Building a dedicated bedroom AR pistol, 8.5" barrel with my AAC SDN-6. Really wanted to find a sub that would expand and normal house hold distances and the Hornady 190gr looked very promising.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019544858/

The issue is....it was not reliable at all, out of 20 rounds I had multiple jams where the round got caught, I think on the feed ramp.

It makes sense if you look at the shape of the round I guess.

Anyone one shoot this round and found it to be reliable?

I might try the Noveske 220gr as it appears more rounded but it's pricey and hard to find.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1016255464/

Yes, I know some people say using subs for HD makes no sense, but I would argue that if....if I could find a sub that expands it would be close to ideal.

Now if I could only find one that is reliable

Is it the same as their TAP LE subx round?

https://www.hornadyle.com/rifl.../190-gr-sub-x-tap#!/

I've been using that to put deer and raccoons down at work with no issues.

Tested fine using my 7.5" with Sandman-K and 8.5" with 762SDN-6. Both uppers are PSA. Did a full auto test also, worked fine (expensive!!). I'm using Lancer mags.

Ok, good to hear....I will try them again, used a Pmag for the first go.

Let's see....really want them to work.

I have a couple boxes. I'm going to shoot them on Wednesday and see how it goes. I've cycled a few at home and they chambered using the bolt catch.

Take a look at your feed ramps. There can be some issues with the fit of the receiver and barrel extension that results in slight ledges which can throw off some rounds. Pay attention to left/right feed if you can as well, just by checking which side the top round is on and knowing what the round count for the magazine was when you had the issue.

You can also try a heavier buffer, see if the action speed might need to be slowed a bit, especially suppressed.

I also have some winchester stuff that looks like it should expand, haven't read any testing on it. Not sure if it's just an under-the-radar load, or so subpar that no one takes the time to even look at it.

Aside from the specific issues you're having - I would still suggest using supersonic for home defense. Even suppressed it's quite a bit less loud/violent than a 5.56, and you're not using a rifle platform to throw lead at pistol velocities and expecting rifle ballistics. One of the reasons there aren't many good expanding sub loads is that velocity loss - you don't have the surface area to dump energy like a .45ACP, you don't have velocity to cause hydroshock and large wound cavities, nor do you have many bullets designed to perform in these conditions since the projectiles are based around the .308 - lots of good supersonic options since it's more transferable from .308.

quote:

Originally posted by Rustpot:
I would still suggest using supersonic for home defense.

It’s not what you asked, and you’ve already considered supersonic, but I agree.

Unless someone is really a poor shot with a conventional handgun or has other issues that make it undesirable, there’s no good reason to rely on an AR-type pistol for home defense with subsonic loads. Based on my own limited testing and the gel tests of the Hornady 190 grain SUB-X, expansion is iffy (but better, it seems, than any other 300 BLK subsonic load), and from a short barrel its energy is nothing to get excited about. From my 9 inch MCX barrel it produces about 460 foot-pounds.

By comparison, from a 4.4" P226 barrel, the “standard” 357 SIG 125 grain Gold Dot load produces about 536 ft-lb. The 155 grain 40 S&W Gold Dot load produces ~490 ft-lb. Even the 124 grain +P 9mm Gold Dot produces about 400 ft-lb of energy from a P226. All those figures can be expected to be somewhat higher from a full size P320. Kinetic energy isn’t the be-all, end-all of handgun effectiveness, but if (as some people claim to believe) it didn’t matter at all, there’d be no reason to choose 9mm over 380 Auto or even 32 S&W. At least with a handgun we have larger calibers and more demonstrated expansion reliability.

In supersonic loads, I like the Hornady 110 grain V-MAX. It produces about 1170 ft-lb (yes, 1170 versus 490), expands rapidly, and is unlikely to penetrate as far as the 190.

But after all that opinion, the Hornady 190 SUB-X works fine in my SIG MCX. If someone had the mission of taking out a sentry or guard dog with minimal noise using a suppressed weapon, it’s the one subsonic load I’d recommend at this moment. The other subsonics I’ve tried don’t expand even in water, so they act mostly like any other slow, nonexpanding bullet, but of smaller caliber than even the 9mm.

If you’re having problems with the Hornady but are set on subsonic, I’d first try different magazines. Magpul makes 300 Blackout-specific mags, and they do differ from magazines originally designed for 223/5.56.

tried them with a cmmg 8" and a bcm 9" both with a rugged micro 30. no issues. used lancer awm and pmag 556 mags. both uppers have adjustable gas blocks.

lehigh defense subs have been reliable too.

More info on mine:

H2 buffer in both. Lancer mags are 300blk specific mags.
The subsonic stuff is what I use for putting down animals.
For defense use we are using the Hornady TAP supersonic round.

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
More info on mine:

H2 buffer in both. Lancer mags are 300blk specific mags.
The subsonic stuff is what I use for putting down animals.
For defense use we are using the Hornady TAP supersonic round.

I have an H1 in mine, I need to go heavier. I haven't properly vetted it to use it for defense, it's mostly a range toy with subs right now as I learn more about shooting .300 compared to 5.56, and get more time with a suppressor.

I've had issues with plastic mags bulging slightly and sticking in the magwell with rounds in them. Haven't tried any .300-specific models yet, though. I've standardized on my GI 20rd mags being .300 and anything 30rd or plastic is 5.56.

It's a 8.3" Ballistic Adv. Hanson, BCM MCMR 7" rail, CMT receivers. Suppressor is a Q Trash Panda, which is very light and handy.
https://i.imgur.com/X1dYZkx.jpg

quote:

Originally posted by Rustpot:
I've had issues with plastic mags bulging slightly ....

That’s not surprising. Although I had to discover it for myself, not having seen it discussed before, it’s probably due to the larger bullet of the 300 round. There are positioning ribs on the inside of the magazine whose apparent purpose is to prevent the cartridges from sliding forward under recoil. Those ribs contact the shoulder of 223/5.56 cartridge cases, but when most 300 Blackout rounds are loaded in the same magazines, their larger bullets contact the ribs, pushing them outward and the bullets are pushed toward the center.

The degree that the bullets contact the positioning ribs is somewhat dependent upon bullet design. Heavier bullets usually have longer bearing surfaces, while lighter bullets like the 110 grain V-MAX aren’t affected as much by the contact. Another consequence of the bullets’ and therefore the cartridges’ being pushed toward the center of the magazine is that the interior volume of the mag is effectively reduced. I found, for example, that mags that easily hold 20 rounds of 223/5.56 could not be forced to take more than 19 rounds of 300 Blackout.

Magpul mags specifically designed for 300 BLK have positioning ribs that are not as high and therefore don’t press against the bullets to the same degree.

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
Is it the same as their TAP LE subx round?

It appears to be. The bullets in both loads evidently have the same ballistic coefficients and their velocities are the same. Although not about that particular one, at a Hornady event some years ago I asked if the A-MAX bullets in the TAP and non-TAP loads were the same. After a moment’s hesitation, the reps confirmed they were. It may be that the TAP ammunition is subject to better quality controls or there is some other minor difference, but I haven’t discovered anything like that in the rest of the TAP line.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
Is it the same as their TAP LE subx round?

It appears to be. The bullets in both loads evidently have the same ballistic coefficients and their velocities are the same. Although not about that particular one, at a Hornady event some years ago I asked if the A-MAX bullets in the TAP and non-TAP loads were the same. After a moment’s hesitation, the reps confirmed they were. It may be that the TAP ammunition is subject to better quality controls or there is some other minor difference, but I haven’t discovered anything like that in the rest of the TAP line.

I was under the impression he TAP stuff used low flash powder vs the regular ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
I was under the impression he TAP stuff used low flash powder vs the regular ammo.

Could be. I had not seen any reference to that, nor have I conducted any low light experiments myself, but it would be interesting to know.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Rustpot:
I've had issues with plastic mags bulging slightly ....

That’s not surprising. Although I had to discover it for myself, not having seen it discussed before, it’s probably due to the larger bullet of the 300 round.
........
Magpul mags specifically designed for 300 BLK have positioning ribs that are not as high and therefore don’t press against the bullets to the same degree.

Yeah, I'm only using subs at the moment. To be clear I didn't have any feed issues, just that the bulge made the mags stick in the magwell until empty. I'm aware the larger bullet is likely to blame and supers might be a different story, but I'd much rather not have to make too many changes between supers and subs. And I have piles of magazines already, I'm not super keen on adding 30's or 20's that cost more, need some kind of stand-out visual identifier to reduce risk of mixing, etc. Metal 20's are 300: easy to verify, I have a pile of them, I still have plenty of plastic 20's for 5.56. Most people that I shoot with don't even think of having 20-round mags, so it's very easy to make people aware to not touch my 20's if they want to keep their fingers and wallet intact.

The plan is to get it running how I want it, play with the quiet stuff, get the round count on the rifle up a bit, then switch over to supers and it *should* not need anything but a good zero and enough rounds to be confident in it. I don't plan on shooting this pistol without the suppressor from here on out, and it also gets moved over to a few 5.56 guns until I get more cans.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
I was under the impression he TAP stuff used low flash powder vs the regular ammo.

Could be. I had not seen any reference to that, nor have I conducted any low light experiments myself, but it would be interesting to know.

If I recall that was word about 10 years ago or so when they introduced the TAP line.

Yeah. A long time ago Hornady was doing a demo for a bunch of PDs in my area and I asked them what’s the difference between what I already had from them and the TAP line and I recall low flash powder being mentioned.

I shot a few boxes of 190 sub x in an 11.3" Wilson Combat upper, with a Surefire SOCOM 2 can. The ammo cycled without issues in both 20-round Pmag and 20-round aluminum USGI mags. Muzzle velocity was very consistent at 1,109 fps. I prefer to use USGI mags for 300blk and Pmags for 223, so that I don't mix up ammo.

I recovered a number of rounds of 190 sub x and other subsonic rounds from soft, damp dirt and sand berms behind targets. At 50 yards the bullets generally expanded OK, with some peeling back of copper petals (traditional expansion) from the very front of the bullet. At 100 to 200 yards the bullets did noticeably less expansion, and often the red plastic tip was still in the nose of the bullet. I saw no definitive evidence of tumbling.

Accuracy at longer distances -- i.e. longer than home defense -- was mostly quite bad:
50 yards, 5 rounds -- groups of .6", 1.6", and 1.7". The one .6" group seemed to be an anomaly.
100 yards, 5 rounds -- groups of 2.1", 2,9", 2,5", and 3.8". Vertical stringing was roughly 3 times as great as horizontal variation.

I agree with prior posts that subsonic ammo isn't the best option for SD. Sure, it will be quieter than a pistol round, but with similar kinetic energy. It's up to you if the larger AR frame handles better than the smaller pistol frame.

You have a fair number of ammo choices with supersonic ammo, especially with bullets in the 110-125 grain ballpark.

Great information .....thank all of you!

The main reason for the sub in an AR pistol is my wife likes and shoots it better. 400+ ft lb while being considerably less than a super 300blk is still quite ok.

Currently a 5.56 11.5" SBR resides on the wall in the closet but with the suppressor it basically is the same size as a normal 16" AR.

Is sub ideal.... certainly not, especially considering the lack of bullets that expand....if I cannot make it work I will look at supers.

I shot 120 rounds through my Troy .300blk pistol, no jams, no problems.

Are you using a .300blk specific magazine, or a 5.56 magazine. There are differences. Make sure to try a .300 magazine if not currently using one.

Have you checked out Discreet Ballistics? I have no personal experience with these guys, just found them while perusing Q's site. They have a training/hunting two-load system optimized for different barrel lengths and twist rates. $$$ though.

Discreet Ballistics

quote:

Originally posted by Killer Instincts:
Have you checked out Discreet Ballistics? I have no personal experience with these guys, just found them while perusing Q's site. They have a training/hunting two-load system optimized for different barrel lengths and twist rates. $$$ though.

Discreet Ballistics

Basically a big game solid....I will keep working with the Hornady