Over heard @ gun counter

[buffalobo]

Clerk to customer when asked about differences between 7.62 NATO and .308 Win. stated 7.62 NATO and .308 Win are the same and went on with sales schpeel.

Would you say anything?


Sent from my electronic ball and chain.

[UrbanWolf]

Plenty of time I've heard 556 NATO and 223 Rem are the same. Unless I'm a ballistic expert or they really messed up(like Clip mess up), i usually stay silent.

[Colorado_Outback]

Clerk to customer when asked about differences between 7.62 NATO and .308 Win. stated 7.62 NATO and .308 Win are the same and went on with sales schpeel.

Would you say anything?


Sent from my electronic ball and chain.

I don't like arguing with idiots so no, I usually don't say anything.

For your average gun counter customer's intents and purposes they are similar enough that an explanation would be a waste of time.

[Rabid]

7.62 NATO is 100% safe to fired in a 308 Win chamber so i would not say a thing.

[ray1970]

7.62 NATO is 100% safe to fired in a 308 Win chamber so i would not say a thing.

That's what I thought too.

I thought 7.62x51 was pretty much the NATO designation for the .308 Win.

Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

[Skully]

That's what I thought too.

I thought 7.62x51 was pretty much the NATO designation for the .308 Win.

Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.




7.62x51
Bullet diameter (0.308 in) 7.82 mm
Neck diameter (0.338 in) 8.58 mm
Shoulder diameter (0.447 in) 11.35 mm
Base diameter (0.466 in) 11.84 mm
Rim diameter (0.470 in) 11.94 mm
Rim thickness (0.050 in) 1.27 mm
Case length (2.010 in) 51.05 mm
Overall length (2.750 in) 69.85 mm


.308
Bullet diameter 0.308 in (7.8 mm)
Neck diameter 0.343 in (8.7 mm)
Shoulder diameter 0.454 in (11.5 mm)
Base diameter 0.470 in (11.9 mm)
Rim diameter 0.473 in (12.0 mm)
Rim thickness 0.050 in (1.3 mm)
Case length 2.015 in (51.2 mm)
Overall length 2.800 in (71.1 mm)



Another good read;


In December, 1953, the US T65 .30 caliber cartridge was adopted by NATO
as its standard cartridge. What this actually meant was that the five key
members of the alliance agreed to adopt the final version of the T65E3
(soft lead core) as their standard service round. Nominally, the round
adopted by the NATO countries had the following characteristics:
jacketed spitzer bullet of 147 grains (9.45 g) weight, a
brass case (conforming to the US Copper Alloy 260, Annealed,
MIL-C-50 standard) of 187 grains (12 g), for a muzzle velocity of
2750 +/- 50 fps (840 mps) measured 78 feet from the
muzzle.

The round had a variety of names. For example, in the US, the above
round is known as, Cartridge 7.62mm Ball M80 (or M59). In Germany, it is
Patrone 7,62x51mm, DM41A1. In Spain it is the Cartucho Ordinario, 7,62x51mm
OTAN.

Note that of the above nomenclature, there is no mention of a "NATO"
designation for the US or German cartridges. This is because there
were no other 7.62mm rifle cartridges made for and issued to either of the
respective armies. More importantly it is an eloquent statement of the
fact that only the cartridge itself was standardized and adopted. There was
and is no common nomenclature required by the 1954 NATO Standardization
Agreement (STANAG) which codified the adoption of the cartridge.

Spain however, was a different matter. Spain did not join NATO until
1982, and was therefore under no constraints to adopt the common cartridge.
Spain was also the only western European power to successfully adopt an actual
assault rifle (the CETME Model 58) instead of the "battle rifles" (M14,
L1A1, FAL, C1A1, BM59, G3) adopted by the NATO powers. Comcomitant
with the assault rifle, Spain adopted a true intermediate catridge,
the 7.62x51mm CETME. The intent was a cartridge that would allow
ballistic and accuracy performance from the Model 58 akin to that
attained by the 7.9x33mm (7.9 Kurz) fired from the StG44.

The performance and specifications of the 7.62x51mm CETME are
indicative of this intent. Nominal characteristics: jacketed
spitzer bullet of 112.5 grains (7.25 g) weight, a brass or steel case
of 151 grains (9.7 g), for a muzzle velocity of 2493 fps (760 mps).
The construction of the bullet is particularly noteworthy. The CETME
bullet has a 90/10 brass alloy (gilding metal) jacket, with a
plastic nose filler for the first third of the bullet, and a lead
antimony core. That is to say, the bullet jacket is not filled with
the lead core, but has what might be considered a lightweight
ballistic tip (not unlike the kapok tip in the .303 British service round).
This cartridge, adopted in 1957, remained the standard Spanish service round
for the next twenty-five years. Hardly a "diversion" or a flash in the pan!

Confusing the issue, however, were the facts that the external
dimensions of the cartridge were so similar to the NATO round,
and the fact that the
Spanish themselves produced a round to NATO specifications for use, I
understand, in the MG42/58 machine gun. This round was adopted in 1964.
Its specifications were identical to the NATO round mentioned above.
The designation was 7,62x51mm OTAN. Of particular note is the augmentation
to the case necessary to safely fire the NATO load. In 1961, an attempt
was made by the National Factory of Toledo (a Spanish arsenal) to achieve
NATO-esque ballistics by employing a 147 grain bullet at 2,625 fps (800
mps) using the standard CETME case. The attempt failed due to the light
CETME case being too weak to handle the pressures generated by the loading
used. A loading of notably less power than the NATO standard loading.

This cartridge became standard with the Spanish Army after Spain's entry
into NATO in 1982, supplanting the 7.62x51mm CETME. The CETME rifles in
service at that time were modified with new bolt carriers to enable
them to safely use the more powerful NATO load.

Which brings us back to the original issue of .308 Winchester vice
7.62x51mm NATO. As previously stated, the specifications which
have to be met in order for a round to be a NATO standard 7.62mm
are very stringent, and apply to case, bullet, pressure, performance,
etc. The composition and thicknesses of the case are, therefore
rigidly controlled. There are no such specifications for commercial
cases. Something to keep in mind when selecting cartridges for
firearms chambered for the NATO 7.62mm round.
Non-NATO spec cases are the failures experienced by the Spaniards in
1961 when attempting to use lightweight 7.62x51mm cases to emulate NATO
ladings.

Sources:

"Cartucheria Espanola (Spanish Ammunition)," Angel Molina Lopez and
Alfonso Orea Maestro, Merino Publishers, Palencia, Spain, 1995

"Die Militarpatronen Kaliber 7,62x51mm NATO ihre Entwicklung und
Abarten (The Military Catridges 7.62x51mm NATO their Development and Variants),"
Brandt, Hamann, Kaltmann, and Kiehn, Journal-Verlag Schwend GMBH,
Wiesbaden,Germany

"US Rifle M14, From John Garand to M21," R. Blake Stevens, Collector
GradePublications, Toronto, Canada

"The FAL Rifle," R. Blake Stevens, Collector Grade Publications,
Toronto,Canada

"Army Ammunition Data Sheets, Small Caliber Ammunition, FSC 1305, TM
43-0001-27,"HQ, Department of the Army

"US Army Manufacturing Engineering Product Guide Book," Section E-2

I have never had a problem with 308 in 7.62 nato and vice versa but never shot that MUCH through my 7.62 rifles. (Historical: HK91, CETME G3, Savage Bolt, and of course my short lived AR 308.)

[brutal]

They're similar enough.

7.62NATO is based off the commercial .308

However, I would hesitate running hot .308 loads in an M-14(M1A), many op rods have been bent by doing such. I would also hesitate running polymer tipped .308 loads in a battle rifle. Some mfr specifically say to not use polymer or lead nose ammo in their guns.

[SuperiorDG]

Damn I thought they were the same. That being said, pointing out the difference would make you look like an assclown trying to show everyone how smart you are.

[MrPrena]

98.5% isn't 99% [ROFL1]

Close enough for me.

[Skully]

Damn I thought they were the same. That being said, pointing out the difference would make you look like an assclown trying to show everyone how smart you are.


You wouldn't want people to think your "Superior" or anything. [Coffee]

Sometimes it is not worth it to correct people. Even if someone told me something I usually research a little to verify, I have learned to not follow peoples facts blindly. Modern age it is a few google/BING clicks away.

[Zundfolge]

Here's how I've always heard it.

.308 is higher pressure than 7.62NATO so shoot all the 7.62 out of either .308 or 7.62 guns you want, but don't shoot a lot of .308 out of a 7.62 chambered gun.

.223 vs 5.56mm is the opposite. The 5.56 is the hotter of the two so don't shoot it out of .223 chambered guns.

[UrbanWolf]

Here's how I've heard it.

.308 is higher pressure than 7.62NATO so shoot all the 7.62 out of either .308 or 7.62 guns you want, but don't shoot a lot of .308 out of a 7.62 chambered gun.
.223 vs 5.56mm is the opposite.

I thought people shooting 308 out of M1A, FAL, and SCAR H all the time.

[sniper7]

They are close enough to not make an issue out of it. they are reasonably safe to shoot in each others chambers.

same with 556 and 223. there are some differences and you aren't supposed to shoot 556 in a 223 chamber but i have seen it done and it worked out...

[wctriumph]

Unless the guy behind the counter is a total liar, I keep my mouth shut and go on about my business and stay out of the dealer's business.

[brutal]

If I hear any big safety issue BS I will open my mouth.

[SuperiorDG]

Which one are you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5d2lnTkdo

[SAnd]

.308 is a commercial round made under the voluntary SAAMI specifications. The SAAMI pressure specification is the maxi mun pressure. You can get a wide variety of loads for the .308, including many that are over the 7.62 NATO spec. If you pick the right .308 load it should be OK to use in a 7.62 NATO gun. Generally it is easier just to buy 7.62 NATO spec than figure out if the particular .308 load is the correct pressure for your gun.

The same goes when shooting 30.06 ammo in a military gun. There is a lot of 30.06 ammo that is a lot hotter than is meant to be run in some military guns chambered in 30.06.

[spqrzilla]

The problem is that military specifications for ammunition pressure use a different protocol than does SAAMI. Also, a lot of military specification sheets read "PSI" for pressure when in fact they are spec'ing CUP units. Nominally, 7.62 NATO ammunition pressure limits are lower than .308 Win but the allowable variations under the pressure testing protocols are such that the specs are close to the same. So its hard to compare 7.62x51 NATO specifications with .308 Win. In reality, most .308 Win is within 7.62 NATO specs. So I think that its not an unfair simplification to say that they are the same. That said, I'd be careful of using .308 Win commercial ammo in an M14/M1A rifle as if the pressure curve is late with slower powders, not unlike the problem with Garand's, you can have op rod damage over time.

5.56mm ammo is spec'd for a longer chamber leade than .223 Remington SAAMI ammo so I'd pay more attention to a 5.56mm/.223 question and be cautious about using 5.56mm military ammo in a commercial .223 Remington chambered rifle.

[Rabid]

The problem is that military specifications for ammunition pressure use a different protocol than does SAAMI. Also, a lot of military specification sheets read "PSI" for pressure when in fact they are spec'ing CUP units. Nominally, 7.62 NATO ammunition pressure limits are lower than .308 Win but the allowable variations under the pressure testing protocols are such that the specs are close to the same. So its hard to compare 7.62x51 NATO specifications with .308 Win. In reality, most .308 Win is within 7.62 NATO specs. So I think that its not an unfair simplification to say that they are the same. That said, I'd be careful of using .308 Win commercial ammo in an M14/M1A rifle as if the pressure curve is late with slower powders, not unlike the problem with Garand's, you can have op rod damage over time.

5.56mm ammo is spec'd for a longer chamber leade than .223 Remington SAAMI ammo so I'd pay more attention to a 5.56mm/.223 question and be cautious about using 5.56mm military ammo in a commercial .223 Remington chambered rifle.
^This^

[Hound]

Great read guys. I knew the 5.56/.223 issues but had not gotten around to researching .308/7.62. I learn so much here!

[R&S]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYlte9Z9Eqk

[Gman]

Another concern for using .308 ammo in a military arm meant for 7.62x51 is primer hardness. The NATO primers are harder and less likely to have an issue with some of the firearms that have free floating firing pins.

ETA: I have no fear of shooting 7.62 x 51 out of my bolt gun.

[DD977GM2]

Technically they are different, but both can be safely shot in either a 7.62 NATO chamber or a .308 chamber.

If it was the 5.56 & .223 discussion, I would have said something.

What shop?

[<MADDOG>]

Here's how I've always heard it.

.308 is higher pressure than 7.62NATO so shoot all the 7.62 out of either .308 or 7.62 guns you want, but don't shoot a lot of .308 out of a 7.62 chambered gun.

.223 vs 5.56mm is the opposite. The 5.56 is the hotter of the two so don't shoot it out of .223 chambered guns.

+1

CUP vs PSI....308 is loaded to a higher pressure than 7.62x51, just like 5.56 is not the same as .223 (inverse).

And I have heard of challenges when loading .308 in M14/M1A rifles for this very reason (specifically with op rods snapping). I have shot FAL and G3/CETME platforms with .308, but not very much, and they are a totally different operating system.

My $0.02.