Comments on: Ammo issues

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:15:42 +0000

7.62 Nato is milder than .308 Win. However, I own two rifles in the Nato config and I have done a lot of checking around and both of them are supposed to be robust enough to handle the .308 . One is an Ishapore Enfield, the other an L1A1. comments and opinions appreciated.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:32:10 +0000

I learned along time ago not to trust the guy behind the counter. Most of the time he is just a warm body to sell ya something and will say anything to do it. I take upon myself to learn and vet any info. This has keep me safe and saved money in the long run. With the internet it is even easier now to find quility info on rounds and weapons. Be safe and keep in the 10 ring.

By: Captain Holly

Captain Holly — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:50:01 +0000

In terms of dimensions, the rounds are pretty much the same; I own both and haven’t noticed any obvious difference. It’s the rifles that shoot them that are different.

The problem starts when a person buys a 7.62 rifle thinking he can use .308 in it. A modern bolt action .308 made by a reputable manufacturer will shoot surplus 7.62 NATO just fine. A military semi-auto or older surplus 7.62 bolt action might not be able to handle .308 Win, for a variety of reasons.

I’m not sure what the advantage of using .308 in a 7.62 is, other than being able to legally hunt with it; the ammo certainly isn’t cheaper. That’s the advantage of buying a .308: You can use cheap 7.62 surplus ammo in it for target practice.

By: Ravenwood

Ravenwood — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:44:23 +0000

The rounds are quite different. I have both .308 and 7.62 NATO at home and the rounds clearly look different. My .308 Winchester Rifle shoots the surplus 7.62 just fine, but the surplus rounds look obviously different, and the cartridge neck is a wee bit shorter.

By: NMM1AFan

NMM1AFan — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:41:42 +0000

Also, the headspace is different.

Please see: http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

By: Diamondback

Diamondback — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:42:14 +0000

I’ve heard some incorrect info as well as some outright lies from behind the counter a few times. I usually just smile, nod and walk away. Not everyone can be Tam.

By: nk

nk — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:38:27 +0000

Yup. I paid for headspace gauging and chamber casting and found out that he had only chambered a hull. He’s still in business, unfortunately.

By: gunner

gunner — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:01:00 +0000

Ben. You have blogZpot in your link.

Did not know that about bobtail bullets. I’m just a plinker at heart.

By: ben

ben — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:48:12 +0000

I have an example: the old guy that runs a local shop here gave incorrect info twice. First, he said I was wrong that in Washington State you can carry concealed without a permit if you are in route to, in route from, or actively participating in a legitimate outdoor activity. It states this clearly in the washington laws.

Second, he was telling a fellow that the boat tail only improves ballistics below the speed of sound. Not true. The boat tail decreases “wave drag” associated with supersonic flight of the bullet. It also helps with pressure recovery and thus reduces drag when the bullet is subsonic. So he was half right.

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:27:44 +0000

Try discussing legal issues with an FFL someday for an exercise in frustration. You think there is lots of misinformation floating around about cartridge pressures?