Good or bad idea? Got really into the modern minute man concept last year and built a rifle around it. >18" Barrel>69gr match points (reloading my own)>1-8x LPVO Great for the range and a lot of fun to shoot at paper with, but when I went to LARP with it, it wasn't what I hoped it to be. A hair below 8lbs fully loaded and long enough to catch on stuff, I realized what I thought and what I wanted were two different things. Now, with SBRs (and Suppressors) having free tax stamps I can do different things. Shortening the barrel as much as possible to save on weight, make it handier, and save space for a can seems the way to go. 300AAC also preforms best in 10" barrels. I also realized min-maxing for targets out to 600yds was kind of stupid too, as it's a bit excessive in the dense areas I play pretend. The shorter effective range a heavier, slower 30 cal projectile would be fine, as well as a non-magnifed/fixed magnification optic to lighten my load. Would 300AAC be the round for fantasies well I stomp around in the local national forest? I'm also interested in not having to get new mags, I acquired the loading dies in an estate sale, and I do like how well it lends itself to suppression.
>>64706266its literally just 7.62x39 but ARyou're literally asking "does an AKM work for innawoods?", like, nigger, do you not fucking know why we used SKS's for the classic "innawoods" you're referencingfucking hell, i hate you 300aac bastards, you act like its some kind of magical god damn bullet, BUT ITS JUST A FUCKING NORMAL GOD DAMN ROUND
Buy an AR10 or PTR. Shoot big bullet. Learn the difference between a carbine and a rifle. This experience will stop you from fractally descending into AR15s.
>>64706266a short 300 with a can and super and sub mags is a great 0-200y gun. versatile enough to hunt with as well.
>>64706266You're really good at making bad decisions when it comes to ARs. No point in a 10" .300 blk, just get an 11.5" 5.56 and you won't notice a practical difference. .300 blk really doesn't make sense outside of 7.5" or shorter guns with how well modern 5.56 loads work from a 10.5/11.5" SBR. You're just going to end up paying out the ass for ammo or having to reload for something that isn't different enough to make a difference.
Sounds like you want a toy, which is OK, and in which case buy whatever and it doesn't matter. You don't have to autistically analyze things to justify buying a new toy.Although my personal recommendation for a true woods gun goes to a PCC chambered in .45 Auto.
>>64706286>like, nigger, do you not fucking know why we used SKS's for the classic "innawoods" you're referencingCouldn't fit it in the OP, but that's what spawned my interest. In my younger, poorer days I did just that with my SKS, but I want to give the old girl a rest and I don't want to Bubba her to fit those new fangled prism optics I love so much. Also, 7.62×39 is expensive now and I don't want to exhaust my reserves of Wolf and Brown Bear. >>64706296>just get an 11.5" 5.56 and you won't notice a practical difference.Except suppression isn't really an option. I have an AR Pistol in 5.56 I could register and then slap a stock on. Also, there is a difference just by viture of physics, it's a weaker round and will suffer from the shorter barrel length. >>64706310>Sounds like you want a toy, which is OK, and in which case buy whatever and it doesn't matter. Bingo.>You don't have to autistically analyze things to justify buying a new toy.Yes, I do. Do you know where we're at?>Although my personal recommendation for a true woods gun goes to a PCC chambered in .45 Auto.Luv me PCC, although mine are in 9mm. Luv 45 in my 1911, and that's what kind of ruins for it me. To me, the PCC concept is best when you have MAG and ammo sharing between your primary and sidearm, and I don't want one that uses 1911 mags or have to get a Glock 21 to make it work. Also, if it's a blowback carbine (which it most certainly will be for me), the recoil would be on par with many rifle rounds killing part of its appeal and only moderate ammo savings.
>>64706372if you're dead set on a rifle, .300 is the way to go for what you're asking forif you're up for a PCC though, something in .45 or 10mm can easily hit the low velocity end of .300 / 7.62sure, theres the issue you listed, but weight saving are very worth looking into too
Where I live, innawoods has lots of big animals that 300 blk isn't really sufficient for, .308 is the minimum. .300blk is more of a subsonic pdw round for urban larping. Innawoods larping is best performed with a battle rifle, SKS for aboslute poors.
>>64706296Does 556 REALLY work that well out of a barrel that short? I’ve heard so many conflicting opinions on this. Sometimes I even feel self conscious about using it with a 16 inch barrel instead of the coveted 20 inch as St Stoner intended.
>>64706266works great. I still prefer .223/5.56 personally since its retard easy to aim and I dont mind the extra 2" of barrel, but .300 will deal with your typical woods game just fine.
>>64706266It certainly is capable in the woods. .300 BLK and 7.62x39 are comparable in power to 30-30, so they'll kill whatever predator is attacking you; just make sure they're legal in your area. Game wardens suck in my area; they'll try to fine you for anything. 1-8x LPVO is overkill for any intermediate cartridge. You'll never really shoot past 500 yards with a round like that, so a 3x (for 300 yards), 4x (for 400 yards), or 5x (for 500 yards) is perfectly adequate.>>64706286>its literally just 7.62x39 but ARNTA, but while they are very similar, there are some differences. .300 BLK uses faster-burning powder, so it's better than 7.62 with 8-12" barrels, and 7.62x39 has slower-burning powder and is better than .300 BLK with 16"+ barrels, which is why I prefer the Soviet one for my case, and OP will prefer .300 BLK for his 10" barrel.>>64706427>Does 556 REALLY work that well out of a barrel that short?NTA, it works good enough assuming you are using 75-77 grain projectiles flying at supersonic velocities and are shooting at targets less than 200 meters. The 20" AR was optimized for 55-grain ammo and 300 meters, the 14.5" AR was optimized for 62-68-grain ammo and 275 meters, and the 10.3" AR was optimized for 75-77-grain ammo and sub-200 meters. Using lighter ammo than what is recommended will lose effective range; for example, shooting 55-grain ammo out of a 10.3" barrel will cause the round to stop fragmenting at a mere 85 yards (give or take), which is why people recommend the overpriced 70+ grain stuff. Back to the original topic, the chance of one taking a shot farther than 150 meters in thick woods is very low due to the foliage, so having a precision rifle for 600 yards seems like overkill.
>>64706286>do you not fucking know why we used SKS's for the classic "innawoods" because it used to be dirt cheap?
>>64706614>future innawoods posts will now be made with PSA ARs
>>64706616i think they already are lmao
>>64706616>>64706990They have been forever. The last "cheap" SKSs were back in like 2019 when we got a bunch of Norinco ones. Even then they were still like $300 and a poverty pony was only slightly more. The good times were a long time ago. Anyone who was under 18 in 2020, sadly, a good portion of this board, missed out completely.
>>64706286>7.62x39 but ARI'd wager .300 Ham'r has more claim on that than Blackout. Fags focused too much on subsonic SBRs.
