LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
The Grendel has 60% less recoil than the 7.62 NATO. I'd say that's a pretty significant performance improvement. And it does long range stuff much better than the 6.8 SPC.Originally Posted by NishanbazKhan
M-16A2 5.56mm
M-4 5.56mm
SIG-552 5.56mm
G-3 7.62mm
G-36 5.56mm
AUG 5.56mm
FAMAS 5.56mm
FNC 5.56mm
L-85A2 5.56mm
IMI Galil 5.56mm
AK-47 7.62mm
AK-74 5.56mm
AK-101 5.56mm
AK-103 7.62mm
TKB-517 7.62mm
7.62x51mm NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 7.62x51mm NATO is a rifle cartridge developed in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among NATO countries.
The new cartridge, designated the 7.62 x 51mm T65, was not an intermediate power round
7.62 MM NATO AMMO
Last edited by omon; 08 Aug 08, at 15:01.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
The Grendel has 60% less recoil than the 7.62 NATO. I'd say that's a pretty significant performance improvement. And it does long range stuff much better than the 6.8 SPC.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
if you can't control an assault rifle in 7.62 NATO then you really have no business firing a rifle in combat. I've never had any problem keep a 7.62 on target and I've owned and fired numerous ones. There is little you can do in the way of convincing me the 6.8 or 6.5 (pretty much any slightly larger caliber that uses the AR lower and sometimes even the AR bolt) is merely a crutch to maintain an outdated platform because it requires no additional changes beyond the barrel from a 5.56mm weapon. Plenty of new designs have come out in 5.56 and 7.62 like the HK416/417 and FN SCAR. When you have a 7.62 you don't need a 6.8 or a 6.5
have you fired any of these guns in 7.62 NATO? You want high recoil you can fire a 300 win mag and learn the definition of recoil. The problem isn't high recoil, it's sloppy shooters; these same sloppy shooters failed to maintain their M16s in Vietnam and they were jamming; thats the cost of conscription. Never the less you aren't supposed to be full auto blasting except in dire situations and in those circumstances it's never about accuracy but merely suppressive fire; you are always supposed to be putting aimed shots on semi-auto on your target, and full auto for cover fire while maneuvering.
And I don't get your obsession with bolding rifle cartridge, I guess you didn't realize that a 5.56 NATO is a rifle cartridge as well (just one developed from a squirrel hunting round rather than a shortened version of an old American military favorite the .30-06) and the AR pistol is no different from an AK pistol or a G3 pistol, they are all just inaccurate toys designed for making big fireballs and fun at the range, not serious military work.
SO
let's clarify once more
the following ASSAULT rifles come in 7.62 NATO
FN FAL and all it's variants
the HK G3 and all it's variants
AR-10 (the original and any variations chambered in 7.62 NATO)
CETME
StG 510 (variant for export)
M-14
sure there are some others I am missing.
Last edited by NishanbazKhan; 08 Aug 08, at 16:30.
do saiga .308, m14 .308, sound like right .308 rifles? also fired lots of 7,62x54r, it kicks more, the biggest rifle round i,ve fired was 7mm RM, quite a kick, so is 12ga 3in slug.
so you saying .223 isn,t intermideate round?? cuz i,m pretty sure it is.
look at the link i posted, about 7,62 nato, it says it is not a intermediate round, and it isn,t bolded. quite the opposite of what you said.
if you can fire 7.62 nato from a rifle on full auto, as accuratly as you would .223, than it is either b.s., or you have well above avarige abuility, wheather you think it is nessesary to do or not, is irrelavant, army has different opinion, otherways there would be no .223.
facts are
7,62nato isn,t an intermidiate round, but a rifle round
5x56 nato isn,t a rifle round, but an intermediate round,
wheater you use any in a rifle or a pistol, or an mg, doesn,t change its designation. unless they are loded different (just like 7,62x54r, there are rifle rounds , and there are machine gun rounds, same on the outside, different on the inside,both will work in either, but not as intended.
The common distinction between a battle rifle and an assault rifle is that the battle rifle fires a full-power cartridge, such as the .30-06 of the M1 Garand, or the 7.62x51mm NATO for the M14 and the H&K G3, et cetera. Assault rifles fire smaller, intermediate size cartridges and bullets such as the 5.56x45mm, for the M16 rifles family, or the 7.62x39mm, for the AK47, however, overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs, for example, some compact assault rifles are chambered to fire 7.62x51mm cartridges.
Battle rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
we could argue about those overlaping cases all we want, but why.
lets brake it even, either we both wrong, or we both right.
lets, for argument sake, assume that rifle round, doesn,t describe intended use, lets call it full power cartrige.
Last edited by omon; 08 Aug 08, at 17:21.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
I think you should stop citing wikipedia for one. When I buy a book from Borders or Barnes and Noble etc. and it says on the cover "Assault Rifles of the World" it includes all the 7.62 NATO weapons as well as 5.56. The common distinction is there is no distinction, at least not to manufacturers as well. The Swiss StG 510 is Sturmgewehr 510, German for Assault Rifle 510, FAL Fusil Automatic Leger (the FN FAL) is French for "Automatic Light Rifle", again these both fire 7.62 NATO. You want to tell me that these guys are wrong about their "light" and "assault rifle" designations cause these older guns fire a 7.62 NATO cartridge? You need to stop quoting your "facts" from wikipedia and start getting some common sense. Anyone will tell you, whether you are at your gun store or sporting goods store or a military armory that the 5.56 NATO is a rifle round; it is fired from rifles, used in rifles, and uses rifle power and primers in it's construction (as opposed to handgun powder and primers). The 7.62 NATO is also a rifle round, they are both rifle rounds, the 5.56 (.223) is just small bore (as you'd find in any hunting catalog) and the 7.62 (.308) is medium bore. This is how it's marketed and divided. This idea of an intermediate cartridge is either interchangeable with small arms weapons of war or it's a fallacy made up by people who like to make phony classifications to make themselves feel better.
now to clear up some things you seem to not understand.
Yes, the 5.56mm is not this "intermediate" round, it's a rifle round for all the reasons I said before. Second intermediate is a relative term. the .338 Lapua is an intermediate between the 7.62 and the .50 BMG, for example. I suppose you could argue the 5.56 is an intermediate between a 7.62 and a pistol round, but it still doesn't change the fact that the 5.56 is a rifle round! Pistols are pistols, rifles are rifles, there is more to what makes a rifle round than arbitrary definitions.
And I didn't say a 7.62 was easier to control than a 5.56 on full auto, I said that <b>full auto fire is NEVER accurate</b>, even with a 5.56 and even with a machine gun on a mount; purpose of full auto is for covering fire so you can maneuver or in a machine gun, a beaten zone. Full auto fire is not intended for accurate fire and only a sloppy shooter who watches too much rambo or plays too much video games would ever think this.
Secondly, the armys opinion was based on bean counters who haven't set foot in a battlefield their whole lives who conveniently find ways to get around the failures of a cartridge designed to hunt squirrels in a battlefield. The army looks on paper as sees more rounds and cheaper costs and goes with it. The soldier sees his 5.56 NATO not able to penetrate tree trunks and thick walls and unless you score a direct shot on the heart or head not stopping their enemies dead in their tracks (even if they may eventually bleed to death later from their injuries), which is the complete opposite of the weapons being fielded against them (AK47s and G3s typically) which have no problem punching through trees, brick walls, steel and ceramic plates which enough energy and mass to do devastating damage after they penetrate. Just the same an AK47s 7.62x39 doesn't belong in the same class as a 5.56 NATO. It's a much more powerful round and far more effective on the battlefield. I've often figured with persuasion you could get the bean counters in the army to buy into using .22 magnum rimfires for their rifles; hey it can kill if u get a headshot and you can carry three times as much of it as you could 5.56 with absolutely no recoil on full auto! Imagine how good that would be
as for the rifles you've fired Saigas and M14s have weak recoil, at least to me, and I'm not giant either only 6 ft. Even the PSL I own in 7.62x54R isn't too bad in terms of recoil largely due to a muzzle break. never fired to 7mm mag but the 300 win mag is more than I'd like to deal with for day to day shooting
[QUOTE=NishanbazKhan;528227]
The 7.62 NATO is also a rifle round, they are both rifle rounds, the 5.56 (.223) is just small bore (as you'd find in any hunting catalog) and the 7.62 (.308) is medium bore.
In fact the 7.62 mm calibre is .300". The old British .303" equates to 7.7 mm. I think you are confusing the '308' with something else.
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
i have that book too, plus 5-7more on the subject, strangly i found the same mistake in 2 different books. also about 5-6 books that were never sold in us.
as for rifle round term, it is missleading in this context, better trem would be full power cartrige. so intermediate would be between full power cartrige, and pistol, (even thou there are some pistol rounds that are more powerfull, than intermediate ones) does it make things cleaer?
like the link said: overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs, for example, some compact assault rifles are chambered to fire 7.62x51mm cartridges.
so lets get to the beging of the whole argument.
7,62 nato, is not a intermediate round, but a full power cartrige. or am i wrong again?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
7.62 NATO is an intermediate cartridge, but it is on the large end of the "intermediate cartridge" spectrum. When the designation "assault rifle" was defined, the typical, common "full power" cartridges were .30-06, 7.62 x 54R, .303, and 7,9 mm Mauser. Intermediate in the assault rifle context simply means any centerfire rifle cartridge that is smaller/less powerful than these.
Thats a fact Jack! Thanks for posting that GF!
I don't want to go around like I did with El Guapo on this, but I have more experience with the m-14/21 than most people have with a fork and a spoon. A properly trained person, using the proper technique can fire rapid or full auto surprisingly accurate, and the U.S. Army taught me most that I know.by omon
...if you can fire 7.62 nato from a rifle on full auto, as accuratly as you would .223, than it is either b.s., or you have well above avarige abuility, wheather you think it is nessesary to do or not, is irrelavant, army has different opinion, otherways there would be no .223.
It depends, I think the line is not that thick between what you would call the large end of the intermediate spectrum and the full power cartridges. The 7.62 NATO was developed to perform similarly to the .30-06 while packing it all in a smaller package. And you put that round in the intermediate category. Now look at its closest eastern competitor, the similarly performing 54R. If I recall they are two-grains apart in mass. And they perform and recoil quite similarly. And you'd put the 54R in the full power category. Perhaps the lines are a bit blurred there.
Having said that, I do not doubt that properly trained, one can be quite effective with these larger cartridges in burst/fully automatic fire. I think the argument here is largely semantics. Some of you say, the 7.62 NATO is intermediate, some say no. Does it really matter? That the 5.56 was made so that soldiers could carry more ammo, as well as to reduce the recoil and improve accuracy in fully automatic mode is a given, I think. I think we can all agree, even only having shot some of these calibers in single-shot, that a 5.56 rifle would likely be much easier to handle than a 7.62 in full-auto mode.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
Saying 7.62 NATO is an "intermediate" cartridge is really taking the term "intermediate" liberally. The thing is closer to 30.06 and 303 British than it is to 7.92 Kurz, 7.62 Soviet, and 5.56 NATO.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
You both correctly point out that firearms nomenclature tends to be somewhat arbitrary. As I said, the 7.62 x 51mm cartridge is intermediate in that it is smaller, however marginally, than the "full power" military cartridges in common use at the time the term "assault rifle" was coined and defined.
I will note that when that era of "full power" cartridges was adopted, they were derided by old timers as wimpy, downloaded, and unsuitable for shooting woodchucks, much less use in battle. And, while I haven't seen any documentation on this, I would bet that when the original US .69 caliber muskets were discarded, the same complaints were voiced.
Caliber and grains would be the two factors I would judge the cartridge on. Caliber obviously limits your grains which in turn affects the energy of the round down range. Velocity is not as important as a lighter round has no enrgy downrange. By todays standards, IMHO of course, I would refer to anything 30 cal(in a rifle round) as intermediate because you are limited to around 190 grains. Although some manuf are pushing it to 210, they look like little ICBMs and take a specialty rifle to shoot them accurately. Once you go beyond 30 cal and start into the 40 cal and up, you are starting to talk about some real whackers. 300 to 400 grains bullets and 50 cals around 600 to 800 grains. There is so little energy left at 1000 yds with the 7.62x51 and the 54r you better shoot a soft spot. I've seen flak jackets(yes I said "flak" jackets) and windshields stop them with regularity. I don't think that could be said for the 408 cheytac and the like. See for yourself, check out this comparison and you tell me where performance jumps. I would call around 338 lapua the start of the big rifle cartriges.
AmmoGuide is now... "Interactive"!
Hear, hear!You both correctly point out that firearms nomenclature tends to be somewhat arbitrary. As I said, the 7.62 x 51mm cartridge is intermediate in that it is smaller, however marginally, than the "full power" military cartridges in common use at the time the term "assault rifle" was coined and defined.
Assault rifle today filled the role of the battle rifle of old since there are no other type of standard rifle in service. Is an 11.5 in. CAR-15 more assault rifle than submachine gun? It shoots the 5.56mm NATO bullet but its effective range was not significantly better than WWII submachine guns.
All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: