The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

[Deleted member 10043]

I came across a simple article that has nothing new other than the 7.62 was never really a good ammo beyond 1000 meters. Or is it?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_inclu...r-Range%20Kills

There is a lot of information and misinformation on this topic on the Internet. Example, I have seen posted that there has only been three confirmed kills beyond 1000 meters by U.S. shooters with the 7.62 NATO(sic), with no objections posted as well.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_can_a_sniper_rifle_shoot

Like I mentioned above a lot of information and misinformation on this topic on the Internet.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

the 308 was designed as an 800m cartridge, we shoot it farther because we're arrogant and we can... it is not he best choice for 1000 yards shooting.

Hit percentages in field conditions are very low beyond 800m... we used to have the Army stats posted on here, but it's definitely less than 5% probability.

 

[Guest]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

Early ammo can not be compared to present day, nor can a one way vs a two way. Like was said above the round is dumn as a rock, and we like to push everything a little farther than the next guy.

For a semi all around, it's very hard to beat. Are there better out there sure, but everything has a trade off. Your environment will tell you whats the best all around for you. If you can't see the target past 5-250yds a 223 will work just fine, if your reaching 1000 or better a 300wm works well

 

[Graham]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

Whether the .308 is good beyond 800 meters depends on its intended use.

I mostly shoot holes in paper, and shoot steel, and it works well for that depending not so much on wind strength but on wind strength over differing terrain, and the size of the target, and whether or not I am competing against any of the 'game changer' high BC magnums at extended ranges.

When the .308 was adopted 800m was a stretch for the ammo because of the lack of good long range bullets. The 168SMK boat tail bullet - an improvement over what had gone before - ended up being uniquely poor because it has an inherent dynamic instability that caused it to fly at high levels of yaw. Translation: Even the 168's sucked at 800.

But VLD's and better powders gave the cartridge new velocity and new life - on paper targets, that is. Velocity and high BC made it a decent 1000 yard cartridge because on a known distance range bullet drop isn't important.

Where the modern .308 did and still does fall short is in its lack of muzzle velocity for long range lethality.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

Most engagements are inside 400m to begin with... very few go beyond 600m, after that you're into the effective use of supporting arms... ie arty, air, etc.

While people, especially in the mountains will push the engagements out as far as possible, understand you are in the Mountains, altitude will increase the effective range of small arms by having less parasitic drag. However in 99% of those situations they have systems, like the 300WM or 338LM to fit the situation.

We get units that send us AAR from deployments and most of the fighting is well inside the effective range of the 308.

 

[Standish]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

Just like lowlight said. With artillery, close air, CAG...

308/7.62 bridges the gap between 5.56(300m) and danger close of arty/air (600meters) perfectly. 300m and below, 7.62/5.56 can take care of it. 300-800 7.62 will get it done with the weight/combat load bearable. And 600-beyond meters arty and air can do it much more effectively than a dude with a .300wm or .338 lapua, who is much more handicapped in the realistic combat distances like lowlight said(400m). Granted a .300wm/.338LM would be much better against collateral.

It's all a trade off of effective range for needed purpose(includes close ranges), combat load weight, ammo levels, etc.

And basically .308 bridges the gap between 5.56 and arty very nicely.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Culpeper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I came across a simple article that has nothing new other than the 7.62 was never really a good ammo beyond 1000 meters. Or is it?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_inclu...r-Range%20Kills

There is a lot of information and misinformation on this topic on the Internet. Example, I have seen posted that there has only been three confirmed kills beyond 1000 meters by U.S. shooters with the 7.62 NATO(sic), with no objections posted as well.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_can_a_sniper_rifle_shoot

Like I mentioned above a lot of information and misinformation on this topic on the Internet.

</div></div>

The 7.62x51 was never really a great round...and by the same token it was never really a bad round either. It's very capable within ranges that engagements normally occur. It's just when you see the enemy at extended ranges you would like to have something to reach out and touch them. Outside of civilization Iraq and Afghanistan offer some of the farthest engagements our troops have ever encountered. In Afghanistan especially support weapons such as arty and air aren't always feasible. Terrain makes it not always possible to get with arty range and altitude limits what aircraft can do. Most specifically troop deployment and withdrawal. Both support services can be done, just not as effectively as at lower altitude

To understand why the military still pushes it so hard, you would have to go clear back to the 1890's when the U.S. was first looking at going to smokeless powder cartridges and jacketed bullets. There's a lot of reading there, but well worth it to understand why we still don't go with what everybody else has. Or at least something like it. Post WWII American Ordnance minds were set on the .30 cal as the main weapon. Then along comes the new generation and they got the .223 in. But there were a lot of acceptable alternatives that came along in the meantime that would actually outperform the .30 cal. at extended ranges and were lighter than the .308.

Anyhow, it is what it is now. And at least for the meantime the .308 is here to stay, as it has certainly proven it's effectiveness in most of the given situations it's been in.

 

[vman]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

From a feasibility point of view relating to the future of the .308, is there actually a need for another cartridge to replace the .308 or is it cheaper to stick with what already exists and/or use current alternatives to match changing conditions (.338LM etc)?

I think the .308 will hang around for a while before it becomes a bit of history such as the .30-06.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

How some other folks approach the question:

First All-Russia Convention of Spetznaz...

...Hum..., ...and..., ho...

Zo, you zay you have ze relatives in ze old country...?

Russia is not sitting idle, folks...

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

Interesting point Greg. They are studying in the field 10 different possibilities and we are hearing "No way will the .308 go away". Sad, when the 6.5G has been seen to work, and the 6mm AR same, (I think the turbo would have feed problems). The .25 cal is still dead according to the Army/BOO. Yet in the 1920's the .250 Savage proved extremely effective. Go figure.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

What I am interested in is how the Spetz seem to be going for larger bores. The 9.3x63 and 9x39 would appear to be good rounds for LR and SR/Suppressed MP, respectively.

I think the .35 Whelen could have a reasonable velocity edge over the x63, and .45ACP would definitely cover the other side well enough.

Greg

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am interested in is how the Spetz seem to be going for larger bores. The 9.3x63 and 9x39 would appear to be good rounds for LR and SR/Suppressed MP, respectively.

I think the .35 Whelen could have a reasonable velocity edge over the x63, and .45ACP would definitely cover the other side well enough.

Greg</div></div>

Parker Hale built up a bunch of 9.3x62 target models for testing for the Brits some years back. For whatever reason they dumped them. Not enough interest in it for someone to make a high BC profile bullet? Too much weight/not enough velocity? No muzzle brakes at the time? (recoil is a beast in them, even in a heavier rifle.)
As far as the .45 went it was used in WWII in a modified Lee Enfield. I would say the Whisper is much better as the ballistics allow it to be used out to 500m. It's an amazing amount of drop for one but they can be used that far. The .45 was limited to about 150m. We've discussed they 9mmx39 for that reason and found it's capable just not to the ranges the Whispers will go. ...Or, TCU's

As for all out ballistics, I think the .375/.408 CT and .416 Barrett have the uber long range pretty well beaten at this point.

My frustration always lies in the excuses given by S4/G4 that it would be too hard logistically to support some of these weapons. Complete copout by the supply side of the Military. They don't want another round so they fight it. Yet I see more CRAP get fielded that never ever should have gotten to the front lines in the first place.

 

[Cmonroe]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

China is also going to larger bore weapons, however these are for true long range weapons systems that more emulate our 338lm's. The 7.62x51 was/is intended to be a medium range weapon system and it fills that roll well. Having said that IMHO a 6.5mm or 7mm with similar case and weapon size would be superior in every aspect past 600 meters to the .308 caliber.

 

[Etype]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

There's a definite place for the .308. A semi auto, medium range sniper weapon was just what the doctor ordered for Iraq, and it's even great in Afghanistan. There were big army sniper teams that were overrun while guns were rockin away on an M24, I'm sure a 110 or SR-25 would've made things a bit better for them.

9 times out of 10 I'd take the gas gun over a the bolt gun. The gas gun has great value in the defence, where the bolt gun has very little. I'd rather take one gun and limit my range to 800m. It sucks carrying a Mk13 or M24 in a scabbard bag and M4 for movement. It's a bad day when Ali is leveling his RPG at you and you're still cycling your bolt.

1000m capability is nice, but 1200-1500 is better. When the A191 runs out and we start getting the new .300 ammo, I might change my story. I'll still love my gas gun, though.

 

[JL]

Re: The reality and future of the .308 7.62 NATO

As a owner of accurate 7.62 AR, I agree.

But after shooting mine in comps year or so, thinking update already. Thinking 6.5x47 Lapua with 22" barrel. That would take roughly 1/5 to 1/4 off from wind and drop, and as far as I know this starts to be limit of that (308 based) system- at least with current powders. +1000 meters supersonic flight anyway

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Etype</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's a definite place for the .308. A semi auto, medium range sniper weapon was just what...
</div></div>