more 300 blk (optic related)

[Mike C]

Right, this situation reminds me of an adage I heard a while ago, goes something like this...

A person will eventually get to where they need to go with no help at all. In that time they will discover a lot of truths and experience much. If a person is travelling from NYC to Miami, they will definitely get there if they walk, but it will take them many days if not weeks to do so. If that person drives, they will get there in a day or two, and if they fly it will only take a couple of hours. The person who has made the trip, by walking, will likely never walk it again, but opt to drive. The person who has driven the trip will opt to fly and the person who usually flies enjoys the trip, as it is the fastest and most direct route. The person who normally flies would never even begin to consider walking or driving as it is not only a waste of resources, but a great waste of time - which is the most precious resource we have as humans. As such, the person who flies will tell the person who is walking to fly, but it is not for the person who flies to make the decision to for the person walking, they have to experience the process for themselves. But, of course, they could listen to the person who flies and accept the truth of the journey, saving much times (and resources by proxy).

Good luck...

Look man I really wasn't trying to be a dick and can't comprehend why you feel that you are somehow in a position to be condescending towards me unless you're just a narcissist. You aren't here on this earth educate me on what's best for me or anyone else for that matter. If there's been a waste of time today it's reading your posts. Take your .02 and go give it to someone who gives a fuck. Thanks for playing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Another con for the ACOG as you get older and your vision deteriorates, is the ACOG does not have a diopter / focus adjustment.

As for a BDC optic, given the trajectory of 300 BO and the variety of loads I think you are better off with a MIL or MOA based reticle and simply making your own "come up cards" for your specific loads.

Midway and others have great deals on the Vortex PST 1-4 scopes right now with the PST II's coming out.

If that is too involved I would try a Primary Arms 300/7.62 1-6 to test the BDC concept before dropping big $$$ on the Leupold.

300 BO is a specialty round. It does two things well: 1) With Subs, it is a better mousetrap than a suppressed 9mm SMG; 2) with Supers it gives you a round with 30-30 / 7.62x39 ballistics which runs well in a standard AR. Hunting to 150 is doable. While it is certainly possible to hit things at 500 with any of those rounds it is difficult and not what I would consider a reasonable GP carbine round for longer ranges. If you insist, a MIL or MOA reticle is the way to go.

[farscott]

Perhaps I am missing something, but this project seems like good fun to me. As noted above, .300 BLK provides .30-30 ballistics in the AR platform, and a lot of game has been taken with the .30-30. And some of that game was taken at distances much farther than 100 yards. It may not be optimal, but it will do the job. In my neck of the woods, a fair number of people are running .300 BLK AR rifles as deer rifles. I do have ethical concerns about taking large game with the .300 BLK at distances longer than 300 yards, but it has been done. More than a decade ago, I did a lot of load development for a .30-30 Contender with Nosler 150-grain Partition bullets in a Bullberrry barrel using a Leupold M8-4X. The end result was not too far away from today's .300 BLK.

While the ACOG may not be "state-of-the-art" optics, I have been impressed with how easy it is to shoot and how well I shoot with it. Of course, I like fixed scopes, simple reticles, and not having to think about changing magnification. When I did use a variable-power scope, I always had the power cranked all the way down so I could find the target in the scope, and I rarely had the time -- or the need -- to increase magnification unless I was shooting paper. I find the ACOG easier to use than the old M8-4X, due to the lit reticle, with low-recoil rounds. Of course, the ACOG costs 8X more than the M8-4X.

Interested to see how this project goes.

[Mike C]

HCM thanks for the input, It seems I did a poor job of explaining things. I was trying to avoid posting every thought and reason I've got for my choices. I thought it would be off putting in getting the help I need figuring things out. Basically most all of my shooting is done inside 3, lots of time from 25 to 200. When I can I like to stretch it out to 4-6 just for fun. What I am trying to say is I get what you and others are saying but I don't need a, "traditional carbine." I don't have the unrealistic expectation of a 9" SBR to take place of a real carbine. I'm looking for my version so to speak 1-3 max for regular use, 4-6 for fun, and 150 max for light hunting. Deer are small here and most shots are 75-100 yards with the occasionally longer one. Anything more serious will be relegated to my bolt gun. I hope this better explains where I am at. I do think you have an excellent point on picking up something cheap and proofing the concept before spending more. I'm going to pick up a variable this week and run the gun a few more months then revisit this. Thanks again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Odin Bravo One]

My limited experience with .300 BLK is that it doesn't perform well past 150 yards, regardless of load. But do what makes you happy. Leupold will design you a custom reticle and turret knobs for precisely what you want. I had a MkVI 1-6 with this configuration on my Reece gun for awhile, until I donated it to Davy Jones for his Red Dawn Box.

[HCM]

Perhaps I am missing something, but this project seems like good fun to me. As noted above, .300 BLK provides .30-30 ballistics in the AR platform, and a lot of game has been taken with the .30-30. And some of that game was taken at distances much farther than 100 yards. It may not be optimal, but it will do the job. In my neck of the woods, a fair number of people are running .300 BLK AR rifles as deer rifles. I do have ethical concerns about taking large game with the .300 BLK at distances longer than 300 yards, but it has been done. More than a decade ago, I did a lot of load development for a .30-30 Contender with Nosler 150-grain Partition bullets in a Bullberrry barrel using a Leupold M8-4X. The end result was not too far away from today's .300 BLK.

While the ACOG may not be "state-of-the-art" optics, I have been impressed with how easy it is to shoot and how well I shoot with it. Of course, I like fixed scopes, simple reticles, and not having to think about changing magnification. When I did use a variable-power scope, I always had the power cranked all the way down so I could find the target in the scope, and I rarely had the time -- or the need -- to increase magnification unless I was shooting paper. I find the ACOG easier to use than the old M8-4X, due to the lit reticle, with low-recoil rounds. Of course, the ACOG costs 8X more than the M8-4X.

Interested to see how this project goes.

Given the level of marksmanship I see on public ranges I have ethical concerns about game being taken at over 100 yards regardless of caliber.

[Mike C]

My limited experience with .300 BLK is that it doesn't perform well past 150 yards, regardless of load. But do what makes you happy. Leupold will design you a custom reticle and turret knobs for precisely what you want. I had a MkVI 1-6 with this configuration on my Reece gun for awhile, until I donated it to Davy Jones for his Red Dawn Box.

I was hoping you would chime in. Was it the rounds ability or lack there of to deal with wind, terminal performance or other factors? When you say limited I imagine your experience/knowledge with it still surpasses mine in addition to looking at it through a different lens so I would be grateful for anything you can share. If you have any knowledge bombs to drop on me with anything dealing in the 110-120gr range or the Barnes Tac TX I am all ears.




I couldn't agree more with you HCM.