New .300 BLK From Stag Arms

stag1

It has not been long since the .300 AAC Blackout cartridge became an officially recognized round, but it has had more than enough time to gain significant popularity. The round was originally made by handloaders interested in slinging .30-caliber bullets using their ARs and is now used on an increasing basis for everything from target shooting to hunting various game. Although there has been a certain amount of debate surrounding the .300 BLK, ballistics do back it as a solidly performing round. In fact, it produces 16.7% more energy than 7.62x39mm at about 300 yards and also manages to outperform the M4 in general, including producing greater energy at longer ranges. Yes, the .300 BLK has become a popular round, and among the companies looking to produce rifles chambered in it is Stag Arms.

Stag Arms announced they will now be offering their 16″ barrel AR-15s in .300 BLK. Models 1, 2, 2T, 3, 3T, and 3T-M will be available in .300 BLK. The rifles have barrels made of 4140 steel featuring chrome lining and have a 1:7 twist rate. Mark Malkowski, Stag Arms’ President, said the rifles are “already on the shelves of most major stores. By utilizing the same reliable AR-15 firearm platform customers can still use their standard accessories.”

Stag Arms is located in Connecticut and was founded in 2003 for the specific purpose of manufacturing AR-15 platform rifles. In addition to standard ARs they also make regulation-compliant models for the states with specific restrictions, and they’re known for their left-handed models as well.

According to Stag Arms rifles chambered in .300 BLK will carry an MSRP $50 higher than the current MSRP. Visit the company’s website at www.stagarms.com.



katie.ainsworth

Katie is an avid shooter, hunter, military journalist, and Southern girl. Firearms are her passion whether at the range or on a spot-and-stalk after a big buck. She’s a staff writer at The Firearm Blog and writes about guns, hunting, and the military for various publications both online and in print such as Outdoor Life, Handguns, and Shooting Illustrated. Shoot her a message at ainsworth.kat@usa.com


Advertisement

  • Cleophus A

    I don’t, knowingly, buy anything made in Connecticut or New York, especially firearms. I can’t understand why firearms manufacturers continue to do business in such anti gun states. I applaud all the firearms makers that have moved their businesses out of these benighted states and into states that support the right to keep and bear arms. It’s really a shame too, because I have shot several Stag Arms rifles and liked them very much, but I just can’t see sending my money to a state that is actively working to deny gun rights.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Because those states have offered incentives such as tax breaks to manufacturers.

    • lbeacham

      Keep doing business with the best made products from reputable manufactures, no matter the politics of the State. It’s the only way we can beat the banners long term. Stag Arms is at the top (with others) in what and how they do it.

    • Esh325

      What exactly is your yard stick for being considered “anti-gun” state?

      • nester7929

        It’s not a stretch to call either Connecticut or New York anti-gun states. They both have Assault Weapons Bans, and New York is one of the few “may issue” states left.

        • Esh325

          If having restrictions on types of weapons is enough to fit your definition of “anti-gun” then every state is “anti-gun”. Machine guns and SBR’s are restricted in every single state.

          • Southpaw89

            Those are federal laws though, I would say that an anti-gun state is one that restricts firearm ownership beyond the federal standard. So restrictions on magazine capacity, removable magazines, and exterior designs features such as pistol grips or muzzle devices are a good example. Of course the level of anti-gun varies by the number of restrictions and what features are being restricted. Good examples of such states would be New York and California.

          • Esh325

            Federal laws says marijuana distribution and possession is illegal, but in Colorado and Washington they fought to make it legal anyways.

          • Southpaw89

            True, but I’m just saying that federal laws are the dividing line, if a state were to ignore them in favor of guns they could certainly be called a gun friendly state, while those who only adhere to federal laws could be considered gun neutral. Also, marijuana seems to be a little more politically correct than guns at this point in time, so while the federal government is willing to let those laws slide, they might crack down on states that deregulate NFA items.

          • Kivaari

            Pot users can not lawfully own guns. Even in WA and CO, pot use and guns together are felonies. Medical MJ doesn’t make it lawful. Medical MJ has always been a scam except for a few real patients.

          • Kivaari

            Yet, it remains unlawful under federal law. Idaho State Police arrest dozens of people that bought MJ in WA, then drive like loaded idiots. The troopers stop them, do a walk around with a dog, and arrest the people. It is especially easy at construction sites, like the new road at Pinehurst on I90. Truck loads of illegal pot and usually other drugs. Pot is a true gateway drug.

          • Esh325

            So the government should restrict drugs but not guns? Funny logic there.,

          • Kivaari

            The government already does both. The feds require a FFL to deal in guns. They restrict what is OK. Like the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. That law failed in doing anything with crime. The feds have the GCA’68, and the ’86 restrictions on new machineguns, driving the price of a $500 SMG to $20,000.

          • Esh325

            Yes, they do. Whether or not those Constitutional Infringements or not is something that has never been challenged in the Supreme Court.

          • Kivaari

            The feds should not be involved in gun control. If a gun is misused, then a state crime was committed. Let the states pass laws, that do not restrict the type of guns or carry by honest people. Why should any state care if I have a machinegun? Why is a short barreled shotgun subject to a $200 FET?

          • Esh325

            They are involved though. It’s their job to enforce federal gun laws like they would enforce any other law. Honestly, I’d like to know whether a person getting a gun is mentally,physically, and lawfully able to just like I’d like to know whether a person driving a car is.

          • Kivaari

            That is what the NICS (NRA supported Brady law) is for. Buyers fill out a form 4473 when they finish a transaction. Some states do not do the paperwork required to keep the federal system (run by the FBI) running. The FBI screwed up with the guy that shot up the church killing 9. He was on the prohibited list, but the FBI examiner failed to do his/her job correctly. Gun owners don’t want nuts and criminals buying guns in stores. Bad guys and nuts usually buy gun in the black market, where no laws work.

          • RocketScientist

            “Pot is a true gateway drug.” Oh Jesus Tapdancing Christ. What are you, 90? Watch Reefer Madness a few too many times? If anything is a “gateway drug” (if such a concept even exists in reality) it would be alcohol. The overwhelming vast majority of my friends and coworkers and family (basically the majority of people I know who are under the age of 60) have or still do smoke pot, with varying frequencies. Every single one of them drank alcohol long before they ever touched a joint. And all but one of them has never had an issue with use of any harder drugs. Anecdotal evidence aside, scientific peer-reviewed studies also back up this assertion. there is no evidence that using marijuana makes one more likely to use other drugs. So please get out of here with that nonsense and let people make decisions about what they do/do not want to put in their body for themselves.

          • Kivaari

            Well, The WA and CO experience has shown a huge increase in problems associated with pot. Do we need more people OD’ing from eating too many brownies at one time? It was rare to make a drug arrest where only pot was found. Meth seemed to follow it around. Heroin was common place, with many ruined lives. Once more, those smuggling “legal pot” from WA to other states usually have other drugs as well. When pot users are found with meth or heroin, just what was the gateway drug? Beer? Pot?
            The pro-pot crowd ignore the problems. Since most of the people you know and hang around with that are pot users, indicates you have the wrong friends.
            I’ve heard all the pro-pot arguments before. For going on 50 years now. Medical pot is now and has always been a scam except for a very small group. If it works for glaucoma and chemo therapy, that’s one thing. Get a prescription for it from a real doctor and buy it at a pharmacy. I have no issues with those that have a legitimate reason.
            Dopers are dopers for a reason.

          • Kivaari

            And the feds have continued making arrests, since many pot growers and sellers also get involved with other controlled substances. The lower end of drug dealers and users wont leave the pills along. Meth is commonly found in searches of pot transporters on Idaho highways.

          • Esh325

            And honestly I think terms like “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” are entirely idiotic because it’ subjective. What if my definition of “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” is different than yours? What makes you right and me wrong? What if I’m “pro-gun” and agree with magazines restrictions? Who gets to define what is “Pro-gun” and “anti-gun”?

          • Southpaw89

            I’m not saying that your wrong, just offering my opinion of something that has no proper definition. If were going to apply these terms to gun laws, then there must be a dividing line, and federal law seems to be the most reliable basis for this, Since states are generally expected to abide by them, but are allowed to impart further restrictions to a degree.

          • Esh325

            Yes, I just wish people would put more stake in Federal laws,State law,Constitution, and the Supreme Court rather than malleable terms like “pro-gun” and “anti-gun”.

          • Kivaari

            When a state outlaws the guns commonly in use, like AR15s and AKs, and magazines over 10 rounds or like NY 7 rounds, it is easy to call them anti-gun. When a law abiding person is denied what ever they like, it is an anti-gun state. I like NFA guns. Any state that restricts them is anti-gun.

          • Esh325

            But what if I don’t think it’s “anti-gun” to ban those rifles? It’s only your word against my word.

          • Kivaari

            Well several million people think you are wrong. Guns laws cost the democrats the ’94 elections, thanks to Clintons AWB.

          • Esh325
          • Esh325
          • nester7929

            I didn’t say that having any type of restriction was enough to firmly make a state anti or pro gun; I was just implying that adding more prohibitions on top of existing ones could be used as a way to measure the general attitude of that state towards firearms (i.e., should they be regulated heavily or not).

            While it’s true that there is no hard definition for the term “anti-gun,” I’m guessing that if you asked most people to elaborate on the term they would say that “anti-gun” is basically “pro legislation.” Of course, even that comes down to specific issues, as you could be against legislation on one issue and for legislation on other.

            Maybe saying you’re “pro-gun” is like saying you’re “liberal;” it just gives a general sense of your attitude without specifying exactly how you feel on all aspects of the issues.

          • Kivaari

            Not true. NFA guns are ignored in several states. It is the federal NFA-’34 that requires paying of taxes ($200) and having all the extra paperwork. Idaho in particular couldn’t care less. Washington wont even let people leave their lawfully registered NFA guns to family members upon death.

          • Esh325

            If they are classified as NFA in all states, then that doesn’t make my original statement incorrect. They are restricted items compared to other classes of firearms.

          • Kivaari

            A state doesn’t restrict them as NFA guns that is federal. A state added extra burden by making them unlawful. WA state wont even allow all ready registered NFA guns to be sold in the state, nor allow an owner to leave the gun(s) to an heir. States should not restrict any guns. The feds should not tax guns just because the barrel is 1.5 inches under 16 inches. I’d like an M4 with a 14.5 inches. The law requires local police approval, $200 FET and a years wait. Hell, I’m old and might not be alive a year from now. If the state is OK with it, like Idaho, Texas, AZ, Alaska why should I have to pay extra and wait. Anyone that can pass a normal NICS check, is lawfully able to buy NFA guns.

          • Esh325

            Does it not say NFA on the paper on the form you fill out regardless of where you are?

          • Kivaari

            The federal paperwork is for making and registering them, selling them, some taxed and other forms for non-taxed sales. It’s a major hassle even for selling to police departments. I sold two NFA shotguns to a local PD and it took 5 months. Why? The police should not be held up like that.

          • Kivaari

            Only for NFA guns, Most gun sold are not NFA “firearms”.
            A shotgun having an 18 inch or longer is not an NFA firearm.
            A shotgun having a 17.5 inch barrel is and NFA firearm, and is subject to extra paperwork, $200 FET and a years wait.
            A Colt M4 carbine with a 16 inch barrel is not a NFA firearm.
            A Colt M4 carbine with an original issue 14.5 inch barrel is a NFA firearm,
            The use of “firearm” typically is used only with NFA guns. It’s odd, but they include grenades, aerial bombs and cannons. Under NFA they essentially ignore ordinary guns. It’s just very oddly worded.

      • Kivaari

        Being in New England states, except for Maine, pretty much covers them. When the state your business is in wont allow you to sell your products there, that’s a good indicator. When the governor of New York says he doesn’t want guns or gun owners in the state and refers to them as lower-life-forms, well that’s a good sign. Same in California. New Jersey arrests people trying to register their guns after moving to the state. Felony convictions for trying to follow the law. Or like people transiting NJ stop at a rest stop, and a trooper searches your car, w/o PC and finds your cased guns, you go to prison. Governor Christie thinks NJ has perfect gun control. Or go to DC and have a dud shotgun shell and a spent rifle casing, you end up in jail. Well, that’s a good indicator that the gun laws are wrong. When sergeant Tamorise ended up in Mexico, he got better treatment than he would have in California. He was packing three LOADED guns, and CHP would have hammered him.

    • Southpaw89

      Moving a factory can be very costly, then there’s also the issue of hiring and retraining a new work force, not to mention the personal relationships that would be difficult for company owners to leave behind. While I approve of gun companies moving to more gun friendly states, I wouldn’t be too quick to condemn those who don’t.

    • Tassiebush

      On the other hand cutting back your support for a gun maker who quite clearly is at odds with the gun politics of the state undermines those in the state who’d want change. Your stance accidentally consolidates the anti gunners position in my view.

    • Kivaari

      Because the huge investment in land and machines. They also have a trained workforce, that usually do not want to move. Selling their homes, and finding another is a pain. Especially so when the maker is struggling to keep sales going, enough to pay wages. It is a very big logistics problem.

    • john huscio

      I won’t even visit those states.

    • J. Ray

      The most iconic guns in history have been made in Connecticut. Colt, Winchester, Mossburg, and Ruger are among some of the gun companies that originate in CT.

    • Evan

      I’m from New York, and though I’ve moved on to better places since and refuse to go back, I have no problem buying products that I like if they’re from there. My ex-wife is from Connecticut, and I absolutely despise everything about that state, but that didn’t stop me from buying a Stag model 8, because it was an affordable piston AR. I’m very satisfied with my Stag, and if they made a .300BLK upper in a piston, I’d buy it immediately. Doesn’t mean I approve of anything about Connecticut, it just means that I appreciate a quality product at a reasonable price.

  • Vitsaus

    A bit late to the party. Seems like they waited quite a while considering its really just a barrel they needed.

    • Griz

      They have offered a 300 upper for a few years.

    • sam

      Eh, yeah, but there’s plenty of weird AR makers. I appreciate their keeping the product line pretty classical.

  • NDS

    1:8 300BLK twist4life

  • no

    As a lefty, I love Stag and own one of their rifles, it’s my favorite. But tell them to wake me up when they decide to offer a LH pistol upper in .300blk.

    Oh, and don’t make me have to send you a NFA permission slip just to order a <16" upper like you currently do.

  • Kivaari

    You have missed the CO OD-deaths? Have you also missed the big increase in DUI-pot arrests? Having pot legally in WA doesn’t make it lawful elsewhere. No you can’t have WA pot legally transported to CO.
    I am having fun watching pot supporters getting their little harmless pot getting abused in WA and CO.
    I love it, pot users accuse anti-substance abusers of having Alzheimer’s disease, when contemporary studies keep showing how more retarded brain development is among pot users. Funny stuff.