Is there any benefit to short barreled 7.62 nato?

[Bolt_Overide]

I've seen this bandied about a few times by others, and I just cant get my head around it. Is there something I'm missing?

[Failure2Stop]

Not really.
Once you drop below 14.5" (16" to many), you might as well just go to .300 Blk and retain magazine/gear compatibility.


Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[TehLlama]

I think the absolute cutoff is 13" or so (where OAL for velocity is literally worth no gain), but a 14.5" .308 is going to weigh more than a 16" BLK, so I'll defer to the above.

If you're only concern is barrier penetration at closer range, and running suppressed, maybe there's something to a 14.5" .308 rifle, and in some cases some SCAR-H owners report better accuracy after shortening the barrel, but there isn't really antying to gain by going SBR .308

Some people will do it anyway... but like everything else in the gun industry, even if a smarter was has already been found, there's enough people wanting to be different the 'other' solution will get built anyway.

[Bolt_Overide]

Wheres my SR47 jack....

[TehLlama]

Oh, you saw the URX 3.1 Equipped one from last month too? Yeah... my keyboard hasn't quite recovered from the drool dumped on it yet.

[Failure2Stop]

Wheres my SR47 jack....

That purchase order must be around here somewhere...

[Suwannee Tim]

A good way to think about this is to describe the barrel length in calibers which is the barrel length divided by the bullet diameter. For example a 14.5 inch 5.56 mm barrel is about 65 calibers long. A 16 inch 7.62 mm barrel is about 52 calibers long. For standard rifle cartridges barrel length below 50 calibers and certainly 40 calibers gets you well into a regime of diminishing returns. By this reasoning a 16 inch 7.62 barrel is a short barrel.

[Kokopelli]

I concur with the following assessment.

Not really.
Once you drop below 14.5" (16" to many), you might as well just go to .300 Blk and retain magazine/gear compatibility.


Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[lunchbox]

I've seen this bandied about a few times by others, and I just cant get my head around it. Is there something I'm missing?

Got it bro!! many threads all why/how it will not work. Try looking for ways to make it work---heavy/lite projectile vs reduced/compressed loads, different combo powder burn rates w/ differ weight and types of bullet. And that's just the ways to tweek ammo for desired results. Maybe integral supp. is the ticket, meh maybe?? To tell truth, I have no Idea at all (know very little about 308 AR platform). Would like to see it work tho.

2nd--Who's to say what exactly are acceptable results? A lot of people (myself included) think that 7.5'' 556 AR's are unacceptable/range toys. But Then some say within 0-50ish 7.5'' length 556 round (with selective ammo) will produce acceptable results. Maybe find out all vel/ft lbs/etc of various 556 loads out of 7.5, 10.5, 12.5 length barrels and ratio/compare/crunch them too various length 308 lengths. Who knows might see why its not useful or....

3rd--This is America! All its gotta do is A)Go bang B)Look bad ass. If all a SBR 308 is; is a range toy. Make it the most Kewl-nst uber toy (read about a "loudener" muzzle dev., slap that puppy on there) on range. Not because its viable, but because its fun damnit! Ask not why you should have SBR'd 308, but why you shouldn't?? If it makes ya happy and doesn't hurt nobody else, then Rock Out With C@ck Out brah... On side note; SBR 308 with custom/crazy suppressor setup, sportn exotic hand-loads(provided could be done safely), would keep ya busy for while and be conversation piece at range.. But so would the obscenely loud one. Just some thoughts.

[PathfilmsNZ]

an 11 inch .308, while being much louder and less efficient than a .300 AAC, is still going to be faster with a heavier bullet.