Ruger No.1 in .300 Blackout?
- Thread starter Stevebot-7
- Start date
So why is it ridiculously inappropriate? I'm looking for verifiable data.
From what I have seen, many of the supersonic loads of 300blk is comparable to 30-30 or 7.62x39.
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
Compared to 30-30
A 130 grain .308 HP bullet going 2056 fps using 17.9 grains of powder in a ~16" barrel versus a 130 grain .308 bullet going 2196 fps using 33.3 grains of powder in a ~20" barrel. Plus the 300blk cartridge is ~0.535" shorter. It needs less powder, it takes up less space, there's mountains of .223 brass to reform.
The result will be a gun with a much smaller overall length. Shorter barrels shift the center of balance rearwards in the gun, making it feel more "pointable". According to the Savage accuracy testing they were getting an average group size of 0.8" at 100 meters, which is quite sufficient for practical hunting purposes especially in a cartridge that was not designed for precision shooting.
For the H&R Handi Rifle in 300 blk it has an OAL of 29.7", and the barrel can be removed to reduce OAL even more for ease of packing or storage.
A No.1 with a similar "long" 16" barrel would have a very similar OAL, within a few inches depending on length of pull, and I don't see why I couldn't come up with some sort of mechanism for removing the buttstock if I really needed to reduce OAL beyond that.
In many ways, such a gun is a very capable close-intermediate bush gun for up to medium game. So, again, could you explain why it is ridiculously inappropriate? Is it just traditional and stylistic reasons?
Last edited:
Ballistics aside... I'll tell your where a No.1 in .30/30 and a No.1 in .300 BLK are NOT equal, and that is on resale... The .30/30 will sell at your asking price in 5 minutes, the .300 BLK will go through numerous "BTT cycles" and corresponding price reductions and sell in 3 months at a huge loss...
Further, you clearly have your mind made up and are simply seeking affirmation for your decision... So don't bother with asking for "opinions."
Once you have her done start a new thread with pics and a range report... We all like those...
Further, you clearly have your mind made up and are simply seeking affirmation for your decision... So don't bother with asking for "opinions."
Once you have her done start a new thread with pics and a range report... We all like those...
"Traditional and stylistic reasons", as un-quantifiable and non-scientific as they may be, are nevertheless a large part of it. While I enjoy H&R single shot rifles, one of their primary attractions is their low price...it encourages experimentation, since little is lost if an experiment fails. Ruger #1's cost 3 or 4 times as much, and yet many folks, I among them, buy them just because we like them. If your purchase of a single shot rifle is based upon its style, its classic appearance, or anything else other than raw performance, then the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of your choosing a similarly "classic" cartridge to complete the package. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make strict logical sense, and frankly it doesn't matter if you don't want to believe it...the simple fact of what sells and what doesn't speaks for itself. There's a reason why Ruger has not, and will not in future, chamber the #1 in .300AAC: because virtually no-one will buy it.
But forget that aspect. Wasn't the .300AAC designed to fit into an AR action with minimal modifications, and/or to efficiently produce decent sub-sonic performance? I seem to recall reading that somewhere, and frankly I don't care enough to bother checking it now. But it's design criteria certainly differ vastly from the design criteria of a single-shot rifle with turn-of-the-19th-century styling. You compare it to the .30-30, as though that were a fantastic hunting cartridge, but the .30-30 is really only popular because of the lever-action rifles that chamber it. It's adequate for short-to-medium range and medium game, but it would be almost as functionally useless in the #1 as the AAC...but would probably at least sell, because its vintage and long pedigree might appeal to some lovers of old-time cartridges.
As long as you want to get something that is so unique as to be almost ludicrous, why not go the other way? Build a nice AR chambered in, say, 7x57 or maybe .218Bee. Sure, you can do it, but should you do it? You'll have essentially the same thing, i.e. a gun that you won't be able to give away. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you intend to keep it forever, or don't mind throwing more good money after bad to convert it to something more saleable down the road. Either way, good luck with your choice...and good luck looking for someone to agree with you, aside from anonymous internet personae who will urge you on to do anything at all, simply because they have no horse in the race.
But forget that aspect. Wasn't the .300AAC designed to fit into an AR action with minimal modifications, and/or to efficiently produce decent sub-sonic performance? I seem to recall reading that somewhere, and frankly I don't care enough to bother checking it now. But it's design criteria certainly differ vastly from the design criteria of a single-shot rifle with turn-of-the-19th-century styling. You compare it to the .30-30, as though that were a fantastic hunting cartridge, but the .30-30 is really only popular because of the lever-action rifles that chamber it. It's adequate for short-to-medium range and medium game, but it would be almost as functionally useless in the #1 as the AAC...but would probably at least sell, because its vintage and long pedigree might appeal to some lovers of old-time cartridges.
As long as you want to get something that is so unique as to be almost ludicrous, why not go the other way? Build a nice AR chambered in, say, 7x57 or maybe .218Bee. Sure, you can do it, but should you do it? You'll have essentially the same thing, i.e. a gun that you won't be able to give away. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you intend to keep it forever, or don't mind throwing more good money after bad to convert it to something more saleable down the road. Either way, good luck with your choice...and good luck looking for someone to agree with you, aside from anonymous internet personae who will urge you on to do anything at all, simply because they have no horse in the race.
Here ya go Stevebot-7... Invite "Suits Me" to be your CGN friend...
Build the No.1 .300 BLK, shoot it for three months until you are bored and then sell it to "Suits Me" for the full cost of the base gun, plus dies, brass, bullets, reamer, shipping to you from the retailer, shipping from you to the gunsmith, shipping from the gunsmith to you, gunsmithing fees, might as well sell it with the mounts, rings and whatever scope you have thrown on there (make it a good one)... Heck add a few bucks for your time also... Suits Me is a man of principle and acting out of spite, price is no object... Best of both worlds... all of the gain, none of the pain...
Because ARs are inherently restricted. I already have a nice AR to use at the range, and I have a boltgun for shooting tiny holes in paper when I feel the need to.
Also, Alberta hunting regulations forbid the use of calibers under .23 for big game.
I don't think I've ever seen a gun chambered in .218 Bee, and 7x57 likewise seems to be uncommon. On the other hand, I can think of several manufacturers who have added 300blk to their supported calibers in the last year or two. There's substantial difference between "uncommon because almost no one uses it any more" and "uncommon because few people have adopted it since it was formally created two years ago."
I seem to recall countless records of people saying 5.46x45/.223 was a ridiculous unsuitable cartridge, and now it is among the most common in the world with many manufacturers continuing support for it.
I guess I'll have to settle for getting a gun I like, rather than a gun that I want to sell to someone else.
Last edited:
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
Good on ye mate. It would be fun to have one in .58 caliber to launch some serious bombs with.
A 22-24" heavy barrel would hang well, and allow ya to approach .577 Nitro loads with a 750 gr.
boolit. Big womp on yer end though.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
The attraction of the 300 blackout is the fact it's used in the AR platform, that is all. The 300 Whisper hasn't caught on for hunting and it's been around for 20+ years. In case you've never heard of it, it's the same caliber.
Uhhhhhh Remington is making several different bolt action rifles chambered in 300 BLK. There is the Handi Rifle single shot and 300 Whisper has long been a popular Chambering in TC single shots.
Might be worth checking out 300 BLK Talk and educate yourself on this round.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
I know of the 700 SPS Tactical with 16.5" threaded bbl and the R15, which is an AR. Do they make one in a rifle designed for hunting chambered in 300 AAC? Sendero? XCR? Mountain LSS?
Regardless, I have little interest in that caliber as AR's are restricted in Canada and suppressors prohibited, so it's useless here IMO. But others can have all the fun they want with it, just don't call it a capable big game hunting round, it's not.
Remington is making a rifle called the Micro 7 in 300 BLK. There is also a Handi Rifle in 300 BLK.
Maybe check out the hunting forum at 300BLK Talk. There seem to be plenty of deer being harvested with this round. A 200 - 220gr .30 cal bullet is nothing to sneeze about when it comes to its ability to create a wound and penetrate.
I have found that the most important factor in harvesting game is the hunter, not the rifle. I've seen huge Weatherby Magnums being shot by fools who couldn't hit the broad side of a target at 100 yds. Yet comparative weaklings like the 223 and 243 have brought many deer to the table when used properly. Handgun hunters in the US are bringing deer down with 357 and 44 mag pistols which are not more powerful than subsonic Blackout rounds. To suggest the 300 BLK is not capable of harvesting deer is demonstrably incorrect.
One place where the BLK is apparently really shining is in harvesting wild hogs.
