Do you think an AR10-style platform is better than other 7.62 bullet launchers?

[Jsp10477]

Personally I feel the 16" 7.62x51 AR is a follow-on to the 16" (or shorter) 5.56mm versions. "If I can have a 5.56 in a 16" barrel why can't I have a 7.62 in the same length?" I honestly think it's a reaction to 5.56 AR trends.

I'm old enough to recall when an 18" barreled .308 was about as low as you went. Para FAL, HK G3, Springfield Scout, etc. It is only in recent years (to me!) that 16" has become an acceptable .308 alternative.

I am convinced that the 7.62x51 is best in 18" or greater barrel lengths. A 16" barrel just robs the round of better performance. While that can be said of nearly any cartridge, 5.56mm has a little more "give" and flexibility than .308.

I have a 16” cl barrel and an 18” ss barrel for my mws. @ 700 yards, if I remember correctly, there is about 1/2 moa difference in the elevation. Without looking at my notes I think it was 23.5 vs 24 moa. The ballistics aren’t why I bought the 18” barrel.

[daddyusmaximus]

Personally I feel the 16" 7.62x51 AR is a follow-on to the 16" (or shorter) 5.56mm versions. "If I can have a 5.56 in a 16" barrel why can't I have a 7.62 in the same length?" I honestly think it's a reaction to 5.56 AR trends.

I'm old enough to recall when an 18" barreled .308 was about as low as you went. Para FAL, HK G3, Springfield Scout, etc. It is only in recent years (to me!) that 16" has become an acceptable .308 alternative.

I am convinced that the 7.62x51 is best in 18" or greater barrel lengths. A 16" barrel just robs the round of better performance. While that can be said of nearly any cartridge, 5.56mm has a little more "give" and flexibility than .308.

I think it's the other way around. The smaller, lighter 5.56 round needs that extra velocity more than the heavier 7.62 does. The 7.62 already has more oomph going for it from the start due to it's mass.

In any case, I think a 7.62/.308 AR type weapon would make a fine general issue rifle/carbine were somebody inclined to go that route. The design is a solid one. The ergonomics are the best. (IMHO) There are several companies that make quality rifles these days. They are not as heavy as the legacy rifles. They are more accurate, more modular...

However, it doesn't seem to be the way things are going. Very few engagements are at distance, and mobility with increased ammo capacity seems to win out over the heavier hitting rounds. I can't see any Army ever going this route again.

I built a .308 AR this year, but I built is as a light little patrol carbine with a 14" barrel. For what I would need, this is a better 7.62/.308 AR than a longer/heavier rifle.

[call_me_ski]

You say that but our own US Army want to field a .270WSM equivalent as a standard caliber.

[pinzgauer]

You say that but our own US Army want to field a .270WSM equivalent as a standard caliber.

Hmm do they really? What I've seen published is that might want something with 270 wsm performance, but with weight (hard) of 5.56 and recoil (really hard) of close to 5.56. and in a rifle that weighs similar to the m4 package.

Those are two different things.

All the serving IN guys I know would love more range *as long as it did not add weight or reduce std load out for same weight*.

270 WSM (nor 7.62 nato, 6.8 spc, or grendel) do not meet that criteria.

They'd also love to have a plasma rifle in the 40Megawatt class if it weighed about the same.

[Failure2Stop]

Personally I feel the 16" 7.62x51 AR is a follow-on to the 16" (or shorter) 5.56mm versions. "If I can have a 5.56 in a 16" barrel why can't I have a 7.62 in the same length?" I honestly think it's a reaction to 5.56 AR trends.
I'm old enough to recall when an 18" barreled .308 was about as low as you went. Para FAL, HK G3, Springfield Scout, etc. It is only in recent years (to me!) that 16" has become an acceptable .308 alternative.
I am convinced that the 7.62x51 is best in 18" or greater barrel lengths. A 16" barrel just robs the round of better performance. While that can be said of nearly any cartridge, 5.56mm has a little more "give" and flexibility than .308.

The information/perception you're working from is incorrect.
24" is probably the technically "best" barrel length to push a .308 Win, but I think we can all agree that's just too much for just about any application that doesn't involve vehicle mounting or crew-served support.
When we directly compare 16" barrels to 20" barrels with quality ammunition, the velocity difference is right around 100 ft/s. Trans-sonic range difference of right around 50-75 meters. Energy at target at 1,000 meters of 420 ft/lbs versus 395 ft/lbs.
Wind drift is a little more pronounced, but not crazy: 10 mph at 500 meters will drift about 1.5 mils with the 20", about 1.6 mils with 16".

I've killed medium to large mammals at distances out to 800+ meters with 16" 7.62, and I've competed at the highest levels of semi-auto gas gun precision competition with a 16" SR-25 (2017 PRS Gas Gun Series Tactical Heavy Division 2nd place at 99.9% of 1st https://www.precisionrifleseries.com...17&division=GH) against just about everyone else shooting 20"-24" barrels.

[ABNAK]

The information/perception you're working from is incorrect.
24" is probably the technically "best" barrel length to push a .308 Win, but I think we can all agree that's just too much for just about any application that doesn't involve vehicle mounting or crew-served support.
When we directly compare 16" barrels to 20" barrels with quality ammunition, the velocity difference is right around 100 ft/s. Trans-sonic range difference of right around 50-75 meters. Energy at target at 1,000 meters of 420 ft/lbs versus 395 ft/lbs.
Wind drift is a little more pronounced, but not crazy: 10 mph at 500 meters will drift about 1.5 mils with the 20", about 1.6 mils with 16".

I've killed medium to large mammals at distances out to 800+ meters with 16" 7.62, and I've competed at the highest levels of semi-auto gas gun precision competition with a 16" SR-25 (2017 PRS Gas Gun Series Tactical Heavy Division 2nd place at 99.9% of 1st https://www.precisionrifleseries.com...17&division=GH) against just about everyone else shooting 20"-24" barrels.

I stand corrected! Thanks for the info. If what you say is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you) then 5.56 actually suffers more of a velocity drop from 20" --> 16" than 7.62/.308 does.

[SFree]

While I’m no ballistics expert I wanna remind everyone of how the .308 cartridge was designed for 300 meter target shooting for the world and Olympic shooting competitions.
We as Americans have taken the cartridge to distances it was never intended to reach, so anything past 600 meters with accuracy and performance is, for me, at least, exceeding expectations and a “cherry on top “ no matter what barrel length...

[Failure2Stop]

While I’m no ballistics expert I wanna remind everyone of how the .308 cartridge was designed for 300 meter target shooting for the world and Olympic shooting competitions.
We as Americans have taken the cartridge to distances it was never intended to reach, so anything past 600 meters with accuracy and performance is, for me, at least, exceeding expectations and a “cherry on top “ no matter what barrel length...

I know that the 155 Palma projectile was oriented to that application, but I have never seen an indication that the .308 Win itself was built for that specific purpose.
I know that it was introduced in 1952 by Winchester, but always understood it to be a hunting oriented introduction.
Do you have a source about it's development and introduction with match performance as the primary design intent?

[caporider]

While I’m no ballistics expert I wanna remind everyone of how the .308 cartridge was designed for 300 meter target shooting for the world and Olympic shooting competitions.
We as Americans have taken the cartridge to distances it was never intended to reach, so anything past 600 meters with accuracy and performance is, for me, at least, exceeding expectations and a “cherry on top “ no matter what barrel length...

I'm sort of in this camp as well. For me, .308 has been surpassed by 6.5CM and other cartridges for distance work, but it can still be useful inside RDS range. I don't shoot this firearm seriously, but it can have a place in the toolbox... With the heavy buffer installed, the recoil is very manageable even using a brace. The brace also fixes the giant-arm LOP that many don't like about the HK G3/91.

[maximus83]

The information/perception you're working from is incorrect.
24" is probably the technically "best" barrel length to push a .308 Win, but I think we can all agree that's just too much for just about any application that doesn't involve vehicle mounting or crew-served support.
When we directly compare 16" barrels to 20" barrels with quality ammunition, the velocity difference is right around 100 ft/s. Trans-sonic range difference of right around 50-75 meters. Energy at target at 1,000 meters of 420 ft/lbs versus 395 ft/lbs.
Wind drift is a little more pronounced, but not crazy: 10 mph at 500 meters will drift about 1.5 mils with the 20", about 1.6 mils with 16".

I've killed medium to large mammals at distances out to 800+ meters with 16" 7.62, and I've competed at the highest levels of semi-auto gas gun precision competition with a 16" SR-25 (2017 PRS Gas Gun Series Tactical Heavy Division 2nd place at 99.9% of 1st https://www.precisionrifleseries.com...17&division=GH) against just about everyone else shooting 20"-24" barrels.

And given the relatively trivial ballistic penalty going from 20" to 16" with .308 at these ranges, it's a wonder that short-barreled 6.5 CM rifles have not already become more popular, as anything said here would apply equally if not more so to 6.5 CM.