I want a fighting rifle in a good cartridge. Here are my criteria:Ammunition:>capable of being used out to 500 yards>proven track record of effectiveness on target>common enough to reliably find in a gun store>intermediate cartridgeRifle>chambered in cartridge of choice without feed/durability issues>can hit a man-sized target to 500 yards reliably>relatively common parts>ergonomic/modern amenities like rails, detachable magazine, etcThe ammunition I considered was 7.62x39, 5.56, .308, and .300 BLK. I ended up going with 7.62x39 because I felt it ticked the boxes best. Because of that, I went with an AK-103 because I felt that handled 7.62x39 the best while also ticking the other boxes. The downside is, AKs really kind of suck to use. They're better than many options, but the AR-15 is kind of the gold standard for ergonomics, especially when you look at optics, light mounting, etc. In hindsight, I probably should have gotten an AR-10 as they're more accurate, have better range, better ergonomics, at cost of more recoil and more expensive ammunition, but I live in a ban state so I can't buy one. I do have an AR-15 and AK though. Recently I was talking to someone about .300 blackout and mentioned that it's not very good over 200 yards, and was told that .300 blackout is accurate out to 400 with the right setup (barrel length, twist rate, an optic with magnification, competent shooter). Is this true? .300 blackout seems like a great round with the exception of range, and since I'm not concerned about using a rifle for CQB nor using a suppressor it seemed like .300 would have been a bad choice, but if it's as effective as 7.62x39 but can be used in guns with much better ergonomics then I'd consider switching to it. Can .300 blk be used accurately between 300 and 500 yards?
>>64267186Both 300 BLK and 7.62x39mm can reach out to 500yd, but suck at it. By the time they get there they are losing a lot of velocity and rainbow arcing in. Accuracy is also really sketchy.5.56 out of a ~18-20" barrel shoots much flatter and can get hits at 500 much more easily, but is also losing a ton of energy because it's performance is highly dependent on having enough velocity to fragment on impact. Otherwise it just icepicks .22" diameter holes, but specialized (expensive) ammunition can help in this department..308 can easily reach 500yd and wreck shit when it gets there, but you are trading a lot in the bargain. Weight, balance, magazine capacity, ammunition weight, recoil, flash. Tons of little things that will put it behind the curve at short ranges.Battle rifles are fun, but they are kind of a meme. They shine more in a DMR role where the extra range is desired.For 100-300yd 5.56mm shines and 7.62x39/300blk are merely adequate. There are no free lunches and every choice comes with trade-offs. You should pragmatically assess what you need your rifle to do and what of those characteristics are more or less important. Realistically 300yd is already more than the distance at which you would spot and engage a hostile target while trying to stay in cover and return fire, so it makes sense that modern small arms doctrine has been moving towards shorter/lighter rifles that are only useful at shorter ranges. When more range is needed, that is where a GPMG or DMR are useful.
>>642671869mm if you want quiet short range (100m max)556 if you want loud long range (500m+)300 if you want something in the middle (300m max)
>>64267186>500ydUnironically 6.5cm or handloaded 5.56
>>6426718655gr 5.56 from 20in barrel or 175gr 7.62 real fuckin nato from 14in or better. This problem has been solved for nearly 75 years now.
>>64267186300 is a dedicated close round cartridge doe, unironically perfect for civilian use since YWN shoot a human farther than it's effective range AND it won't blow your eardrums out which is nice
>>64267186>fighting riflelol
>>64267897this, 100% of civilian gunfights are fought using polymer striker fired 9mms
>>64267186>capable of being used out to 500 yardsThen not 300 blackout
