7.62x51 - Page 2 - AR15.COM

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 7.62x51 (Page 2 of 7)

Posted: 1/12/2012 12:31:00 AM EDT

[#1]

7.62 owns page 2.

Posted: 1/12/2012 12:55:34 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

7.62x52.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Trim your cases, asshole.

I will not neuter my boollits!!

Posted: 1/12/2012 1:22:56 AM EDT

[#3]

7.92x57

Posted: 1/12/2012 1:26:36 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

I really don't see how any 5.56 round at 1000 meters would barely make it through paper.

Posted: 1/12/2012 4:15:02 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
7.92x57

Repetitively had its ass spanked in war by 7.62x63.

Posted: 1/12/2012 8:12:40 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
7.92x57

Repetitively had its ass spanked in war by 7.62x63.

But is still a devastating round in its own right

Posted: 1/12/2012 8:52:02 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

5.56*45

Sniper was dropping the bad guys at 850yds. do you think 5.56 would have been more effective?

No, but you said you wanted versatility. Try a shoulder fired rifle or carbine in full auto in 7.62*51. Try to carry as many rounds of 7.62*51 as you can with 5.56*45.

The reduced range is gladly sacrificed.

Getting hits at 1000 yards IS possible with 5.56mm, AND it's hitting with the same energy as a 380 ACP at the muzzle.

Posted: 1/12/2012 9:22:48 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

I know they were getting kills with that ammo using SPRs in Najaf at that range.

Definitely NOT ideal, but it can get the job done.

Posted: 1/12/2012 9:29:52 AM EDT

[#9]

6.5x55 is ballisticallysuperior .

My bullets lay all the boys in the yard damn right it's better than yours I could t teach you but I'll have to charge .

Posted: 1/12/2012 9:37:12 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Ex Navy guy from work says 7.62x51 is way better than any .308

well duh its the military version

Posted: 1/12/2012 9:48:42 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FMJ 7.62 really isn't a great choice for any application.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Geneva Convention says we must use a non-expanding round.

7.62 > 5.56

Insurgents are not party to the Geneva Convention.

Posted: 1/12/2012 9:58:46 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FMJ 7.62 really isn't a great choice for any application.

I don't know if you are joking or not but I have read that here before. I don't understand it but everyone has opinions.

Not joking. Read page 5. http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

Posted: 1/12/2012 10:03:15 AM EDT

[#13]

338LM > 7.62X51

Posted: 1/12/2012 10:05:19 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

338LM > 7.62X51

Yeah, if you're judging it purely on long distance shooting.

Otherwise 7.62NATO is a better choice for other applications. Again, different tools for different jobs.

Posted: 1/12/2012 10:11:21 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
They were interviewing a sniper who made the statement that 7.62x51 at 1000yds has the same impact as being shot point blank with a 357 magnum

What weight/gr of bullet? What's the standard battle rifle variety of .308 used by the .mil? 149gr M80 ball?

Posted: 1/12/2012 10:30:10 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They were interviewing a sniper who made the statement that 7.62x51 at 1000yds has the same impact as being shot point blank with a 357 magnum

What weight/gr of bullet? What's the standard battle rifle variety of .308 used by the .mil? 149gr M80 ball?

Sniper said they were shooting 175 grain and it was a bolt action maybe a TAC 308?

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:01:11 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FMJ 7.62 really isn't a great choice for any application.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Geneva Convention says we must use a non-expanding round.

7.62 > 5.56

You are wrong. Google "Hague Convention".

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:11:14 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M-118 LR is some great stuff. I reload clone M-118's with the only difference being I use Varget.

Out to 1000 yds. If I can see ya....I can hit ya. Stand off distance rocks!!

I'd imagine that M118LR could compete with .30-06 of old. Pretty neat.

But then again, with new projectiles and propellants; modern .30-06 can rival magnum cartridges.

Standard 7.62mm NATO rd with 147 gr bullet and ball propellants has the same ballistics as cal. .30 M2 ball with 150 gr bullet and IMR 4895 extruded propellants, IIRC.

Not the same. Close, though. Close enough to not make any practical difference, but definitely not identical.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:21:07 AM EDT

[#19]

Funny, the rifles are slowly being converted to .300 WinMags... I wonder why

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:27:00 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Funny, the rifles are slowly being converted to .300 WinMags... I wonder why

Bigger boom, more cooler, longerer range.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:32:02 AM EDT

[#21]

This thread needs more 7.62x51 pics...

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:33:30 AM EDT

[#22]

8.675x309mm

And now that song is stuck in your head.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:34:44 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
8.675x309mm

And now that song is stuck in your head.

ISWYDT

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:49:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

This does not make sense I’ve never loaded 77 grain but I have loaded 62 grain and 70 grain bullet seating is at the same depth. Overall projectile length is the same, you could load them in a magazine.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:52:12 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Funny, the rifles are slowly being converted to .300 WinMags... I wonder why

Interesting that they call it a "conversion" when you have to replace both the receiver and barrel. I call that "buying a new gun" but I guess, for procurement purposes, "conversion" sounds better.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:54:06 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

M-118 LR is some great stuff. I reload clone M-118's with the only difference being I use Varget.

Out to 1000 yds. If I can see ya....I can hit ya. Stand off distance rocks!!

I have 1k rounds of M118LR I just dont get a chance to shoot it often

Start reloading and you'll have more than 1K of it....

Lake city cases, approx 43 grains of cannister grade RL15, and a 175 SMK loaded to 2.81 COAL is pretty much a dupe my friend. For added target destruction, use the 178 AMAX in place of the 175 SMK.

Temp sensitive though. Some guys use Varget because of that.

Bingo....and I still make efforts to keep them out of the direct sun when I'm shooting precision.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:54:27 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Why, please explain?

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:55:13 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Why, please explain?

Controls and optics.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:57:38 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Funny, the rifles are slowly being converted to .300 WinMags... I wonder why

Because they don't have to worry about the expense of replacing their shot-out barrels.

Posted: 1/12/2012 11:57:44 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

I really don't see how any 5.56 round at 1000 meters would barely make it through paper.

Remember that there usually multiple layers of targets on the target stand, with a layer of glue in between, I've heard a former AMU shooter say the same thing, but he was talking about the 80 grain SMK, which DOES have to be singly loaded due to overall length.

Posted: 1/12/2012 12:03:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Funny, the rifles are slowly being converted to .300 WinMags... I wonder why

Interesting that they call it a "conversion" when you have to replace both the receiver and barrel. I call that "buying a new gun" but I guess, for procurement purposes, "conversion" sounds better.

Then M24 was built on a Rem 700 long action receiver with the anticipation of converting from 7.62 NATO to .300 Win Mag.

Posted: 1/12/2012 1:00:06 PM EDT

[#32]

In actuality they replace the whole receiver.

Posted: 1/12/2012 1:01:36 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
In actuality they replace the whole receiver.

I stand corrected!

Posted: 1/12/2012 1:22:58 PM EDT

[#34]

Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet

[/quote]
Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

[/quote]

Now you've done it.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:13:16 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
338LM > 7.62X51

And the rounds cost more than my .50 BMG rounds.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:14:29 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They were interviewing a sniper who made the statement that 7.62x51 at 1000yds has the same impact as being shot point blank with a 357 magnum

What weight/gr of bullet? What's the standard battle rifle variety of .308 used by the .mil? 149gr M80 ball?

Snipers generally use M118LR which has a 175gr BTHP bullet.

But that's 7.62x51, not .308.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:15:55 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

338LM > 7.62X51

And the rounds cost more than my .50 BMG rounds.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:16:12 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Anyone catch the show about snipers on the boob tube yesterday. They were interviewing a sniper who made the statement that 7.62x51 at 1000yds has the same impact as being shot point blank with a 357 magnum

. Is there a more versital round currently used by the military?

A nuclear weapon has even more stopping power than a 308

It doesn't mean that it makes sense to you one in all situations however.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:21:27 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Only a fool would use a 308 at a 1000 yards instead of a 338 Lapua or a 50 BMG

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:25:12 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M-118 LR is some great stuff. I reload clone M-118's with the only difference being I use Varget.

Out to 1000 yds. If I can see ya....I can hit ya. Stand off distance rocks!!

I'd imagine that M118LR could compete with .30-06 of old. Pretty neat.

But then again, with new projectiles and propellants; modern .30-06 can rival magnum cartridges.

Federal has an "High Energy" 30-06 load that is identical to a .300 H&H Mag ballistics wise, and not too far behind a .300 Win Mag.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:26:09 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Only a fool would use a 308 at a 1000 yards instead of a 338 Lapua or a 50 BMG

That's not what I said.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:26:50 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
This thread needs more 7.62x51 pics...

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab336/davepont3/2011-12-28_12-10-08_404-1.jpg

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:28:17 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They were interviewing a sniper who made the statement that 7.62x51 at 1000yds has the same impact as being shot point blank with a 357 magnum

What weight/gr of bullet? What's the standard battle rifle variety of .308 used by the .mil? 149gr M80 ball?

Sniper said they were shooting 175 grain and it was a bolt action maybe a TAC 308?

Marine Scout Sniper - M40A1....

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:43:09 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M-118 LR is some great stuff. I reload clone M-118's with the only difference being I use Varget.

Out to 1000 yds. If I can see ya....I can hit ya. Stand off distance rocks!!

I have 1k rounds of M118LR I just dont get a chance to shoot it often

Start reloading and you'll have more than 1K of it....

Lake city cases, approx 43 grains of cannister grade RL15, and a 175 SMK loaded to 2.81 COAL is pretty much a dupe my friend. For added target destruction, use the 178 AMAX in place of the 175 SMK.

What's a dupe load for standard M118? I've been loading my M118 brass with 42gr RE15, 168 SMK, at 2.80 OAL. I decided against worrying about a true LR load because I can't even really friggin see 1000 yards!

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:50:45 PM EDT

[#45]

M118 is a 173gr Lake City FMJ, which to my knowledge is not available in component form though the ammunition is floating around. I have a thick stack of it back home.

Posted: 1/12/2012 2:54:02 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
M118 is a 173gr Lake City FMJ, which to my knowledge is not available in component form though the ammunition is floating around. I have a thick stack of it back home.

Oh. Roger. Guess I'll just stick with my match-type load then...

Posted: 1/12/2012 3:00:52 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Only a fool would use a 308 at a 1000 yards instead of a 338 Lapua or a 50 BMG

That fool snyper was dropping the bad guys one after another with his 7.62x51

Posted: 1/12/2012 3:04:53 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Why, please explain?

Controls and optics.

Wait, M14's don't have controls and can't have optics?

Which ergonomics and optics are best is subjective. Both shoot the same round, edge to the m14 for reliability, edge to the ar-10 for modularity. I personally like reliable over the ability to mount a bipod easily.

Posted: 1/12/2012 3:13:07 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Why, please explain?

Controls and optics.

Wait, M14's don't have controls and can't have optics?

Which ergonomics and optics are best is subjective. Both shoot the same round, edge to the m14 for reliability, edge to the ar-10 for modularity. I personally like reliable over the ability to mount a bipod easily.

AR platforms have a better safety, and can generally receive optics without modification to the host weapon.

Posted: 1/12/2012 3:16:38 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a Sgt Maj. friend of mine that was back here a couple of weeks ago from II MEF. We were talking about the M14 and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. He used to be on the USMC rifle team, and is a distinguished marksman. He was telling me how the 5.56mm match-grade rifles they were using at 1000 meters (with 77 gr projectile) would barely "plop" through the target cheese cloth and paper, and wouldn't have any energy left after impact. They tried using them for a period of time and went back to the M14 NM rifles they'd been using prior.

I don't know how long ago that was as I didn't ask, but I thought it was pretty interesting stuff. He said the 77 gr rounds had to be loaded singly, as they were too long to fit in the magazine.

What about this one?

In one of the best kept secrets of National Match history, the Army Marksmanship Unit has been shooting AMU-built National Match grade AR-10's for the past two years. Their work has culminated with the acceptance of the AR-10NM for use "across the board" in NRA Service Rifle competition.

Only a fool would take a M14 over a AR-10.

Why, please explain?

Controls and optics.

Wait, M14's don't have controls and can't have optics?

Which ergonomics and optics are best is subjective. Both shoot the same round, edge to the m14 for reliability, edge to the ar-10 for modularity. I personally like reliable over the ability to mount a bipod easily.

AR platforms have a better safety, and can generally receive optics without modification to the host weapon.

Yeah, you are right. The M14 cannot have modularity or optics...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 7.62x51 (Page 2 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us