Getting started with the 300blk ...

popper

Well-Known Member
Longshot if that is the hornady 150SPP with the exposed tip, they are very accurate. I am using the 150 GD (BO version) and good results there too. Those Berrys have similar profile as my 170gr Fp, does decent with the BO and 30/30. I have a H2 buffer in my pistol, the 100gr hornady still short strokes with cfe pistol (8gr but not sub), due to barrel dwell time. Plenty of gas for the 150s. Should be sub with 6-7gr., can should help cycling. I don't download much with H110 (296), it can burn erratically. The 100 plinker with 5gr cfe pistol was fun, makes a 'pop' like finger in the cheek when I was a kid. Bolt never moved. Never tried the Berrys, got a box of Xtreme 40sw to load with the cfe pistol. They are extremely acurate from my pistol.
 
Last edited:

wquiles

Well-Known Member
Went to the range today - new scope for the pistol, so it took me a little while to get it going.

Accuracy at 50 yards was plenty good for plinking. I was not on my best form, and yet I still got 1-2" groups at 50 yards my first time out - some groups show some potential of becoming even smaller with work on my side ;)
11880


11881


So for plinking at 50 yards, I gotta say these plated bullets seem to work good enough for me :)


Today I tried the LabRadar for the first time. Almost impossible to use at my range, due to the shields the have really now, right in front of the shooting bench. Still, I was able to get some readings, once I figured out how to make it work with my suppressed 300blk pistol.

The loads with the 10.4gr of IMR4227 and the NOE 165gr XCB bullet registered in the 1075fps range, a little above the QuickLoad prediction of 1054.

Those loads above with the plated bullets, for which I had no reference in QuickLoad - so I picked a 150gr Cast lead bullet, were supposed to be subsonic, but weren't - not only was I able to hear the "crack", but the LabRadar recorded them in the 1210fpt range. WAY faster than I wanted, but can't argue too much with the plinking accuracy I got ;)

Will
 
Last edited:

popper

Well-Known Member
Put an Aero S forend on the pistol, really like it (over that crud one I had). Tried one on the carbine - nope, got to to rework it to fit on forged upper. Cast runs faster then plated or jax. Social stuff getting in the way of range time but loaded 8 & 9 gr cfep under the 145 PB & remember to take the standard buffer with me. 1200 fps & cycle is what I want. Puts me in the PCC carbine range. Better than 9mm pistol and the 170 would be better than 40SW. Fast cycle and better trajectory for hogs. I have good normal hunting loads for the carbine. Cast a bunch of 170 PB but added too much As, won't size for nothing - stuck in the Lee just 312 to 311. Need to re-cast with some pure or try some one-shot, but I wanted to PC these & try the 4227.
 

popper

Well-Known Member
Fun with BO again. 8 gr cfe pistol gives LB with 145gr & 170gr PB AC. PCd that were sized with one-shot did fine. Still have to practice shooting with the 3x scope and guessing drop but today wasn't too bad. Tried the std buffer, not much difference. Haven't chrony yet but bang -- swack says they are about right. Did some fun with the 30/30 too, some off hand. Talked to a guy shooting 357 air (hog gun with a muffler - no stamp needed) gun - he wants to get into casting for it. Told him about PC & BLL but he said NO petro based lube - but shooting blue lubed. Told him paraffin is petro based. IIRC MilHa does hollow point moulds.

11958
 
Last edited:

wquiles

Well-Known Member
Got a question about powders for my suppressed pistol. Note I am "not" worried about having enough PSI to cycle the AR pistol - just trying to understand assuming that target speed, what would/should be quietest.

Outside of a bolt-gun with no moving parts, and assuming enough powder to hit 1050fps at the muzzle going into the suppressor, is it a fair assumption that the noise/report will be lower if:
- the powder burns fully very early in the barrel (like with TrailBoss, which is burn within the first 1-2 inches)
- the psi at the barrel exit is lowest - in other words, if powder "A" has a significantly lower PSI at the muzzle, it will/should be less loud than powder "B" that has a higher PSI at the muzzle
- And would if follow that if both are true, that would in theory produce the lowest report possible?

Thanks in advance. Just trying to understand what other variables I should be considering.
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
I shoot 3.5grs of 700-x in my 16" 300 it is quiet without a muffler.
there is probably 2-3psi of muzzle pressure so any escaping gas/powder/bullet is not exceeding the sound barrier.
it is the only rifle I put a brake on intentionally, not to mitigate recoil but for more muzzle weight.

the point of a suppressor is to muffle the sound of the gun powder burning in the air, as much as it is to try and mitigate the sound of anything flying out the barrel.
 

popper

Well-Known Member
Compare WST, 231, cfe pistol. Each generate gas/pressure In an expanding tube. Faster powder generates gas faster and maybe less but enough pressure to get fps. 231 gasses slower, pressure rise closer to muzzle. Cfe pistol burns longer, lower (?) pressure, still closer to muzzle. 5 gr cfe pistol gives a pop with 100gr, heavier should(?) slow fps of gas, ejected gas causes pop at muzzle. Can contains some gas, brake redirects it. Both reduce muzzle pressure.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Will:

Yes....mostly. Lower pressure at the barrel muzzle typically means less noise produced at the muzzle end of the suppressor, but the design of the suppressor baffles, spacing, clips, and aperture diameters can also factor in to have a slightly opposite effect.

Remember that suppression is really about thermodynamics instead of simply time-delaying a sudden release of high pressure gas. The time delay increases the amount of thermal energy transferred to the suppressor itself, gives the gas room to expand a little and lose heat energy before bleeding the remaining pressure to equilibrium with atmosphere. Following that train of thought, if your suppressor is built to deal with lots of very hot, high pressure gas, then of course it will be most efficient when fed enough volume and pressure. Less going in can actually make it louder because the cross-jetting efficiency is below optimum and a relatively cool, slow-moving, small puff of gas just goes straight through it like poop through a goose.

A perfect example of less not being less is one of the Gemtec .308 suppressors which only has a multi-chamber muzzle brake, a center baffle, and an exit baffle but has some insanely complex clips. It is very efficient and bare-ear cozy with full power ammo even when quite hot, but is also uncomfortably loud with the mildest subsonic loads using low-volume pistol powder.

If your suppressor is efficient at stripping and trapping low-pressure gas (such as K-baffles and well-designed hybrid-clip, 50⁰ necked baffles), then minimizing muzzle pressure by using a powder that dumps most of its energy into the brass, barrel chamber, and bullet will put less load on the suppressor and be more quiet.
 

wquiles

Well-Known Member
Shooting camp out was great this last weekend :)


Spectacular sunset on Sat (shot by our scoutmaster with a fancy Digital SLR):
IMG_3541.JPG

Rifle range:
20191214_082927.jpg


Portable shooting benches that the troop owns:
20191214_082900.jpg

IMG_3547.jpg

We had iron-sighted 22ls for the rifle merit badge, but we also had some "fun" guns, including my suppressed 10/22 and my suppressed 300blk pistol ;)
20191214_124027.jpg

I helped this scout pass his requirements at the range:
IMG_3551.jpg

20191214_141901.jpg


Different adults managed the shotgun range:
IMG_3554.jpg
 
Last edited:

wquiles

Well-Known Member
I want to make some heavy subsonics for this pistol, so before I buy a heavy weight mold, I got these on special to try and see which one works well with my pistol:
20191230_183045.jpg


Which accurate mold or NOE mold would be the closest to these two?
small.jpg

From NOE, it appears that this one would be fairly close to the 245gr:
311-242-FN-J3 PB (Whisper)

Although they also make the same one for coating here:
HTC310-247-FN-BO3 PB


I can't seem to find a NOE mold that matches the lighter, 215gr bullet design - ideas/suggestions?
 

Ian

Notorious member
I don't think NOE makes a suitable BLK bullet. The 247 and 230 both have noses too fat for any of my three BLK barrels. The PC bullet I had some input on, but it has some critical failure points the designer didn't correct, mainly totally unsupported nose, incorrect throat angle (which we were intending to use for support in the throat instead of a parallel nose riding the land tops, but the angle is so abrupt as to be useless for support), and oversized body (.310"+ as cast for a powder-coated bullet that will typically be sized .309-.310" after coating). At this point the only mould I can recommend for powder coating is the Lee 309-230-5R, with which I've had nothing but outstanding success. Both moulds I have are undersized (the second one from last year so much so that I had to lap it even when coating to make it large enough to work), but they are the correct shape and the nose is NOT too large to function. I crimp lightly in the groove under the front band.
 

wquiles

Well-Known Member
Thank you. I will try these two first, and I then have the Lee 230-5R to try next. Now, if I ask Tom (Accurate) to make the "right design" per your feedback above - do you have something with enough details I can give to Tom to make it?
 

Ian

Notorious member
Problem is Tom won't cut a meplat smaller than .180" due to his machining processes. I have a near-final drawing of "the perfect, fitzall, powder coat, 300 BLK bullet" but it would need to have the nose finished by the end user with a D-reamer if ordered from Accurate. That has been my intention for a while, and I need to see if his 4-cavity aluminum blocks will swing over the bed of my mini-lathe on the end cavities before finalizing this. You may have jump-started my interest, if you want to collaborate on this we can do so here or start a new thread and solve this pesky problem once and for all.
 

Spindrift

Well-Known Member
Maybe Arsenal moulds could cut moulds for you? I think they do a bit of custom work, for a reasonable price. The two moulds I have from them are top notch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian

Ian

Notorious member
Arsenal might be the way to go. I don't consider them or NOE for moulds most of the time myself because I detest their sticking, binding, PITA alignment pin system. As I understand it, Arsenal made NOE moulds years ago when NOE was still using their equipment for "night owl production", and the forms are identical.
 

popper

Well-Known Member
I'm using the 184C, not sub but real slow. Feeds in my pistol with Lancer mag. Get rid of the upper groove and GCs shank, extend base for more weight. This drops large dia but I size to 309 - extends to the 0.5" mark. Do-over (it's actually a 30/30 design) angle step @ 0.5" mark and undersize the nose to 0.298" (for PC) same ogive and drops point dia a few thou. Not a long range design with that FP. Slaps the backer hard. The other option is the Speer GD profile (like the left one) but with a collector groove and (small) step for throat/bore junction. More lead in the case gives better fill - more in the bore makes feeding harder with max mag COAL. IIRC FullLeadTaco did the one on the left. He has a Utube on performance.
 

Ian

Notorious member
This is the NOE bullet that should have been perfect per my recommendations except for the nose taper, check shank, and the bands are too large against my recommendations. The taper needs to be a 1.5° included angle and the body needs to be about .309". I wouldn't put a gas check on it, but if one wanted the option, the check shank needs to be at least .070" long and .284" parallel instead of that short, goofy taper. Fix those things and it would be a great bullet.



NOE 310 225.png