One problem with NATO rounds other then the pressure is that the brass is thicker and it also is designed to expand more in the chamber to compensate for different countries manufacturing methods as well as dirt and grim that will jam up a commercial rifle

Ether way if you did have a Mil-Surplus rifle and were worried about it you can always rebarrel it later on

Dimitri

Don't all manufactures have to maintain an industry standard as to min. pressure?

Kbis,

If the manufacture of firearms or ammunition is a member of a group like SAMMI then they all are designed to take a minium proof load (about 70,000 PSI from what I've read) from the factory after being built when they are test fired.

But that doesnt mean the design can only take that much for example the design of the M1 Garand was proofed at 120,000 PSI (during testing) the left bolt lug would crack but the rifle will survive another 5,000 service rounds before failing.

Dimitri

Any idea which manufactures do not adhere to SAMMI ? I thought all co.'s followed SAMMI. Just like drug co.'s have to follow the FDA.

Kbis,

Not a clue sorry most (if not all) manufactures in North America, Europe and Australia probably go by SAMMI if they are in it or not because of liability issues etc.

Now go to any other place and I wouldnt too much trust the ammo or the firearms myself. But thats just me

PS SAMMI is self regulation by the firearms industry (as far as I know) and it isnt "goverment" like the FDA. I'll need to check this out though

Dimitri

Opps been saying it wrong its SAAMI,

Anyways here is there page: www.saami.org/

And at the top:

Quote::

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) is an association of the nation’s leading manufacturers of firearms, ammunition and components. SAAMI was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government and tasked with: * Creating and publishing industry standards for safety, interchangeability, reliability and quality * Coordinating technical data * Promoting safe and responsible firearms use

Not goverment but made by them

Also to be in SAMMI officially you need to be a American company apparently:

Quote::

SAAMI Membership is open to any domestic primary manufacturer producing and selling within the United States, or domestic designing firm or corporation causing to be manufactured to its basic design and selling within the United States under its own name, (a) sporting firearms or ammunition subject to the United States manufacturer's excise tax or (b) propellants for sporting ammunition. For this purpose a domestic primary manufacturer producing and selling sporting firearms, ammunition, or propellants within the United States is a United States firm or corporation that sells within the United States a significant quantity of such products and a substantial part of such product is actually fabricated and/or assembled within the United States.

Dimitri

I hate to be a pain, but I am still confused (so whats new ). According to ddgsnipe the NATO 7.62 is desgined for as max of 50 KPSI and the 308 is designed for a max. of 62 KPSI. So if all U.S. manufactures adhere to SAAMI then they are stronger, correct ?

Kbis,

Yes and no. Military rifles at the time of the M1 Garand were proofed as 70,000PSI so commerial ammo should be "ok" in most rifles just using pressure ratings. For example:

7.62x51mm NATO is lower pressure at 50,000PSI then commerical 308Win and this causes a problem when shooting commerical in Mil-Surplus rifles. This was caused by Winchester releasing the 308WIN before the Army standardized 7.62mm NATO ammo.

But the 5.56x45mm NATO is higher then commerical at 60,000PSI compared to the commerical's 50,000PSI so shooting surplus in a commerial is problematic according to the pressures (unless you have one of thouse "special" chambers on some AR's).

The real problem (in my opinion and the opinion of others) comes into play that military rifles have bigger then normal chambers and throuts to allow easy loading, firing and extracting then commercial ammo under battlefield conditions. And they use more rebust and stronger brass then commerical manufatures use to make theres as it is not needed for it in commerical ammo and commercial chambers. For example:

The 308Win
Go Gage is - 1.6300"
No Go Gage - 1.6340"

The 7.62NATO
Go Gage - 1.6350"
No Go Gage - 1.6405"

The NATO Go gage is actually slightly bigger then the 308Win No Go Gage.

There are so many websites deticated to the 308Win vs 7.62mm NATO and also the 5.56x45mm NATO and the 223 Remington. A google search will list many of them. ( On google - 308 vs 7.62 - Lists 163,000 Sites)

Older military rounds don't have this problem, the 30-06Spring, 303British, and the 8mm Mauser for example were completly developed by their respective militaries before commericalization took place

Dimitri

That would tend to explain why my friends assult weapon (Mil. surplus, I have no idea what it is) ripped the head right off the case of some Wolf brand ammo.

Thanks for the info.

Ken

Kbis,

Unless it has a selector switch and can go into the "fun" mode as some people call it no matter what its design is its not a Assult rifle its part of the proper definition of a assult rifle.

Now if he does have the switch installed and its a pre-86 (I think thats the year) thats neat! I havnt even seen a rifle with that in person nevermind fired one.

Dimitri

No selector switch, just semi-auto. I am not sure you would call the M16 they gave me over seas an assult rifle but it had a selector. You would be amazed how fast you can go though a 20 round clip and not hit much .

Ah, well the the M16 is a assult rifle eventhough I hear they only have 3 round brust on the ones that they issue in the US Millitary for the most part. Can you conform this ??

The AR-15 that they sell is not a assult rifle as its missing the switch.

Safe shooting!

Dimitri

Yes, they are no longer full auto, I guess we wasted to much ammo in Nam. It sure was nice to be able to spray the jungle with rounds when you didn't know where they were.

I know this is an old post but I had to comment; the 7.62 NATO vs. .308Win issue in the Ishapore 2A1 is definatly an old argument. I bought my 2A1 in 1999 and cleaned er up to find a six groove barrel and all matching numbers, at that time I hadn't heard about the .308 being higher in pressure and so for several years that is all I used in the rifle. After I heard all the arguments I had the rifle checked by a competent gun smith and it was pronounced safe and solid, no receiver stretching, no cracking, no over-pressure indications, no damaged brass, etc. Well to be safe I started to reload my own ammo for it, I used once fired 7.62 NATO M60 casings (had a friend in the reserves who got me several bags of the stuff). Either way it shoots just fine and I'm not afraid to use commercial ammo if need be. The 2A1 I have was made in 1967, and uses modern steel and heat treating processes (actualy all 2A and 2A1's do) so I am reasonably confortable with this rifle. If you aren't comfy with commercial ammo then dont use it, there's plenty of surplus 7.62 around (including India made) to be had.

One other item, the Brits tried to convert some #4's to 7.62 for sniping, while the barrels were modern, the receivers were original and were prone to streching and the bolt faces evidenced damage as well after modrate use. The receiver, barrel, and bolt must all be of modern manufacture to handle even the 7.62 NATO ammo.

This is just my experience and opinion so take it for what it's worth.

M. G.