7.62x51 in a .308 rifle
- Thread starter vor999
- Start date
bamaranger
New member
controversy
I have never heard or read of any controversy surrounding the metric designated and the sporting (7.62x51 v. .308) cartridges fired in sporting .308 marked rifles. At one time I was given a belt of about 250 rds of M60 ammo, complete w/ tracers. I set the tracers aside, but I shot up the FMJ in my early Savage scout rifle w/ no issues.
I have never heard or read of any controversy surrounding the metric designated and the sporting (7.62x51 v. .308) cartridges fired in sporting .308 marked rifles. At one time I was given a belt of about 250 rds of M60 ammo, complete w/ tracers. I set the tracers aside, but I shot up the FMJ in my early Savage scout rifle w/ no issues.
The case dimensions are identical as are chambers. Military 7.62 is loaded for reliable function in machine guns and semi-auto rifles. Civilian 308 ammo may well be loaded a little hotter. Autoloaders need ammo loaded within a fairly narrow range of pressures to function. That isn't a concern in bolt guns.
It wouldn't be dangerous to fire in an auto or semi-auto rifle, but functioning may not be as reliable, and you may well wear out parts sooner. You'll never have an issue with 7.62 in a bolt gun.
You see exactly the same thing with 30-06 in military weapons and civilian versions. Commercial 30-06 hunting ammo is typically much hotter than the rounds designed to work in the Garand. They just didn't give them different names.
223 and 5.56 are the opposite. The military 5.56 version CAN be loaded a bit hotter than the civilian 223 version even though the case dimensions are the same. This is the one that causes the most debate. But they have been used interchangeably for over 50 years. The only issues I'm aware of is hotter 5.56 ammo not functioning reliably in semi auto 223 rifles. But no one currently makes a 223 semi. The early Ruger Mini14's were, but they are now marked 5.56.
It wouldn't be dangerous to fire in an auto or semi-auto rifle, but functioning may not be as reliable, and you may well wear out parts sooner. You'll never have an issue with 7.62 in a bolt gun.
You see exactly the same thing with 30-06 in military weapons and civilian versions. Commercial 30-06 hunting ammo is typically much hotter than the rounds designed to work in the Garand. They just didn't give them different names.
223 and 5.56 are the opposite. The military 5.56 version CAN be loaded a bit hotter than the civilian 223 version even though the case dimensions are the same. This is the one that causes the most debate. But they have been used interchangeably for over 50 years. The only issues I'm aware of is hotter 5.56 ammo not functioning reliably in semi auto 223 rifles. But no one currently makes a 223 semi. The early Ruger Mini14's were, but they are now marked 5.56.
That's the metric version used in some European countries for sporting rifles. All NATO approved ammo uses metric designations and never included the 30-06.
M1903 rifle's original military cartridge was the 30-03. 3 years later when its 220 grain bullet was replaced with a 150, the cartridge was then named the 30-06. Military designation was later sometimes Caliber 30 M1 and Caliber 30 M2 for different bullet types and weights.
Last edited:
I did run into a problem with some metric silverbear 7.62 in a Browning BLR .308 win.
I experienced hard extraction, and abandoned the idea of shooting it in in that particular rifle. I think the Wolf Silverbear is a nickel-ed steel case, and maybe the steel case was the problem.
I experienced hard extraction, and abandoned the idea of shooting it in in that particular rifle. I think the Wolf Silverbear is a nickel-ed steel case, and maybe the steel case was the problem.
According to the first book I looked in Winchester released the .308 Winchester in 1952. Dimensionally the same as the military T-65 round then undergoing testing and adopted by the Army as 7.62 NATO in 1954.
The GI cartridge was made to replicate the performance of the GI .30-06 round, firing a 150gr bullet at approx. 2750fps.
Winchester's .308 round lists a 150gr bullet in the 28-2900fps range so clearly pressures are not identical but military round. USGI ammo is lower velocity than commercial .308 Winchester there won't be any problems shooting it in a .308 Win rifle.
Foreign made ammo is ...foreign made ammo and I have no idea what you're going to get, especially if its steel cased stuff made in former Soviet Bloc nations. It OUGHT to be ok, but....
The GI cartridge was made to replicate the performance of the GI .30-06 round, firing a 150gr bullet at approx. 2750fps.
Winchester's .308 round lists a 150gr bullet in the 28-2900fps range so clearly pressures are not identical but military round. USGI ammo is lower velocity than commercial .308 Winchester there won't be any problems shooting it in a .308 Win rifle.
Foreign made ammo is ...foreign made ammo and I have no idea what you're going to get, especially if its steel cased stuff made in former Soviet Bloc nations. It OUGHT to be ok, but....
All the military specs I've seen show the 7.62's 22 inch barrel has about 100 fps less muzzle velocity for the same bullet weights as the 30-06 in 24" barrels. Both had 50,000 cup peak pressures.
Winchester used 308 loads in 24" barrels at 52,000 cup chronographed at 10 feet. Their 30-06 ammo had 50,000 cup.
Arsenals used 7,62 loads in 22" barrels at 50,000 cup chronographed at 78 feet.
SAAMI specs 308 velocity for 150 grain bullets from 2800 to 2980 fps, all with 62,000 psi or 52,000 cup. Evidence to me different powders were used.
Thousands of us are still confusing the old military and civilian use of copper units of pressure (CUP) differences with modern strain or piezoelectric sensors pounds per square inch (PSI) units. 51,000 CUP puts virtually the same force on the chamber walls as 61,000 PSI. Shame, shame on every ammo maker using a CUP system measuring peak pressure then publishing it as PSI. Unfortunately, this debacle will continue ad infinitum.
Winchester used 308 loads in 24" barrels at 52,000 cup chronographed at 10 feet. Their 30-06 ammo had 50,000 cup.
Arsenals used 7,62 loads in 22" barrels at 50,000 cup chronographed at 78 feet.
SAAMI specs 308 velocity for 150 grain bullets from 2800 to 2980 fps, all with 62,000 psi or 52,000 cup. Evidence to me different powders were used.
Thousands of us are still confusing the old military and civilian use of copper units of pressure (CUP) differences with modern strain or piezoelectric sensors pounds per square inch (PSI) units. 51,000 CUP puts virtually the same force on the chamber walls as 61,000 PSI. Shame, shame on every ammo maker using a CUP system measuring peak pressure then publishing it as PSI. Unfortunately, this debacle will continue ad infinitum.
Last edited:
Kreyzhorse
New member
Should be fine but in my experience, mil surplus was pretty damn inaccurate
Are you referring to very heavy hunting bullet's use of slower powders causing higher gas port pressure but the same chamber pressure?
Last edited:
The M1 Garand is a machine, built to run on a certain "grade" of fuel. And, like nearly everything else designed to run within a certain range of specs when you go outside that, issues happen.
I'm not going to get into the confusing conversions between different methods of pressure measurements, lets just stick with something a bit more simple to comprehend, velocity.
GI ammo is spec'd to run a 150gr bullet at 2750 +/- and commercial Remchester sporting ammo pushes the 150gr in the 2900fps range. Clearly the speeds are different so the pressure pushing the bullet must also be different.
This difference creates problems in the Garand, unless the rifle has been modified to handle it. The M14 gas system is slightly different from the Garand and will handle the difference between commercial .308 hunting ammo and GI 7.62mm NATO without needing modification to the rifle. Other factors make using ,.308 in an M14 a poor choice.
Beyond that we get into details not important to the OP's question.
I'm not going to get into the confusing conversions between different methods of pressure measurements, lets just stick with something a bit more simple to comprehend, velocity.
GI ammo is spec'd to run a 150gr bullet at 2750 +/- and commercial Remchester sporting ammo pushes the 150gr in the 2900fps range. Clearly the speeds are different so the pressure pushing the bullet must also be different.
This difference creates problems in the Garand, unless the rifle has been modified to handle it. The M14 gas system is slightly different from the Garand and will handle the difference between commercial .308 hunting ammo and GI 7.62mm NATO without needing modification to the rifle. Other factors make using ,.308 in an M14 a poor choice.
Beyond that we get into details not important to the OP's question.
44 AMP,
Prior to piezoelectric transducers, both military and commercial 30-06:ammo had the same 50,000 cup max average pressure spec. It's still the same today. Except for one early military spec that was 54,000 cup for one type I now forget.
Exactly why is commercial 308 ammo a poor choice to shoot in M14 rifles? Military and civilian rifle teams shot thousands of them without problems. Commercial match ammo was much more accurate than M118 or M852 match ammo.
Prior to piezoelectric transducers, both military and commercial 30-06:ammo had the same 50,000 cup max average pressure spec. It's still the same today. Except for one early military spec that was 54,000 cup for one type I now forget.
Exactly why is commercial 308 ammo a poor choice to shoot in M14 rifles? Military and civilian rifle teams shot thousands of them without problems. Commercial match ammo was much more accurate than M118 or M852 match ammo.
Last edited:
44 AMP,
Do you think any commercial 30-06 ammo would be loaded to any pressure greater than SAAMI specs?
SAAMI and MILSPEC limit is 50,000 cup, except for a couple incendiary military types at 54,000 cup.
Any concerns about Garands converted to 7.62 NATO? Tests in 1964 showed the 7.62 version shot M80 ball about 100 to 200 fps faster than 30-06 versions shooting 30 caliber M2 ball. Both ammo pressure specs at 50,000 cup.
Do you think any commercial 30-06 ammo would be loaded to any pressure greater than SAAMI specs?
SAAMI and MILSPEC limit is 50,000 cup, except for a couple incendiary military types at 54,000 cup.
Any concerns about Garands converted to 7.62 NATO? Tests in 1964 showed the 7.62 version shot M80 ball about 100 to 200 fps faster than 30-06 versions shooting 30 caliber M2 ball. Both ammo pressure specs at 50,000 cup.
Last edited:
I'd say yes. You can safely shoot it from your Remington bolt action.
Further discussion of .30-06 pressure, military proof loads, the Garand and so on is off topic and I'm done being dragged into thread drift, thanks.
Bart, if you want to explore this further, why not start its own thread?