7.62 NATO Spec prints.

alinwa said:
.......... this is the difference between guessing and testing. :)

If you take the time to try it you'll see that the .308 round will begin misfiring at about .006-.008 clearance. Or, in the vernacular, .006-.008 headspace. :D

al
Click to expand...

its not guessing......
i own 4 7.62 nato rifles and one 308 win......

a palma, an ishapore, an isralie, a 308 win br, and an armalite ar10.

as i stated......mil nato thru commercial match, thru hand loads......

no issues.........
you are still missing the point..you are talking potentional issue, that the makers work around..it does not happen in real life......
it is just like the '06..it is a known potential..it is not allowed to happen in production.

maybe you could point out some examples of sr25's and ar10's in mil usage in the current wars that have failed to fire due to this paper work only issue ??

i have not heard of any and i have a family member that is on active service...navy seals.........i tend to hear "stuff".

mike in co
 
alinwa said:
.......... this is the difference between guessing and testing. :)

If you take the time to try it you'll see that the .308 round will begin misfiring at about .006-.008 clearance. Or, in the vernacular, .006-.008 headspace. :D

al
Click to expand...

maybe you could tell me the names of the companies, mil or commercial, that produce the unersized ammo that i could purchase and test ?

again...you are talking math paper work potential and not real life.....


mike in co
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alinwa said:
.......... this is the difference between guessing and testing. :)

If you take the time to try it you'll see that the .308 round will begin misfiring at about .006-.008 clearance. Or, in the vernacular, .006-.008 headspace. :D

al
Click to expand...

ok al..i am still a new kid here...11 years or so on this board.

explain how to perform you test with production ammo and chambers ?

i tried, but the extractor held the case against the bolt face inspite of me intentionally sizing a case to 1.626....that is aprox 0.005 clearance on this rifle. i actually have a die that is under cut and can size below spec. cartridge min is 1.627(1.634-.007).
every gun i have the extractor looks like it will hold the case against the bolt face......
mike in co
 
The FAL Rifle
Deluxe Classic Edition, 1993

fal.jpg


http://www.collectorgrade.com/bookshelf4.html


There is a lot on the early 7.62 Nato and FN FAL rifle development in these books.
My copy is visiting a friend right now.
Try interlibrary loans or just buy this book.

Glenn:D
 
mike in co said:
ok al..i am still a new kid here...11 years or so on this board.

explain how to perform you test with production ammo and chambers ?

i tried, but the extractor held the case against the bolt face inspite of me intentionally sizing a case to 1.626....that is aprox 0.005 clearance on this rifle. i actually have a die that is under cut and can size below spec. cartridge min is 1.627(1.634-.007).
every gun i have the extractor looks like it will hold the case against the bolt face......
mike in co
Click to expand...

Nope, that's fair enough...... if the extractor holds the round back securely that will act to counter the excess clearance.

With many bolt actioned rifles including Rem700 this is not always the case.


kudo's for testing. :)

al
 
So... turns out that my barrels were infact made to 308 win spec... thats not what they "should" be. The mfg. prints were identical to the SAAMI. That being said we are just making sure we cover our bases. so far no probs. Thanks for the help folks!
 
This Is a Very Informative Thread

Like a lot of shooters, I sort of assumed that a 308 Win was a 7.62 x 51 Nato, and vise-versa.

I have spent quite a bit of time using the available search engines to expound on what this thread has brought to light. That being, there are differences, however subtle, that are worth noting...........jackie
 
jackie schmidt said:
Like a lot of shooters, I sort of assumed that a 308 Win was a 7.62 x 51 Nato, and vise-versa.

I have spent quite a bit of time using the available search engines to expound on what this thread has brought to light. That being, there are differences, however subtle, that are worth noting...........jackie
Click to expand...

This is also true of the 5.56x45 and the .223, they aren't identical either.

5.56 ammo is often marked as "could be dangerous in .223 rifles."

al
 
alinwa said:
This is also true of the 5.56x45 and the .223, they aren't identical either.

5.56 ammo is often marked as "could be dangerous in .223 rifles."

al
Click to expand...

it is the chambers on the 223/5.56 that is the issue....again.

most black rifles/mil style ar's will have a 5.56 chamber as it is more forgiving of the two. varmit/target rifles often have the chamber marked 223. some makers list thier gun as 223/5.56.....this should tell just how little they know about what the sell.

mike in co
 
Well at last I have a paper copy of STANAG No. 2310
It does have the prints and info.

Too bad I cant read it because its old school photo copy:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top