I will say this has been one of the more cordial 5.56 Vs. 300blk threads I've seen.

Typically these threads turn into a pissing match that leaves the OP feelin like .

I’ve shot plenty of game with most every round in this thread.

@cod0396 (and others)

I'll continue this thread's trajectory and keep out of the purse swinging. Truthfully, I like both chamberings, 5.56 and .300BLK. I own several guns in each and like shooting them both.

Yes, my sample size is small on the 62 Fusion bullet. I literally took it hunting once and on that one day, a nice doe came by and I potted her. I was considerably surprised that she ran that far, but I've seen stranger things as well. --I once took a nice 6pt buck with a .308 SP, probably a cheap Remington Core-Lokt or Federal 150gr. Oblique angle shot took him through one lung and literally turned his heart to mush. He ran over 100yds. --So, is a sample size of one an exhaustive study? In no way shape or form! It is at most anecdotal. Tons of external factors go into any shot taken on a game animal. (It doesn't even necessarily translate to a human target, but is the most experience most of us will ever have with real world performance on any given bullet.)

I HAVE taken .300BLK on several occasions and have taken a total of 6 deer with it, exclusively with the Barnes 110 TAC-TX bullet. None of which have ever run over about 40yds. So, my experience tells me that .300BLK is more efficient than 5.56 with the right ammo.

Now, a review of the thread up until the point I made my statement didn't include much on the 77TMK, which I think is the overall best bullet for a soft target with a .223/5.56 gun. In my head, I was thinking 110 TAC-TX vs "TAP T2, MK262, heavy OTM" and I discounted OP's "or expanding round of choice". ...Then the conversation shifted more to 77TMK vs 110 TAC-TX.

This thread may actually cause me to take a 5.56 SBR hunting for whitetails again, just to see how the 77TMK does for me .

I've tried the last few years with a 6.5 Grendel SBR using 120gr Fusions but inexplicably, I haven't had a deer come by that I was willing to shoot in over 60 hours of sitting a stand with that gun. (Then I had to switch to my BLK pistol this fall for the MN shotgun/handgun zone and shot a #175 8pt at 6:45 in the morning the first day I sat there!)

Yeah it was never my intention to come off as trying to start a pissing match, just to have a conversation. So sorry if I may have come off as such.

Well, we’re all adults here who are discussing the minutia of two very similar calibers. Theres no need to be anything but cordial with each other.

Sorry, double post.

There's a moose and a bear in there as well.

It's also noteworthy that there isn't anyone in there who's used 77 gr TMK and actually had anything bad to say about it - there are even a couple who were skeptical of the round and changed their minds after trying it. The naysayers were, I believe, exclusively people who hadn't.


It isn't necessarily that handguns actually produce a smaller TSC in tissue than in gel, it's more that by and large this isn't enough to overcome the elasticity of some very vital tissues. In inflexible organs like the spleen or liver, pistol bullets can cause serious stretch damage, however these structures aren't generally as important for immediate incapacitation.

I don't place much stock in universal temporary cavity thresholds since, at the end of the day, TSC formation is largely down to an equation and altering any of the variables will give you a different result. Dr. Roberts does note that well-constructed .357 JHPs tend to start producing noticeable TSC trauma in flexible tissues around 1600 FPS, with damage becoming severe around 1900 FPS; the latter number is in fairness pretty close to the velocity of the Varmageddon loading, but the bullet is also producing a greater amount of more extensive fragmentation than most .357 bullets would, and "severe" means different things to different people at any rate. For my part I'd certainly expect the wound cavity produced by the Varmageddon to exceed that of 50 gr TSX, though I'm not inclined to believe it really outmatches 77 gr TMK.

My personal hunch based on the trends I've seen are that mass and diameter generally appear to benefit bonded/monolithic bullets, however the higher velocity of 5.56 seems to lend to more explosive fraggers provided you can get them to penetrate enough.

If we are talking apples to apples, it would be 77gr TMK vs one of the 110gr "V" rounds (Vmax, Varminator, or Vrmageddon).
It would also be what ever flavor of expanding 5.56 one wants (50gr TTSX, or one of the Federal Fusion/Gold Dot sizes) vs 110gr Tac-tx (although some like 125gr SST as well).

At 100 yards, any soft target getting hit by any of them is going to have a horrible day.  

As far as velocity goes in terms of "rifle damage", the only number that matters is the minimum fragmentation threshold for the rounds being fired.  

Six of one, half dozen of the other.    Which is better probably depends on how you plan to use the weapon.

What's even more eye opening about that thread, imo, is the actual pictures of the wounds created by the TMK. All this discussion about tsc, explosive fragmentation, expansion, neck size, etc. is fun, but nothing says "effective" like a fist sized or even larger hole through a deer's chest cavity. What baffles me though is how someone can purposely enter that thread, look through all that evidence, then say something like ".223 is too weak for deer".



Fair point; I should have said "effective" TSC rather than large TSC. Yeah the actual diameter of the stretch cavity created by a handgun round is probably the same as it is in gel, but that TSC is essentially useless as far as actual tissue damage is concerned. The actual wound channel will just be the size of the expanded bullet.

I agree that the 110gr varmageddon will likely do more damage than a 50gr TSX. I think that has to do more with the fact that one is an expanding monolithic bullet while the other is a rapidly fragmenting varmint round rather than the caliber difference. Similarly, I am almost certain that a 77gr TMK will do more tissue damage than a 110gr TAC-TX in almost all situations. Obviously the TAC-TX has momentum and weight retention on its side, but I kind of doubt that it will more or less liquefy a whitetail's chest cavity like the TMK does.

I agree completely with your last sentence. 5.56 really lends itself to the rapidly expanding/fragmenting bullet types given the synergy between velocity, tsc, and fragmentation. I can get behind bullets like fusion/gold dot since they do rapidly expand and sometimes fragment despite being bonded, but I do think that the really tough bonded bullets and monolithics give up a lot in terms of pure terminal performance. The same thing sort of applies to .300BLK, but the sheer momentum and diameter of an expanding 110gr chunk of lead at 2000+ fps allows it do plenty of damage without fragmentation.

This is mostly aligned with my thinking. We need to be comparing like rounds to like rounds, such as those compared above. The thing is, they work about the same when viewed as such, and the caliber that fires them isn’t a big deal. It’s mostly 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

I’d prefer 5.56 ballistically due to the higher velocity and ability to frag harder and/or perform further, but 300BLK if I needed the rifle to be super short. In most cases neither is going to much matter, but I guess it’s up to everyone to decide if they’re on the fringe of either of those cases.

It really is splitting hairs.

Personally my ARs 10.5" and less are chambered in 300blk. 11.5" and up are all 5.56. They are all intended for different scenarios in my mind.

My bedside is an 8.3" 300 suppressed with 110gr Vmax. On short trips I take my 10.5" 300 unsupressed with either 115gr Controlled Chaos (love that round) or 110gr Tac-Tx.

During a shtf where I have to leave the homestead, I'm grabbing either my suppressed 11.5" 5.56 or 14.5" 5.56 bcm M4gery both with Mk318.

Not to get off topic but anyone have any experience taking anything with the 50gr TSX? The gel tests look impressive at least.

I don't, but this has to be a price error.

One of the nice things about hog hunting is you can rack up some numbers quickly.

In my case, I've shot a bunch with 62gr Gold Dots/Fusions, 110 VMAX with the 300blk, 120gr Gold Dots and ELDs and 123gr SSTs with the 6.5G. I'm also up to 6 deer I think with the 62gr Gold Dots.

They all work pretty well, really. I only dress the deer, and can definitely say the Gold Dots are devastating in the vitals, even from an SBR. I've had a few bang-flops and I'd say the farthest a deer has run is under 100 yards.

My personal experience for ranking in order of what I least want to be shot by would be 1) 120gr Gold Dot or ELD from the Grendel, 2) 62gr Gold Dot 3) 110gr VMAX.

Guess what? Still have 110gr VMAX in my bedside gun. 8" bbl and a full size suppressor, it's quieter and hits harder than a 10.5" 556. My point is that I think they all work and the margins are pretty slim between top and bottom picks.

Obviously I'm missing the gold-standard 300blk 110gr TacTX, and I also haven't shot game with the 77gr OTMs or TMKs although I have some of both loaded and they're on my list to try on hogs.

In either case, having shot at minimum dozens of hogs with each of my listed rounds I can tell you they all will lay the hurt on a human in sufficient quantity to help them go and meet Jesus. It's still fun to discuss though, and I do have my own personal favorites.

That has to be an error.