Talk:7.62×51mm NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject NATO    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


I changed a reference near the end from "mid-sized round" or some such to "full-power round," which I believe is more accurate. Your mileage may vary, which is why I'm leaving this note in discussion. I think a mid-sized round would be something like the 6.5mm and 6.8 Remington SPCs. 7.62 NATO has much more in common with older, full-power rounds like 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, .303, .30-.06. ... --Thatnewguy 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote it was thinking of it as a middle between 5.56 and .50. That whole sentence needs reworking, though, because it's not our job to call something "excellent." Night Gyr 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How's this? The 7.62 mm nevertheless met the designer's demands for full-auto reliability with a full-power round.--Thatnewguy 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck are there no bullet-masses listed? 9.33g

A good point. I'll go look up the various military loads. scot 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Clear up specifications[edit]

"NATO's 7.62 × 51 mm rifle cartridge, otherwise known as .308 Winchester (though they do not have identical specifications)" Could someone please make this a bit more clear, just for safety reasons, since the article on .308 Win does point here? 5.56mm NATO has some article for the same purpose, warning not to use military bullets in civilian rifles: [1]. --Tierlieb 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt this was a suitable heading for which to put my point. The portion of the article on round weight (within the Development section) doesn't make a vast amount of sense, and seems to have been posted in error. It states how the M14's rounds were much heavier than the 7.62x39mm rounds of the various AK-type weapons, which is true (393gr versus 281gr per cartridge) and therefore compromised the amount of ammunition carried - but the table immediately below this paragraph shows that you can carry more 7.62NATO rounds for a specified weight of magazines than you can with AK-pattern magazines due to the considerable weight of the magazine itself (14 magazines of 20 rounds, giving a 280-round total of NATO ammunition compared with 8 magazines of 30 rounds giving the 7.62x39mm Russian ammunition a 240-round total for a 10kg limit on magazine capacity carried). I move for parts of this paragraph relating to ammunition weight be removed, as it's refuted completely within a couple of lines by a table. Specifically, this line: "Also, the weight of 7.62×51mm cartridges limited the total amount of ammunition that could be carried when compared with the common 7.62×39mm cartridge of the Type 56 assault rifles, which the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army soldiers were equipped with."


I've been told that the commercial ammunition manufacturers have started down-loading the commercial .308 Winchester ammo to NATO specs, because there are so many people out there with 7.62x51mm NATO rifles who've been told "7.62 NATO and .308 are the same thing" and are firing commercial .308 Winchester in 7.62x51 calibre guns. An article on about the subject basically said that .308 Winchester ammo shouldn't be fired out of 7.62x51 NATO guns, but used a Spanish or Latin American 7.62x51 NATO conversion of the Mauser as the rationale behind this, saying this particular gun wasn't strong enough to handle it and if you owned one of these Mausers, you shouldn't use .308 Winchester ammo in it. There was, IIRC, no mention of any other Military Surplus 7.62x51mm rifle being unsafe for use with commercial .308 Winchester ammo. Certainly, I had my Ishapore 2A1 (7.62x51 NATO version of the SMLE Mk III*) at the range last week, and had been told by the gun dealer I bought it off that "7.62 NATO and .308 are the same thing". I fired Australian 7.62x51mm L2A2 ammo through it, as well as commercial Remington Core-Lokt .308 Winchester ammo, and there was no difference in the recoil, gunshot noise, or condition of the brass after firing. Another gun shop who specialise in Military Surplus arms have since told me that the commercial ammo is generally down-loaded now because of lawsuit fears arising from the conception 7.62x51 and .308 are the same cartridge... Anyone know anything else about this? --Commander Zulu 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That could well be the case; ammo makers often do keep loads below the SAAMI levels. Also, keep in mind that military rifles are expected to be used under very adverse conditions, so even if they're designed for the 50,000 PSI loads, they'll probably handle the higher loads under good condidtions. Also, my Speer reloading manual is showing a SAAMI max pressure of 52000 CUP, so I'm wondering if the pressure measurements listed in the article aren't comparing PSI to CUP, as the .30-06 is given by the same manual as 50000 CUP. scot 16:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's been determined that the Army goofed when they printed up the specs. 7.62x51 was actually measured in CUP, NOT PSI. Thus 7.62 NATO and .308 WIN only have a difference of 2000, well within tolerances. Due to the military's screw-up (referring to CUP as PSI) we've been led to believe that the pressure rates for the two are vastly different when they're not. 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Army didn't goof. The units of pressure used in the US is PSI. They didn't report the fact that the pressure was measured using a copper gauge because back when the specifications were adopted, the copper crusher gauge was the only way to measure chamber pressures. CUP is not itself a unit of pressure. See the Wiki on pressure. Units of pressure are units of force divided by units of area. The term CUP was adopted by convention to distinguish pressures measured by the copper gauge from pressures measured using transducers. CUP values are also reported in mPa in the metric world. See the Wiki on copper units of pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a C.I.P. maximum dimensions cartridge drawing and provided a link to the C.I.P. TDCC rulings on the .308 Winchester in the .308 Winchester article. The UK Ministry of Defence (see NATO EPVAT testing) use the 2007 C.I.P. proofing pressure and normal service pressure standards for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. This means the normal service pressure for the 7.62 NATO is 415 MPa (60,190 PSI) piezo pressure. Proofing is done at that level + 25%. There are differences in the employed piezo pressure measurement methods between C.I.P. and SAAMI, so the SAAMI piezo pressure ruling for the .308 Winchester probably will deviate somewhat from the C.I.P. standard. C.I.P., SAAMI and NATO EPVAT procedures and testing are intended to control the safety and quality of firearms ammunition. In Correlating PSI and CUP, a study done that shows a high correlation between CUP and PSI for rifle cartridges by Denton Bramwell information on the relation between those pressure units can be found. According to Mr. Bramwell 50,000 CUP should be ≈ 57,649 PSI and 52,000 CUP should be ≈ 60,067 PSI. Francis Flinch (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does the figure 60,190 PSI come from for the 7.62 NATO service pressure? I need a verifiable source that can be referenced. The EVAPT pages listed above doesn't help as registration is required to use the links. What is the verifiable source for this figure? Who says the service pressure is 60,190? There is so much conjecture regarding what service pressures should be that unless there is proof, 50,000 PSI is just valid as 60,190 PSI. Link? (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The ammunition manufacturers are playing the ballistic card game in order to download pressures for the .308win. in order to maintain the illusion of good ballistics and protect themselves from legal matters pertaining to safety! Please see:(Hornadys H.E.178gr.match@2775fps.)it is a false advertisement. I discoverd this when Winchester recently improved their 30-06 180gr. Silver Ballistic Tip@2700fps. to 2750fps..Please see:( went from the "Standard Metro Ballistic method" to the "ICAO" ballistic charts. The conversion number to go back to the standard metro is to multiply the new velocities by (.982) which is in the web site I mentioned. They are also using exaggerated Ballistic Coefficientcies for their bullets aswell. Sellier&Bellot still use closer to actual numbers that result in lower advertised velocities! MG.

I would like to make some observations concerning the ability to interchange .308 with military 7.62 nato ammunition. While it is possible to interchange the rounds using either military or civilian rifles, it is not altogether safe. For example; loading .308 in a M1a springfield rifle can lead to slam fire. On the other side, loading military ammunition into any civilian rifle not designed to handle the increased pressure can have explosive results. While these cases might be the exception and not the rule, I would ask for someone to include a caveat that a person check with the owners manual before picking up any ammo. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Chronology issue?[edit]

So it seems implied that the .308 follows after the 7.62x51 development? This may well be mostly correct in a sense, but it must be noted that the civilian .308 went to market something like two years prior to the actual adoption of the NATO round. I'd like to see more history of the .308 discusssed- exactly how did Winchester fit into this whole process? Interesting to hear that the .300 Savage seems to be the progenitor of this cartridge. That would be interesting to hear more about as well. —SB

Article Name[edit]

I'm curious as to why this article is named with the full description when to the best of my knowledge, there is no other 7.62mm NATO round specification. EvilCouch 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? There's only one 5.56 round in the nato inventory, but we specify 5.56 x 45 to remove any possibility of ambiguity. 7.62 x 39 is also a common 7.62 cartridge and it takes knowledge of which cartridges are in the nato inventory to know which 7.62 NATO refers to if under the title of 7.62 x 51 or 7.62 NATO. Here, the title alone tells you more. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if someone was unsure as to which 7.62mm round they were looking for, they're likely to just punch up 7.62mm which gets you to a page that's basically an extended disambiguation page. A quick Google fight between "7.62mm NATO" and "7.62 x 51mm NATO" has the former winning, 43,500 to 18,900. I realize I'm being pedantic by bringing it up, but I've always thought of 7.62mm NATO as being a much more common term. EvilCouch 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think we lose anything by specifying x51 in the title; it's like asking why we use hull number designations in ship pages when there's only one ship by the name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "7.62x51 NATO", with no spaces. I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That title makes more sense than the current. I'd still prefer 7.62mm NATO, however the title without spaces is much more likely to be searched than the current article. EvilCouch 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page moved. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Should this article not be the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO instead?--Asams10 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No- The Wikiproject Military History consensus is that the naming convention for firearms calibes is AxB (Name)- such as 7.62x51 NATO- with no spaces or measurement designators. --Commander Zulu 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why no measurement designators? That decision confuses me very much. While caliber names with measurements in the standard system do not have a measurement designator, it is almost universally true of those in the metric system. The official US military designation for these cartridges is Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, and I'm pretty sure most other militaries using it and other metric calibers, have the measurement designator as part of the complete designation. The 5.56x45mm article here in wikipedia contains the measurement designator, and it just seems less confusing to me. -- Thatguy96 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A variety of reasons, partly to get around the people at the Weights & Measures WikiProject, and also because Imperial Cartridges do not have the " after the number- Metric cartridges can be differentiated from Imperial cartridges by the way they are denoted- Imperial in the form of .ABC, Metric in the form of AxB, if that makes sense. --Commander Zulu 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't entirely make sense to me, but at least there is a thought out method to the madness. I personally think of it with the metric designator and find the current description slightly awkward, but in reality its not a big deal at all. -- Thatguy96 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

× vs. x[edit]

If the consensus is to use AxB names, why does this page use the × instead of x. this makes it harder to type, is almost nowhere referenced with a ×, and is against convention. if you check the 'what links here' page, you'll see that most pages link to a redirect-page, with an x instead of ×. will we move the page ? --Boris Barowski 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Boris, make it x. Arthurrh 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But we can reach a consensus that it should be with an x in stead of an × ? I really don't like the harder to type ×, and I've almost never seen it used in literature this way. thanks, Boris Barowski 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you there. Any one else got any thoughts on that one? --Commander Zulu 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The majority of people use x, it's easier to type and it'll be easier to maintain as a standard. Geoff B 07:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion 7.62×51 looks much better than 7.62x51, and given its presence in the Insert section, easy to use. Even before the Insert box, I never found it that much of a bother to type. It's no different than using proper dashes in text. —MJBurrageTALK • 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree about changing it to A x B, rather than this this unconventional scheme we have now. Furthermore, a space should be provided between the bore diameter and case length, so 7.62 x 51 mm instead of 7.62x51. Metric calibers should then be followed by mm and then by their formal assigned designation. So 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. This is how the cartridge is called in factory literature, blueprints, government and military documentation. It was correct at some point, someone should return the previous name. Koalorka 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this before, Koalorka. We- and by We, I mean "the WPMILHIST project" reached a consensus some time ago that cartridge names were in the format AxB (Name)- ie, 7.62x51 NATO, 5.56x45 NATO, 6.5x55 Swedish, and so on. The US Government way of writing things isn't automatically the correct one, especially when most reference texts (certainly, every one in my collection, for a start) is in the AxB format. And I agree this article should have an "x" instead of the multiplication symbol. --Commander Zulu 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Commander Zulu, could you please provide a link to a page indicating that consensus? I looked around WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Firearms, but I couldn't find a naming convention for ammunition. Also, please note that I began a new talk page section below, hoping to straighten out the naming situation for good. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commander Zulu, I would hardly call the AxB mm format a predominantly US naming convention, I'm from Europe and this is the most common format I have encountered in various reference sources. And while I do respect the groups consensus regarding the issue, I have followed the discussion and noticed it's limited to a very small number of very vocal editors, and can still be incorrect. One thing that NEEDS to be returned to the naming format is the mm sign. Koalorka (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're going for the 7.62x51mm NATO format, sure. 7.62 x 51 mm NATO? No way. --Commander Zulu (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the AxB mm XXX format without spaces, seems like a reasonable compromise. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Laundry list of 7.62x51mm Rifles?[edit]

Is this really necessary or advisable? There are probably hundreds of different models of rifle chambered for this cartridge. Do we really need the Savage 99 and Remington 788? How about the Smith & Wesson 1500? I don't think any list is adviseable save for the M14 and, possibly, the FN FAL. --Asams10 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is most appropriate to only list fielded military weapons and no commercial weapons. That is my vote. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise, however there are dozens of those as well. I'm going to limit it somewhat and see how it goes over. --Asams10 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps listing identical models or classes on a single line.. I.e. The FN FAL and L1A1 are identical with different designations. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated that section entirely after reading Wikipedia rules for trivia and lists. The important weapons were already listed in the text. A separate article entitled "List of..." can be made, but it's really trivial at best. --Asams10 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I don't see the point either (of a list). izaakb ~talk ~contribs 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Doesn't add anything to the article, besides making it very long. --Commander Zulu 09:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a fan of removing this, I came just came to this page in order to see a list of weapons that are chambered for this cartridge. I was very disappointed to not be able to find any sort of links. I don't think that a list of relevant weapons (at the very least military) that use this cartridge is entirely out of place in the "encyclopedia of all human knowledge". I do like the idea of having a link to a separate article which lists all the weapons which have used this cartridge, which can subsequently link to the articles about each rifle. I wouldn't see that as trivia but as a relevant way in which to guide a reader to the appropriate information they are looking for, while keeping the individual articles clean of lists. Regrettably, my lack of knowledge on which rifles used this cartridge is limited and I am not equipped to make such an article. Can someone link the archive version which had the list so I can make the new page? (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editor deliberately adding incorrect information[edit]

Anonymouse editor at has repeatedly swapped the PSI and CUP measurements in this article.

I believe it is deliberate.

See the edit history here:

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also someone keeps changing the specifications for the diameter of the actual bullet to 7.62mm. This is not correct, it is in fact 7.82mm (.308") as listed in many books and as actually measured on a real NATO or 308WIN bullet with a calipre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Article name, take 2[edit]

Hi. I'm starting this new section on the article name because I noticed that a cut-and-paste move had been done, to the title 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. I restored the page to this title because this is where the history is, and if the page is to be moved, then the target location should be deleted and the page moved properly.

The article's title history is, unless I'm missing anything:

I performed the second of those moves myself, due to a move request above. Immediately after the last of those moves, User:Asams10 did the cut-and-paste move, back to the original title. That location now has a history of redirecting to various titles, so the move was not possible without administrative assistance.

I'm able to delete pages, and I'm willing to move the page back to its original title, or to whatever title people can agree on, but I'd like to know first that there's consensus for whatever we decide. Is there a relevant guideline at WikiProject Firearms? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...And now it's been moved back to 7.62x51 NATO. I'm still curious what naming guideline is being applied here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the reference name of the round (officially) is 7.62 NATO not 7.62 x 51 NATO. The NATO Ammunition Database refers to the round exclusively as 7.62 NATO. The NADB may be found here: Furthermore, the US military only refers to 7.62 NATO firearms as either "7.62mm" or "7.62 NATO" (see izaakb ~talk ~contribs 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should not be limited to this article, however other articles as well. Though this is a NATO Standardized round, it was an American round first and foremost. --Asams10 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If we are going by that logic, the article should be called T-65, which was the American name prior to being adopted and standardized by NATO. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're arguing to the absurd. I'm suggesting that the American convention should be weighed more heavily than that of Luxenberg, for example. --Asams10 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is an American convention, also, Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not solely American, so where available, the internationally accepted term should prevail. Furthermore, when the term NATO is used in the same breath as 7.62 then it refers to the standard which is promulgated by NATO, which is based in Brussels, not Luxembourg. Perhaps it is referred to as "7.62x51 NATO" at one's corner gun shop, but it is not the correct name. As I posted previously, both NATO and the US military refer to the caliber as 7.62 NATO (or additionally as 7.62mmm). SAAMI does not maintain the standards for 7.62 NATO caliber, but in their technical documents comparing .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO, they use the name 7.62 NATO or 7.62x51 but never 7.62x51 NATO. It's really very easy to verify, please refer to the links I posted above. Best, izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Venue for general discussion?[edit]

Would WikiProject Firearms be the best place to have that discussion, do you think? If not, then where? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if nothing else this article should definitely define mm in the title. American users who are schooled in imperial measurements might be thinking along the lines of 7.62"x51" and that would be crazy. :)Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

STP 31-18B34-SM-TG Soldier's Manual and Trainer's Guide MOS 18B Special Forces Weapons Sergeant October 1990 rather consistently uses 7.62-mm x 51-mm ammunition in training material on FN FAL, M-14, etc. and uses 7.62-mm x 63-mm (.30 caliber) ammunition in training material on M1 Rifle, M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), etc. In tabular material, the manual uses 7.62-mm NATO (7.62-mm x 51-mm). Naaman Brown (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Physics question[edit]

A question for anyone with a good knowledge of the physics involved with bullets:

According to this article the energy of the bullet is 3352 joules, which means that when the weapon is fired the operator must get hit with a 3352 joule kickback force (because according to Newton's third law "For every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction"). I weigh about 70 kg, so if I fell off a 4.9 meter high balcony (16 feet) I would impact the ground with roughly the same force (4.9 meter fall = 1 second falling time = 9.8 m/s impact velocity. Formula I used to calculate impact force: 9.8 m/s x 9.8 m/s x 70 kg / 2 = 3361.4 J). This means that when the weapon is fired the operator gets subjected to the same impact that I would feel from a 16 foot fall. That can't be right. A 16 foot fall could break my bones! Is the article in error on that figure of 3352 J or is there something wrong with my logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... I'd guess the logic part. I'm not 100% positive but wouldn't kickback force be what moves the parts of the receiver? At least in a gas opperated weapon it is. Action: The bullet fired causing a pressure buildup at the rear of the barrel. Reaction: The pressure, with no where to go, is channeled to work the mechanics of the receiver and set the next bullet where upon the process can be repeated.Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's called "RECOIL" not 'kickback', first, and you're misovercalculationing. Try the actual article on recoil first. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The recoil is most likely correct, as in most rifles, there are mechanics involved that lower the energy before it gets to the buttstock of the rifle. springs, gas cycling, the piston action of some weapons. also, 308 rounds bruise bad after only 30 shots if not held correctly, even when held correctly firing alot can be sore, i know this from SOTIC.Fortybam (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kickback (recoil) is backward momentum. The bullet carries an equal forward momentum, as by your Newton quote. Momentum equals mv, ie mass multiplied by velocity. Obviously this momentum won't hurt anyone. But anything with a momentum also "carries" kinetic energy. Kinetic energy equals \tfrac{1}{2} mv^2. This means that the bullet ends up with a vastly (several orders of magnitude) greater kinetic energy than the operator. So firing a bullet won't move you much and it won't hurt much. Being hit by a bullet won't move you much but it will hurt a lot. This unequal distribution of energy (inelastic collision) also occurs in traffic accidents. Passengers in the smaller vehicle will receive a lot more kinetic energy than those in the larger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

inspection/gaging of empty primer caps[edit]

could you define the technichs/plants beings used for the dimensional check of cap empty primer 7.62x51mm,7.62x39mm,9x19mm.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Interchangable with the .30-06 Springfield?[edit]

Is this 7.62x51mm NATO interchangable with the .30-06 Springfield? if it is, it should be mentioned in the article.Gruoney (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in any way. Why would you think it is?— DanMP5 17:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The .30-06 Springfield is aka 7.62x63mm. 7.52x51mm (7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester) was created by shortening the .30-06 casing by 12mm (63mm down to 51mm) which is about one half inch shorter. They are not interchangeable. Firing a 7.62 NATO in a .30-06 rifle has been done in extreme emergencies, but when a 7.62x51mm round is fired in a .30-06, the case shoulder and neck must expand to fill the 12mm (1/2 inch) difference between the shoulder of the cartridge case and the front of the chamber; the potential for disaster boggles the imagination. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

caption for m118 ammo[edit]

the "long range m118" is called 118LR, or M118LR its not long range ammo as much as it is match grade ammo. and match grade is considered so because the round achieves sub MOA accuracy Fortybam (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Adoption of 7.62 NATO[edit]

I have read through this and the article on .30-06, which the 7.62 NATO replaced. No where can I find the reason that the US military changed from the metric 7.62x63 to the 7.62x51. Logically, the greater case capacity would lead to a more powerful projectile. Did they change due to the 7.62x51 having a more manageable recoil, or was it improved propellant such that a lesser capacity was required. I understand why there is the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51, but what made the 7.62x63 go away? --Monkofbob (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Better propellant formulas made similar muzzle velocities even at 12mm shorter cartridge. That means a soldier could carry same number of rounds with equal capability for less weight. Adding the same amount of modern propellant to a .30-06 would be so much more powerful the pressure in the older guns chamber would be beyond tolerance lead to disaster for the shooter. So better propulsion and lighter weight wins. (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SAAMI database and measurements[edit]

  • The source for the SAAMI database now requires a login which violates Wikipedia sourcing guidelines so is there a new location to source from?
  • The 10mm auto article mentions that longer barrels leads to higher velocities by about 0.5 m/s for every 1mm longer barrel. The chart there shows that the measurements of muzzle velocity were taken from a 115mm (4.5 in) barrel. What length barrel or what weapon was used to get the 7.62x51mm velocity of 850m/s from? I can't log into SAAMI to find out. Someone that can could update the graph with this base information. (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hydrostatic shock[edit]

the lead says in regards to the different cartridge size, that "Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the difference affects remote wounding characteristics known as hydrostatic shock," but doesn't say how or why it affects it. Can this be expanded upon? Rodaen (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Designation of Caliber vs. its diameter[edit]

Regarding the 7.62x51mm NATO,

it is noted in the text that the bullet diameter is 0.308 inches or 7.82 mm. So then, Where does the 7.62 number come from in the designation of the cartridge?

John Francis (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The 7.62 comes from the diameter of the barrel, where the Ø lands = 7.62 mm. The same logic applies for the 5.56x45mm NATO, where the Ø lands = 5.56 mm. Cartridge nomenclature is rather chaotic, so the logic NATO applied for the 7.62x51mm NATO and 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges is not universal.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"M14 variants such as the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle and M25 Sniper Rifle".  The M25 is a variant of the Remington 700.  I think that they mean instead "M21 Sniper Rifle" which is essentially an accurized M1A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) 

Bullet Coefficient for the M80 NATO Round.[edit]

I am not an expert by any means, but I do a lot of reloading and as a result I work with BC a lot. I have been reloading the .308 for a couple of decades and the BC listed for the M80 seems awfully low to me. G7 ballistics are typically used for boat tail bullets. It lists a BC of .200?

As I look through my loading manuals these are the lowest BCs I get for boat tail bullets in the same weight class for .308

  Lyman 155 grain Jacketed J4 - BC: .450    [1]
  Hornady 150 grain BTSP - BC: .349         [2]
  Speer 150 grain BTSP - BC: .417           [3]
  Nosler 150 grain Accubond - BC: .435      [4]

A BC of .200 is closer to the old style Round Nosed bullet. Could this be a misprint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The BC's around 0.35 to 0.5 are G1 BC's and not G7 BC's. G1 BC's are the most commonly mentioned by manufacturers and tend to be much higher when compared to G7 BC's. Read the ballistic coefficient article for more information.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Lyman 49th Reloading Handbook page 220
    • ^ Hordady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading 8th edition page 493
    • ^ Speer Bullets Reloading Manual 14 page 455
    • ^ Nosler Reloading Guide 7 page 423