7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

  1. #41
    XCR Guru MickeyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,517

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    Most armies are equipped to fight the war they fought last, not the war they will fight next.
    Semper in excremento sum, solum profunditas mutat. 'Always in the shit, only the depth varies'

    The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.... Margaret Thatcher,

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
    Mahatma Gandhi

  2. #42
    XCR Guru aziator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Posts
    6,835

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    That is what we are doing right now.
    Don't confuse enthusiasm for competence

    Want more grip for your M&P Pistol? Send me a message.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator Underground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    6,143

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    Just FYI - Aim has Prvi 168 grain BTHP .308 match ammo in stock. Not a bad price either considering.



    100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
    That guy, he said I should be oblong and have my knees removed. But I don't trust him, he plays the banjo.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #44
    Newbie wlkalong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    After reading through this, it appears 6.8 SPC or 6.5 would be the best round to use, if cost is not a factor. Much better penetration and long range performance then 5.56 and much lower weight and recoil then 7.62 NATO. It seems 6.8 or 6.5 would be the ideal round for most situations. Am I missing something? Just curious, I'm not trying to advocate for 6.8 or 6.5, just asking the question.

  6. #45
    XCR Guru dont_tread_on_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    5,623

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    For a modern Assault rifle/tactical carbine I would say yes,overall an intermediate round would be a better choice for all around use.I won't say it's either the 6.8 or the 6.5,but the .308 while an excellent cartridge is just a little to much for a modern platform to be completely practical IMHO.I think a cartridge using a 6mm (.243), .257 or 6.5 (.260) bullet diameters would be the ideal choices to start with.Whatever happens it need to fit in a STANAG type magazine,pressure needs to stay within reason,bullet design should be optimized for penetration and quick destabilization on soft tissue,and not too much taper on the case. :2cents:



    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.----John Stuart Mill

  7. #46
    Newbie ThereIsNoSpoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    14

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    Why don't we just take a 6.8SPC and neck it down to about a 90-95gr 6mm projectile and be done with it. That should get 90gr worth of force up to around 2800-2850fps. Seems like a good compromise between short range stopping power, recoil and long range ballistic coefficient without the aggressive neck angle of the 6.5 Grendel that seems like it could cause feeding problems. Even better is that this cartridge could be fired from the already existing and lightweight XCR-L.

    TINS

  8. #47
    XCR Guru dont_tread_on_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    5,623

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    Why don't we just take a 6.8SPC and neck it down to about a 90-95gr 6mm projectile and be done with it. That should get 90gr worth of force up to around 2800-2850fps. Seems like a good compromise between short range stopping power, recoil and long range ballistic coefficient without the aggressive neck angle of the 6.5 Grendel that seems like it could cause feeding problems. Even better is that this cartridge could be fired from the already existing and lightweight XCR-L.
    That's not a terrible idea,but for the sake of efficiency why not just use the 6x45 (6mm/223 case).it is actually close to the ballistics you mention but has the advantage of using a case that is readily available and inexpensive,and the exact same STANAG type magazines.



    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.----John Stuart Mill

  9. #48
    Newbie ThereIsNoSpoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    14

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    Efficiency...absolutely. From what little I have read about the round since Alex announced he was working on it, I like it. Not only is it a decent round, but I can get it into my XCR with a barrel swap... and if there is anything I like it is cheap and easy options, which is one of the reason I bought the XCR in first place.

    However, as effective as the round may be, at high grain weight for the caliber (required for ballistic coefficiency) the velocity is probably going to drop off big time. Now I am by no means a ballistic expert, but my novice understanding is that terminal bullet "tumble and fragmentation" has a strong corelation to velocity. I am thinking that for the terminal velocity for a high grain weight 6mm bullet in front of that charge of powder could make it insufficient for the role specified above. Furthermore, I can't help but to think that the lower velocities will effect ballistics and force at long ranges (600-800yds).

    I think that a light weight projectile would essentially make it "6.8 SPC Lite" given the projectile's big diameter versus cartridge charge.

    My vision for a rifle is a rifle based on the USMC IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) chambered for the cartridge with the perfect balance between the 5.56 and the 7.62. LWRC has built a rifle that can fire from an open bolt in full auto, but when switch to single shot it fires from a closed bolt. Pretty impressive. As impressive as that might be, I have read that the Marine Corps would like a rifle to fill that role with a rifle that would fire from a closed bolt. As far as I'm concerned the XCR could do that right now. I see a 4 man fire team that has no SAW gunner, but all have IAR designed rifles, a Beta-C or equivalent mag and with proper training, any man could all act as a suppressive fire man.

    I also envision this rifle firing a round that, using the same rifle, would be able provide the GI ground pounder with the capability of taking a 6-800yd shot if he/she has to. I think this could be done from an IAR based rifle with the proper chamber. I think the powder capacity of the 6.8SPC brass has the capability to propel a high grain 6mm projectile in a fashion to fullfill that role.

    Also, the IAR, with a high rate of fire and proper projectile chambering, why couldn't that fill the the role of anti-material machine guns that is currently filled by the M-60 and M-240. I can't speak for the anti-material capabilities of a "6mm SPC", but I would think that the dense projectile package would make it quite conducive to this capability.

    Just my :2cents:

    TINS

  10. #49
    Marksman acco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    594

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    I would say that the 240 has more than just an anti-materiel role, and the 7.62mm cartridge is important for it's current use and versatility. It can provide effective suppression well beyond that possible even by the 6.8mm or new "possible" round (as I understand it's characteristics), as well as greater penetration and the already mentioned anti-materiel role. As well, the current 240/FN MAG platform can provide indirect fire when correctly mounted on a tripod, and something with a shorter range would likely not do this as well.

    I do agree that something larger than 5.56mm would be more useful to reach out to 600m effectively.

    As far as every man possibly have the suppressive fire capability, I don't see that as practical due to the ammunition payload required. Currently the 249 gunner has that specific role and his load carriage is specific to that task. He HAS to carry more weight than other riflemen. If EVERY soldier had a heavier than 5.56mm round that changes the overall weight he must carry already (although you can argue that it won't be much, the man who is carrying it WILL notice a difference). To equip all soldiers with enough ammo to provide suppressing fire means that there is little flexibility in delegating who carries what (if possible you generally have the larger soldiers carry the larger guns based simply on their physical mass). Now you say "well you can just delegate who will provide suppressing fire at which time", this would then negate the idea entirely. Yes there are currenlty times where one soldier will have to switch out who is carrying a SAW, etc. but I would argue that this happens so infrequently that it really doesn't register as needing to change the whole system.

  11. #50
    XCR Guru MickeyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,517

    Re: 7.62x51 Terminal Effectiveness

    The M240 is intended for supression for the most part outside of ambush or urban roles. In FIBUA (MOUT) it also has a benefit as a direct attack tool in that it can place a high volume of fire through barriers, such as walls and ceilings etc.. A very good use is to spray the landing area around a stairwell prior to friendly troops ascending. Or for a killing group accross a street to rake upper floors of a hosting building with fire as friendly troops assault lower levels. the M249 is intended to provide a high volume of supressive fire for lightly equipped troops but not to the extent of an M240.
    Semper in excremento sum, solum profunditas mutat. 'Always in the shit, only the depth varies'

    The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.... Margaret Thatcher,

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
    Mahatma Gandhi

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 7.62x51 vs .308
    By Nomad in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 07:42 PM
  2. 7.62x39 Effectiveness
    By Dredd in forum 7.62x39mm
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-09-2010, 06:45 PM
  3. 6.5mm Terminal Effectiveness
    By stanc in forum 6.5x39mm
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 09:59 PM
  4. Laser effectiveness?
    By stanc in forum Lights
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 04:20 PM
  5. Question about the terminal ballistics of 6.8 FMJ and AP
    By M993 in forum 6.8mm Remington SPC
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:36 PM

Search tags for this page

7,62x51 terminal effectiveness
,
7.62 nato stopping power problems
,
7.62 x 51 wound
,

7.62x51 ballistics

,

7.62x51 effectiveness

,

7.62x51 stopping power

,
7.62x51 terminal ballistics
,

7.62x51 wound

,
7.62x51mm terminal effectiveness
,
does 7.62x51 fmj fragment
,
effectiveness of 7.62x51 m80 nato ammunition
,
m80 ball effective
Click on a term to search for related topics.