.300 AAC Blackout

I hadn’t really talked too much about AAC’s new rifle cartridge, the .300 AAC Blackout, until I was looking at the specs a little bit and it dawned on me that this round might make USPSA Rifle Major PF.  The problem is, I don’t know off the top of my head what Major PF for USPSA rifle is, since I don’t shoot USPSA Multi-gun.

Of course, whether or not it would actually be worth the money over .223 is a completely separate debate.  In a lot of 3-gun matches you don’t see distant paper, and close paper is easy to whack 2 alfas in to with a .223; so there is some amount of me wondering if scoring major at a USPSA multi-gun match is even worth it.  But, I also don’t shoot USPSA 3-gun, so take that for what it’s worth.

8 thoughts on “.300 AAC Blackout”

  1. I read an article not long ago in “Front Sight” about the USAMU developing a custom 7.62 cartridge to run in the AR-15 and make Major PF. Does this mean that they think Major PF is important or just that they have to many taxpayer dollars to spend?

  2. It’s designed to replicate the 7.62×39 round.

    REASONS 7.62×39 WAS NOT CONSIDERED
    Extreme cartridge taper
    • Reduces reliability of feeding in AR Magazines
    • Reduces Magazine capacity
    • Cartridge taper induces considerably higher bolt thrust-
    exacerbating the AR Bolt’s weaknesses
    • Requires a larger Bolt Face which reduces Bolt Locking Lug strength-
    exacerbating the AR Bolt’s weaknesses
    Limited projectile selection
    • 0.311″ diameter not a common option in most modern bullets

    To me that just says:
    The AR platform in inadequate to handle a proven round so we are trying to make do.
    7.62×39 can’t be used because AR Magazines are flawed, and AR bolts and locking lugs are too weak.

    The only legitimate reason is “0.311” diameter not a common option in most modern bullets ” in my opinion.

  3. USPSA 3 gun rifle pf
    320 Major
    150 minor
    Except for the new Heavy Metal Limited division which is 320+ minimum.

  4. I RO’d at the USPSA Multi-Gun Nationals on a combined rifle/shotgun stage. Rifle shots were from 3 feet to twenty yards and while there were a whole lot of “2 Alphas” on the close ones, I’ll bet I said, “Alpha, Charlie” almost as often. When you’re trying to pull the trigger that fast and move on it’s suprisingly easy to move a couple of inches and hit charlie. The AMU round is based on the 6.5 Grendel, blown out to .30 and it did indeed make major. The ACC sounds very similar to the .300 Whisper (.223 case) and I have no idea if you can drive the bullet fast enough to make major.

  5. Looks like the 300BLK only does 2300f/s from a 16″ barrel (via the company pdf.)
    Pf of about 280-290.

  6. “To me that just says:
    The AR platform in inadequate to handle a proven round”

    That is like saying your car is a POS because it runs on gasoline , and not diesel.

    One the the quirks of mechanical design is that a platform optimized for a “more difficult” task will often have trouble performing a “more simple” task. This is obvious to most people, it is why we do not use screwdrivers as hammers.

    The 1911 is a “proven” design. It was optimized for straight walled cases, which is harder than optimizing for bottleneck cartridges. Consequently, it is difficult to make 1911 reliably feed short bottleneck rounds like the 357 sig and any bottleneck rounds build for the 1911 platform need to be designed under unique limitations. Even then, there are few 1911’s in the wild that take bottlenecked ammo.

    Back to the AR and the feeding of low taper rounds like the 5.56 and .300 BLK….

    The 7.62 NATO has a low taper as well. It too is a “proven round.”

    The M-14 was built around the 7.62 Nato and, you guessed it, it too canNOT be easily converted to the 7.62 Soviet.

    The AR platform can handle 308 win, something the AK doesn’t. In fact, the AR was originally built for the 7.62 NATO, that is why the 5.56 was designed with a low taper in the first place.

    So you can take your blatant logical fallacy from above, and replace “AR” with M-14, or M-1 Garand, or any American military design.

  7. It’s more like saying that your car is a POS because it can’t take the strain of cornering so you can only drive it in a straight lines or gently turns.

    Twice they cite “the AR Bolt’s weaknesses”, the ARs that take 308 rounds are upscaled versions of the AR.

    My point is why do we need another cartridge that performs the same baliistically as a 7.62×39 or 30-30?

Comments are closed.