I think the MoD is up to something…

It has a mid range tragejectory at 300yds of about 25% of .303 and about 50% of both .30-06 and 7.92

Only because it uses a puny 150 grain projectile, or is it a 148 grain. The 303 generally uses a 180 grain, while the 30-06 often has a 200 grain projectile.

The 7.62 NATO or 7.62 x 51mm (if you use metric then 7.62 x 51mm is what you’d describe it as… 7.62mm bullet calibre and 51mm length case.) was a post WWII creation that was basically designed to solve the problem at the end of the war… namely that the US used the 30-06, the Brits and the commonwealth largely used 303 ammo, while the French had their own 30 cal round and the Germans had the 7.92 x 55mm or something and the other european countries that were becoming part of NATO had other ammo types as well and of course Japan had their own 7.7mm round too… the first priority was for everyone to use the same rifle ammo. Everyone wanted their own cartridge, though the Brits wanted a new 7mm round they had developed for the Em-2 bullpup, but the Americans still wanted a round that could reach out to long range in a MG and rifle so the result was that the 7.62 x 51mm round was created… it really was a 30-06 with a centimetre cut of its case length.
The result was a round that was indifferent at long range but too powerful to be effective as an assault rifle round in full auto.

The 223 round was also a post war development… at the time they thought that velocity was a better killer than calibre or bullet weight because energy equations give a skewed more flattering result with an increase in velocity than they do with an increase in bullet mass. So a lighter high velocity cartridge has less recoil so it is easier for smaller people or less well trained people to use. It was intended as a sort of replacement for the M1 carbine in the AR-15 and was initially issued to US personel for guarding airfield duties. The results by the South Koreans in combat however showed it was effective and light if a little bit long in design. Lethality seemed way out of proportion to its calibre. (it was not actually the velocity but the fragmentation of the projectile that gave it its effectiveness.)

Of course various high power .22xx calibre rounds did exist before WWII and the number of 30 cal rifles before WWII was huge… most major powers in WWII were already equipped with 30 cal rifles, it was an established calibre, but the 7.62mm NATO round was developed for the purpose it was used for… to simplify the logistics of NATO forces.

:confused: :confused: Methinks I’ve been misled somewhere along the line. Either that or wiki has got it wrong which I wouldn’t have thought they’d manage with things American as it is an American organisation. I do know that most of the centre fire super .22 rounds have been around since pre WWII. i.e. .219 Zipper, .218 Bee and, yes, the .223 Remington all that changed with the .223 is bullet weight and rifling twist. The 7.62 NATO or, if you’re German 7.62×51 or 7.62J, has also definitely been around since pre-WWII. In the case of 7.62 the only thing I’m surprised by is that no-one thought of it as a military round sooner as it is a flatter shooting round than any of the common rounds used in WWII. It has a mid range tragejectory at 300yds of about 25% of .303 and about 50% of both .30-06 and 7.92

Yes I’m sure. I have a book dedicated to Winchester weaponns and there is one model in there (I can’t remember which it is and can’t be bothered climbing in the attic for the book) which was introduced the same year and that was the only calibre it was available in.

You might want to climb up and find that book…

.308 Winchester is the commercial name of a centerfire cartridge based on the military 7.62x51mm NATO round. Two years prior to the NATO adoption of the 7.62x51mm NATO T65 in 1954, Winchester (a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation) branded the cartridge and introduced it to the commercial hunting market as the .308 Winchester.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester

Also look here: http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_762mm.php

and

With the U.S. military adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 as the M16 rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington was standardized as the 5.56x45mm. However, the .223 Remington was not introduced as a commercial sporting cartridge until 1964.

For the .223.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56

Yes I’m sure. I have a book dedicated to Winchester weaponns and there is one model in there (I can’t remember which it is and can’t be bothered climbing in the attic for the book) which was introduced the same year and that was the only calibre it was available in.

In the end we are still talking weapons chambered for a round that first came into existence in 1935 as opposed to the 1937 of the 7.62 round. Originally know as .223″ Remington and .308″ Winchester.

Are you sure? It was my understanding that the 308 winchester was developed after WWII specifically as a round for NATO (to replace the British, US, Japanese, German, and French cartridges). Equally I thought the 223 was a development of 222 that was developed in the 50s and 60s as a sort of replacement for the 30 cal M1 carbine round. (ie 9 x 33mm).

A very astute observation young sir and very true, Healthy competition helps to keep costs down for the purchaser whilst going some way to making the contractors keep the quality up

Don’t you just love the infighting and chicanery of military procurement? If it wasn’t so costly in tax payers money it would be amusing.

The sad thing is that the government only really has itself to blame, this is what happens when you only have one defence contractor.

Don’t you just love the infighting and chicanery of military procurement? If it wasn’t so costly in tax payers money it would be amusing.

Actually that is probably too close to the truth for HMG. It certainly sounds about right.

The recent history of BAe goes something like this, they became the sole defense contractor in the UK (more or less, there are/were others but BAe is the only one that counts) It began a whole bunch of contracts, they all went over budget and the government ordered fixed price contracts on which BAe invariably lost money. BAe then went away and bought itself a vast American empire before returning to the table to proudly announce that they no longer needed the UK MoD becouse they had a vast US buisness. And so we are where we are today, BAe can hold the UK MoD hostage.

Actually that is probably too close to the truth for HMG. It certainly sounds about right.

True. From that view point name any government project that doesn’t cost more than it should, the few that don’t seem to be substandard/unfit for purpose.

Exactly, BTW a few years back the head of BAe Systems remarked that the only way to get any project started with the MoD was to lie about how much it would cost.

Not really, the Army needed a new rifle and it got one. Sure it had its problems at first but it turned out to be an excellent and highly flexible weapon system. Ultimately everybody won. It might have cost a little more than it should but name a military program that does not.

True. From that view point name any government project that doesn’t cost more than it should, the few that don’t seem to be substandard/unfit for purpose.

Bean counting wins over providing the military what they actually need then? Sounds like the usual then. I always said when I was in the army that the forces are never issued any (new) equipment in peace time that is not almost obsolete

Not really, the Army needed a new rifle and it got one. Sure it had its problems at first but it turned out to be an excellent and highly flexible weapon system. Ultimately everybody won. It might have cost a little more than it should but name a military program that does not.

On the contrary. They knew precisely what was required by their political masters. A big juicy contract for Royal Ordnance in order to make the company saleable.

Moggy

Bean counting wins over providing the military what they actually need then? Sounds like the usual then. I always said when I was in the army that the forces are never issued any (new) equipment in peace time that is not almost obsolete

Hi chaps Im new to this site so go easy on me, as to the SLR my brother used one in Irland in the 70s he used to use the 7.62 L4 mags in his SLR (Thats Bren to you and me) Lots of books will tell you that the L4 mag was an over feed mag and the spring wouldnt lift the rounds from underneath so a stronger spring would be needed in the mag but my brother said that all the boys out there used them and never had to do anything to the mag springs. he also claimed that a match inserted in the right place would convert the rifle to fully automatic which is why the 30 round L4 mag was better than the SLR’s 20 round one. we could have had a Bullpup type rifle in 5.56 cal in the early 1950s but as the Americans opted for 7.62 the EM2 wouldnt have been compatable and as like in the second world war which at that time had only ended five years before we had relied on the Americans for ammo and would no doupt do so again the choice was made to drop the EM2 in favour of the SLR only for the Americans to bring out the M16 in 5.56 cal ten years later just as the last of the le enfield had been replaced by SLR’s. regards Steve

I can vouch for that one as I had mates in the infantry at the time they introduced the GPMG and they told me the unit had retained the LMG mags for rifle use. Yes they do have the power to lift rounds up rather than push them down sufficiently to feed reliably in the SLR

The fault lies with the fact MOD procurement is handled by people who have little or no understanding of what is actually required.

On the contrary. They knew precisely what was required by their political masters. A big juicy contract for Royal Ordnance in order to make the company saleable.

Moggy

But it still cost millions in taxpayers money that could have been better spent on something else. The fault lies with the fact MOD procurement is handled by people who have little or no understanding of what is actually required.

There is currently no fault at all, the type had problems at first but it is now regarded as a very good weapon.

Sorry but none of that is a viable argument, the fact is that the SA-80 has become an effective and reliable weapon that has proved to be very adaptable.

But it still cost millions in taxpayers money that could have been better spent on something else. The fault lies with the fact MOD procurement is handled by people who have little or no understanding of what is actually required.

Why is every one so concerned with new? New does not neccesarily mean better. The G33 may be an old design and no longer in production but at the time we are talking about it was new and provided the reliability that took years and heaven knows how many £million to provide in the SA80 (or as it is known in service L85A1). One of the biggest problems with the SA80 was the fact that if you ran with it slung and a magazine in place when you stopped there was a good chance the magazine had gone. This was because the weapon was designed to use M16 Mags with a side catch rather than produce a weapon and magazines with a latch at the rear of the magazine housing a la FN/FAL, this fault was overcome with a lash up solution whereby a shroud was fitted around the mag release with an adhesive not much better than glorified superglue and had a habit of coming off easily and leaving you with the original problem again. Again why is new so good? The M16 is an even older design but its users still swear by it. In the end we are still talking weapons chambered for a round that first came into existence in 1935 as opposed to the 1937 of the 7.62 round. Originally know as .223″ Remington and .308″ Winchester.

Sorry but none of that is a viable argument, the fact is that the SA-80 has become an effective and reliable weapon that has proved to be very adaptable.

Why? By all accounts the SA-80 is now an excellent weapon and by comparison the G-33 is now an elderly out of production design.

Why is every one so concerned with new? New does not neccesarily mean better. The G33 may be an old design and no longer in production but at the time we are talking about it was new and provided the reliability that took years and heaven knows how many £million to provide in the SA80 (or as it is known in service L85A1). One of the biggest problems with the SA80 was the fact that if you ran with it slung and a magazine in place when you stopped there was a good chance the magazine had gone. This was because the weapon was designed to use M16 Mags with a side catch rather than produce a weapon and magazines with a latch at the rear of the magazine housing a la FN/FAL, this fault was overcome with a lash up solution whereby a shroud was fitted around the mag release with an adhesive not much better than glorified superglue and had a habit of coming off easily and leaving you with the original problem again. Again why is new so good? The M16 is an even older design but its users still swear by it. In the end we are still talking weapons chambered for a round that first came into existence in 1935 as opposed to the 1937 of the 7.62 round. Originally know as .223″ Remington and .308″ Winchester.