Quote History Quoted:
As far as caliber/barrel length I guess I’m between a 10.5” in 556 or going 9” in 300 blackout.
Is 5.56 really that bad in a shortened barrel setup like this?
View Quote
Depends on what you want to do with it. Range blaster for giggles? Sure, you can go down to a 7.5in. Serious use? I wouldn't go below the 10.3" found in the Mk 18. That seems to be about the limit that we've found for not only ballistic effectiveness with the heavier bullets but general gun reliability. Below that, things can start getting finicky.
300blk, however, was designed for shorter barrels, and I know is still plenty good down at 7in if not shorter. It doesn't hurt that while the 5.56 caps out just about 77grn for bullets on the heavy side of things, the 300blk is running 110grn normally and can get up to 220grn or more with subs.
Now, velocity is more important than mass when it comes to energy, but I don't think anyone's ever complained about having too heavy a bullet.
Let's steal from
this thread over here.
As you can see, a 9" 300blk has about the same energy as a 14.5" 5.56. You get down to the 10" 5.56 ballistics, and you'd have to get all the way down to a 6.5" or so 300blk, while with the 9 vs 10.5 you're carrying a good 200+ more ft.lbs with the 300blk.
Again - just range use, it won't matter. But for any serious uses, the 300blk definitely holds some heavy advantages. Especially since loadings like the 110gr Barnes Tac-TX aren't nearly as dependent on velocity to perform (can get down to about around a 1300fps expansion threshold), you can carry a much, much further effective range in an even shorter gun.
Not to mention, you can run subs, which is nicer for everyone, especially once suppressed.
Where you lose out is in ammo cost. The 300blk is more expensive to shoot, that's just a fact.
If subsonic isn't a concern, but you want better short barreled performance than the 5.56, then the 6.5G is another contender. I'm not as familiar with that round as I am with the 5.56 and 300blk though.