lightweight
Member
My ArmaLite AR-10.
Shoots great.
Love it.
Why don't I hear much about AR style rifles in .308?
- Thread starter epijunkie67
- Start date
- Status
My ArmaLite AR-10.
Shoots great.
Love it.
LaEscopeta
Member
Well, I can repeat what I’ve read. A rifle chambered for NATO 5.56x45 mm will also safely fire .223 Remington. You may be asking for trouble by firing NATO 5.56x45 mm in a .223 rifle, but many people seem to do it and get away with it.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I'm still waiting to see this statement backed up with any kind of data.
BCHunter
Member
This thread went from “why don’t we see many 308 ARs” to is it safe to use military 7.62 x 51 NATO ammunition in a commercial .308 Winchester chambered firearm to now whether is safe to use 5.56 x 45 NATO in a commercial arm chambered for .223Rem.
1. Assault Rifles, hence the term AR, chambered in 7.62 x 51 NATO is a dismal failure for general combat use. It lasted about a decade regardless what the average trooper thinks.
2. It may be safe to use selected military ammunition in commercial firearms but it equally may not be safe. Modern military arms have different chambering. Also military ammunition can be manufactured by various manufactures anywhere in the world to various standards. Unless you are fairly well educated in internal ballistics and able to recognise signs of problems with high pressures as they show symptoms the question must be asked “Is it wise?” The answer is NO!
3. The 7.62 x 51 NATO or the commercial .308 Winchester is an accurate round extremely well suited to specialised military use. It also takes no backseat to any other calibre or cartridge for Tactical use. It is a superb round for hunting medium game. It is not the best choice possible for medium machine gun use, far from it. The 7.62 NATO is a make do round.
Now please, before you tear me to pieces, read exactly what I have written. The .308 Winchester is the best development in cartridges the last 60 years, IN MY OPINION. All the family of cartridges spawned from the .308 Winchester superb hunting and target rounds. But let’s make no mistake combat and hunting or civilian target shooting are not comparable and certainly have vastly different requirements.
1. Assault Rifles, hence the term AR, chambered in 7.62 x 51 NATO is a dismal failure for general combat use. It lasted about a decade regardless what the average trooper thinks.
2. It may be safe to use selected military ammunition in commercial firearms but it equally may not be safe. Modern military arms have different chambering. Also military ammunition can be manufactured by various manufactures anywhere in the world to various standards. Unless you are fairly well educated in internal ballistics and able to recognise signs of problems with high pressures as they show symptoms the question must be asked “Is it wise?” The answer is NO!
3. The 7.62 x 51 NATO or the commercial .308 Winchester is an accurate round extremely well suited to specialised military use. It also takes no backseat to any other calibre or cartridge for Tactical use. It is a superb round for hunting medium game. It is not the best choice possible for medium machine gun use, far from it. The 7.62 NATO is a make do round.
Now please, before you tear me to pieces, read exactly what I have written. The .308 Winchester is the best development in cartridges the last 60 years, IN MY OPINION. All the family of cartridges spawned from the .308 Winchester superb hunting and target rounds. But let’s make no mistake combat and hunting or civilian target shooting are not comparable and certainly have vastly different requirements.
Father Knows Best
Member
BC, I think we actually agree. You and I said many of the same things, but in different ways. I was reacting to your comment that the 7.62x51 had "no ballistic advantage" over the 7.62x39. That's just flat out wrong. As I stated, the 7.62x51 throws a heavier bullet and higher velocities. Therefore, it is flatter shooting and carries more energy. That's pretty much the definition of a "ballistic advantage."
I take it from your further statements, however, that the idea you were trying to get across is that the 7.62x51 has no PRACTICAL advantage over the 7.62x39 as a military round. While it is ballistically superior, it is heavier, meaning less ammo can be carried, and it recoils a lot harder, making full auto fire much more difficult to control. Furthermore, at the short ranges of modern combat, the extra energy and flatter trajectory of the 7.62x51 don't mean a whole lot. If the 7.62x39 will do the job just fine at typical combat range (which it will, as you point out), then the extra energy of the 7.62x51 is wasted. It is, to use the appropriate term, "overkill." After all, if the 7.62x39 will kill the bad guy just fine, then why carry a heavier round that it harder to shoot?
If that's your point, then we agree. The 7.62x51 is certainly not an "assault rifle" cartridge, because assault rifles by definition use intermediate cartridges and the 7.62x51 is a full power rifle cartridge. That's why automatic rifles chambered for 7.62x51 are generally classified as "battle rifles" and not "assault rifles."
I offer no opinion on the 7.62x51 as a machine gun round, because I simply don't know anything about it. If there's one thing I do believe in, it is the old adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
I am sorry if I offended you with my first post. The "what are you smoking" comment was uncalled for, and not in keeping with The High Road.
I take it from your further statements, however, that the idea you were trying to get across is that the 7.62x51 has no PRACTICAL advantage over the 7.62x39 as a military round. While it is ballistically superior, it is heavier, meaning less ammo can be carried, and it recoils a lot harder, making full auto fire much more difficult to control. Furthermore, at the short ranges of modern combat, the extra energy and flatter trajectory of the 7.62x51 don't mean a whole lot. If the 7.62x39 will do the job just fine at typical combat range (which it will, as you point out), then the extra energy of the 7.62x51 is wasted. It is, to use the appropriate term, "overkill." After all, if the 7.62x39 will kill the bad guy just fine, then why carry a heavier round that it harder to shoot?
If that's your point, then we agree. The 7.62x51 is certainly not an "assault rifle" cartridge, because assault rifles by definition use intermediate cartridges and the 7.62x51 is a full power rifle cartridge. That's why automatic rifles chambered for 7.62x51 are generally classified as "battle rifles" and not "assault rifles."
I offer no opinion on the 7.62x51 as a machine gun round, because I simply don't know anything about it. If there's one thing I do believe in, it is the old adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
I am sorry if I offended you with my first post. The "what are you smoking" comment was uncalled for, and not in keeping with The High Road.
BCHunter
Member
I over reacted to your comment Father Knows Best. I'm used to being on some pretty aggressive forums, but that’s no excuse.
We do agree on things on this thread. I may not put them in terms easily understood.
I am looking at things from a purely ballistics point of view, internal, external and terminal. I also have concern for those who would utilise unsuitable, and possibly dangerous, ammunition when they don’t have the where with all to recognise when they are getting in too deep.
We do agree on things on this thread. I may not put them in terms easily understood.
I am looking at things from a purely ballistics point of view, internal, external and terminal. I also have concern for those who would utilise unsuitable, and possibly dangerous, ammunition when they don’t have the where with all to recognise when they are getting in too deep.
OldSchooler
Member
So what weve learned for certain, in a rather round about way, is that nothing is certain.
One guy says, "You shouldnt shoot .308 in a gun chambered for 7.62 NATO."
The second says, "But, it's OK to shoot 7.62 NATO in a .308,"
The third says, "No way," and implies that doing either makes you an unsavvy nimrod.
It reminds me of the Three Blind Men and The Elephant. None of them could actually see the elephant, but instead could only touch a different part of the animal. Each then drew totally different conclusions as to what an elephant actually IS.
It seems to boil down to, "Know your gun. Know your ammo. If you're still mystified, takes your chances."
One guy says, "You shouldnt shoot .308 in a gun chambered for 7.62 NATO."
The second says, "But, it's OK to shoot 7.62 NATO in a .308,"
The third says, "No way," and implies that doing either makes you an unsavvy nimrod.
It reminds me of the Three Blind Men and The Elephant. None of them could actually see the elephant, but instead could only touch a different part of the animal. Each then drew totally different conclusions as to what an elephant actually IS.
It seems to boil down to, "Know your gun. Know your ammo. If you're still mystified, takes your chances."
BCHunter
Member
And lose your eyesight
OldSchooler
Member
I also have concern for those who would utilise unsuitable, and possibly dangerous, ammunition when they don’t have the where with all to recognise when they are getting in too deep.
Excellent outlook, your concern is gratifying. How about some useful tips from an x-pert to help those who lack the needed "where-with-all", but who may have some ammo and guns we are wondering about?
Excellent outlook, your concern is gratifying. How about some useful tips from an x-pert to help those who lack the needed "where-with-all", but who may have some ammo and guns we are wondering about?
BCHunter
Member
This is not a complete check list, but may help
Expert I am not, cautious I am.
If I could not be absolutely certain of the quality and dimensions of the ammunition I secured (for an example I used to use a lot of 7.62 NATO ammunition supplied by the DCRA {Dominion of Canada Rifle Association} which was manufactured by CIL for use by civilians to keep up their marksmanship. The ammunition was used by number of members of several Rod and Gun club members in the area with no ill effects and so I used it in a target rifle built on a M1917 action. All was OK but it was not overly accurate, which is expected.) I also used to have a book, unfortunately lost in my traveling, that deciphered the head stamps on military cartridges. It used to take a lot of guess work out if I knew the ammo was manufactured in the USA, Canada or the UK.
I once obtained some 9mm ammo head stamped “45” along with some markings I thought I recognised as made in Canada. The stuff printed 4 – 5” low at 25 yards and I thought I was getting some very short lag hang fires. Turns out it was European manufacture in wartime Nazi occupied territory somewhere and gave a lot of problems to anyone who used it. It was inconsistent and some loads would not operate the slide in some guns properly. There is a danger of detonation (I think it is called and please feel free to correct me as I’m operating from memory) which is inherent in Nitro Cellulose propellant charges in guns. Artillerymen can explain it much better than I, but it happens with low charges. Nitro Cellulose is a controlled burning propellant accelerating its rate of burn under pressure and when a low charge begins to move the projectile the pressures can drop off slowing the burn rate. If the projectile begins to slow the pressures will again start to build, but with the slowing projectile pressures can exceed safe operating pressures. Ruptures can happen just ahead of the chamber.
I used about 30 rounds and realised I had a problem, pulled all the bullets and found I did not trust the brass, neither. Discard.
If anyone wants to use military 7.62 X 51 NATO ammo it might pay to read this article.
http://carnival.saysuncle.com/002453.html
It tells you what dimensions you are looking for. There are a large number of articles on the WEB similar.
Here are a few steps I follow whenever I use ammunition of uncertain quality or hand loads.
If a round chambers in your firearm with resistance greater than it takes with commercial ammunition you may want to think about firing it.
If the bolt (on a bolt action) is hard to open after firing the round a second round would be unwise.
Upon examining the spent case if the neck has minute cracks or looks vastly different than when you chambered the round a second round would be unwise.
Also check for a shiny ring around the case just forward of the head. If present it would be unwise to fire another round.
Upon examining the primmer if there is ripples extending out from the firing pin mark, the primer is “flattened” or if there is any puncture of the primer it would be unwise to fire a second round.
If any irregularities happened before, during or after firing the round it would be unwise to fire a second round.
Expert I am not, cautious I am.
If I could not be absolutely certain of the quality and dimensions of the ammunition I secured (for an example I used to use a lot of 7.62 NATO ammunition supplied by the DCRA {Dominion of Canada Rifle Association} which was manufactured by CIL for use by civilians to keep up their marksmanship. The ammunition was used by number of members of several Rod and Gun club members in the area with no ill effects and so I used it in a target rifle built on a M1917 action. All was OK but it was not overly accurate, which is expected.) I also used to have a book, unfortunately lost in my traveling, that deciphered the head stamps on military cartridges. It used to take a lot of guess work out if I knew the ammo was manufactured in the USA, Canada or the UK.
I once obtained some 9mm ammo head stamped “45” along with some markings I thought I recognised as made in Canada. The stuff printed 4 – 5” low at 25 yards and I thought I was getting some very short lag hang fires. Turns out it was European manufacture in wartime Nazi occupied territory somewhere and gave a lot of problems to anyone who used it. It was inconsistent and some loads would not operate the slide in some guns properly. There is a danger of detonation (I think it is called and please feel free to correct me as I’m operating from memory) which is inherent in Nitro Cellulose propellant charges in guns. Artillerymen can explain it much better than I, but it happens with low charges. Nitro Cellulose is a controlled burning propellant accelerating its rate of burn under pressure and when a low charge begins to move the projectile the pressures can drop off slowing the burn rate. If the projectile begins to slow the pressures will again start to build, but with the slowing projectile pressures can exceed safe operating pressures. Ruptures can happen just ahead of the chamber.
I used about 30 rounds and realised I had a problem, pulled all the bullets and found I did not trust the brass, neither. Discard.
If anyone wants to use military 7.62 X 51 NATO ammo it might pay to read this article.
http://carnival.saysuncle.com/002453.html
It tells you what dimensions you are looking for. There are a large number of articles on the WEB similar.
Here are a few steps I follow whenever I use ammunition of uncertain quality or hand loads.
If a round chambers in your firearm with resistance greater than it takes with commercial ammunition you may want to think about firing it.
If the bolt (on a bolt action) is hard to open after firing the round a second round would be unwise.
Upon examining the spent case if the neck has minute cracks or looks vastly different than when you chambered the round a second round would be unwise.
Also check for a shiny ring around the case just forward of the head. If present it would be unwise to fire another round.
Upon examining the primmer if there is ripples extending out from the firing pin mark, the primer is “flattened” or if there is any puncture of the primer it would be unwise to fire a second round.
If any irregularities happened before, during or after firing the round it would be unwise to fire a second round.
OldSchooler
Member
oooops!
OldSchooler
Member
Now thats what Im talking about! Thank you for the tips. While I do not live and breathe firearms anymore, I used to. Shoot, Ive forgotten more than I'll ever relearn.
But, I know there are a lot of people these days who are new at the subject and with the popularity of milsurp arms, even more. Being apprised of these things could make a difference for my fellow nimrods.
But, I know there are a lot of people these days who are new at the subject and with the popularity of milsurp arms, even more. Being apprised of these things could make a difference for my fellow nimrods.
MachIVshooter
Member
BCHunter said:
AR= Armalite Rifle
The original AR was an AR-10, and was developed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite, who'se parent company was fairchild aircraft.
Today, "AR" is used as loosely as "1911" or "AK" and describes any arm patterned after the original. But at no point in history was it an acronym for "assault rifle"; That was a German thing (StG=Sturm Gewher (Sturm=storm; assault, Gewher=rifle)
While we're on the topic, the "A" in "AK" also does not represent "assault". It is for "Avtomat" (automatic).
Which is exactly why so many MMG's/GPMG's (not just U.S.) And the M134, (which could have been built around any cartridge) are chambered for it? I can't think of a better round for these applications; the 7.62x51 is nearly the perfect compromise of size, weight and power for battlefield use and chopper support. Sounds to me likeyou just have a beef with this cartridge for some reason. Do tell, what do you propose for a general purpose MG cartridge?
BCHunter
Member
AR = Assault Rifle
“Assault rifles are primary offensive weapons of modern troops. Today's AR (Assault Rifles) usually have calibers ranging from 5.45mm to 7.62mm, magazine capacity of 20-30 or more rounds, selective full auto and single shot modes of fire, plus, in some models, 2 or 3 round burst mode.”
See site below for complete article.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
As the English Language evolves common terms can change. Although Eugene Stone is the father of the AR-15/M16 he is certainly not the father of what we consider Assault Rifles. The AR15/M16 did set the trend for small calibre Assault Rifles and the AR designation in AR15 definitely means Armalite, or at least I have understood that since I was a boy reading borrowed “American Rifleman” magazines.
Considering Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov’s development of the AK47, short for “Avtomat Kalashnikova – 1947”, predates Eugene Stoner’s design as he started with Armalite, a division of Fairchild Engine & Airplane Company in 1954, the AK47 is considered by most to be the first successful Assault Rifle. Hence the term AR.
It would have been desirable from ballistic point of view to design a cartridge around an MG (like the 50 cal MG a near perfect development of John M. Browning), but economics and logistics dictates to design an MG around a cartridge. NATO had the 7.61 X 51 NATO round and so it is the basis for a Medium MG. It works well, but not perfectly
But then we’re splitting fine hairs, aren’t we? Off the topic as well.
“Assault rifles are primary offensive weapons of modern troops. Today's AR (Assault Rifles) usually have calibers ranging from 5.45mm to 7.62mm, magazine capacity of 20-30 or more rounds, selective full auto and single shot modes of fire, plus, in some models, 2 or 3 round burst mode.”
See site below for complete article.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
As the English Language evolves common terms can change. Although Eugene Stone is the father of the AR-15/M16 he is certainly not the father of what we consider Assault Rifles. The AR15/M16 did set the trend for small calibre Assault Rifles and the AR designation in AR15 definitely means Armalite, or at least I have understood that since I was a boy reading borrowed “American Rifleman” magazines.
Considering Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov’s development of the AK47, short for “Avtomat Kalashnikova – 1947”, predates Eugene Stoner’s design as he started with Armalite, a division of Fairchild Engine & Airplane Company in 1954, the AK47 is considered by most to be the first successful Assault Rifle. Hence the term AR.
It would have been desirable from ballistic point of view to design a cartridge around an MG (like the 50 cal MG a near perfect development of John M. Browning), but economics and logistics dictates to design an MG around a cartridge. NATO had the 7.61 X 51 NATO round and so it is the basis for a Medium MG. It works well, but not perfectly
But then we’re splitting fine hairs, aren’t we? Off the topic as well.
BCHunter
Member
Extract from Wikipedia
5.56 mm NATO vs. .223 Remington
In January 1979, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) advised that 5.56 x 45 mm military specification ammunition is generally not safe to fire in .223 Remington-chambered rifles (which are mainly civilian sporting rifles). [1] The chambers of weapons intended to take the NATO round are oversize relative to the civilian weapons to allow for greater variation in production (and hence reliability), and 'hotter' loads containing more propellant. By contrast, SAAMI-specification chambers are manufactured tighter (for accuracy), and 5.56 mm NATO ammunition, at the larger end of the manufacturers' tolerances, will be too tight and result in overpressure. This can cause excessive wear, or even theoretically cause parts of the rifle to rupture. Conversely, civilian .223 ammunition is perfectly safe to use in military rifles.
5.56 mm NATO vs. .223 Remington
In January 1979, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) advised that 5.56 x 45 mm military specification ammunition is generally not safe to fire in .223 Remington-chambered rifles (which are mainly civilian sporting rifles). [1] The chambers of weapons intended to take the NATO round are oversize relative to the civilian weapons to allow for greater variation in production (and hence reliability), and 'hotter' loads containing more propellant. By contrast, SAAMI-specification chambers are manufactured tighter (for accuracy), and 5.56 mm NATO ammunition, at the larger end of the manufacturers' tolerances, will be too tight and result in overpressure. This can cause excessive wear, or even theoretically cause parts of the rifle to rupture. Conversely, civilian .223 ammunition is perfectly safe to use in military rifles.
NineseveN
member
Headspace:
308 Winchester SAAMI Gauges
GO - 1.6300"
NOGO - 1.6340"
FIELD - 1.6380"
7.62NATO Military Gauges
GO - 1.6350"
NOGO - 1.6405"
FIELD - 1.6455"
Since we're gonna go down the road of posting links here:
From: http://www.6mmbr.com/308Win.html
From: http://www.fulton-armory.com/308.htm
And we are now officially off-topic. Sorry about that.
308 Winchester SAAMI Gauges
GO - 1.6300"
NOGO - 1.6340"
FIELD - 1.6380"
7.62NATO Military Gauges
GO - 1.6350"
NOGO - 1.6405"
FIELD - 1.6455"
Since we're gonna go down the road of posting links here:
From: http://www.6mmbr.com/308Win.html
From: http://www.fulton-armory.com/308.htm
And we are now officially off-topic. Sorry about that.
Since we're splitting hairs, Armalite's original AR (the AR-1, naturally) was a bolt-action sniper rifle. There were other ARs before the AR-10, notably the AR-5 and AR-7.MachIVshooter said:
I don't disagree with this. However, I do disagree that AR has come to mean "assault rifle" in common usage. In common usage it is, quite simply, an abbreviation of AR-15. Take a look at the thread titles in this very forum. There are quite a few which contain "AR," and every single one of them refers to a rifle of the Stoner pattern. Even in a couple threads where "assault rifle" is mentioned prominently, people still use AR to mean AR-15.BCHunter said:
I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Are you saying that AR has to mean Assault Rifle since the AK-47 came before the AR-10?BCHunter said:
Nightcrawler
Member
I'm still waiting for anybody to explain why 7.62x51 is an inadequate machine gun catridge? Is more power required, or less?
Personally, I think a hot-loaded 8mm Mauser would be the stuff, but I don't know if it'd make a significant real-world difference.
Personally, I think a hot-loaded 8mm Mauser would be the stuff, but I don't know if it'd make a significant real-world difference.
BCHunter
Member
Near perfect MG round and definition of AR
Assault rifle is a term describing a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Assault rifles are primary offensive weapons of modern troops. Today's AR (Assault Rifles) usually have calibers ranging from 5.45mm to 7.62mm, magazine capacity of 20-30 or more rounds, selective full auto and single shot modes of fire, plus, in some models, 2 or 3 round burst mode. (Modern Firearms and Ammunition Site)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
“I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Are you saying that AR has to mean Assault Rifle since the AK-47 came before the AR-10?”
The “A” in AK47 stands for “Automat”
The “A” in AR10 and AR15 or all the other Armalite arms stands for Armalite.
The “A” in AR stands for Assault as in Assault Rifle and applies to the myriad of automatic combat weapons made by many countries all over the earth, either by designer or under licence or illegally.
Or AR can mean anything you want it to, means very little to me.
I’m not making it up, it is all documented.
As far as a MG round the near prefect one was the 30-06 in 173gr BT used prior to the adoption of the Garand in the USA in 1940. The Garand operated better on a 150Gr bullet and so the 173gr BT was no more.
Again not my opinion, I ain’t that smrt. John Moses Browning designed the 50 BMG round by up scaling the ’06 using a bullet with a similar ballistic coefficient to the 173gr BT. Few can argue the success of the 50 BMG or the 30-‘06.
Assault rifle is a term describing a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Assault rifles are primary offensive weapons of modern troops. Today's AR (Assault Rifles) usually have calibers ranging from 5.45mm to 7.62mm, magazine capacity of 20-30 or more rounds, selective full auto and single shot modes of fire, plus, in some models, 2 or 3 round burst mode. (Modern Firearms and Ammunition Site)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
“I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Are you saying that AR has to mean Assault Rifle since the AK-47 came before the AR-10?”
The “A” in AK47 stands for “Automat”
The “A” in AR10 and AR15 or all the other Armalite arms stands for Armalite.
The “A” in AR stands for Assault as in Assault Rifle and applies to the myriad of automatic combat weapons made by many countries all over the earth, either by designer or under licence or illegally.
Or AR can mean anything you want it to, means very little to me.
I’m not making it up, it is all documented.
As far as a MG round the near prefect one was the 30-06 in 173gr BT used prior to the adoption of the Garand in the USA in 1940. The Garand operated better on a 150Gr bullet and so the 173gr BT was no more.
Again not my opinion, I ain’t that smrt. John Moses Browning designed the 50 BMG round by up scaling the ’06 using a bullet with a similar ballistic coefficient to the 173gr BT. Few can argue the success of the 50 BMG or the 30-‘06.
NineseveN
member
The "AR" in "AR-xx" does not stand for Assault Rifle, period. The industry and culture standard abbrevaition of AR-15 and copies/versions is "AR". We get into some odd waters as folks don' generally use "AR" to denote Assault Rifles but they do use MBR to denote a Battle Rifle (or Main Battle Rifle) though that's kinda rare.
Just thought I'd clarify that for anyone that is still confused.
Just thought I'd clarify that for anyone that is still confused.
OldSchooler
Member
7.62 NATO? Think .300 Savage. Get the dimensions right and then reload to the Savage specs.
BCHunter
Member
Still confused??!!!???
NineseveN
member
The .300 Savage case is very similar to the 7.62 NATO/.308 case except it holds a few grains less powder. IIRC, it was inroduced in the late 1910's or early 1920's, orignally chambered in the Savage Model 99 lever gun. The .308 produces higher velocities (mostly due to the 7.62/.308 running at about 15k more pressure I believe) and the selection of bullet weights is pretty much the same or similar.
As for what OlsSchooler meant by bringing it up, I have no idea. It's a very good hunting round, but the case similarities wouldn't allow either to have an advantage in feeding IMHO, and ballistically, the .308 is a tougher performer, though the .300 Savage is a little gentler on the recoil if my memory serves me right.
As for what OlsSchooler meant by bringing it up, I have no idea. It's a very good hunting round, but the case similarities wouldn't allow either to have an advantage in feeding IMHO, and ballistically, the .308 is a tougher performer, though the .300 Savage is a little gentler on the recoil if my memory serves me right.
OldSchooler
Member
As for what OlsSchooler meant by bringing it up, I have no idea. It's a very good hunting round, but the case similarities wouldn't allow either to have an advantage in feeding IMHO, and ballistically, the .308 is a tougher performer, though the .300 Savage is a little gentler on the recoil if my memory serves me right.
Allow me. I have been doing a lot of research lately on the 7.62 NATO vs. .308 issue. I have several converted rifles that chamber the 7.62 NATO round and was looking for handloads that approximated the NATO pressure specs.
The .300 Savage round was introduced in 1920-21 in the model 99. It's intital purpose was to best the .30/30 in a handy lever gun, which it does by about a mile. In fact, in older ballistic charts and reloading books the .308 and .300 Savage were synonomous. There was a time, not too long ago, that when a man said he shot a .300 - everyone knew he meant a .300 Savage. It was that popular.
The Miltary, when looking for a replacemnt to the .30-06 in the early 50's, was looking for a smaller, lighter round, yet with similar ballistics to the old '06. Naturally, the .300 Savage came to mind - after all it already offered these things and was, indeed, the progenitor of the 7.62 NATO, and it's commercial derivitive the .308 WIN. The .300 Savage would likely still be with us today, if it werent for the .308 WIN's military connection and subsequent popularity.
This whole looooong discussion about machine gun suitability and AR this-and-that and all the other digressions undergone had a pointed question included, way back in the beginning, which is pertinent to todays shooter, myself included. That was:
If I buy a military-style rifle in .308, can I safely fire NATO 7.62 X 51 in it?
What about the converse?
(So sue me for trying to stay on topic. )
We pretty much established that the answer to the first part was "yes" and the latter "not a good idea." I wont rehash it further, but offer the reason for my "cryptic" comment about the .300 Savage.
Many of us today have mislurp arms converted to 7.62 Nato - usually, AND ERRONEOUSLY- referred to as .308. While looking for safe handload data for the NATO round, I hit on the .300 Savage connection. Essentially, the Savage round and the NATO round work to the same reduced pressures and ballistics, when compared to the .308 WIN. Like father like son, if you will.
Of course, no .300 Savage case should be fired in any 7.62/.308 weapon as they DO NOT have the same dimensions. But the similarities are so obvious, that good loads built to NATO pressures can be easily made using .300 Savage data and safely fired in converted old 'bolties' like the ones I have.
I wasn't trying to derail anyones train of thought; in fact, if you've come this far, I applaud your ability to hang in there. My comment was:
7.62 NATO? Think .300 Savage. Get the dimensions right and then reload to the Savage specs.
(I should've said PRESSURE and velocity specs - forgive me, I should've clarifed that.)
Now you know why I said it.
SIDE NOTE: The .300 Savage was, and still is, a fine round for nearly all NA hunting. Everything from woodchucks to elk have been taken with it. It has more power than most of us nimrods will ever need and is a bit easier on the back end than .308, mostly due to lower operating pressures. My dad shot one, and wouldn't shoot anything else.
Allow me. I have been doing a lot of research lately on the 7.62 NATO vs. .308 issue. I have several converted rifles that chamber the 7.62 NATO round and was looking for handloads that approximated the NATO pressure specs.
The .300 Savage round was introduced in 1920-21 in the model 99. It's intital purpose was to best the .30/30 in a handy lever gun, which it does by about a mile. In fact, in older ballistic charts and reloading books the .308 and .300 Savage were synonomous. There was a time, not too long ago, that when a man said he shot a .300 - everyone knew he meant a .300 Savage. It was that popular.
The Miltary, when looking for a replacemnt to the .30-06 in the early 50's, was looking for a smaller, lighter round, yet with similar ballistics to the old '06. Naturally, the .300 Savage came to mind - after all it already offered these things and was, indeed, the progenitor of the 7.62 NATO, and it's commercial derivitive the .308 WIN. The .300 Savage would likely still be with us today, if it werent for the .308 WIN's military connection and subsequent popularity.
This whole looooong discussion about machine gun suitability and AR this-and-that and all the other digressions undergone had a pointed question included, way back in the beginning, which is pertinent to todays shooter, myself included. That was:
If I buy a military-style rifle in .308, can I safely fire NATO 7.62 X 51 in it?
What about the converse?
(So sue me for trying to stay on topic.
)We pretty much established that the answer to the first part was "yes" and the latter "not a good idea." I wont rehash it further, but offer the reason for my "cryptic" comment about the .300 Savage.
Many of us today have mislurp arms converted to 7.62 Nato - usually, AND ERRONEOUSLY- referred to as .308. While looking for safe handload data for the NATO round, I hit on the .300 Savage connection. Essentially, the Savage round and the NATO round work to the same reduced pressures and ballistics, when compared to the .308 WIN. Like father like son, if you will.
Of course, no .300 Savage case should be fired in any 7.62/.308 weapon as they DO NOT have the same dimensions. But the similarities are so obvious, that good loads built to NATO pressures can be easily made using .300 Savage data and safely fired in converted old 'bolties' like the ones I have.
I wasn't trying to derail anyones train of thought; in fact, if you've come this far, I applaud your ability to hang in there. My comment was:
7.62 NATO? Think .300 Savage. Get the dimensions right and then reload to the Savage specs.
(I should've said PRESSURE and velocity specs - forgive me, I should've clarifed that.)
Now you know why I said it.
SIDE NOTE: The .300 Savage was, and still is, a fine round for nearly all NA hunting. Everything from woodchucks to elk have been taken with it. It has more power than most of us nimrods will ever need and is a bit easier on the back end than .308, mostly due to lower operating pressures. My dad shot one, and wouldn't shoot anything else.
I've been looking at the RRA AR-10, not digging the $1100 price tag.
While being trained as a Designated Marksman I was told not to use the belted rounds (only as a last resource) from a M60 or M240G, in the DMR (M14) or M40A3 as it had higher chamber pressure. The rounds look almost identical, but the Belted Machine Gun rounds are packed a little hotter. We were also told by the "Crusty Gunny" that .308 and 7.62mm were the same thing, just like .223 and 5.56mm are close enough to be effective, and never to fire the tracers from belted ammo in a precision weapon or he "would take away our man hood", to say it nicely.
We got into this discussion because of the urban enviroments we were training for, and if we ran into 'civilian ammo' would it work? "if we were out in town, next to walmart would .308 work in the 7.62 rifle"
While being trained as a Designated Marksman I was told not to use the belted rounds (only as a last resource) from a M60 or M240G, in the DMR (M14) or M40A3 as it had higher chamber pressure. The rounds look almost identical, but the Belted Machine Gun rounds are packed a little hotter. We were also told by the "Crusty Gunny" that .308 and 7.62mm were the same thing, just like .223 and 5.56mm are close enough to be effective, and never to fire the tracers from belted ammo in a precision weapon or he "would take away our man hood", to say it nicely.
We got into this discussion because of the urban enviroments we were training for, and if we ran into 'civilian ammo' would it work? "if we were out in town, next to walmart would .308 work in the 7.62 rifle"
- Status
