Common Military Rifle Calibers 1945 to Present: An overviw - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military rifle calibers 1888-1945: An overview Kenno Military Weapons Forum 55 07-26-2017 11:37 PM
Survivalist Rifle Calibers kev Firearms General Discussion 41 04-16-2017 12:04 PM
What do YOU think our military calibers should be? old corvus 41 Firearms General Discussion 250 08-13-2016 04:04 PM
Common .mil calibers vs E Tool Griff Military Weapons Forum 11 01-06-2015 06:54 PM
Guns in common calibers that don't get much mention? Inazone Rifle Forum 55 01-09-2014 07:57 PM
Best Military Rifle 1945-1970 OldManRiver Polls and Surveys 40 01-05-2014 02:43 PM
Most common calibers in Oz Er, sorry NZ Kiwi Sapper Australia and New Zealand 21 11-03-2012 01:14 AM
For the Military, past, present and future... Gunner65 General Discussion 3 12-24-2011 07:07 PM
Reloading Military Calibers Southcross Military Weapons Forum 38 11-08-2011 11:41 AM
most common calibers for rifles and handgun moultrie90 Firearms General Discussion 18 09-07-2011 01:22 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-13-2009, 12:26 AM
hopnchop hopnchop is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 490
Thanks: 1
Thanked 157 Times in 110 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviator 64 View Post
I agree. I'm not a big fan of the 5.56 for a battle rifle. Not enough stopping power. It's basically a varmit round - wouldn't recommend it for deer. I'm afraid the military will be stuck with it and the M-16/M-4 for some time to come, though. Not because they are the best, but because of the politics involved in making a change. Like to see us go to a 6.5mm or 6.8mm round in a piston operated weapon. I think gas impingement design is like routing the exaust pipe for your car into the cab. Weapon gets dirty too fast and the heat accelerates wear on components and affects accuracy in follow-up shots (comes into play for long range sniping).
A gas piston just moves the gunk to a different location. I know since I had the privilege of carrying an AK for a short time that had been in extended storage. Last person to use it didn't care since he was either a conscript fixing to get out or was about to be issued a 5.45. My buddy got one even worse, piston frozen with rust about half way down the tube. It's a handy weapon, and hardy, but between the two the M16 wins. If the 5.56 was such a bad idea how come the Soviets went to a similar round?
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-13-2009, 01:09 AM
Aviator 64 Aviator 64 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 53
Thanks: 192
Thanked 28 Times in 15 Posts
Default

In a piston system, the carbon is not fed into the receiver. It takes alot more use and neglect to freeze up a piston system with gunk than a gas impingement system. Also, your bolt is not exposed to the head from the exhaust gases from the barrel which causes fatigue. If you don't clean any weapon system eventually you will have problems. The AK is one othe most reliable weapons around and stands up to alot of abuse. Guess what kind of gas sytem it uses - a piston system. Why do you think that machine guns (which fire many more rounds than assualt rifles) use gas piston systems and not gas impingement?

One of the problems we are having with the 5.56 in theater is its inability to stop the enemy with one round. One of the ideas behind the 5.56 when it was adopted was that it would wound the enemy and take additional soilders out of the battle when the responded to the wounded soldier. The enemy we face now could care less about a wounded comrad and the wounded will seek to kill us to their last breath. What we need is a round that will quickly incapacitate. The 5.56 does not do this. It is a freaking varmit round!

BTW - in all the field tests they have done lately with the M4 up against other competitors, it's got its tail kicked in reliability.

Last edited by Aviator 64; 04-13-2009 at 01:15 AM.. Reason: added comment
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aviator 64 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-30-2009, 08:23 AM
Sp!der's Avatar
Sp!der Sp!der is offline
Stercus accidit
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wyoming, MI
Age: 29
Posts: 10
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default Caliburs

I thought the 5 Nato=.308 and the 7 Nato=.30-06

or did I have that wrong for all this time.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-20-2009, 05:57 AM
axxxel axxxel is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp!der View Post
I thought the 5 Nato=.308 and the 7 Nato=.30-06

or did I have that wrong for all this time.
Yes.

5.56mm NATO (5,56x45mm) is the military version of .223 remington

7.62mm NATO (7.62x51mm) is the military version of .308 Winchester.

The US standard service cartridge has since the Springfield rifle of WW1 been: .30-06 (Garand), 7.62mm NATO (m14), 5,56mm NATO (m16).

NATO didn't exist in 1906 when the .30-06 cartridge was adopted.

The wiki articles on these cartridges will present a more detailed description.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-04-2011, 07:58 PM
shootnstarz's Avatar
shootnstarz shootnstarz is offline
Stargazer Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 1,061
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,034 Times in 502 Posts
Default

"NATO didn't exist in 1906 when the .30-06 cartridge was adopted"

Correct, it is refered to as the US 30 Cal and was accepted in 1906, hence the "06". Prior to 1906 the 03 Springfield rifles were chambered in 30.03, a much weaker round.

"I'm pretty sure the 8mm came first"

Also correct, however before the modern 8mm, the 8mmS .323 dia, there was another 8mm, the 8mmJ with a .318 dia. These were used in the 1888 German Commision rifles. Most of the 88s were converted to shoot the S 8mm. Hope I got my alphabet right, it's been a while since I had any foreign hardware. These devestating rounds are what brought about the change in the US military from cowboy calibers to the US30 cal round.

Let's also not forget the 30.40 Krag

Rick
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Haydenb08 Haydenb08 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 32
Thanks: 5
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Talking Pistol Caliber overview?

Kenno,

Unbelievable thread. Both caliber overviews were very informational yes concise.

Would you be up for doing the same for pistol calibers? Could be neat..
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-21-2011, 12:59 AM
The Racker The Racker is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 19
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ls1 View Post
The 7.62x54 has already been discussed in the 1945- thread. Why? It's that old...hence why it doesn't belong here.
.

There are some "old" things that just keep on working. The 7.62x54R is one of them. The '06 is not quite as old but it is still a fine cartridge (followed by its son, the 7.62mm NATO round).

In some quarters, people might even say the latter round is getting long in the tooth. It is a matter of perspective. I doubt anyone hit by any of these rounds would be able to tell you what it was.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-17-2012, 03:25 PM
Dragunov's Avatar
Dragunov Dragunov is offline
TEXAS!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Great Republic of Texas!
Posts: 7,135
Thanks: 10,678
Thanked 11,216 Times in 4,328 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviator 64 View Post
In a piston system, the carbon is not fed into the receiver. It takes alot more use and neglect to freeze up a piston system with gunk than a gas impingement system. Also, your bolt is not exposed to the head from the exhaust gases from the barrel which causes fatigue. If you don't clean any weapon system eventually you will have problems. The AK is one othe most reliable weapons around and stands up to alot of abuse. Guess what kind of gas sytem it uses - a piston system. Why do you think that machine guns (which fire many more rounds than assualt rifles) use gas piston systems and not gas impingement?

One of the problems we are having with the 5.56 in theater is its inability to stop the enemy with one round. One of the ideas behind the 5.56 when it was adopted was that it would wound the enemy and take additional soilders out of the battle when the responded to the wounded soldier. The enemy we face now could care less about a wounded comrad and the wounded will seek to kill us to their last breath. What we need is a round that will quickly incapacitate. The 5.56 does not do this. It is a freaking varmit round!

BTW - in all the field tests they have done lately with the M4 up against other competitors, it's got its tail kicked in reliability.
I'm not buying that, and neither is the soldier looking over my shoulder at this moment. A 5.56 WILL drop a man sized target with one round PDQ. I don't know where the idea of modern DI rifles being unreliable come from. Mine shoots even if it's full of grime with no problem.

I can understand the old ones could be problematic, I have an early '70s vintage Colt. It has a 1:12 twist barrel (FAIL). It does FTF and FTE with enough frequency that I wouldn't depend on it to save my life, however, I have a S&W M&P15 that is just the opposite. Reliable dirty or clean and way more accurate than the Colt.

I would love to get an AK, and probably will after moving to TX, but they're not the "end all" for reliability everyone makes them out to be. While better than my Colt, my cousins Romanian AK isn't any more reliable than my S&W, and isn't nearly as accurate, and I PROMISE that a buttstrike from my AR will be just as devastating as one from my cousins AK and it will still function afterwards. His AK is reliable enough, and accurate enough to be USEFUL, but It DOES FTF and FTE sometimes...... far less than my AR. I've only had one FTE from my AR, and that's because I was using "strange re-loads" in it.

AR=Unreliable weapon with a "weak" round........... BS!
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-10-2012, 11:50 PM
snurdly's Avatar
snurdly snurdly is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: mexifornia
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
Default

I have an 7.62 by 54r svt40 that has a 10 round magazine and is semi auto. works great. Just wish i could find a scope mount for it.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-11-2012, 12:00 AM
snurdly's Avatar
snurdly snurdly is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: mexifornia
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
Default

I have heard too many stories about the jamming propensity of the Ar-15 to ever trust one. My neighbor has an expensive Ar that jams quite often. I chose a mini 14 instead because of the operating system is more reliable. Actually for close in use I believe the M1 carbine would be a better choice. My M1 is reliable and extremely accurate with stock sights and is light enough to replace my .22 as a light rifle for the wife to use.
There was a case on "in session" where a man's cats were being shot by an off duty cop using an AR. The man confronted the cop with an M1carbine and the cop took a shot at him with the AR and missed. the AR jammed on the first shot and the man took out the cop with the M1. He got off. This just reinforced my previous opinion of the relative reliability of the two rifles.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-11-2012, 12:07 AM
snurdly's Avatar
snurdly snurdly is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: mexifornia
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
Default

I have seen on TV that Kalashnikov himself stating he did not agree with the change to the 5.45 round. He felt it was done because the Americans went to 5.56. Ruskies tend to copy American designs. Don't forget the Buran space shuttle or the backfire bomber
response to the B-1.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to snurdly For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2013, 06:34 PM
teenahlake teenahlake is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 607
Thanks: 5
Thanked 589 Times in 281 Posts
Default

A forgotten post 1945 small arms story must include the .280 british, fielded in the EM-2 bullpup, and Taden LMG. The round was developed in two forms, 1) a .458 base diameter/.279 bullet 139/2500fps, and 2)a shortened .473/.284 bulletw/140gr/2700fps think slightly longer 7mm BR developed to get the US to come onside for commonality. Despite misgivings from the other NATO countries, they adopted the 7.62 Nato. FN then redesigned the FAL from the 7.92x33 to the 7.62 Nato ultimately being sold to over 90 countries. Problem is the USA then changed to the 5.56 after the massive re-equipment of these countries nobody wanted to spend the money until Nato standardized in the 1980's
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2013, 12:37 AM
gunner336 gunner336 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
Default military caliber

I have always felt that 1 caliber for all occasions is just not available. I have my M4 s for CQB and several FALs for a full heavy duty where range and penitration is a factor.

The same with my scoped up M1A NM for long range issues.

I m just lucky I bought back when things were cheaper.
Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2013, 09:15 PM
barnetmill's Avatar
barnetmill barnetmill is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Western part of FL Panhandle
Posts: 2,577
Thanks: 6,789
Thanked 2,331 Times in 1,311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shootnstarz View Post
"NATO didn't exist in 1906 when the .30-06 cartridge was adopted"

Correct, it is refered to as the US 30 Cal and was accepted in 1906, hence the "06". Prior to 1906 the 03 Springfield rifles were chambered in 30.03, a much weaker round.

"I'm pretty sure the 8mm came first"

Also correct, however before the modern 8mm, the 8mmS .323 dia, there was another 8mm, the 8mmJ with a .318 dia. These were used in the 1888 German Commision rifles. Most of the 88s were converted to shoot the S 8mm. Hope I got my alphabet right, it's been a while since I had any foreign hardware. These devestating rounds are what brought about the change in the US military from cowboy calibers to the US30 cal round.

Let's also not forget the 30.40 Krag

Rick
Hey are you sure that the 30-03 was weaker than the 30-06 as loaded in 1906 by the military. All I can remember was that it use a 220 grain load that was more powerful than the 220 gr load of the krag. The germans came out with a new higher speed 8 mm load (I think it was the S load) of a 150 gr bullet at IIRC at 2700. We tried to duplicate that load in .30 cal. in 1906. The 7.62x51 is still load to that basic specification. The lighter loaded 7.62x54 ammo is also loaded to that specification with the lighter bullet.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to barnetmill For This Useful Post:
Old 05-24-2013, 09:27 PM
barnetmill's Avatar
barnetmill barnetmill is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Western part of FL Panhandle
Posts: 2,577
Thanks: 6,789
Thanked 2,331 Times in 1,311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragunov View Post
I'm not buying that, and neither is the soldier looking over my shoulder at this moment. A 5.56 WILL drop a man sized target with one round PDQ. I don't know where the idea of modern DI rifles being unreliable come from. Mine shoots even if it's full of grime with no problem.

I can understand the old ones could be problematic, I have an early '70s vintage Colt. It has a 1:12 twist barrel (FAIL). It does FTF and FTE with enough frequency that I wouldn't depend on it to save my life, however, I have a S&W M&P15 that is just the opposite. Reliable dirty or clean and way more accurate than the Colt.

I would love to get an AK, and probably will after moving to TX, but they're not the "end all" for reliability everyone makes them out to be. While better than my Colt, my cousins Romanian AK isn't any more reliable than my S&W, and isn't nearly as accurate, and I PROMISE that a buttstrike from my AR will be just as devastating as one from my cousins AK and it will still function afterwards. His AK is reliable enough, and accurate enough to be USEFUL, but It DOES FTF and FTE sometimes...... far less than my AR. I've only had one FTE from my AR, and that's because I was using "strange re-loads" in it.

AR=Unreliable weapon with a "weak" round........... BS!
The only malfunction that I have ever had with one my aks over the last 17 years was with a plastic us palm magazine. With the steel combloc magazines they function perfectly and as also do well made ARs. Caution with using AK's that have American made receivers that were assembled in this country. Use combloc set up AKs and all should well.
I would have confidence with using an AR or AK for self defense that was properly made and set up. I have AKs because yrs ago they were cheap and always went bang and for my forested AO with its close ranges I like the 7.62x39 round over that of the .223 nato round.
both are reliable weapons systems. Once your equipment is shown to be reliable worry more about your degree of proficiency and less about having an Excalibur weapon. In order words training is a must.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-09-2013, 02:21 AM
rydaar rocky rydaar rocky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Western Cape, South Africa
Posts: 70
Thanks: 43
Thanked 87 Times in 32 Posts
Default

There is the Sourh African R4 /R5, basicaly a Israeli Galil slightly modified. Mechanism is AK based, barrel and layout based on the M16A1 for ergonimicks, shoota straight and works.
Personaly I love my .303 Lee Enfield, 10 round magasine smooth bolt action. Drops springbok, kudu, impala and eland - no problem. Would not use it on cape buffalo way too light for him.
Calibre been around since the Boer war, WWI, WWII and later think the rifles still in use in a couple of places. Pakistani police use it.
Ballisticaly it lies somewhere between the .308 (7,62 NATO) and the .30-06. So many kudu were shot in that calibre that its use was banned in Kenya as a hunting rifle.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2013, 01:27 AM
Kpz1234's Avatar
Kpz1234 Kpz1234 is offline
Bad Guy Target
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,455
Thanks: 606
Thanked 2,085 Times in 788 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragunov View Post
I'm not buying that, and neither is the soldier looking over my shoulder at this moment. A 5.56 WILL drop a man sized target with one round PDQ. I don't know where the idea of modern DI rifles being unreliable come from. Mine shoots even if it's full of grime with no problem.

AR=Unreliable weapon with a "weak" round........... BS!
Have you read the anecdotal remarks in the back of Black Hawk Down? They tell a different story.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2013, 01:37 AM
Wayson's Avatar
Wayson Wayson is offline
Fertilizer Producer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: People's Republic of California
Posts: 3,099
Thanks: 5,265
Thanked 7,887 Times in 2,267 Posts
Default

Their problems in Black Hawk Down were that a) they were shooting people hopped up on khat, b) their rounds were the green-tipped ones designed to penetrate targets, instead of stopping inside the target, and c) towards the end they started running low on ammo, which likely contributed to their not wanting to spend more than 1-2 rounds per target.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2013, 03:28 AM
Kpz1234's Avatar
Kpz1234 Kpz1234 is offline
Bad Guy Target
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,455
Thanks: 606
Thanked 2,085 Times in 788 Posts
Default

The problems in BHD were the M855 is not designed to upset in malnourished combatants, the shortened carbine barrels, and the 5.56 is not an optimal combat round.

6.8 would have been a different story. Not necessarily in Mogadishu, but 6.8 >>> 5.56.

Time For A Change
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Kpz1234 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net