/k/ - Weapons

If I'm not mistaken, 500$ should get you a S&W AR15 sporter or something like that. Thats the big bad black rifle, which is probably what you want to be able to grandfather on. AR15 mags are a dime a dozen, well not quite, but mags have no serial numbers. If a box of Magpul 30rd mags suddenly popped up in your backyard, nobody would be able to tell where you bought them.

>how is 10mm better than 5.56

Because it can boast the same kinetic energy while throwing a bigger, far heavier bullet that penetrates deeper and wounds more severely. Out of 12" and shorter barrels, 10mm actually widely outclasses 5.56 in terms of energy. It's also more likely to deform/expand due to its diameter and shape, flies better through brush, won't be stopped by thick muscle and bone, and because it fits in a pistol it's much easier to access in an emergency.

That said, bears are fucking tough and 5.56 is simply inadequate. They have extremely hard skulls and they lower their head to charge when threatened, so anything used against a bear needs to be capable of making it through that and badly damaging the brain. If you're lucky, you might get a chest shot, in which case you should aim for the heart. 7.62x39 would be better, but most people you see will be using full-power rifle rounds in .30 caliber or greater. .308 Winchester, .300 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, etc. In pistols, .44 Magnum is the most popular, while .45 Super, .45 Win Mag, .50 AE, and .500 S&W are also all loved. .357 Magnum is less common, and 10mm Auto out of a rifle competes with .44 Magnum in terms of performance. Out of pistols, it's more similar to .41 Magnum with a hot load, or the "FBI lite" cold loads will get you .357 Magnum ballistics or slightly better.

TL;DR: because it's better. 5.56 fails to kill deer, why the fuck would you use it on an animal three times as large?

I should clarify, the best performance for any commercial 10mm Auto loads plateaus off around 14-16" of barrel length, and it has little benefit beyond 18". 5.56's ideal barrel is 20", and below 16-18" suffers greatly from velocity loss due to unburnt powder. A 21" AR will absolutely get more energy at the muzzle than a 10" carbine in 10mm, but if you're fighting a bear, then it's likely you're in the brush and would prefer a shorter rifle. At 10" a full-house 10mm load has the same or better energy than 7.62x39, making it undeniably better than a 5.56 from similar lengths. 5.56 is reaching 1000 ft-lbs of energy at the 16" mark, which 10mm can achieve at only 12" if using a full-power load.

>>623896

Look up the statistics instead of acting like a spergy NPC from nu/pol/, and maybe you'll learn something.

>>623883

What about 300 blackout?

>>623893

As a guy who blasts deer with 75gr BTHP's, the wound it leaves is fucking messy. It boils down to gore that once was heart and lungs, where as my .308 tends to leave those two organs somewhat recognizable.

>>623943

Basically a 7.62x39 that fits standard AR magazines and has a better bullet selection due to it being .308 and not .311. All you need to go to .300 from .223 is a barrel swap.

>>623947

>75gr BTHPs

Have a favored brand or do you load your own?

>>623899

>statistics

Too many variables.

>>623943

7.62x39 but weaker.

>>623947

>All you need to go to .300 from .223 is a barrel swap.

Or you could not swap them and it'd still chamber and fire 1 time:^)

>>623948

Ballistics By The Inch has charts that all use the same test gun at different barrel lengths, and they name all the commercial loads that they test. They take the averages of large lots of test ammo for their stats, and compare them all against each other. They're not the only source I use, since more information is always better, but they're very thorough and reliable. Complaining about variables is just intellectually dishonest, because you're trying to claim that your opinion is more accurate than objective facts. Fuck off with that. Besides, it is plain as day that 5.56 is not a very powerful round. A bear is a much larger and more serious threat than a human or a deer, and recommending 5.56 for bear is a death wish. They require more bang.

>>623947

What .308 load do you use for deer? I exclusively shoot Federal Power-Shok 180gr JSP, and when I hit a buck with those, shredded tissue is not at all unusual. Especially if the bullet hits near the sternum first and mushrooms really hard early on or breaks up. It should also be noted that 75gr is a pretty heavy-for-caliber load for 5.56/.223, but that's frankly a good thing.

Unrelated, what twist rate do you use for the 5.56?

Honestly I would recommend a commie round like 7.62x39.

>cheap

>everywhere

>30 cal round

>works in pistols well

I’d just get a 7.62 ar-15 psa is great for this.

>>623972

>Complaining about variables is just intellectually dishonest

Excluding variables is dishonesty, and anything from the temperament of the target to the air temperature can affect ballistic capability enough to determine whether a round is effective for that particular shot.

The issue that should be focused on is whether or not a projectile can perform and on what targets. A solid, little-to-non-expanding 75 or 77gr. projectile knows no barriers and can provide a slurry of internal damage whereas something meant purely for the soft tissue of varmints or jihadis like 55gr soft points are meant to deform if you so much as look at them and are improper for something big and fat with tough skin.

Someone suggesting 5.56 for a task isn't specifically suggesting you go out and buy crap ammo, anon, and you have posted this assumption way too much for this to be a healthy habit.

Arfcom has had a bunch of threads on this as well and none of them suggest varmint rounds for anything other than varmints.

>>623979

>I’d just get a 7.62 ar-15 psa is great for this

On-topic, I'd suggest this for a poorfag "Oh fuck it's a bear" loadout, even if I don't like PSA.

>>623983

>Someone suggesting 5.56 for a task isn't specifically suggesting you go out and buy crap ammo, anon, and you have posted this assumption way too much for this to be a healthy habit.

Except I never said that. Why are you so unwilling to have an honest conversation? Your feels and strawmen don't matter, what matters is data and practical experience, and this concrete information is what leads people to the conclusion that 5.56 as a cartridge is a bad choice for large game. 10mm Auto can beat 5.56 for muzzle energy at the right barrel lengths, this is a fact. There are several high-end commercial loads specifically designed for >1000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. There are also high-end loads of 5.56 that perform better than milsurp, but with a small-bore round in a small case - which already has very high pressure - it's not as easy to load hotter, safely. We're talking about shooting bear, so I'm comparing apples to apples here, because you need a lot of dakka to be effective and not get yourself killed.

If you can't argue against that without omitting everything that disagrees with your personal notions or putting words in my mouth, then you shouldn't be arguing.

>>623985

A buddy of mine owns one of the older DSA SA58s that were built on StG 58 receivers, and he put that into para configuration as his innawoods gun. He said he was thinking about bears in Montana when he bought it, but I think all he's shot with it is a mountain lion or something. He doesn't hunt, just camps.

Sage for double post.

>>623948

Hornady when on sale, otherwise I load my own replicating their load.

>>623972

150gr SP, same line as yours. From what I can tell from recovered rounds is they mushroom out and pop through the otherside.

>twist rate

1:7, 19" barrel. Its accurate out to 400 or so, though I wouldn't shoot a deer at anything more than 200 with that cartridge.

>>624007

I had one particularly nasty shot on a fat doe a couple years back, shooting from about her 1 o' clock. It entered the sternum close to the collarbone, passed through the heart, and stopped inside her belly close to her hip. The heart was blown into kind of a C shape and all the blood pretty much drained into her abdominal cavity, so you can imagine what it was like to clean and strip later, since it wouldn't run out of the throat. You know how in Hollywood when someone gets stabbed in the gut, they just spew gore everywhere?

>>623899

>spergy NPC from nu/pol/

Do you use a buzzword randomizer to make posts? Shot placement matters more than round choice.

>fails to kill deer

.308 can fail to kill deer if you hit it in the wrong place, same for 5.56, granted they will die eventually, but shot placement matters quite a bit.

>>623954

>Or you could not swap them and it'd still chamber and fire 1 time:^)

No it wouldn't, stop drinking so much methanol.

>>623972

I know you're not asking me, but I enjoy spewing my opinions out.

>what twist rate do you use for the 5.56

1:8, it's literally the most versatile out there.

>What .308 load do you use for deer

Hornady Interlock 150 GR SP

PPU case

38.4 grains of H4895

CCILR primers

>>623878

>AR15 mags are a dime a dozen, well not quite, but mags have no serial numbers.

They don't have serials, but they do have production dates (for quality control) so they can tell if it's pre or post ban. They are a raised surface and defacing them isn't illegal so you can annihilate them with a file fairly easy.

>>624022

Shot placement is irrelevant if your bullet is too light to penetrate the target, Strelok - besides, I already addressed the importance of aim above, so you implying that I argued against it is an outright lie. You simply need more mass in a projectile for a 400 pound black bear, or an 800 pound grizzly bear for that matter, than you do to take down a 170 pound human or a 110 pound whitetail. Hunting isn't like a firefight, you don't get a chance to dump your mag at a guy. Repeated shots on a piece of game will ruin the meat beyond use, and a frenzied animal is likely to close the distance to you so quickly that it'll be hard to react in the first place, not to mention that many kinds of wildlife have been known to keep moving by momentum alone after being shot pretty much dead during a charge.

This is why hunters, especially dangerous game hunters, choose rounds that they are confident can stop their target in one or as few shots as possible without flukes, and for that, they go big. Pulling out a larger cartridge doesn't mean shot placement goes out the window, what kind of stupid implication is that? The entire point is so that a well-placed shot is more guaranteed to be more effective. Shot placement is always first priority, but that in no way means or suggests that having good shot placement with an underpowered round is adequate, or that using a stronger round somehow negates shot placement. .44 Magnum is more popular than .357 Magnum as a bear defense round because it does more damage and therefore is more likely to kill, making it a safer choice, it's that simple. 'One guy killed an elephant with .22 LR, he's a better shooter than the guys using .416 Rigby' is the argument-from-absurdity extension of the argument you're making here.

What do those Prvi cases cost, by the way?

Also:

>shitposting a NEETsoc idol worship infograph to say 'ur wrong' instead of contributing to the thread

>implying this isn't top tier nu/pol/ garbage

Are you new?

>>624014

I know that, hit one on an angle and the bullet decided to bounce off the sternum and shatter the spine. Got very lucky the bullet didn't rupture the guts.

>>623883

I wouldn't be worried about a bear with a full 30 of green tip in my ar pistol.

It would break the brain bucket easily.

>>624032

>Shot placement is irrelevant if your bullet is too light to penetrate the target

What 5.56 loading are we talking about? But even 55gr could penetrate the skull of any bear, especially at close range. Not to mention 5.56 is very versatile, and could be used in many more situations, even if they are (even bear attacks) unlikely.

>nown to keep moving by momentum alone after being shot pretty much dead during a charge.

Your point? Does 5.56 not have enough that there good 'ol knockdown power for ya'?

>Repeated shots on a piece of game will ruin the meat beyond use

Are we talking about hunting or random bear attacks here?

>choose rounds that they are confident can stop their target in one or as few shots as possible without flukes

Well of course, I use a .308 for all hunting, but are we talking about walking in the woods or going out of our way to hunt bears and shit? If you want a woods gun, a 5.56 AR is the most versatile weapon to have, and adequate IMO for bear attacks. If a bear can get the drop on you you're fucked either way, be aware and shoot first and you'll be fine.

> 'One guy killed an elephant with .22 LR, he's a better shooter than the guys using .416 Rigby'

Not the argument I'm making, I'm sure those rounds do more damage, especially at short range, and with those big boy rounds you no doubt have to have good shot placement. But you'd be fine with a 64 grain 5.56 round for any sort of animal attack, it has fine penetration and is perfectly adequate for defense against any animal that would attack you in north america.

>What do those Prvi cases cost

I buy monarch brass cased ammo on the cheap at academy and reload the casings, so about 50 cents a case and most of them have been through 5 firings (including the initial firing) and haven't cracked yet.

>shitposting a NEETsoc idol worship infograph to say 'ur wrong' instead of contributing to the thread

>getting upset at shitposting

I thought it was funny

>implying this isn't top tier nu/pol/ garbage

jesus christ, stop being such a faggot anon.

>Are you new?

excuse me for saying anything le ebin oldfag, long cat is looooooooong amirite LOL

>>623883

>>how is 10mm better than 5.56

>Out of 12" and shorter barrels, 10mm actually widely outclasses 5.56 in terms of energy. It's also more likely to deform/expand due to its diameter and shape, flies better through brush, won't be stopped by thick muscle and bone, and because it fits in a pistol it's much easier to access in an emergency.

>That said, bears are fucking tough and 5.56 is simply inadequate.

From a 10" barrel it would seem 300 Memeout would be superior to both of those.

>>624076

>being educated is being a fudd

September is over, goddamnit.

>>623872

I have never heard of 10mm being good for bears. Around here the consensus is 12 gauge with whatever shell knocks you back the hardest, slugs are the best bet. I know a guy who had a bear come at him while hunting and he hit it 3 times with a 44 magnum and it still ripped up his car good. I would be worried about penetration with 10mm, it would need to be fmj at least. With bears you want a high penetration large bullet. That is why big game rifles and shotguns are the best bet for quick kills.

>>623872

5.56 underpenetrates for using against large animals like bears. FMJ 10mm is better choice.

But for long gun pump action 12ga with slugs would be better option.

>>623883

> 5.56 fails to kill deer

Bullshit. If it can kill a man it can kill a deer

>>624122

>powder selection is a big reason rifle calibers suck to shoot in short barrels.

Does it have to do something with the available space inside the case, or with the diameter of the projectile?

>>623943

>>624088

>muh .300 nigger

He literally brought that up in his post:

>7.62x39 would be better

>>624022

I love it when people fall back on the "shot placement is more important" argument when they're losing. Bitch, the question is "what gun should I buy to stop a charging bear", not 'where should I aim on the bear"

>muh 10mm

>muh 5.56mm

Nothing less then hot 12ga slugs

>>624336

Toothpaste brings out the truth once more.

>retards thinking that firefights and hunting are the same thing

5.56 kills people often after being shot multiple times, which is a much more serious issue if it icepicks, as it is known to do often. When shooting a guy in combat all you care about is hitting center mass enough to bring him down, and if he's out of the fight then that's enough. Hunting is absolutely different, because when you take a shot during hunting your objective is to use very precise aim - trying to hit the central nervous system or heart without damaging any major parts of the meat - and bring the target down preferably in one shot and preferably instantly. A gun that is good for home defense is not a good gun for hunting.

Fucking nogunz on this board, I swear. And even Spergkraut and the blackpill shill are here now, signaling the destruction of yet another thread that could have been decent.

>>624345

That's some 10/10 bait, anon. I almost bit, but I held myself back.

>>624329

>what gun should I buy to stop a charging bear

I didn't come here to answer your dumb question you faggot, I came here to defend 5.56.

>>624345

>5.56 kills people often after being shot multiple times

Nope, at reasonable ranges a center mass shot will put anyone down.

>trying to hit the central nervous system or heart without damaging any major parts of the meat - and bring the target down preferably in one shot and preferably instantly.

Are you retarded?

>>624336

>12

>not 10

>>624354

>doesn't understand anatomy well enough to know that it's possible to aim for organs

>hmmmm, if I want to kill this animal, instead of shooting for the vital organs, I'll go for all this important muscle mass first despite wanting to eat and profit off of that muscle since it's the only part of the body I want

t. has never hunted in his life

>>624357

I actually never hunted.

Is it fine to go for the head if you don't want it as a trophy?

>>624359

Going for the head is retarded, since you're more likely to just hit the jaw or non-vital areas and wound the deer. A dear's heart and lungs are huge in comparison to it's brain.

>>624360

Good to know. thanks.

>>624345

>5.56 cant pierce bear skulls nor kill deers

t.mutt

But "sperkrauter" is obviously responsible for this shit thread.

>>624309

I'm assuming you are aware that 7.62x39 is not the same as .300 AAC. In the context of a short rifle / AR pistol as OP referenced, it's going to be easier/less expensive/more options to go with something like .300 AAC vs a 10mm AR.

I haven't kept up on the state of the "I can't believe it's not an SBR" NFA dodging for the Kalashnikov pistols, but for innawoods I'd like an adjustable brace and foregrip on a decent length barrel. Lots of AR pistol platform options out there, but more in 5.56 (apparently underpowered) and .300 AAC.

>>624366

300 Basketball-Americans Led By Leonigdas was created specifically to be ballistically equivalent to 7.62x39mm, the only difference is that it has a version with a heavier grain bullet, that a guy with a simple reloader can simulate with a 7.62x39mm by putting in it the 7.62x54mm bullet. The main differences between the american version are that it takes fewer part changes to get an AR-15 to shoot it compared to the russian version.

That's where the jokes come from, the ballistic similarity.

I shouldn't have to explain this.

>>624381

An AR nigged to run 7.62x39 is certainly more niggificated than one that runs .300Nigmeme. Putting AR parts (brace, grips, etc) on a Kalashnikov pistol would be kangz-tier and would come with a mandatory orange lifejacket that must worn during use. I shouldn't have to explain this.

I'd still choose .300 "What is personal hygiene" over 10mm in an AR SBRpistol though, and I'd choose that over a 10mm pistol if I were going innawoods in brown bear country.

>>624389

To be honest everything but 5.56x45 and 9mm should be illegal.

>>623893

They make rifle caliber ARs

>>624390

i just got a fucking nosebleed, do you have any idea how tough this is to get out of a beard

>>624291

It penetrates about 18'' of gel its perfect for the up to 100 kg creatures. Bit it is the light side for the large bears. 5.56 power level calibers need flat tip solid bullets for proper penetration. Barnes had banded solids in 223. But since Elite Ammunition ATF raid in the 2008 they are banned as AP bullets. MAGA.

>>624393

>beard

What up soyboy

>>624387

Why does the deer #1 look so smug?

>>624399

Because it no longer needs to deal with the horrid realities of our world.

>>624397

Holy shit. Is that actually a guy with gyno?

>>624406

Two different guys, note the background. Got it from a search on bing, because apparently google bans that shit.

>>624397

GIB MILKIES

>>623899

>uses /nupol/ meme that become popular on 4chinz

>>624355

>10 gauge

Only if you own a modern shotgun and hand load.

Most factor loads are weaker than 12 gauge because they don't want old fudds blowing p their pappy's antique double barrel. Modern 10 gauge shotguns can handle high pressure loads but the older ones can't.

>>624390

>>624393

Okay, let's spin this around and reframe the question. In the context of an innawoods AR pistolSBR vs grizzly, what do you want it chambered in and why? 10mm seems very boutique/hard to find parts, mags, and presumably everything is proprietary to the model you buy.

If not 5.56 or .300memeout, are you thinking 6.5 "next year in Jerusalem" Grendel? Something else?

>>624479

If it's an animal, stick to .308 softpoint.

So either an AR10, an .308 Saiga or a HK91/PTR91 or a FAL.

>>624479

> In the context of an innawoods AR pistolSBR vs grizzly, what do you want it chambered in and why

.458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf. Best option from the firepower point of view. Expensive. Then 12 GA pump action is the perfect budget option.

>>624341

Actually I'm polak living there, but I had to confront dog once, and thinking about killing machine 10 times stronger and bigger - fuck pistols, I want biggest, hardest hitting slug possible.

>>624288

Available space. Scheutzen rifles and competitions with extremely low loaded 30 caliber rifles (think .311 round ball with a smol scoop of shotgun powder) had trouble with consistent ignition of powder unless they tilted the rifle up just before they shot.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html

>>623872

>grizzlies are everywhere

Thought they were only in parts of North America.

>>623979

Why do people think that "cheap" is a good thing when considering a caliber that will save their life? Use the best that works, large caliber handguns are the best for innawoods carry. Actual handguns, that go into holsters, not AR pistols.

>>624713

But how would that be a problem if you want to load enough pistol powder into a case that is just a bit longer than .357 Magnum?

>>624750

The case shape and intended pressure curve aren't designed for that. It has problems with burn rate and sometimes bullet stability at the muzzle, and often you'll run out of powder long before the end of the barrel, despite getting less velocity than you would have if you'd used a rifle powder. Most pistol powders are designed for very short optimal barrel lengths - such as 5" for 90% of .45 ACP loadings - after which point the chamber can only lose pressure, and after too much barrel length without powder gases expanding behind it a bullet can actually slow down due to friction.

Basically, you have a powder designed to accelerate a heavy, wide bullet out of a straight walled case through a short barrel, and you're loading it behind a small and light bullet in a bottlenecked case through a barrel longer than probably intended. It's likely to suffer issues of just not shooting as nicely as it should. Perhaps more importantly, a rifle round filled with pistol powder in a gas operated action will probably fail to cycle, and recoil actions wouldn't fare a whole lot better.

>>623943

Basically 8mm kurtz with a slightly smaller bullet for the AR15

9x39 is better anyway.

>>624864

>8mm Kurz

It's 7.62x39, you idiot.

>>624867

.300 Blackout has lower velocities than 7.62x39.

Anon is correct in that it's a modern analog for 8mm Kurz.

>>624479

PSA has sales on AR10s for not much more than $500 sometimes. .308/7.62x51, 6.5 mememore, and .338 federal are the least I'd want to have for a charging bear. Or you could always get a .300 winchester magnum bolt action for $300-400.