Consider the ballistics of the 300 BO and compare those to those of a
357mag and 44mag in a 16" - 18" carbine.  True, the 300 BO has a pointy bullet for better supersonic longer range performance out more than 200yds, but for a fun gun to shoot, with a
caliber that has similar performance out to irons ranges, and one that's
considerably more economical to shoot in both commercial and handloaded ammo, take a look at the performance of both the 357mag and 44mag in a carbine.  



Consider
the ammo.  All three calibers (300 BO, 357mag, and 44mag) use the same
powders for handloading; magnum pistol powders like H110, W296, Lil-gun.
The 300 BO and 357mag have similar case capacities and they have a similar range
of bullet weights in light to medium weights (90grn to 180grn).  The 300
BO and 44mag comparison shows that the 44mag case holds more powder and
therefore produces higher velocities than the 300 BO in medium to heavy bullet weights (165grn to 300grn) than the 300 BO.



Why the
357mag caliber you say?  Because
comparing the supersonic 357mag to the supersonic 300 BO in 125grn & 140grn bullet loads using Nosler's data for the 300 BO HERE vs Hodgdon's 125grn and 140grn bullet loads HERE
shows a very similar performance in a carbine.  Because
supersonic 357mag commercial ammo is readily available from 90grn to 180grn while 300 BO isn't.  Because
it's considerably cheaper to buy commercial 357mag
ammo than commercial 300 BO.  Because it's cheaper to produce handloaded
357mag ammo
than 300 BO in similar bullet weights.



Why the 44mag you say?  Because for suppressed use, a subsonic 1,000fps, 300grn,
.429" bullet (44mag) produces 666ft/lbs muzzle energy while a subsonic
1,000fps,
220grn, .308" bullet (300 BO) produces only 488ft/lbs muzzle energy.  That's only 73.3% of the 44mag muzzle energy and a huge difference in short range performance. Because
it's considerably cheaper to buy readily available commercial 44mag
ammo in bullet weights from 165grn to 300grns than commercial 300 BO.  Because it's cheaper to produce handload 44mag ammo
than 300 BO in similar bullet weights. Because 44mag subsonic ammo can
be produced in many bullet weights higher than the heaviest (220grn)
bullet of the 300 BO.

You can also have revolvers in .357 and .44 mag.  I don't know of any handguns in .300 blackout

I have and love both .357 and .44 mag revolvers.  They are great, versatile cartridges.  


However, .300BLK works in an AR with only a barrel swap.  Contrast this with the ass-ache involved in getting an AR to work with a rimmed revolver cartridge.

If you are arguing that we should be using lever-action carbines in place of our ARs, well, make that argument and I wish you the best of luck on an AR forum.  Otherwise, understand that half of the appeal of .300BLK is its ease of use in an AR.

Actually, I'm being kind to the 300 BO.  In the supersonic realm, the 357mag 125grn and 140grn bullet weights produce higher velocities than the 125grn and 140grn 300 BO.  Although in fairness, the blunt nose 357mag pistol bullets don't retain their velocities out past 200 yds as well as the pointy nose 300 BO bullets but for a 'irons' fun gun, 200 or so yards is plenty far enough.





In a subsonic round, the 44mag pretty much kills the 300 BO because at subsonic speeds, it's all about bullet weight and diameter and the multitude of the larger diameter 44mag bullet weights above the 300 BO's max 220grn bullet (225, 240, 270, 280, 300 to name a few) makes for significant higher performance.  In addition, all of them can be pushed well into the supersonic velocities.  The 300grn can reach 1,473fps, the 280grn 1,544fps, the 270grn 1,638fps, 240grn 1,817fps, and the 225grn 1,924fps; something the 300 BO can't even dream of attaining.



As far as the platform is concerned, no, I'm not arguing for leverguns but rather semi-auto rifles.  For instance, Ruger's recently announced Mini-14 in 300 BO is a candidate because Ruger already produced their 99/44 using the Mini-14's action and 18" barrel length. I.E. they have already done it.  All they'd need to do is mod their Mini-30 mags for the rimmed 357mag and 44mag case (something easier than you'd think because of the tapered 7.62x39 case of the Mini-30), set the action into the Tactical Stock they use on their brand new 300 BO version, and they's have a 44mag version ready to go.  The 357mag would be a cinch to follow.



If Ruger can (and already did) do it, then others can too.

CSB
Still don't care because I can't put 357 or 44 in an ar with ease.
You are argueing a point that not a single person is trying to make.
Your avatar is fitting.

I've got 3 ARs and a Mini-14 as well as M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and a M1A as well as leverguns in 357mag, 45 Colt, 30-30, 300 Savage, and .308 so I might have a broader perspective than some on what's possible. I handload and study the performance of various rounds and the ballistics comparisons I made of the 300 BO, 357mag, and 44mag aren't in doubt.



Further, they already make ARs in 7.62x39 so it's possible to make a reliable version if one has the will.  Up to this time, there doesn't appear to have been the will.  I get that the 300 BO is easy to adapt to the AR15; I didn't say adapting the 357mag and 44mag to an AR15 was as easy either. I just commented that the two calibers actually do a better job (357mag supersonic and 44mag subsonic) than the 300 BO does, regardless of platform.



 

This was added as an edit, so lets pull it out and address it.  

As you might guess, since we are discussing this on an AR forum, I prefer this:



to this:





Hypothetical future guns(I still wouldn't want any form of Mini-14) aside, this is why 300blk exists.

300 Blackout's strength is the supppressed short-barreled rifle using, of course, sub-sonic rounds in the familiar AR platform.  Those were the design parameters.  Take it outside those parameters and lots of calibers beat it but those same calibers are weaker in a suppressed short-barrel rifle using sub-sonic rounds in an AR platform. Notice a theme?

Topic Moved

First off, that list of a few guns and a few cartridges is not as broad as you think it is.  


Second, you say "regardless of platform".  Nonsense, you can't simply look at two spreadsheets next to each other and pass judgement on a caliber when the two (in this case 3) calibers were created for very different jobs.  Saying "but but but, the numbers" doesn't solidify your point.

Again, arguing a point that is not being made.
I never said you were wrong, just that nobody really cares but you.
CSB

Your argument is flawed.  .30-30 beats them all.  Except of course it won't fit in an AR,  but I suppose that is an irrelevant point

I'm a big fan of pistol-caliber carbines and a HUGE fan of magnum-handgun-caliber carbines. IIRC, I have 7 of them, including two in .357 magnum and one in .44 magnum. They're HUGELY capable calibers from carbines; far more powerful than a lot of people realize.

But as much as I like them, I don't see them as a substitute for a good primary defensive longarm. The calibers are frankly more than capable, but there's just not a top-end firearm option for using them in. If a reliable, box-fed, semiauto carbine was available in .357 magnum, I'd be all over it. I get over 2,000 fps from 125's & 140's from my 16" guns, and that's more than adequate for personal defense; but such a critter (afaik) simply doesn't exist, which makes the whole thing pretty much a moot point no matter how much I like the calibers.

An interesting side note - I have a couple acquaintances that have actually approached this subject from an opposite direction. They've made up guns in .300BK that emulate some of my guns in the magnum-handgun calibers; break-open single shots with suppressors. A couple of them are SBR's, and make awesome critter guns with subsonic loads and deer guns with supersonic loads.

I like .357mag and .44 mag

lever actions and magnum revolvers are lots of fun.

I like 6.8SPC better than .300

Ditto this x 10.

Just never got the point of the 300 used outside of it's ORIGINAL design parameters, i.e. 200-230 grain @ up to 1050fps suppressed (which is the energetic equivalent of the .45 ACP as in 230 grain @ 900-1000 fps) Yes the 300 has better aerodynamics but the energy is going to be very nearly equal. Physics, and all that stuff.

Now just to stir the pot a little, I would really like to see a .357 maximum with rebated case head. With 185 grain bullets @ +/- 2000 fps, that would be on my buy list yesterday.

Lets first start with the Ballistics in an 16-18 inch barrels. Lets say your 125gr 357mag is traveling at the exact same speed as a 125gr .308 leaving the barrel. By the time they hit the 50 yard mark your .357 is already about 150fps slower because of its horrible BC. So, any distance beyond 100 yards and you have lost a significant amount of energy. While the 300BLK keeps going strong.

Next, you either think it is still early 2014 or you just have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the availability of 300BLK ammo as it can be had a just about any store or online market up to and including Wal Mart.

Next, and I can't emphasize this enough is that it is an asinine concept that you can even compare the 357 mag to the 300BLK. They are completely different animals as the last time I checked you couldn't load a 30 round mag of 357 into your lever rifle as a matter of fact by the time you finish loading your 9 rounds every time you shoot I could have fired over 90 rounds. One is a combat weapon capable of semi and full auto the other is a ranch rifle so until I see our troops breaking out lever actions to take to the enemy I think I will stick with the 300BLK for anything more than shooting cans off the fence post.

Next is the fact that you seem to say that the ammo for the 357 is so much cheaper but I find the ammo to be very similar in price especially when we are talking rifles which typically need different and better bullets to handle the faster speeds for the longer barrels. Then somehow you go onto say that reloading a 357mag rifle is cheaper than reloading the 300BLK which is a blatant lie at best. I don't see any milsurplus bullets or brass for the 357mag that can be used like we can in the 300BLK. this makes reloading for the 300BLK very cheap more so than even the 357mag. That is unless you are talking lead bullets but then we are not talking about rifles any more but the 300BLK can shoot lead bullets too so once again no advantage there.

Next is this satirical comparison of combining the 357mag with the 44mag to get the same capabilities as one gun. What do you plan on doing duct taping them together or just carrying two rifles around because if that is the case you mine as well get a 458 Socom that can launch 500gr bullets at subsonic velocities. But you still would have to carry two rifles to get super and subsonic performance that the 300BLK can do with one.

Then you go on to say more stupid things like comparing the 44mag muzzle energy with the 300BLK 220gr bullets. If you wanted to do a better job at comparing you could have used the 240gr bullets but even then that doesn't really matter because once again you say that the 300BLK only has 73.3% of the muzzle energy of the 44mag but what you need to be taught is what a Ballistics Coefficient is. Since the BC of the 44mag is so low that by 25 yards it has slowed to the point where the 300BLK is just about the same energy and by 50 yards 300BLK has surpassed it in energy. Lets not even try 100 yards as at that range the 44 mag is more like a mortar and has a lot less energy than the 220gr 300BLK let alone the 240gr 300BLK. I also haven't seen where I can shoot a 44mag out of a 30 to 100 round magazine without reloading. Also when the 300BLK is shooting subsonic is that it is trying to be quiet and with the smaller diameter and better BC it is a lot quieter than any 44mag could be when suppressed.

I don't know why there is so much misunderstanding and hate on the 300BLK no one said it will take down an Elephant at 500 yards yet people like you try and compare two very dissimilar pieces of hardware to try and "outmatch" what it is capable of. The fact that you have to pick and choose multiple ammo, guns and calibers just to try and come close to what the ONE 300BLK does should tell you that you are trying too hard to either put down the 300BLK or justify a purchase. Because I can always find a rifle that can be faster/have more energy such as (.308, 30.06, 50BMG) or shoot heavier subs such as the (458 socom, 50beowulf) but none of them can do it all in a single package that fits into the most produced and readily available rifles in the World.

So, until your 357mag can fit into a magazine that has been produced hundreds of millions of times, shoot out of an AR with just the change of a barrel, get better performance and penetration inside of 300 yards than the standard issue 5.56, can shoot both super and subs with the change of a magazine, can get mil surplus bullets and brass, fire more than 10 rounds without taking a week to reload and have it all rolled into the same package then you are comparing cherries and oranges as it isn't even in the same arena as apples.

I agree with most of your post, but not hardly a mortar at a hundred yards. I've not done a lot of testing with the .44 levergun, but I have with my .357 and .454 versions; and have to assume that the .44 would be in the middle of the pack, give or take. My .454 carbine launches a 240 at 2,430fps, which will stay within less than one inch of zero out to a hundred. Beyond 150 or so, it drops off very fast; no denying that. The .357 runs around 1.5" - 1.75" at a hundred or so - more than the .454, but again hardly a mortar round.



Exactly, and agree completely. I personally believe the calibers are plenty capable, especially since I've been a civilian for over 30 years and can't imagine a scenario where defensive shooting could realistically entail 200-yard shooting. But as capable as the cartridges themselves are, there's just not a top-end launcher available for them. That's why my defensive guns are (primarily) 16" AR's in 556.

If all i had was my little 16" .357 levergun for defense, I wouldn't be terrified. It's a good gun, having plenty of power and range for defensive use. But since it's not box-fed and since it's not a semiauto, it's just not nearly as capable as a modern defensive rifle. IMO those two things - detachable-box-magazine feeding and semiauto function - are non-negotiable in defensive carbine selection.

Now... if the day ever comes where we see a reliable, compact box-fed semiauto available in .357 magnum, I'll be all over it; and will be arguing the opposite side of this topic...

But the 30 remington will, nobody wants it, i would like to own one though.