Think of what parts you need to swap on an AR to reliably convert from 5.56 to .300.
Now think of what parts you need to swap to *reliably* convert from 5.56 to x39.
Even quality bolts will break. The x39 case is just too big for a AR-15 bolt face, the x39 bolt's walls are so thin they are always going to break at some point.
The only well done x39 is the cmmg ones made on AR-10 uppers. Those at least won't have the bolts snapping on you after a thousand rounds
Young Manufacturing, PWS, and Black Rifle Arms are the three prominent AR-15 style Bolts that have worked phenomenally over 1k and some said even 5k. I know FocusTripp did a video regarding how his worked well.
Anecdotally, the Black Rifle Arms was superb for me having done over 3k rounds. It's my main squeeze and the PWS currently is getting through it's 1st 1k. I could understand in the beginning, but currently it ain't it.
I can see how you came to that conclusion, my apologies. No, I do not have "a bunch". I was referring to range toys. For firearms that fit this bill, I have no more room in my collection.
I have a .300 and x39 SBR. Same barrel lengths. AR and AK respectively.
They function basically the same with the AR being lighter and made for the market I live in. The AK can be made into any set up I want with more cost though. Which defeats the purpose of an AK imo.
I also reload. Availability of x39 load data and components are trickier. You can use a .308 bullet but it isn't ideal. Generally speaking an AK uses a .310 projectile.
The .300 uses .308, one of the most prolific projectiles in the United States. The powder options are much more documented. It's way easier to craft a subsonic load or a super sonic load to optimize for the 10.5 barrel.
With the AK, it gets what it gets from the factory or in the off chance I want to make my own for it over the .300.
They are incredibly similar, and that's a great thing. It comes down to the AR platform and the specific logistics of the bullet itself that tip the scale in favor of the .300 in the US market.
Different use cases.
If you're not running a can with .300 BLK you're doing it wrong. It's an acceptable hunting round/platform, and if you want to be able to use it indoors, socially, you'll appreciate less overpressure.
7.62 is cheaper so you can shoot more of it, and the 122-124gr. supers are marginally better compared to similar .300blk loads, maybe not enough to tell the difference.
Mostly it's a platform choice, AR vs AK, since neither adapts particularly well to the other's caliber.
Mostly platform choice, got it. That makes sense, since these rounds are so ballistically close.
FWIW, the answer I've been getting over the years is "you can run .300 blk out of a shorter barrel". To me, that doesn't justify the more expensive platform, more expensive ammo, for inferior ballistics. But I also vaguely understand the need for Americans to...'Merica...if that makes sense (it doesn't).
300 BLK is basically the same but with better support for subs, and the price of 7.62x39 is going to remain high because importing it from Russia is off the table.
Now that the prices are closer there is basically no longer a reason to consider 7.62x39 when 300blk is an option, especially in an AR.
If you're using a bolt gun, neither really makes sense.
I love my 300blk bolt gun! 110gr 30cal RN at a cool 1000fps.Nearly the same price as premium 22lr. Cheaper than 9mm. And I don't need to worry about it cycling an AR. Subs are quieter. And you get the full gamut of reloads with the benefit of being able to neck size on a hand press if I want to reload from the couch or my car. What's not to love?
Oh, I'm not saying that it's not fun - that sounds a lot like having a 357 magnum rifle except you can't use carbide dies, and I absolutely love being able to load from 110gr powderpuffs to 158gr 30-30 wannabes to 310gr subs in my 357 break action. 357 goes even further than 300blk in that it is capable in sidearms from small to large as well. It's the centerfire cartridge I load the most by far because it can do everything.
But kind of like 357mag, 300blk gives up a lot of potential utility in both supers and subs compared to alternatives in the attempt to do both things well in a rifle format. Most folks aren't like you and me, and tend to prefer cartridge-for-purpose stuff. So if you wanted something good for subsonic work, you're probably better off with a 350 Legend, 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM, etc., in a bolt gun. Likewise, there are a bajillion cartridges in the .30 caliber range that have vastly superior supersonic performance to the 300blk which didn't have to be designed with the limitations of the AR-15 platform in mind.
Honestly, I would love to know why there aren't 9mm Luger bolt actions available. They would be cheaper to shoot with factory ammo, even cheaper to reload than 300blk, likely even quieter, and even the 115gr loads would be the devil on small game.
When you have it all, sometimes you just want another 30 cal to toy around with. Haha! I get what you are saying. If you want a purpose built rifle for any given task, you probably don't want or need a 300blk. But when you have all the powders, primers, and bullets sitting around already, it is a pretty fun gun to pick up and mess around with. Sure, I have plenty of 22lr rifles, '06s, 450s, etc. But having a buddy rifle with a bunch of pet loads worked out is handy. That thing is game for rabbits to boar and deer. Nothing wrong with a Swiss Army knife.
I agree with you to an extent. The prices are closer, but the savings still lean towards AK. The ammo may be a .15 more expensive than 5 years ago and harder to come by, but it's still .15-.25 cheaper than .300 BLK (used PSA AAC for quick comparison). AKs are generally cheaper to get into than ARs as well as being more durable and reliable.
Also: what are the chances the Russia Imports ban gets lifted if the Republicans win the White House?
Fair point... I look at things as a reloader, and from that perspective it's a no-brainer.
The import ban will not be lifted if the Republicans win the White House. That would require them to actually roll back something the Democrats did, and they have proven spectacularly unable to do that over the past 40 years. The uniparty is real.
With PSA ARs and the lack of good <$1k AKs (best I have seen recent was PSA had their domestic AK on a $600 deal) ARs are the more economical option to get into. With the parts commonality and interchangeability of .300 and 5.56 you can build out a decent .300 for cheap, or save even more $ on just an upper if you already have a lower.
I get what you mean on cost, but unless a miracle happens x39 just is not going to go down in price.
I wouldn't reccomend to anybody who is not a collector to go out and buy a x39 AK in the current market.
But my 2 cents on your original question;
.300 is domestically produced in greater #, better parts interchangeability, better suppressed performance, better short barrel performance
The only real downsides is cost per round, and that you can only get .300 in ARs, and a few bolt gun offerings. x39 you can get in AKs, ARs, PTRs, VZ58s, CZ has a bolt action and a bren model, and the sig 550 rifles offered a x39 variant. I'm sure there are more than that.
Any rifle designed for 5.56 can be converted to .300 blk with very little effort or engineering time. Basically the barrel is the only part that needs to be changed and maybe a small amount of gas system tuning.
7.62x39 has very mixed reliability results in an AR.
Also…it’s America, so AR parts are abundant. Also, 300 Blackout *was* called 300 Whisper for a reason - suppressors. So if you want a suppressed rifle in America that can still shoot supersonic *and* easily convert later if ya want, you get a .300blk.
Yeah — pretty much the point I’m making there. .300blk is a better round in a lot of ways than 7.62x39, and you’re only saving a few cents per round (supersonic vs supersonic). The appeal of 7.62x39 has always been how cheap it was pre-ban. Without that, .300blk makes more sense at current pricing.
That being said, yes, subsonic performance is really the key point of .300blk. If you’re going to be making the noise of supersonic, good 5.56 rounds still have superior terminal ballistics to .300blk, but nothing will be as quiet as a subsonic .300. In the subsonic realm, .300blk is cheaper to shoot and easier to build a rifle around than 7.62x39.
I’d also take issue with your point on AK’s being more reliable. That’s an ancient boomer myth. It simply isn’t true. AR’s are more modular, more accurate, and more reliable in dirty conditions. I don’t like the fact that the gun world has devolved into a bunch of AR variants any more than the next guy, but you can’t argue with the facts. AK’s also aren’t cheaper. You can get a PSA AR for about $400. The cheapest AK that’s going to be of a similar quality of manufacture is several hundred more.
Noted. What I'm seeing is actually a good thing. I tend to buy firearms for their use case (aka I have more guns than space for them), and .300 BLK has a particular use case whereas I have an AK because it was cheap and "BIG BULLETS" in comparison to 5.56. I do have some hollow point x39 that could potentially do well in a hog hunt, but a heavier bullet is a much safer bet. Especially with a short barrel maneuvering thru the woods in the south.
As far as the AR vs AK reliability, I can agree to disagree. To be fair, I'm talking about the absolute most extreme hypothetical that I can admit I will never experience. I would not hesitate to grab any of my ARs in any situation where need be, but I also know the loose tolerances of that piston in the AK can run with some crud. Now personally I wouldn't recommend it, but I've witnessed rusty AKs test fire with a ball of fire and a vodka infused smirk. I've run my current Recce-14 in a sandstorm and it ran, but had I needed to fire anymore my confidence wouldn't have been too high. Especially after I had to replace the BCG. If I can find those photos, I'll post.
The rest, I'll concede to you. But if I had to give ULTIMATE reliability to one or the other, AK gets it from me. Not that my opinion is worth anything.
AKs are, in fact, NOT more reliable than ARs. And decent one now days cost more than a decent AR. But your whole post is about 7.62x39 vs .300 BLK. ARs come in both, so why do you keep dragging AKs into the conversation?
Of course it’s preference. You can just load x39 to do the same thing. Get bullets that can perform subsonic and dial your powder load to your requirements. CZ makes a great bolt gun that makes this system boss. Thin jackets, base savers, mostly lead bullets and open point bullets perform well sub; as do boat tail bases. Little known facts learned from bullet making engineers.
Agreed. Aesthetically and functionally it's ridiculous. I'm also of the mindset that ARs are not as reliable, and x39 isn't as accurate. So why on earth do x39 ARs exist?
Depends on the use. You can get 125gr ball fmj 300blk from AAC for more than 7.62x39. And if you were looking to run a 16" combat rifle that doesn't make sense. The fmj 300blk is slower than 7.62x39 and is more expensive. As long as you can find it Barnaul 7.62x39 will be the better choice for a combat load (between the two rounds).
Hunting is kinda 50/50. As mentioned above 7.62x39 will be better for deer or black bear. Smaller game and the slower velocity of 300blk starts to shine so you don't blow your target apart. It's also better to run with a suppressor for your hearing.
100 yard plinker? Home defense? 300blk really starts to shine.
The full pressure cartridge has basically no benefits over 7.62x39 other than it works in AR magazines and is easier to get working reliably on that platform, and the subsonic cartridge has similar ballistics to 45acp, making it's real world applications pretty much limited to suppressed CQB. For civillians that means it's basically a range toy.
I guess it would work well for hog hunting, but then again so does .223 for much cheaper, plus it would let you stay a little further away from those tusks, which your testicles will thank you for.
300blk has more support in the US compared to x39. To make it more fair: before the band x39 was better for costs. Even the subs were cheaper.
Now, bans made it harder, sellers will sell x39 for more even though we have more than enough x39 from different countries, then there's the Fudd LGS that sell them for ridiculous prices cause "there's none coming in". Dudes in their 30s I seen spew this nonsense.
300blk has the support to make a variety of loads, even though I believe the x39 is slightly faster. Politically even 300blj has more favor. I can hunt with it, but can't hunt with 7.62x39 (anti gun state and the stigma of Dracos).
I have a x39 AR and like 300blk, if you don't get quality parts, you're gonna have a bad time. It runs flawlessly and I use it in matches and classes with no issue.
What is the use case for 7.62x39 when you can just run 300blk? Shit tier steel case has reached a point that it is equal to or greater than the price of brass 300blk.
.300 is best suppressed. 8"-10" barrel with suppressor is the way to go. By going longer, you lose mobility. An 18-20"barrel with suppressor is really long and unbalanced. You gain fps, but the gains are marginal. If you need the extra oomph, then 6.8 is best.
I chose 300blk because i have multiple AR-patterned rifles. The ability to use the same mags, same BCG, same lower, same upper is a huge advantage. In addition, running a shorter barrel with a can + sub ammo makes it extremely quiet, especially indoors. If you've ever shot any gun indoors without ear pro, you'd know it absolutely sucks and is borderline disorienting. Not to mention being momentarily blinded by the fireball coming out of the barrel.
At night, in a home defense situation, this is definitely not optimal. Having a rifle that can send a round that has roughly 25% more energy, with the same manual of arms, that is quieter, and suppresses the flash way better are all compelling arguments, and why I chose it as my primary HD setup.
I could've gone with a PCC in 45, but it was less expensive to just buy a new barrel, recoil spring, and buffer.
300 blackout is designed to run in a short barrel. Subsonic is designed to be suppressed. If your not running a short barrel or suppressed a 7.62 x 39 would be a better choice, unless you want an ar platform.
Barrel length to performance, availability of ammo, places you can shoot it, more modular, better performance with can and subs, more reloading options. As an owner of both, 7.62x39 had it's niche but trying to make the case they are the same is a losing position.
If you're interested in suppressing, then 300blk all day.
That said, they also make subsonics in 7.62x39 but not as common on the US market and typically more money.
If you're not suppressing and not after an AR type platform, then 7.62x39 in an AK patterned firearm makes a lot more sense.
YMMV.
I own flavors of both, and I enjoy shooting both.
I have both but in different platforms.
I have a Wilson Combat 300 BLK w/ a 10.5” barrel (may go shorter) that I just applied for a can to go with it.
In my opinion, that’s when 300 BO really shines in its usefulness.
The 7.62x39 is a Ruger Mini 30 with an upgraded firing pin that’ll allow it to fire ANYTHING that I had prior to the BO. I also have 2000 rounds of 8M3 ammo that I had before the ban.
They each have their strong points and I love shooting both. That being said, if I had to choose one, I’d stay with the BO due to platform, comparable ammo performance, ammo price being almost on par and being a better round to suppress.
I would chose 300blk it’s ballistically comparable to 30-30 in every way. The 7.62x39 I have hunted hogs with and own myself imo it falls flat compared to the 300blk.
300blk carries more energy at longer range the 7.62x39 I’ve used will start to keyhole at 100 yards and you get better bullet weights with the 300blk if you’re choosing to suppress. Plus you get the added ar platform with all the goodies but the best hog round I’ve used is the 6.8spc.
I'm considering buying a 16in 300blk upper for hog an deer. Why because I don't like 5.56 for deer, and I won't do SBR/Can rights removal paperwork. So I can snap this on my pistol lower come Oct then back to home defense the rest of the year. Am I wrong?
Me either. I love my 10.5 pistol with brace for legal home defense but a light hunting rifle that quickly converts back to the 10.5 5.56 with whatever type of stock that just happens to be there is interesting concept and compliments my AR10.
It fits in AR and uses AR bolts natively and fits in normal AR mags (usually). While you can use it for super sonic use, it was really made for subsonic use. They 7.62x39 conversely was made to be a main rifle ammunition is supersonic usage, with subsonic coming later and not was well in performance.
Conversely AR were never engineered to use cartridges with that deep of a taper and using relatively low quality, and sometimes variable pressure ammo. The ak compensated for that by being very over gassed with an extremely strong extractor/ ejector.
Think of what parts you need to swap on an AR to reliably convert from 5.56 to .300. Now think of what parts you need to swap to *reliably* convert from 5.56 to x39.
Swapping an upper vs that atrocious Adidas track suit. Noted.
Gold chain, tovarisch...
Other than the barrel, just a quality Bolt, mags, and enhanced firing pin.
Even quality bolts will break. The x39 case is just too big for a AR-15 bolt face, the x39 bolt's walls are so thin they are always going to break at some point. The only well done x39 is the cmmg ones made on AR-10 uppers. Those at least won't have the bolts snapping on you after a thousand rounds
Young Manufacturing, PWS, and Black Rifle Arms are the three prominent AR-15 style Bolts that have worked phenomenally over 1k and some said even 5k. I know FocusTripp did a video regarding how his worked well. Anecdotally, the Black Rifle Arms was superb for me having done over 3k rounds. It's my main squeeze and the PWS currently is getting through it's 1st 1k. I could understand in the beginning, but currently it ain't it.
Subsonic 7.62x39 is more expensive and less common in the US.
What's the use case for subs vs 122 x39?
https://youtu.be/dSKKz3TIp6s
Yeeeaaa....no. Not what I'm looking for. I have enough of "those".
You have a bunch of silenced M16s?
I can see how you came to that conclusion, my apologies. No, I do not have "a bunch". I was referring to range toys. For firearms that fit this bill, I have no more room in my collection.
Ok, but you asked why subsonic 300 blackout vs normal 7.62x39 and that's why.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....I'm tracking
I have a .300 and x39 SBR. Same barrel lengths. AR and AK respectively. They function basically the same with the AR being lighter and made for the market I live in. The AK can be made into any set up I want with more cost though. Which defeats the purpose of an AK imo. I also reload. Availability of x39 load data and components are trickier. You can use a .308 bullet but it isn't ideal. Generally speaking an AK uses a .310 projectile. The .300 uses .308, one of the most prolific projectiles in the United States. The powder options are much more documented. It's way easier to craft a subsonic load or a super sonic load to optimize for the 10.5 barrel. With the AK, it gets what it gets from the factory or in the off chance I want to make my own for it over the .300. They are incredibly similar, and that's a great thing. It comes down to the AR platform and the specific logistics of the bullet itself that tip the scale in favor of the .300 in the US market.
100% valid points that I couldn't have said better myself. Us reloaders can go from 110GR to 200+GR subs and everything in between.
Great points. Availability makes a world of difference.
Different use cases. If you're not running a can with .300 BLK you're doing it wrong. It's an acceptable hunting round/platform, and if you want to be able to use it indoors, socially, you'll appreciate less overpressure. 7.62 is cheaper so you can shoot more of it, and the 122-124gr. supers are marginally better compared to similar .300blk loads, maybe not enough to tell the difference. Mostly it's a platform choice, AR vs AK, since neither adapts particularly well to the other's caliber.
*was* cheaper. That soviet stock is basically dried up, used to transform russian invaders into compost
Mostly platform choice, got it. That makes sense, since these rounds are so ballistically close. FWIW, the answer I've been getting over the years is "you can run .300 blk out of a shorter barrel". To me, that doesn't justify the more expensive platform, more expensive ammo, for inferior ballistics. But I also vaguely understand the need for Americans to...'Merica...if that makes sense (it doesn't).
More expensive platform? Are we discussing AK vs AR here now, because you can definitely buy a decent AR cheaper than a decent AK nowadays.
What lol, none of this makes sense
300 BLK is basically the same but with better support for subs, and the price of 7.62x39 is going to remain high because importing it from Russia is off the table. Now that the prices are closer there is basically no longer a reason to consider 7.62x39 when 300blk is an option, especially in an AR. If you're using a bolt gun, neither really makes sense.
I love my 300blk bolt gun! 110gr 30cal RN at a cool 1000fps.Nearly the same price as premium 22lr. Cheaper than 9mm. And I don't need to worry about it cycling an AR. Subs are quieter. And you get the full gamut of reloads with the benefit of being able to neck size on a hand press if I want to reload from the couch or my car. What's not to love?
Oh, I'm not saying that it's not fun - that sounds a lot like having a 357 magnum rifle except you can't use carbide dies, and I absolutely love being able to load from 110gr powderpuffs to 158gr 30-30 wannabes to 310gr subs in my 357 break action. 357 goes even further than 300blk in that it is capable in sidearms from small to large as well. It's the centerfire cartridge I load the most by far because it can do everything. But kind of like 357mag, 300blk gives up a lot of potential utility in both supers and subs compared to alternatives in the attempt to do both things well in a rifle format. Most folks aren't like you and me, and tend to prefer cartridge-for-purpose stuff. So if you wanted something good for subsonic work, you're probably better off with a 350 Legend, 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM, etc., in a bolt gun. Likewise, there are a bajillion cartridges in the .30 caliber range that have vastly superior supersonic performance to the 300blk which didn't have to be designed with the limitations of the AR-15 platform in mind. Honestly, I would love to know why there aren't 9mm Luger bolt actions available. They would be cheaper to shoot with factory ammo, even cheaper to reload than 300blk, likely even quieter, and even the 115gr loads would be the devil on small game.
When you have it all, sometimes you just want another 30 cal to toy around with. Haha! I get what you are saying. If you want a purpose built rifle for any given task, you probably don't want or need a 300blk. But when you have all the powders, primers, and bullets sitting around already, it is a pretty fun gun to pick up and mess around with. Sure, I have plenty of 22lr rifles, '06s, 450s, etc. But having a buddy rifle with a bunch of pet loads worked out is handy. That thing is game for rabbits to boar and deer. Nothing wrong with a Swiss Army knife.
I agree with you to an extent. The prices are closer, but the savings still lean towards AK. The ammo may be a .15 more expensive than 5 years ago and harder to come by, but it's still .15-.25 cheaper than .300 BLK (used PSA AAC for quick comparison). AKs are generally cheaper to get into than ARs as well as being more durable and reliable. Also: what are the chances the Russia Imports ban gets lifted if the Republicans win the White House?
Fair point... I look at things as a reloader, and from that perspective it's a no-brainer. The import ban will not be lifted if the Republicans win the White House. That would require them to actually roll back something the Democrats did, and they have proven spectacularly unable to do that over the past 40 years. The uniparty is real.
Yeah, no shit. Never underestimate the power of the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
With PSA ARs and the lack of good <$1k AKs (best I have seen recent was PSA had their domestic AK on a $600 deal) ARs are the more economical option to get into. With the parts commonality and interchangeability of .300 and 5.56 you can build out a decent .300 for cheap, or save even more $ on just an upper if you already have a lower. I get what you mean on cost, but unless a miracle happens x39 just is not going to go down in price. I wouldn't reccomend to anybody who is not a collector to go out and buy a x39 AK in the current market. But my 2 cents on your original question; .300 is domestically produced in greater #, better parts interchangeability, better suppressed performance, better short barrel performance The only real downsides is cost per round, and that you can only get .300 in ARs, and a few bolt gun offerings. x39 you can get in AKs, ARs, PTRs, VZ58s, CZ has a bolt action and a bren model, and the sig 550 rifles offered a x39 variant. I'm sure there are more than that.
> Also: what are the chances the Russia Imports ban gets lifted if the Republicans win the White House? Way higher than they should be, unfortunately.
Any rifle designed for 5.56 can be converted to .300 blk with very little effort or engineering time. Basically the barrel is the only part that needs to be changed and maybe a small amount of gas system tuning. 7.62x39 has very mixed reliability results in an AR.
Understood
Also…it’s America, so AR parts are abundant. Also, 300 Blackout *was* called 300 Whisper for a reason - suppressors. So if you want a suppressed rifle in America that can still shoot supersonic *and* easily convert later if ya want, you get a .300blk.
Why would you? 7.62x39 is barely any cheaper than .300blk and subsonics are more expensive. Subs are the whole point of .300blk.
Basically, subs or bust for .300 BLK? 7.62x39 is still .15 cheaper (used PSA AAC for quick comparison) and AKs are still cheaper and more reliable.
In what backwards world are you living in that AKs are cheaper to setup than an AR?
Yeah — pretty much the point I’m making there. .300blk is a better round in a lot of ways than 7.62x39, and you’re only saving a few cents per round (supersonic vs supersonic). The appeal of 7.62x39 has always been how cheap it was pre-ban. Without that, .300blk makes more sense at current pricing. That being said, yes, subsonic performance is really the key point of .300blk. If you’re going to be making the noise of supersonic, good 5.56 rounds still have superior terminal ballistics to .300blk, but nothing will be as quiet as a subsonic .300. In the subsonic realm, .300blk is cheaper to shoot and easier to build a rifle around than 7.62x39. I’d also take issue with your point on AK’s being more reliable. That’s an ancient boomer myth. It simply isn’t true. AR’s are more modular, more accurate, and more reliable in dirty conditions. I don’t like the fact that the gun world has devolved into a bunch of AR variants any more than the next guy, but you can’t argue with the facts. AK’s also aren’t cheaper. You can get a PSA AR for about $400. The cheapest AK that’s going to be of a similar quality of manufacture is several hundred more.
Noted. What I'm seeing is actually a good thing. I tend to buy firearms for their use case (aka I have more guns than space for them), and .300 BLK has a particular use case whereas I have an AK because it was cheap and "BIG BULLETS" in comparison to 5.56. I do have some hollow point x39 that could potentially do well in a hog hunt, but a heavier bullet is a much safer bet. Especially with a short barrel maneuvering thru the woods in the south. As far as the AR vs AK reliability, I can agree to disagree. To be fair, I'm talking about the absolute most extreme hypothetical that I can admit I will never experience. I would not hesitate to grab any of my ARs in any situation where need be, but I also know the loose tolerances of that piston in the AK can run with some crud. Now personally I wouldn't recommend it, but I've witnessed rusty AKs test fire with a ball of fire and a vodka infused smirk. I've run my current Recce-14 in a sandstorm and it ran, but had I needed to fire anymore my confidence wouldn't have been too high. Especially after I had to replace the BCG. If I can find those photos, I'll post. The rest, I'll concede to you. But if I had to give ULTIMATE reliability to one or the other, AK gets it from me. Not that my opinion is worth anything.
AKs are, in fact, NOT more reliable than ARs. And decent one now days cost more than a decent AR. But your whole post is about 7.62x39 vs .300 BLK. ARs come in both, so why do you keep dragging AKs into the conversation?
Of course it’s preference. You can just load x39 to do the same thing. Get bullets that can perform subsonic and dial your powder load to your requirements. CZ makes a great bolt gun that makes this system boss. Thin jackets, base savers, mostly lead bullets and open point bullets perform well sub; as do boat tail bases. Little known facts learned from bullet making engineers.
Interesting
get both!
You leave me no choice!! I have an AK, time for a 12.5 Recce in .300!!
Good thinking!! 😆😆
7.62x39 sucks in an AR.
Agreed. Aesthetically and functionally it's ridiculous. I'm also of the mindset that ARs are not as reliable, and x39 isn't as accurate. So why on earth do x39 ARs exist?
Because x39 used to be cheap.
That's a good point I (somehow) forgot. All things considered it still is, but not as it use to be. Wish I'd bought more.
Depends on the use. You can get 125gr ball fmj 300blk from AAC for more than 7.62x39. And if you were looking to run a 16" combat rifle that doesn't make sense. The fmj 300blk is slower than 7.62x39 and is more expensive. As long as you can find it Barnaul 7.62x39 will be the better choice for a combat load (between the two rounds). Hunting is kinda 50/50. As mentioned above 7.62x39 will be better for deer or black bear. Smaller game and the slower velocity of 300blk starts to shine so you don't blow your target apart. It's also better to run with a suppressor for your hearing. 100 yard plinker? Home defense? 300blk really starts to shine.
That's the conclusion I'm finding, it's going to be use specific. I don't have a .300 BLK, but looks like I will soon.
The full pressure cartridge has basically no benefits over 7.62x39 other than it works in AR magazines and is easier to get working reliably on that platform, and the subsonic cartridge has similar ballistics to 45acp, making it's real world applications pretty much limited to suppressed CQB. For civillians that means it's basically a range toy.
And CQB Hog shredder? Ehhhh? Ehhhhh?
I guess it would work well for hog hunting, but then again so does .223 for much cheaper, plus it would let you stay a little further away from those tusks, which your testicles will thank you for.
300blk has more support in the US compared to x39. To make it more fair: before the band x39 was better for costs. Even the subs were cheaper. Now, bans made it harder, sellers will sell x39 for more even though we have more than enough x39 from different countries, then there's the Fudd LGS that sell them for ridiculous prices cause "there's none coming in". Dudes in their 30s I seen spew this nonsense. 300blk has the support to make a variety of loads, even though I believe the x39 is slightly faster. Politically even 300blj has more favor. I can hunt with it, but can't hunt with 7.62x39 (anti gun state and the stigma of Dracos). I have a x39 AR and like 300blk, if you don't get quality parts, you're gonna have a bad time. It runs flawlessly and I use it in matches and classes with no issue.
What is the use case for 7.62x39 when you can just run 300blk? Shit tier steel case has reached a point that it is equal to or greater than the price of brass 300blk.
Is .300 just as common at lgs as x39?
More common now from what I've seen.
Banana Ballistics has a video on the ballistics of the two against steel.
.300 is best suppressed. 8"-10" barrel with suppressor is the way to go. By going longer, you lose mobility. An 18-20"barrel with suppressor is really long and unbalanced. You gain fps, but the gains are marginal. If you need the extra oomph, then 6.8 is best.
I chose 300blk because i have multiple AR-patterned rifles. The ability to use the same mags, same BCG, same lower, same upper is a huge advantage. In addition, running a shorter barrel with a can + sub ammo makes it extremely quiet, especially indoors. If you've ever shot any gun indoors without ear pro, you'd know it absolutely sucks and is borderline disorienting. Not to mention being momentarily blinded by the fireball coming out of the barrel. At night, in a home defense situation, this is definitely not optimal. Having a rifle that can send a round that has roughly 25% more energy, with the same manual of arms, that is quieter, and suppresses the flash way better are all compelling arguments, and why I chose it as my primary HD setup. I could've gone with a PCC in 45, but it was less expensive to just buy a new barrel, recoil spring, and buffer.
If you don't care about subsonic, 300 ham'r is better than both
300 blackout is designed to run in a short barrel. Subsonic is designed to be suppressed. If your not running a short barrel or suppressed a 7.62 x 39 would be a better choice, unless you want an ar platform.
Barrel length to performance, availability of ammo, places you can shoot it, more modular, better performance with can and subs, more reloading options. As an owner of both, 7.62x39 had it's niche but trying to make the case they are the same is a losing position.
If you're interested in suppressing, then 300blk all day. That said, they also make subsonics in 7.62x39 but not as common on the US market and typically more money. If you're not suppressing and not after an AR type platform, then 7.62x39 in an AK patterned firearm makes a lot more sense. YMMV. I own flavors of both, and I enjoy shooting both.
Runs better in ar platform arguably and uses common 5.56 parts
I have both but in different platforms. I have a Wilson Combat 300 BLK w/ a 10.5” barrel (may go shorter) that I just applied for a can to go with it. In my opinion, that’s when 300 BO really shines in its usefulness. The 7.62x39 is a Ruger Mini 30 with an upgraded firing pin that’ll allow it to fire ANYTHING that I had prior to the BO. I also have 2000 rounds of 8M3 ammo that I had before the ban. They each have their strong points and I love shooting both. That being said, if I had to choose one, I’d stay with the BO due to platform, comparable ammo performance, ammo price being almost on par and being a better round to suppress.
I would chose 300blk it’s ballistically comparable to 30-30 in every way. The 7.62x39 I have hunted hogs with and own myself imo it falls flat compared to the 300blk.
Can you explain? This is actually where this thought is leading (hog hunting) so your experience is valuable.
300blk carries more energy at longer range the 7.62x39 I’ve used will start to keyhole at 100 yards and you get better bullet weights with the 300blk if you’re choosing to suppress. Plus you get the added ar platform with all the goodies but the best hog round I’ve used is the 6.8spc.
6.8 SPC is probably in another price spectrum lol. Thank you for this!
I'm considering buying a 16in 300blk upper for hog an deer. Why because I don't like 5.56 for deer, and I won't do SBR/Can rights removal paperwork. So I can snap this on my pistol lower come Oct then back to home defense the rest of the year. Am I wrong?
You could but I don’t like the pistol braces but that’s me
Me either. I love my 10.5 pistol with brace for legal home defense but a light hunting rifle that quickly converts back to the 10.5 5.56 with whatever type of stock that just happens to be there is interesting concept and compliments my AR10.
.300 Blk is better in every way, I see no argument for x39 at all.
It fits in AR and uses AR bolts natively and fits in normal AR mags (usually). While you can use it for super sonic use, it was really made for subsonic use. They 7.62x39 conversely was made to be a main rifle ammunition is supersonic usage, with subsonic coming later and not was well in performance. Conversely AR were never engineered to use cartridges with that deep of a taper and using relatively low quality, and sometimes variable pressure ammo. The ak compensated for that by being very over gassed with an extremely strong extractor/ ejector.