks in advance.
The PinkTip ammo is good for hunting.
Since you brought it up, what is the near zero? I can’t imagine it’s the standard 50/200 zero as it is with 5.56.
On a related note, if I ever get around to hog hunting, this will be my cartridge of choice. All of the compatibility issues with the 6.8 and the expense of ammo killed its appeal for me.
34/200 yards (31 meters)
Right now, a 6.8 user on AR15 just said that 6.8 has a 500-600 yard range but 300 BLK is 150-200 yards. The difference is not that great. In fact, rather than the 3x he says, it is actually 1.1x.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_121/556417_6_8_VS_300_Blackout.html&page=6
There are several ways to calculate range - energy, max point blank, hit probability, or distance at which the bullet will function.
Let’s work out a specific example.
SSA Sierra Pro Hunter 110 in 6.8:
Max point blank range - 265 yards.
Energy at 600 yards - 340 ft-lbs.
Drop at 600 - 130 inches (200 yard zero)
Remington 115 grain UMC - 300 BLK:
Max point blank range - 241 yards.
Distance at which energy is 340 ft-lbs - 550 yards.
Distance at which drop is 130 inches - 560 yards.
So for max point blank range, 6.8 is 1.1x 300 BLK.
For energy at distance, 6.8 also has 1.1x the range.
For distance to known drop, 6.8 has 1.07x the range.
Of course when you compare the best to the worst there won’t be much difference.
How about doing a real comparison, using minimum expansion velocity. The best hunting bullet for each—95gr TTSX vs 110gr TSX. Then caveat it with the .300 barnes bullet is vaporware or only currently available in the 7.62X40. Also, are you claiming the UMC bullet is suitable for hunting, or is this going to lead to more people bragging about their kills that they had to finish off with a .45. I’ve seen several such mentions of needing to finish game on a couple forums now? I’ll link them when I’m back on a computer, but I am sure you’ve seen them as well.
No, the UMC is not for hunting. I don’t have BC data for the Barnes.
How long do you think the ‘vaporware’ argument will last when there are already 20,000 rounds loaded sitting waiting for the boxes before they ship?
As for doing a real comparison - just get me 95 TSX data for 6.8 when loaded to SAAMI pressures of 55,000 psi. I am not going to compare an above-SAAMI pressure 6.8 to a SAAMI pressure 300 BLK. Or would you like me to load up some 300 BLK to above-SAAMI pressure for the comparison?
That is one big problem with 6.8 comparisons - the 6.8 people want to use +P data for the basis of the comparison.
Street price?
Not sure.
I don’t think this is the case at all.
From my perspective, I want to see a comparison of the best performing factory loads from each caliber. I think the 12-18" penetration with the largest cavity is the correct criteria to use for “best performing” as well.
It is. I just gave an example in SSA loaded to SAAMI specs and was told I picked “the worst” load. It is just a normal load. I could have picked a load from Hornady also, and he would have said I picked the worst load.
If people want to load 300 BLK to +P pressures as well, no one is stopping them. I will only do comparisons of loads made to within normal pressures (55,000 psi).
We are all victims of our frame of reference. Of course you see it the way that you do, you’re the 300BLK guy.
I have no allegiance to either team, and I posted the comparison that I want to see. I see your insistence on it being a SAMI load as no different than what you claim the other side is doing by insisting on a “+P” load.
As a consumer, the only limitation I want to see on the comparison is commercial availability of loaded ammunition. I would even grant the “vaporware” load(s) in 300BLK for the sake of argument.
I see it that way be cause I know that Remington and Hornady pressure test with proper instrumentation. No one has ever showed me that Hornady does not load 6.8 ammo as fast as possible. I can look around for a Hornady example - just remember - 6.8 velocities are normally from 24 inch barrels. So I need to find Hornady data from a 16 inch barrel.
Across the board it seems that information is hard to come by for apples:apples comparisons. This is something I personally find extremely surprising and frustrating, again as a consumer and, perhaps more importantly, a SHOOTER. It is extremely hard to weed through the guy that fires 200 yards a year from the bench when it comes to any sort of valuable information on these subjects on the internet.
Maybe it’s a potential article for me in the future. Not sure that level of minutia is my forte though. At least even if I did it all fucked up it might inspire someone else to do it “right” just to prove me wrong.