Did the U.S. Military ever consider...

[HorseSoldier]

A .30 bullet in such a small cartridge seems pretty inefficient to me (too slow, poor BC, too short of an effective range). Something more along the lines of a .244-.277 bullet would be much better.

You just pretty much laid out the specs for .280 British (was actual diameter of 0.276"), 276 Pedersen, 6.8mm Rem SPC, and 6.5mm Grendel. Probably pretty close to the pre-WW2 German efferts to develope a 7mm intermediate round, too, before logistical concerns forced the common bore size with Mausers.

 

[PercyShelley]

Mind you, the 7.62 x 51 was jammed down NATO's throat(just like the 5.56 was later) by the U.S. Nearly ever other NATO country was working on a new cartridge. Most in 7mm.

Besides the 7x43 British round, what other 7mm intermediate cartridges were there?

I'm familiar with a 7.62 CETME round and a 7.65x35 French after the war, and obviously the .276 Pederson before it, but who else was working with 7mm?

 

[ziggy222]

the u.s. does'nt copy off other countries rounds.they copy us.because we have the best.if 7.72x39 was the best then the u.s. would alreaddy have it.we keep getting smaller and lighter cartridges because its less to ship and carry but we would never sacrifice velocity-shock power.

 

[buck00]

Did the U.S. Military ever consider... ...using the 7.62x39??

Hahaha! Who told you this?

Other than the superiority of 5.56 and 7.62 x 51... it would have been politically and strategically foolish. The idea of all NATO countries using compatible cartridges was to provide a huge logistics advantage. Let's say the U.S. or NATO switched to 7.62 x 39 back in the early 60's- they would have suddenly been granting the Warsaw Pact the same logistics advantage. Every NATO base, ammo dump, or factory they captured in Western Europe (in a war scenario) would have provided any advancing Bolshevik hoards with compatible ammo. It would make supply much easier for any Soviet campaign.

But if this were the case, maybe 7.62 x 39 today would only be 3 cents a round.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Besides the 7x43 British round, what other 7mm intermediate cartridges were there?

280, 280/30 and 7x43 (in its various incarnations) was the only 7mm round being considered. But it was being considered by several NATO nations (UK, Belgium, and Canada, if I remember right) until US obstructionism shut it down.

 

[Schleprok62]

Buck00:

I totally agree with your statemnts... I din't buy into it for a minute... although, I never really thought about all of the possible scenarios mentioned in this thread... My personal thouhgts were more along the lines of why downgrade from the 7.62 NATO (.308 Win) for the x39??? Granted, short range, the x51 is a bit overkill... but it's still better... accurately, and ballistically...

 

[elmerfudd]

There's no real accuracy advantage to 7.62 NATO over 7.62x39. Maybe for match shooting .308 has an edge, but both cartridges are capable of sub-MOA accuracy. The determining factor is the rifle shooting them and the ammunition being shot. Romanian and Chinese guns shooting steel cased commie ammo will tend to be inaccurate whether they are 7.62 AK's or 5.56 AR's.

7.62x51 does have a ballistic advantage, but you'll notice we dropped it like a hot potato when we ran up against NVA and VC armed with AK47's. Good long range ballistics aren't the most important facet of a combat cartridge. If that were the case we'd arm our troops with .338 Lapua.

 

[variablebinary]

Did the U.S. Military ever consider...

...using the 7.62x39??

Reason I ask is one of the guys I work with told me that they had, and I just kinda looked at him and called B S ! !

Why would the US consider the x39 when the x51 was lightyears better??

As a frontline caliber? I dont think so.

Unofficially some 7.62x39 carbines have been used here and there.

Officially, there was the SOCOM SPRV military contract awarded to Robinson Armament in 2001. Robarm's RAV-02 carbine is/was chambered in 7.62x39 and even took AK mags.

 

[PercyShelley]

There's no real accuracy advantage to 7.62 NATO over 7.62x39. Maybe for match shooting .308 has an edge, but both cartridges are capable of sub-MOA accuracy. The determining factor is the rifle shooting them and the ammunition being shot. Romanian and Chinese guns shooting steel cased commie ammo will tend to be inaccurate whether they are 7.62 AK's or 5.56 AR's.

The x51 has less taper and runs at higher pressures. It probably is more inherently accurate, Communist quality control notwithstanding.

Again though, that's pretty academic.

Has anyone ever pointed out a genuine case of convergent design between the 6mm SAW cartridges and the 5.45x39? Seriously, some of the SAW rounds look like scaled-up M74.

 

[Ignition Override]

This is somewhat off-topic, about the 5.56.

Although I've got a limited civilian-only plinking background, some gun book authors ("firearms experts") claimed that the M-14 on full auto was too difficult for new troops to control, and this apparently motivated them, among other reasons, to look at the 5.56 and M-16.

"...extending the training times required to reach competency..".
Among some advantages of the 55g ss109/M855 round: "The takedown power is ensured if a vital area is struck". He discusses 5.56 fragmentation versus the 7.62 tumbling inside the human body etc.

From page 313, "The Switch to Small Caliber", in "The Great Book of Guns...", by Dr. Chris McNab, Thunder Bay Press.
Some of his others "Weapon of War: AK-47" and "Survive In the Arctic With the Royal Marine Commandos".
I know very little about the subject, but the book is really interesting to this older novice.

HorseSoldier: Your comments are reflected in various sources about heavy US pressure on NATO allies etc. I can imagine the British reaction decades ago when learning about the small round; having read recently about the guy in BC or Alaska who was startled by a grizzly emerging from thick woods near his parked car, stopping it in just the nick of time with four rounds from his very smooth-action, Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine.
Would the M-16/AR-15 have done that? From what I've read and heard, it appears doubtful, but will enjoy reading more comments from very experienced shooters: both civilian and military.

Is there a significant possibility that a version of the M-16/M-4 converted to 7.62x39 would be more effective at typical combat distances now in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[GunTech]

You just pretty much laid out the specs for .280 British (was actual diameter of 0.276")

Actually, that's not quite corect, Horse. The 280 measured 0.276 across the lands. The bullet was actually 0.284 - 7mm.

 

[elmerfudd]

The x51 has less taper and runs at higher pressures. It probably is more inherently accurate, Communist quality control notwithstanding.

For match or benchrest purposes you are probably right, but that's a little irrelevant. Check out the thread about Krochus' 0.3 MOA 7.62x39 bench rifle. That might not be good enough to win in benchrest competition, but it's certainly enough to dispel the myth that 7.62x39 is inherently inaccurate.

 

[Old Grump]

Make my bullet bigger

308 replaced the 30-06 because it could use a shorter action and a lighter rifle. Both were designed for trench warfare in Europe where a man was expected to be able to knock down an enemy at 600 meters. The 308 can do that. the 39 was developed for close quarter combat and automatic weapons which required a lot of ammo. the 39 was shorter and lighter so they could carry more. Our military would not deign to copy any other country commie or ally because of stiff necked pride. We would have been better off with M14's and shotguns in Nam but its history now and it doesn't matter. Now we are in the mountains and desert with a jungle gun and surprise surprise, a small bullet doesn't put a 160 pound man down as fast as a big bullet does. Same thing can be said for 45 vs 9MM argument. Big hole wins.

 

[PercyShelley]

For match or benchrest purposes you are probably right, but that's a little irrelevant. Check out the thread about Krochus' 0.3 MOA 7.62x39 bench rifle. That might not be good enough to win in benchrest competition, but it's certainly enough to dispel the myth that 7.62x39 is inherently inaccurate.

For combat purposes the "inherent" accuracy of cartridges, that is, the deviation that comes from case geometry, pressure levels, and anything else aside from manufacturing variation will be statistically insignificant compared to the trade-offs made for mass-manufacture.

At least, as long as we're talking infantry rifles that's true. An infantry rifle/ammo combination could shoot 4 MOA on a good day, have a ballistic coefficient of .3 and a muzzle velocity of 2400 f/s and still be completely adequate.

For machinegun use the x39 probably starts to huff and puff a little much within the operational envelope, which explains why RPKs and PKMs both exist.

 

[Rifleman 173]

The U.S. military has run tests on all sorts of foreign ammo to see what it will and won't do. Certain elite units HAVE adopted rifles that do shoot the 7.62 X 39 cartridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-47

The SR-47 was a limited run of a rifle which was a cross between the M-16 and the AK-47. The idea was that SEAL and SF personnel could use captured enemy cartridges and magazines while behind enemy lines. So, yes, some parts of the U.S. military have adopted and used the enemy's rounds to their advantage. And, no, not everybody gets to use the enemy's ammo in 7.62 X 39.

 

[cracked butt]

308 replaced the 30-06 because it could use a shorter action and a lighter rifle. Both were designed for trench warfare in Europe where a man was expected to be able to knock down an enemy at 600 meters. The 308 can do that

The 30-06 was developed when horse cavalry was still a major part of the battlefield. The 30-06 was spec'd to be powerful enough to stop a cavalry horse at 500 yards. The 30-06 and by extension, the not yet conceptualized 308 was pretty much overpowered if not obsolete by early in WWI. As they say, militaries tend to prepare for the war that they last fought, some places weighted down by may layers of breaucracy, red tape, huge defense contracts, and political influence peddling like the US are about as ready as they'll ever be to fight the Vietnam war.

The big .30 calibers have a definate role in long range sniping, but something like a 6.5 Grendel not only can outshine the .308 at extended ranges, but fits in the AR-15 platform.

The .30 calibers are overrated but fit the hamer analogy to a 'T'- they look like the right tool for every job when they are the only tool that the user is willing to use.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The SR-47 was a limited run of a rifle

Incredibly limited.

Though I remain surprised someone hasn't started making a civilian clone of the SR-47 -- seems like a lot of people would enthuse about a 7.62x39 AR lower that didn't have all the magazine issues regular ones do.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

The 7.62x39 is "adopted" only for one reason: OPPFOR!

Our boys occasionally drop the drab boring ACU and pick up the striped shirts of the communist regime and take "arms" against their fellow soldiers! (at least, that is what I heard about during the cold war). I know of familiarization of arms in some groups of the Army.

Quick question: What ammo do they use for that purpose (familiarization)? Ammo picked up from one of our adventures? Winny Whie box?

 

[HorseSoldier]

Quick question: What ammo do they use for that purpose (familiarization)? Ammo picked up from one of our adventures? Winny Whie box?

When the US military issues former Soviet/Warsaw Pact ammo, it's new production purchased overseas. I see a good deal of it, though I'm not 100% of where all of it comes from, given the lack of identifying marks lots of Eastern European nations put on their stuff.

7.62x39 ball comes from one of the former Yugoslavian states, and 7.62x39 blanks are direct from Russia. I'm not sure on 5.45 ball (Bulgarian, I think) and blanks (haven't seen those, though they're in the system), or 7.62x54 (I think ball is from the same Yugoslavian state as x39 ball, and blanks from Russia again, but not 100%). 9x18 Mak ammo is commercial pack Wolf.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Of course, we did use the 30 carbine which was designed more or less with the same battlefield philosophy. Light, easy to carry and control for the short range engagements that make up modern troop warfare.

 

[Slamfire]

According to one book I read, the US ran environmental/endurance tests of the early M16's and AK-47's. The military were upset that the AK47's were proven to be more reliable, and the AK's were battle field pickups, unlike the factory prepped M16's.

For those who did not live through the Cold War years, it was absolutely unthinkable for the Western countries to adopt any thing Soviet.

We had been programmed anything Soviet was evil, bad, and inferior to what the West had to offer.

At some level we were totally afraid of the Soviets, at another level were totally contemptuous of them. Demonizing the enemy leads to schizophrenic thinking. And poor decisions.

 

[Tony Williams]

I am sure that the 7.62x39 was not for one moment considered for adoption by the US Army.

However, as others have mentioned, Special Forces operating behind enemy lines have been interested because they can pick up ammo as they go. IIRC the FN SCAR Heavy, specifically designed for SOCOM, was being touted as able to be adapted for the 7.62x39 as well as the 7.62x51 for this very reason (although they went quiet on that later). That might be the source of the notion mentioned in the first post.

 

[Ignition Override]

May a comment about the former "Warsaw Pact" guns be brought up, instead of just the ammo?
Today I talked with a young soldier based at Ft. Riley, who spent 16 months in Iraq.

I asked him whether he might consider a Russian-designed rifle or an M-4/AR-15 type for short-range combat.

He told me that if his gun would jam with one grain of sand in it.
The younger soldiers seem usually reluctant to favor a weapon used by the other side.

 

[theken206]

"I suppose x51 was a failure as a "general service cartridge" here in the US since we're not using it"

since when are we NOT using 7.62x51??

M1A's, the 240 series, MK48 ect ect

 

[theken206]

"Officially, there was the SOCOM SPRV military contract awarded to Robinson Armament in 2001. Robarm's RAV-02 carbine is/was chambered in 7.62x39 and even took AK mags."

yup, IIRC it was for mob6 type guys doing raids on afghani caves. not sure if they made many or they saw much use