Talk:7.62 mm caliber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comment
"However, it was found that there was no way to make a controllable 7.62x51mm assault rifle light enough to be practical. Weapons such as the FN FAL were big, clumsy, uncontrollable, and fragile."
From what I understand about firearms this statement is somewaht misleading. Most nations discovered that it was not possible to make a 7.62x51mm rifle (which was light enough to be a standard infantry rifle) controllable when fired at FULL AUTO, however most weapons were found highly effective and reasonably accurate when fired at semi auto. Further, though weapons such as the FN FAL and M-14 do tend to be long (and thus clumsy in cramped environments) when fired in semi auto mode they are quite contollable and are often as or more rugged/reliable than the 5.65mm rifles that replaced them (For example both the M-16 which replaced the M-14 in the US military and the SA-80 which replaced Britain's FAL suffered extensive teething problems). Another example of a successful 7.62x51mm weapon is the German military's H&K G3.
The 7.62x39 cartridge was originally developed for the SKS rifle, designed not by Kalishnikov, but by Simonov. It's unlikely that Kalashnikov had anything at all to do with the 7.62x39 round
- I don't think it's misleading. Earlier in the paragraph, the requirement for full auto mode was stated. Additionally, that very sentence refers to assault rifle, which, by definition, has full auto mode. I did add a link to the assault rifle article. (No comment on the 7.62x39 cartridge.) Lefty 23:15, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
The Springfield 1903 rifle and M1 Garand did not chamber the 7.62x51mm NATO round. They both chambered the 30-06 round; which has similar performance to the 7.62x51mm NATO but is physically very different. And as long as 30-06 rifles are being listed, the Model 1917 rifle ought to be added. It was more widely used in WWI than the 1903 Springfield and is generally thought of as a better weapon (for infantry, at least).
[edit] Nitpicking
The title of this article should read cartridge rather than caliber and even that is not technically correct. To be precise, the article should be titled "7.62mm Military Cartridges", as it describes more than one such cartridge. Caliber is a measurement of bore diameter, not a specific round designation. 7.62 mm or .308 inches includes a vast number of cartridges, a very abbreviated list of which would include the .30 Carbine; 30-30 Winchester; 30-40 Krag; 30-06 Springfield; .300 Winchester Magnum; .300 Weatherby Magnum; and .308 Norma Magnum.hipshot49
[edit] Personal opinion in this article
The second paragraph under NATO contains a personal opinion. Can anyone fix it?
[edit] Anything left worth keeping?
I'm pretty sure that there's nothing left here worht keeping, and I can safely turn this into a redirect to 7 mm caliber, copying over a note about 7.62 mm. If no one objects in the next couple days, I'll go ahead and do it. Night Gyr 07:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Might as well lump them all into one big firearm cartridge disambiguation.
- I do not feel that your comment displays any familiarity with the subject of this particular page. Please restrict you're edis to subjects you know. If you want we can redirect them both to 9 mm cal and 12 guage while we're at it. 7 mm and 7.62 mm/.30 cal are not the same thing. Somewhat related in that both are popular bore diameters for firearms, but not the same damn thing. —unsigned edit by 136.159.78.35 19:44, 16 Mar 2006
-
- I've made numerous constructive edits to subjects which I very much don't know. I disagree strongly with your advice to Night Gyr. However, your assessment that "7 mm and 7.62 mm/.30 cal are not the same thing" appears to be correct and to have carried the day, possibly due only to inaction.—BozoTheScary 18:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 7.62 x 42 mm
I'm fairly certain that I saw a Russian sniper rifle that takes a 7.62 x 42 mm round at a gun show. I've been able to find only one extremely cursory reference to it on the web, so I'm doubting my memory. Can anyone corroborate or dismiss this? —BozoTheScary 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Australian military history task force articles | British military history task force articles | Canadian military history task force articles | Chinese military history task force articles | French military history task force articles | Polish military history task force articles | United States military history task force articles | Weaponry task force articles | Start-Class military history articles