Talk:7.62x51 NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Full-power

I changed a reference near the end from "mid-sized round" or some such to "full-power round," which I believe is more accurate. Your mileage may vary, which is why I'm leaving this note in discussion. I think a mid-sized round would be something like the 6.5mm and 6.8 Remington SPCs. 7.62 NATO has much more in common with older, full-power rounds like 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, .303, .30-.06. ... --Thatnewguy 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote it was thinking of it as a middle between 5.56 and .50. That whole sentence needs reworking, though, because it's not our job to call something "excellent." Night Gyr 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How's this? The 7.62 mm nevertheless met the designer's demands for full-auto reliability with a full-power round.--Thatnewguy 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck are there no bullet-masses listed? 9.33g

A good point. I'll go look up the various military loads. scot 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear up specifications

"NATO's 7.62 × 51 mm rifle cartridge, otherwise known as .308 Winchester (though they do not have identical specifications)" Could someone please make this a bit more clear, just for safety reasons, since the article on .308 Win does point here? 5.56mm NATO has some article for the same purpose, warning not to use military bullets in civilian rifles: [1]. --Tierlieb 80.145.116.52 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downloading

I've been told that the commercial ammunition manufacturers have started down-loading the commercial .308 Winchester ammo to NATO specs, because there are so many people out there with 7.62x51mm NATO rifles who've been told "7.62 NATO and .308 are the same thing" and are firing commercial .308 Winchester in 7.62x51 calibre guns. An article on Surplusrifle.com about the subject basically said that .308 Winchester ammo shouldn't be fired out of 7.62x51 NATO guns, but used a Spanish or Latin American 7.62x51 NATO conversion of the Mauser as the rationale behind this, saying this particular gun wasn't strong enough to handle it and if you owned one of these Mausers, you shouldn't use .308 Winchester ammo in it. There was, IIRC, no mention of any other Military Surplus 7.62x51mm rifle being unsafe for use with commercial .308 Winchester ammo. Certainly, I had my Ishapore 2A1 (7.62x51 NATO version of the SMLE Mk III*) at the range last week, and had been told by the gun dealer I bought it off that "7.62 NATO and .308 are the same thing". I fired Australian 7.62x51mm L2A2 ammo through it, as well as commercial Remington Core-Lokt .308 Winchester ammo, and there was no difference in the recoil, gunshot noise, or condition of the brass after firing. Another gun shop who specialise in Military Surplus arms have since told me that the commercial ammo is generally down-loaded now because of lawsuit fears arising from the conception 7.62x51 and .308 are the same cartridge... Anyone know anything else about this? --Commander Zulu 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That coudl well be the case; ammo makers often do keep loads below the SAAMI levels. Also, keep in mind that military rifles are expected to be used under very adverse conditions, so even if they're designed for the 50,000 PSI loads, they'll probably handle the higher loads under good condidtions. Also, my Speer reloading manual is showing a SAAMI max pressure of 52000 CUP, so I'm wondering if the pressure measurements listed in the article aren't comparing PSI to CUP, as the .30-06 is given by the same manual as 50000 CUP. scot 16:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's been determined that the Army goofed when they printed up the specs. 7.62x51 was actually measured in CUP, NOT PSI. Thus 7.62 NATO and .308 WIN only have a difference of 2000, well within tolerances. Due to the military's screw-up (referring to CUP as PSI) we've been led to believe that the pressure rates for the two are vastly different when they're not. 67.34.233.162 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology issue?

So it seems implied that the .308 follows after the 7.62x51 development? This may well be mostly correct in a sense, but it must be noted that the civilian .308 went to market something like two years prior to the actual adoption of the NATO round. I'd like to see more history of the .308 discusssed- exactly how did Winchester fit into this whole process? Interesting to hear that the .300 Savage seems to be the progenitor of this cartridge. That would be interesting to hear more about as well. —SB

[edit] Article Name

I'm curious as to why this article is named with the full description when to the best of my knowledge, there is no other 7.62mm NATO round specification. EvilCouch 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? There's only one 5.56 round in the nato inventory, but we specify 5.56 x 45 to remove any possibility of ambiguity. 7.62 x 39 is also a common 7.62 cartridge and it takes knowledge of which cartridges are in the nato inventory to know which 7.62 NATO refers to if under the title of 7.62 x 51 or 7.62 NATO. Here, the title alone tells you more. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if someone was unsure as to which 7.62mm round they were looking for, they're likely to just punch up 7.62mm which gets you to a page that's basically an extended disambiguation page. A quick Google fight between "7.62mm NATO" and "7.62 x 51mm NATO" has the former winning, 43,500 to 18,900. I realize I'm being pedantic by bringing it up, but I've always thought of 7.62mm NATO as being a much more common term. EvilCouch 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think we lose anything by specifying x51 in the title; it's like asking why we use hull number designations in ship pages when there's only one ship by the name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "7.62x51 NATO", with no spaces. I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That title makes more sense than the current. I'd still prefer 7.62mm NATO, however the title without spaces is much more likely to be searched than the current article. EvilCouch 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page moved. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Should this article not be the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO instead?--Asams10 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No- The Wikiproject Military History consensus is that the naming convention for firearms calibes is AxB (Name)- such as 7.62x51 NATO- with no spaces or measurement designators. --Commander Zulu 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why no measurement designators? That decision confuses me very much. While caliber names with measurements in the standard system do not have a measurement designator, it is almost universally true of those in the metric system. The official US military designation for these cartridges is Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, and I'm pretty sure most other militaries using it and other metric calibers, have the measurement designator as part of the complete designation. The 5.56x45mm article here in wikipedia contains the measurement designator, and it just seems less confusing to me. -- Thatguy96 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A variety of reasons, partly to get around the people at the Weights & Measures WikiProject, and also because Imperial Cartridges do not have the " after the number- Metric cartridges can be differentiated from Imperial cartridges by the way they are denoted- Imperial in the form of .ABC, Metric in the form of AxB, if that makes sense. --Commander Zulu 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't entirely make sense to me, but at least there is a thought out method to the madness. I personally think of it with the metric designator and find the current description slightly awkward, but in reality its not a big deal at all. -- Thatguy96 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] × vs. x

If the consensus is to use AxB names, why does this page use the × instead of x. this makes it harder to type, is almost nowhere referenced with a ×, and is against convention. if you check the 'what links here' page, you'll see that most pages link to a redirect-page, with an x instead of ×. will we move the page ? --Boris Barowski 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Boris, make it x. Arthurrh 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But we can reach a consensus that it should be with an x in stead of an × ? I really don't like the harder to type ×, and I've almost never seen it used in literature this way. thanks, Boris Barowski 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you there. Any one else got any thoughts on that one? --Commander Zulu 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The majority of people use x, it's easier to type and it'll be easier to maintain as a standard. Geoff B 07:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion 7.62×51 looks much better than 7.62x51, and given its presence in the Insert section, easy to use. Even before the Insert box, I never found it that much of a bother to type. It's no different than using proper dashes in text. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree about changing it to A x B, rather than this this unconventional scheme we have now. Furthermore, a space should be provided between the bore diameter and case length, so 7.62 x 51 mm instead of 7.62x51. Metric calibers should then be followed by mm and then by their formal assigned designation. So 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. This is how the cartridge is called in factory literature, blueprints, government and military documentation. It was correct at some point, someone should return the previous name. Koalorka 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this before, Koalorka. We- and by We, I mean "the WPMILHIST project" reached a consensus some time ago that cartridge names were in the format AxB (Name)- ie, 7.62x51 NATO, 5.56x45 NATO, 6.5x55 Swedish, and so on. The US Government way of writing things isn't automatically the correct one, especially when most reference texts (certainly, every one in my collection, for a start) is in the AxB format. And I agree this article should have an "x" instead of the multiplication symbol. --Commander Zulu 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Commander Zulu, could you please provide a link to a page indicating that consensus? I looked around WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Firearms, but I couldn't find a naming convention for ammunition. Also, please note that I began a new talk page section below, hoping to straighten out the naming situation for good. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commander Zulu, I would hardly call the AxB mm format a predominantly US naming convention, I'm from Europe and this is the most common format I have encountered in various reference sources. And while I do respect the groups consensus regarding the issue, I have followed the discussion and noticed it's limited to a very small number of very vocal editors, and can still be incorrect. One thing that NEEDS to be returned to the naming format is the mm sign. Koalorka (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're going for the 7.62x51mm NATO format, sure. 7.62 x 51 mm NATO? No way. --Commander Zulu (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the AxB mm XXX format without spaces, seems like a reasonable compromise. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list of 7.62x51mm Rifles?

Is this really necessary or advisable? There are probably hundreds of different models of rifle chambered for this cartridge. Do we really need the Savage 99 and Remington 788? How about the Smith & Wesson 1500? I don't think any list is adviseable save for the M14 and, possibly, the FN FAL. --Asams10 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is most appropriate to only list fielded military weapons and no commercial weapons. That is my vote. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise, however there are dozens of those as well. I'm going to limit it somewhat and see how it goes over. --Asams10 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps listing identical models or classes on a single line.. I.e. The FN FAL and L1A1 are identical with different designations. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated that section entirely after reading Wikipedia rules for trivia and lists. The important weapons were already listed in the text. A separate article entitled "List of..." can be made, but it's really trivial at best. --Asams10 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I don't see the point either (of a list). izaakb ~talk ~contribs 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Doesn't add anything to the article, besides making it very long. --Commander Zulu 09:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor deliberately adding incorrect information

Anonymouse editor at 70.181.105.130 has repeatedly swapped the PSI and CUP measurements in this article.

I believe it is deliberate.

See the edit history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.181.105.130

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name, take 2

Hi. I'm starting this new section on the article name because I noticed that a cut-and-paste move had been done, to the title 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. I restored the page to this title because this is where the history is, and if the page is to be moved, then the target location should be deleted and the page moved properly.

The article's title history is, unless I'm missing anything:

I performed the second of those moves myself, due to a move request above. Immediately after the last of those moves, User:Asams10 did the cut-and-paste move, back to the original title. That location now has a history of redirecting to various titles, so the move was not possible without administrative assistance.

I'm able to delete pages, and I'm willing to move the page back to its original title, or to whatever title people can agree on, but I'd like to know first that there's consensus for whatever we decide. Is there a relevant guideline at WikiProject Firearms? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...And now it's been moved back to 7.62x51 NATO. I'm still curious what naming guideline is being applied here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the reference name of the round (officially) is 7.62 NATO not 7.62 x 51 NATO. The NATO Ammunition Database refers to the round exclusively as 7.62 NATO. The NADB may be found here: http://www.namsa.nato.int Furthermore, the US military only refers to 7.62 NATO firearms as either "7.62mm" or "7.62 NATO" (see https://atrrs.army.mil/atrrscc/courseinfo.aspx?fy=2003&sch=331&crs=3A-F40/011-F21&crstitle=INDIVIDUAL%20TERRORISM%20AWARENESS&phase= izaakb ~talk ~contribs 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should not be limited to this article, however other articles as well. Though this is a NATO Standardized round, it was an American round first and foremost. --Asams10 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If we are going by that logic, the article should be called T-65, which was the American name prior to being adopted and standardized by NATO. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're arguing to the absurd. I'm suggesting that the American convention should be weighed more heavily than that of Luxenberg, for example. --Asams10 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is an American convention, also, Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not solely American, so where available, the internationally accepted term should prevail. Furthermore, when the term NATO is used in the same breath as 7.62 then it refers to the standard which is promulgated by NATO, which is based in Brussels, not Luxembourg. Perhaps it is referred to as "7.62x51 NATO" at one's corner gun shop, but it is not the correct name. As I posted previously, both NATO and the US military refer to the caliber as 7.62 NATO (or additionally as 7.62mmm). SAAMI does not maintain the standards for 7.62 NATO caliber, but in their technical documents comparing .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO, they use the name 7.62 NATO or 7.62x51 but never 7.62x51 NATO. It's really very easy to verify, please refer to the links I posted above. Best, izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venue for general discussion?

Would WikiProject Firearms be the best place to have that discussion, do you think? If not, then where? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)