300 Aac Blackout (300blk)

[grey2112]

Originally Posted by rsilvers

Personally I am interested in not getting bullets stuck in the barrel because someone decided that if they use a 0.3085 freebore they could gain accuracy. I did get a hard to close action and then a stuck bullet on extraction in company's 300 Fireball barrel. I will cast the chamber, and I bet you anything they 'tried to make it accurate' with a tight throat. I am only interested in accuracy claims for non BS chambers. Reliability first.

BIG +1 here - I've found that super-duper accuracy is wasted on most, but everyone appreciates reliability

[Spook]

Originally Posted by grey2112

BIG +1 here - I've found that super-duper accuracy is wasted on most, but everyone appreciates reliability

If that were the case they'ed have contests to see how many times in a row you could get your rifle to go "bang" as opposed to how many thousandths of and inch the bullet holes deviate from center to center.
A rifle you that cant hit what you aim it at is useless.

[rsilvers]

They do have contests to see how many times in a row a gun goes bang. It is called reliability testing by every govt agency which buys guns.

Reliability has to come first for self defense, police, and military guns.

Accuracy can come first for target guns.

[alorton]

It is all about application. If you are shooting bench rest competition then yes, accuracy is king. If you are using an SBR as an entry weapon reliability is king. You are both right. A rifle you can't hit with is useless and a rifle that won't fire reliably is useless. How you guage those against each other is all about what the rifle's intended purpose is.

What one man calls accurate another will not. For a Patrol rifle 4 MOA accuracy is more than sufficient to hit what I'm aiming at at any normal engagement distance for Police work. I would hardly call that good accuracy but for that application I would take a 4 MOA reliable rifle over a 1/2 MOA rifle that was finicky and had jamming issues when things weren't "just right". Conversely, if I'm shooting 1000 yard competition then I can live with a gun that has to have everything "just right" to function but shoots 1/2 MOA as a 4 MOA rifle would be useless for that application.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by rsilvers

Reliability has to come first for self defense, police, and military guns.

If that were the case they'ed be shooting AK's.

I dont think anybodys thinking that they are going to frighten the enemy to death by missing them with regularity?
You and I both know that when it comes to government issue... its about money. Sometimes its about how much money, but as often as not its about who gets the money.

[alorton]

Originally Posted by Spook

If that were the case they'ed be shooting AK's.

I dont think anybodys thinking that they are going to frighten the enemy to death by missing them with regularity?
You and I both know that when it comes to government issue... its about money. Sometimes its about how much money, but as often as not its about who gets the money.

While I'll agree that AK's are theoretically more reliable the question is what practical difference does that make? I mentioned earlier that I would take a reliable 4 MOA rifle over the 1/2 MOA finicky rifle. A reliable 4 MOA rifle sounds alot like an AK and if my choice for patrol was a 4 MOA AK or a 1/2 MOA AR that jammed occassionally I would choose the AK. Fortunately those aren't my only choices. If an AR will shoot 500 rounds without issues and an AK will shoot 1500 rounds without issues why would that affect my decision when my standard loadout for Patrol is 130 rounds? I've shot more than 500 rounds through several of my AR's and they get dirty but keep going. In the end I think a properly maintained AR is as reliable as an AK, the AK is just more forgiving of abuse.

There are lots of reasons the AR will always be more popular than the AK for Police work and it isn't about money since the AK would be cheaper. Caliber and ergonomics are a couple examples and accuracy is a factor as well, but not at the expense of reliability.

[rsilvers]

The AK may be 4 MOA capable, but when shooting it for real, with the sights they provide, it is probably 12 MOA.

What I mean about reliability has to come first, it making a 1911 super tight is inappropriate. Making a chamber to minimum dimensions is also inappropriate - for combat weapons.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by alorton

While I'll agree that AK's are theoretically more reliable the question is what practical difference does that make? I mentioned earlier that I would take a reliable 4 MOA rifle over the 1/2 MOA finicky rifle. A reliable 4 MOA rifle sounds alot like an AK and if my choice for patrol was a 4 MOA AK or a 1/2 MOA AR that jammed occassionally I would choose the AK. Fortunately those aren't my only choices. If an AR will shoot 500 rounds without issues and an AK will shoot 1500 rounds without issues why would that affect my decision when my standard loadout for Patrol is 130 rounds? I've shot more than 500 rounds through several of my AR's and they get dirty but keep going. In the end I think a properly maintained AR is as reliable as an AK, the AK is just more forgiving of abuse.

There are lots of reasons the AR will always be more popular than the AK for Police work and it isn't about money since the AK would be cheaper. Caliber and ergonomics are a couple examples and accuracy is a factor as well, but not at the expense of reliability.

1- All the difference on earth if you're the one with the malfunctioning weapon.... Theoretically? please...

2-Because you wont know when in those 500 rounds it wont go "bang".... by the way...my "loadout" for driving back and forth to work is 500 rounds.(absolute truth) Please carry more than you're carrying. Not only would we all like to see you around for a while, but we may need you to protect someone we love.

Also... 500 rounds? seriously son, 500 rounds aint a popcorn fart. I hope you didnt stop then because your shoulder got sore Run that total up to 5 or 10 or 15 thousand and get back to me about theoretically.

Lastly...in the end something well maintained will usually run better than something not well maintained, but thanks for the update..... carefull not to bend your buffer tube, you'll only get the round thats in battery .... ever wonder why there are so many widgets and pistons and D-fenders and non rotating trigger pins available for your rifle? My guess is it'll be replaced before they get it right.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by rsilvers

The AK may be 4 MOA capable, but when shooting it for real, with the sights they provide, it is probably 12 MOA.

What I mean about reliability has to come first, it making a 1911 super tight is inappropriate. Making a chamber to minimum dimensions is also inappropriate - for combat weapons.

So we could probably agree that accuracy is useless without reliability and reliability is useless without accuracy and durability is as important as either?

[LouBoyd]

Originally Posted by Spook

So we could probably agree that accuracy is useless without reliability and reliability is useless without accuracy and durability is as important as either?

Hitting your intended target is what's really important. Reasons you might not achieve your intended goal include:

Firearm limitation:
poor accuracy
reliability (intermittent)
mechanical failure (not field repairable)
insufficient range
insufficient energy
poor sights
poor trigger
accidental discharge

Personal limitations:
flinching (muzzle blast and recoil)
ergonomics (match of firearm to your body)
estimating range and wind
speed (if target shoots back or can flee)
shooter strength vs firearm weight

Access limitations:
firearm and ammo cost
firearm and ammo availability
spousal approval


Government infringement:
regulatory limitations (own but not carry or shoot)
possession ban
purchase ban
import ban

Any one of those (and no doubt a few other things) can be a show stopper.