223 Sabot in 300BLK Anyone tried it?

[Klem]

Guys,

I see on 3 previous threads general discussion about sabots being used in a 300 but has anyone actually tried them?

Before we get off topic by opinions on why you would want to here's my rationale. I've used the supersonic Blackout on 5 roo's(kangaroos) now. 2 with Hornady 110 VMax and 3 with Barnes 110 TSXTipped. MV is 2350fps, and about 2,000 at the target. They put the animals down but the reaction is slow and follow up shots needed when three were still alive and alert. Point blank shots don't pop the eyes out like a 223. There's no immediate axial spread and the temp wound cavity is smaller than a faster round. Like the old saying goes, 'Speed kills' and when combined with a ballistic-tip projie designed specifically to fly apart immediately in soft skin animals beats slower heavier projies hands down.

So, if you carry only one rifle and it's a 300 because you want the potential of a subsonic capability, but want to improve the speed (and ergo knock-down) of your supersonic ammo on soft flesh then a sabot is one way to look at it.

My experience with 308 Accelerator rounds several years ago is that the accuracy was OK, but not the potential of non-sabot rounds.

I also hear they are not recommended with a suppressor.

Quickload shows best efficiency for a sabot if using slightly faster than supersonic powders (i.e. slowest handgun powders). One scenario is a muzzle velocity 2900fps from a 16" barrel using a 55g + 6gn sabot using 15gns of ADI AP100 with a compressed load. Does projectile velocity increase on sabot separation or is this what you get?

[LeePalmer]

I tried to get a sabot load worked up but never got any consistancy or my AR to cycle. And never shoot sabots through a suppressor.
The powder charges and types I tried were from old data supplied with the sabots for "like" sized or capacity cases. I was getting cratered or blown primers at the point where the action would start trying to at least half cycle. I quit trying.

[Klem]

OK interesting, thanks for that.

We went out to the range yesterday and tried a couple, but the weather and time was against us. Used Quickload to figure out a powder that would likely cycle with a '61grain' (55gn VMax, plus 6gn for the sabot). Used 13grains of AP100 for three rounds and it cycled the action fully with no pressure signs. It was raining and the chrono wasn't working but Quickload estimates 2900fps out of a 16" barrel.

With no chronograph we paid it off for a better day so will let you know soon enough. Plenty of space in the case for more powder but I suspect the accuracy will not be good enough, and as you say, you can't use a suppressor or a brake.

AP100 is a slow pistol powder so there will be plenty of equivalents over your way;
http://www.adi-limited.com/handloaders- ... alents.asp

Bottom line, if we can't get decent accuracy out of these things then will pay it off as an interesting experiement and use the 308 projies that are available. Currently using Barnes 110 TSXTipped and Speer 125TNT, but would be nice to also have the option of a flatter-shooting higher kinetic energy of a 55VMax.

[rjacobs]

Maybe I dont understand, but what purpose would this have over just shooting a 5.56 AR15?

[oldpapps]

rjacobs,

Well said

OSOK

[eracer]

And doesn't everyone who has a 300 BLK also have a .223 (or a 6.5G or 6.8 SPC II?)

[Klem]

Maybe I dont understand, but what purpose would this have over just shooting a 5.56 AR15?

Re-read the first post in the thread for the answer.

[rjacobs]

Maybe I dont understand, but what purpose would this have over just shooting a 5.56 AR15?

Re-read the first post in the thread for the answer.

I re-read it and see where you touched on it, but overall energy out of a 2400fps 110g is almost always going to be higher than a 55g(hell even a 75g) moving at close to 3000fps.

The 5.56 that a lot of people would consider the overall best right now is the Hornady TAP 5.56 75g with the T2 bullet. It puts out somewhere around 1300 ft. lbs of energy and that is out of a 20" NATO test barrel moving at close to 2900FPS. The 55g 5.56 TAP round puts out about the same energy, but its moving at slightly north of 3200FPS.

The Barnes 110g loading is moving at 2350fps and puts 1350ft. lbs of energy down. I dont know what barrel length that is, but I am guessing 16", so if you are shooting out of a 9" or 8" you could subtract probably 175-200fps off of that.

So all roughly the same "energy".

So the only difference that I could see would be the 5.56 is going to possibly create a bigger temporary cavity(although I have been impressed with what I have seen the Barnes do in gel) and it will probably tumble and the Barnes will most likely not as its not really designed to tumble. I dont know if the Remington 125g Accu-tip's would do a better job of tumbling, I dont know, but those have been fairly impressive in the temporary cavity arena too. The 5.56 does, IMO, have better range. I would trust 5.56 out to say 300 yards where I dont know if I would trust 300blk out past maybe 150 yards, that is to provide a kill shot.

[jblomenberg16]

I think the OP has a valid question. While the energy from a 110gr .308 round is on par or even greater than a lighter .224 projectile, the 110gr round is at the boarderline of reliable expansion velocity once ranges start to get to 200yds and beyond.

So, you might be poking nice .308" holes in your game with a lot of energy, vs. poking .224" inch entrance wounds with much larger internal damage wtih a fully expanding/fragmenting .223 round.

I've had some similar debates with some budddies that are convinced they want to use subsonic 220SMK's for home defence, because the energy is greater than or equal to a .45ACP. That is true, but the 220 is going to poke a .308 hole in the target and not do much internal damage, since it isn't fast enough to expand or really even tumble. A .45ACP Ball round will at least poke a larger hole in the target, and thus have a slightly better chance of creating a signifcant enough injury to a vascular system to incapacitate the target.


Don't get me wrong...I think .300BLK subs have a good use, as to the supersonic rounds. I just am not quite sold yet that energy is the only piece of the equation we should be focusing on. Expansion is also important on soft targets.

[Klem]

I agree, muzzle energy is a clumsy indicator of a firearms ability to kill.

Let's face it, most of us here have shelled out for a 300BLK. I'm the same as everyone else and went 'Wow!' when I heard the hype about, '25% more than a 223,' and '5% more than an AK47', 'Plus, you get a subsonic capability, and a set of steak knives with your Ab-Cruncher!"

Out on the range it's a nice little shooter don't get me wrong, and the subonic capability is worth it in itself. But since we've been hunting with it I've been completely underwhelmed with its supersonic ability when compared to a 223.

'jblomenberg16' hit the nail on the head...if we use 308 projectiles in a slower 300 we get a crush-trail and a smaller temporary wound cavity than a 308 or a 223. The roo's I've been shooting have the 300BLK/308 rounds exiting, and when you think about it a large thin-skin kangaroo is a pretty good analogue for a human being. The 110VMax isn't even opeing up so we stopped using it after the second hunt.

Heavier ammunition for no more ability to kill; supersonic is twice the weight of 223, subsonic is three times the weight. Less effective range by about 100M. More pronounced trajectory which means it is less forgiving at longer ranges. Add to that less wound ballistics.

Sorry to burst the muzzle-energy bubble but until a manufacturer designs a thinner/lighter/higher BC jacketed projectile specifically for the 300BLK/Whisper we are stuck with ill-fitting 308 hand-me-downs.

I reckon a long/sleek, higher BC 80grain 300 ballistic-tip doing 2700fps would trump the 223.