Uppers, as well as the exorbitantly expensive Remington Premier Match ammo, were provided by Deliberate Dynamics. Two 20 round boxes of Atlanta Arms ammo were provided by the manufacturer, but this was not enough for a comprehensive review involving four upper receivers, so I purchased more with my own funds. All 115gr CTFB ammo was purchased by me.

Both accuracy and velocity data are based on 10 shot groups/strings at 50 yards, using a 3-9x scope from a bench supported by front and rear bags, and the chronograph at 15 feet. I used 2 shots of 115gr CTFB ammo to zero each upper, but point of impact with all ammunition types would have been within the vital zone of a game animal or human out to at least 200 yards.

The velocity and accuracy data for the 10" 300BLK upper  is as follows:

UMC 115 - 2101fps, SD 17, 2.8MOA

Remington Premier Match 125gr - 2103fps, SD 151, 2.9MOA

Atlanta Arms 125gr - 2162fps, SD 20, 3.6MOA

Gunn Ammunition 130gr "SOST" - 1887fps, SD 28, 4.2MOA

And for the 8"300BLK upper:

UMC 115 - 2001fps, SD 24, 1.9 MOA

Remington Premier Match 125gr - 2007fps, SD 26, 2.1 MOA

Atlanta Arms 125gr - 2053fps, SD 17, 2.7 MOA

Gunn Ammunition 130 - 1742fps, SD 21, 4.5 MOA

I cannot account for the differences in accuracy between the 8" and 10" uppers; the 10" was shot first, but both were fired on the same day. A stock GI trigger was used for this test.

While the Atlanta Arms ammo was not as accurate as the Remington/UMC, it deserves consideration for being much more affordable than the Premier Match while still providing acceptable accuracy. It also has features such as an annealed case, cannelured bullet, crimped primer, and lacquer primer sealant that some other ammo does not have. The ballistic tip bullet should provide great terminal performance at close ranges. For hunting purposes, this load looks ideal. Plus, I got a kick out of the anti-tactical pink color.

I cannot find a single reason to recommend the Gunn 130gr ammo. Groups looked promising after 3 or 4 shots, but always ended up opening to near-unacceptable levels. While I would not say that 4-4.5 MOA is completely unacceptable from an SBR which is to be used most often at spitting range while retaining usefulness out to 300 yards, velocity and projectile design is another stoty. This projectile works well from a 7.62x51mm rifle and is designed to perform in that velocity envelope, but at velocities that are only 45% or so higher than 9mm 124gr pistol velocities, I do not think that this would be an effective load at any range.

The real winner was the UMC 115gr CTFB; while it did not provide stellar velocity numbers compared to the heavier Atlanta Arms ammo, it was very, very accurate. It is also less than half the cost of its supposedly more "premier" Remington brother. It is obvious that a lot of thought went into this ammunition. Despite my previous misgivings about 300BLK ammo not being readily available from Remington, this load in particular was worth the wait.

I do own a Rainier Arms XTC, but it was on a 5.45 rifle that I wasn't shooting that day. Some might notice the absence of a BattleComp - I don't own one (no, this is not a plea for a BattleComp, I just don't own one).

I would like to reiterate that, in my opinion, any device which allows more flash than the A2 is not suitable for combat use. This does not mean that it is not suitable - or even ideal - for use outside of armed confrontation.

A long time ago, I was able to shoot .22s very well, because that was pretty much all I did, all day. I hadn't shot slowfire with a .22 in years, and decided to see if I was good as I once was. I also compared a 1/16 twist bolt action rifle with a 1/7 twist AR-15 that had a .22LR conversion. Was the 1/7 completely inaccurate, as is often repeated on the internet?

Even then, Hornady hasn't made it easy. There is a decent selection of Superformance ammunition, but official load data for the Superformance rifle powder is very slim. It'll supposedly work for .22-250, .243, and .300 WSM, but the other calibers they list might as well be .299 Macedonian Hoplite or .17-50 Weatherby BMG Accelerator - the powder as currently marketed doesn't have a broad appeal. To be fair, Hornady says that the "magic" behind Superformance only works in a few calibers.

I thought I'd try Superformance powder in my .260 Rem-chambered Remington 700 VLS. It has a 26" barrel, which tends to help me achieve higher velocity numbers when loading with Varget. However, since there was no load data for Superformance in the .260, or any other 6.5, I wanted to be careful.

As for projectiles, I normally use Hornady SSTs - 129gr, for this caliber. In this case, I bought the relatively new Barnes Match Burners, which are lead-core HPBT projectiles from the normally-lead-free Barnes bullet company. At around $27/100, they're significantly cheaper than Sierra MatchKings ($36/100 or so) or Berger VLDs ($42/100).

These Match Burners are 140gr, which are pretty darn long when it comes to the 6.5/.264 diameter, and have a G1 BC of .586. This would roughly correspond to a G7 BC of around .300, but I don't know for sure. I'm planning to do more shooting with them - especially since they're cheaper and my reloading dollars go farther. Their general appearance is more confidence-inspiring than SMKs, even if the uneven meplat on practically every SMK doesn't affect accuracy. However, for my initial tests, I wasn't concerned with accuracy, precision, trajectory, or anything but the most basic question every handloader asks when trying a new load.

That question is, of course, "Will this load cause hot, sharp chunks of steel to enter my face at extremely high velocities?" Since there was no load data to work off of, I used Hodgdon's data for 4831, because 4831 is close to Superformance in terms of burn rate, reduced it, and started from there. Since the load for a 140 was 44gr of 4831, I started with 42gr. I also loaded three each at 43, 44, and 45 grains of powder.

Although only three shots would limit my ability to determine how consistent the powder was with each load, it would give me a ballpark figure - and if I saw problem signs with the lighter loads, such as the hardened steel of my 700's receiver causing facial disfigurement and/or death, I wouldn't have to pull down 30 or 40 useless and dangerous handloads.

As it turned out, though, my rifle did not blow up. Nor did I see any of the classic high pressure signs, so I might try pushing it a bit farther. However, I'm not seeing amazing performance so far - the 42gr load averaged 2585fps, the 43gr 2612, the 44gr 2669, and the 45gr 2743. For what it's worth, Hodgdon says 44gr of 4831 behind a 140gr Nosler Partition is good for 2715fps - no minimum load is listed.

My normal 129gr loads with Varget are in the 35gr range and I see mid to high 2600s with the 129gr SSTs - nothing to write home about, but it's still a pretty flat-shooting and low-recoiling load. Speaking of that, while Hornady says recoil isn't any greater with Superformance, basic physics says that a projectile of the same weight fired in the same rifle but traveling at a higher speed will have more recoil than that which is traveling at a lower speed. It might have been because I knew I was shooting progressively hotter loads, but I thought I noticed greater recoil with the 45gr load than, for example, the 42gr load.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Please be smart when reloading, and don't kill yourself or endanger your ability to attract a suitable mate - then again, if you're really dumb and prone to doing things like blowing up your own rifle because you loaded 50 grains of pistol powder in a rifle, maybe you'd be doing the world a favor by not reproducing.

8" Noveske 300 AAC Blackout

One of the first things we wanted to do was see what the performance of the 220 grain subsonic load was from these uppers. Since we had 8", 10.5", 12.5" and 14.5" barrels at our disposal, a good chronograph, and factory ammunition, it was a fairly easy task. These are preliminary numbers, and will be followed up with more thorough data analysis - but for now, they're pretty solid.

14.5" Noveske 300 AAC Blackout Chronograph Data

I've been loading 300BLK for a few months now, but I think most people will be interested in the performance of factory ammunition. In this case, it was Remington R300AAC8 - the aforementioned 220 grain subsonic stuff. Although supersonic loads - and factory brass - have been promised for a very long time now, it's disappointing to see that they have not been forthcoming.

Noveske 300 AAC Blackout

We encountered no functional issues, which was a good sign for both the caliber and myself, since I put the uppers together. The Troy mags, as well as PMags, fed the fat 220gr loads just fine. If you're not familiar with 300 Blackout, it uses 5.56 bolts and magazines, and a modified 5.56 case that's shortened 10mm and necked up to .30 caliber. The advantages of 5.56 mags and the strength of a 5.56 bolt, as well as .308 diameter projectiles, make this a much better choice than 7.62x39 for the AR-15 platform.

8" Noveske 300 AAC Blackout

As for the performance of the subsonic load, all shots remained subsonic, which is, of course, a good thing. However, this means that the guys with 8" uppers are going to be using a load that's a little slower than it could be, just so the guys with 14.5" and 16" uppers don't have that supersonic "crack."

12.5" Noveske 300 AAC Blackout

The 8" averaged 954fps, the 10.5" 993fps, the 12.5" 1014fps, and the 14.5" 1025. This is clearly a load that's optimised for shorter barrels. However, I wasn't impressed with the standard deviation - over 40 in all but one example. And the extreme spread was, well, extreme, exceeding 100fps in several cases.

14.5" Noveske 300 AAC Blackout

I would like to see more ammunition available in this caliber. Not only would more loads be nice, but I've never found Remington ammunition to be "the best," or even above average. Right now, though, this 220gr load is just about the only thing I can find, other than expensive Cor-Bon stuff, and 175gr CMMG ammunition that reportedly won't cycle in anything but CMMG uppers. I'll be loading various projectiles, but as I said above, hard data will be presented with factory ammunition. My final report will be a comprehensive evaluation of the caliber.

I am very pleased with the results. If you are familiar with the process, you may find the first few minutes of the video boring. If you aren't, it's a general description of the electroless nickel plating kit, which might be as good of a decision for you as it was for me.

As you can see here, Caswell was also impressed with my results.

- Tactical Springs/Sprinco "Blue" recoil spring
- Brownells M4 Recoil Spring - Chrome Silicon
- Brownells AR-15/M4 Recoil Spring

The test weapon was a 16" carbine gas AR-15 with a .063" gas port, H buffer, 5.56mm NATO chamber, M16/Auto bolt carrier, and AR-15 fire control group. The bolt carrier group was cleaned and wiped down with a dry cloth before the test. Two types of ammunition were used, Prvi Partizan M855 and Federal XM193. One magazine, a Lancer L5 20rd, was used for the test, and it was always loaded to 20 rounds at the beginning of each string of fire, which consisted of five rounds.

Rate of fire calculation is based on the time it takes for the bolt carrier group to fire, unlock, extract, eject, cock, feed, chamber, and lock, plus the time it would take for a standard M16A1 fire control group to allow the hammer to fall once more. These calculations are therefore theoretical, but this method has always been verifiable when compared to actual M16A1 high speed video testing.

The rate of fire was highest with the Springco Blue action spring (726rpm M855/680rpm XM193), median rates of fire were achieved with the Brownells Chrome Silicon spring (685rpm M855/667rpm XM193), and the lowest rates of fire occurred with the Brownells AR-15/M4 recoil spring (656rpm M855/626rpm XM193). The differences in cycle time and bolt carrier velocity between the three springs were always noted during the feeding, chambering, and locking portions of the cycle of operations; put simply, the lower rates of fire came as a result of reduced forward bolt carrier velocity. As forward velocity fell, so did consistency.

Relative to the other action springs, the Sprinco Blue action spring was very consistent overall, with a total cycle time standard deviation of .55 for M855 and 3.03 with XM193. The Brownells Chrome Silicon spring was not far behind, with M855 and XM193 standard deviations of 1.87 and 3.81, respectively. The Brownells AR-15/M4 recoil spring could not be considered as consistent, with standard deviations of 5.59 and 12.87.

Further testing will be conducted.

The movement is not due to barrel fluting or piston/op-rod operation, but the simple act of a muzzle device placing uncontested force at the very end of the barrel. Because the barrel is free floated, it only has support where it meets the receiver. As a result, we see the barrel move a bit. When this same rifle has a muzzle device that does not place such force on the barrel, we do not see any movement.