Did the U.S. Military ever consider...

[Schleprok62]

...using the 7.62x39??

Reason I ask is one of the guys I work with told me that they had, and I just kinda looked at him and called B S ! !

Why would the US consider the x39 when the x51 was lightyears better??

 

[paintballdude902]

its not that bad of a round

many countries use it with grand results and it would be a good idea since they could get ammo in any country that we were in

 

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

There difference between "not that bad of a round" and an excellent round such as the 7.62 Nato are the small type of differences that typically add up to victory or defeat on the battlefield.

I've owned and shot a lot of AK's and a lot of AR's and M14 semis. Give me a US made rifle every time. The small differences do make a difference where the rubber meets the road - hits in combat.

Dave

 

[Schleprok62]

I'm not wanting to debate how good which round is over the other... I'm wanting to know if the US considered using the 7.62x39 instead of either the 5.56 or the 7.62x51??

 

[NeoSpud]

I can't imagine that the guys up top would ever consider using a "communist cartridge," regardless of its performance.

It just wouldn't be the American way

 

[Halo]

7.62x39 vs. 7.62x51 is a bit of an unfair comparison. The former was developed specifically to give the individual soldier greater volume of fire. Power was willingly given up in the trade off. But as to the original question, I can't imagine the US ever adopting something like that from "the Reds".

 

[rcmodel]

NO!

Oh, I'm sure it was discussed & cussed to death, because of the German success with the 7.92x33mm Kurz, and the Russian's with the 7.62x39.

But:
First of all, it would be foolhardy to use the same caliber as the guys you were fighting.
Bobby-trapped ammo laying around would be so easy to do even a Russian or Chinese peasant could do it in the field!

Second of all, the M-14 & 7.62 caliber were a shoo-in at the time it was adopted. The U.S. Generals, and Springfield Armory, were dead set on having a full-power caliber & battle rifle to replace the M1 Garand.
There would have been no chance a 7.62x39, or a different rifle design, could have sneeked in the back door.

Like the M-16 & 5.56 did later. (Sneeked in the back door)

rcmodel

 

[Schleprok62]

RC: That was kinda my take on the statement... kinda threw me for a minute but once I got to thinking about it... I was like: why??!!??

Anywho... carryon...

 

[rcmodel]

I might add that the Communist battle doctrine was completely different then NATO or the U.S. at the time the 7.62/M-14 came about.

The communist battle plan was to ride up to within 200 -300 yards of an objective in APC's, then un-ass the armored vehicles, and overwhelm the objective with full-auto assault-rifle spray & pray from every solder.

The U.S. & NATO took a different tack, and fire & maneuver with squad size units was preferred, with individual rifleman laying down accurate long-range suppressing/covering fire.

Two very different ways to fight a war.
And two very different needs in rifles & calibers.

rcmodel

 

[HorseSoldier]

Don't believe the US ever considered adopting 7.62x39 -- back in the Cold War such an idea would not have been remotely plausible.

However . . .

Why would the US consider the x39 when the x51 was lightyears better??

7.62x51 was basically a failure as a general service rifle cartridge. 7.62x39 has its drawbacks, but it's a far superior cartridge to 308 for an infantry rifle/carbine.

 

[Limeyfellow]

There difference between "not that bad of a round" and an excellent round such as the 7.62 Nato are the small type of differences that typically add up to victory or defeat on the battlefield.

Well that and the US generally had aircraft cover and artillery to rely on to do the vast majority of the killing. Really the difference in power of the service rifle wasn't particularly that much of an issue when compared to support. The M14 didn't even have to be that accurate. 4 MOA is the requirement to get into service. The Ak47 isn't much off that and for the majority of confrontations the extra distance does you nothing.

As for the original question, not much of a chance they ever considered adopting it. The history of US calibre choices is quite well documented.

 

[Harold Mayo]

7.62x51 was basically a failure as a general service rifle cartridge. 7.62x39 has its drawbacks, but it's a far superior cartridge to 308 for an infantry rifle/carbine.

Why is x39 superior to x51?

I suppose x51 was a failure as a "general service cartridge" here in the US since we're not using it but I'm not seeing that it's a bad round and certainly not inferior to the x39 in any meaningful way. The only advantage that I can see is weight.

 

[-v-]

The 7.62x39 and in general intermediate power assault rifle cartridges didn't fit into the general combat thinking of the US army. The idea was that US soldiers would deliver accurate long range at oncoming enemy infantry. The 7.62x51 and the .30-06 nicely fit into this thinking, being able to deliver fire up to umm 1,000m at least.

The Russian point of view was greatly shaped by their experience in WW2. They saw that rapid movement on the battle-field and whithering short-mid range automatic fire was how battles were fought. This doctrine was further reflected with the Soviet development of the infantry fighting vehicle, in the form of the BMP-1 and its decedents. Infantry could comfortably ride inside the vehicle with their weapons fixed into firing ports and deliver whithering automatic fire from within the vehicle, while still maintaining speed and maneuverability on the battlefield. Once they closed with the enemy, they could dismount and fight on foot from within the effective envelope of their weapons, while their vehicle would provide supporting fire with its 73mm cannon, and other fixed weapons.

 

[Geronimo45]

Not that I've ever heard of. Besides the booby-trapped ammo, realize that in certain places, ammo has very poor QC. You don't want Pvt. Schmuckatelli to take spare mags off a dead terrorist, only to have his rifle shooting 8 moa and jamming every other round because Achmed was using ammo made when George Lazenby was 007.
And it works both ways. When the Red Army is advancing on Paris, you don't want them to be able to pick up spare mags from your dead and continue their advance with that. Denies them an advantage, strains their supply lines - the Red Army can only move as fast as its ammo trucks can deliver.
This is even more useful when dealing with insurgents. They can't take ammo from our dead, they have to have some other source of supply. Our ammunition would be pretty accurate, in spec, and reliable - while they have to collect ammunition of various weights and velocities and ages.

 

[aka108]

Probably considered from a testing point but not for adoption as a service round.

 

[tacweapon]

I have read that SF units have adapted it in limited use, but the entire US Military will not adapt it, but there have been various specialized units using the 7.62 x 39 and the AK-47

 

[HorseSoldier]

Why is x39 superior to x51?

I suppose x51 was a failure as a "general service cartridge" here in the US since we're not using it but I'm not seeing that it's a bad round and certainly not inferior to the x39 in any meaningful way. The only advantage that I can see is weight.

You can carry a larger basic load of 7.62x39 (or 5.56mm, etc).

You can also run your gun faster shooting intermediate power rounds -- faster back on target, faster to the next target, more controllable when firing fast semi-automatic or on automatic.

Also, the weapon itself can be lighter, since the receiver and other components don't have to handle the higher pressure and energy of 7.62x51 or other rounds.

The only real arguments in favor of 7.62x51 from a military perspective weren't anything to do with lethality -- they were logistic commonality with machineguns (which has some validity) and the belief that infantry needed an 800+ meter cartridge, which was completely nonsensical and just ridiculous.

The Russian point of view was greatly shaped by their experience in WW2.

Their point of view was not significantly differnet from our point of view; the difference was that their powers that be learned from WW2, ours opted to stick their heads in the sand and ignore anything that did not gel with their own poor understandings of infantry combat. The facts we had on hand here in the US after WW2 and Korea said the exact same thing the Russians concluded -- engagements almost always occur inside 300 meters, and usually inside 100 meters, etc. Given that the US only stayed with 30-06 prior to WW2 due to poverty, it's curious how attached the R&D establishment was to the .30 caliber, full power rifle round in the 1950s.

 

[HorseSoldier]

[I have read that SF units have adapted it in limited use, but the entire US Military will not adapt it, but there have been various specialized units using the 7.62 x 39 and the AK-47/QUOTE]

No, not really.

SOF units, or SF specifically, have access to various "Z" DODICs, including 7.62x39, for training purposes. Every once in a while SOF guys or other guys doing FID may find an AK in their hands while working with indigenous personnel. Much, much more occasionally, I suppose some guy in JSOC may end up carrying an AK for some super-secret squirrel reason.

But as far as "this is what I went to war with," SOF units don't use the AK or 7.62x39.

(And lest someone invoke the SR-47 -- you could fit every one of them SOCOM bought in the back of a pick up truck and still have room for a couple good sized coolers full of beer.)

 

[Prince Yamato]

I'm guessing no, because we're spending millions now to develop a bullet that's more powerful than .223 but not quite as big as .308. If we had an ounce of spending control, we'd say, "just make it in 7.62x39 and buy the ammo from overseas dimwits!"

 

[PercyShelley]

Prior to the adoption of the M16 in 5.56x45mm (which was one pretty involved soap opera on its own) a number of other intermediate cartridges were developed by those who could see which way the wind was blowing. One I recall was .308x1.5 barnes, which was essentially a 7.62x51 cut down to 38mm. Performance was very similar to 7.62x39.

 

[cracked butt]

A .30 bullet in such a small cartridge seems pretty inefficient to me (too slow, poor BC, too short of an effective range). Something more along the lines of a .244-.277 bullet would be much better.

 

[10-Ring]

"many countries use it with grand results"

--sure, I'd get decent results too if I had 10,000 of my best buds shooting in the same general direction as I was.
I much prefer the 7.62X51 vs. the X39

 

[sarduy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c

 

[Sunray]

"...Why would the US consider the x39 when the x51 was lightyears better??..." No it's not. Combat distances in Europe weren't and aren't 1,000 yards. In any case, 240 rounds(the old standard combat load of ammo in the CF) of 7.62 x 39 weighs a lot less than 240 rounds of 7.62 NATO. The PBI counts every ounce.
Mind you, the 7.62 x 51 was jammed down NATO's throat(just like the 5.56 was later) by the U.S. Nearly ever other NATO country was working on a new cartridge. Most in 7mm.
"...only stayed with 30-06 prior to WW2 due to poverty..." Mostly due to the millions of rounds of W.W. I ammo in storage. Wasn't used up in training until 1936.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The 7.62 x 39mm was never officially adopted. It has been carried unofficially by members of our armed forces.