Why is my rifle barrel stamped 7.62x51 instead of .308?

[Chipperxd]

I apologize if this is a stupid question but I noticed it when I was cleaning my gun yesterday.

The barrel is clearly marked 7.62x51 with a 1/10 twist but the receiver is marked .308.

I know that the only real difference between a 7.62 Nato and .308 is that the .308 is a higher pressure round. I guess my questions is, is it supposed to be stamped this way? Are all DPMS rifles in .308 come with the barrel stamped with 7.62 on it?

Read More

 

[madcratebuilder]

I apologize if this is a stupid question but I noticed it when I was cleaning my gun yesterday.

The barrel is clearly marked 7.62x51 with a 1/10 twist but the receiver is marked .308.

I know that the only real difference between a 7.62 Nato and .308 is that the .308 is a higher pressure round. I guess my questions is, is it supposed to be stamped this way? Are all DPMS rifles in .308 come with the barrel stamped with 7.62 on it?

Myth!

The pressure difference between a .308 and 7.62 at equal bullet weights and similar powder charge is insignificant.

If the barrel is marked 7.62 then I would expect the chamber to be 7.62 spec. If is marked .308 then it should be .308 spec. There is a minor difference in the head spacing of the two rounds.

You'll need to ask DPMS why they stamp their AR lowers as .308. I know that ArmaLite and Noveske stamp their AR lowers 7.62mm.

 

[Chipperxd]

so all the forums I read where they say you shouldn't shoot .308 out of a 7.62 guns is wrong? I don't know what to believe anymore...so confused...

 

[Chipperxd]

Found more information online...guess the barrel is marked as 7.62 but the receiver and chamber is made to shoot both.

 

[eganx]

so all the forums I read where they say you shouldn't shoot .308 out of a 7.62 guns is wrong? I don't know what to believe anymore...so confused...

In my experience.....yes that is wrong. I have shot both out of my FAL with no problems.

 

[iamme]

It's a battle rifle- usues mil-standard caliber aka 7.62x51.

 

[Chipperxd]

Oh yeah, I plan on shooting the 7.62x51 NATO extensively as I just got in a crate from ammoman.com... just wanted to make sure my gun won't blow up in my face if I were to shoot some commercial .308s through it.

 

[rayd8]

so all the forums I read where they say you shouldn't shoot .308 out of a 7.62 guns is wrong? I don't know what to believe anymore...so confused...

I think they are confusing 5.56 out of a .223.....which is a NoGo. 308 out of a 7.62 is GTG.......anyway here is more info from saami:


http://www.saami.org/specifications...1-Unsafe_Arms_and_Ammunition_Combinations.pdf

 

[Stomper]

I think you got that backwards on the 7.62NATO and the .308...


.308 fired from a 7.62NATO chambered weapon is NOT good to go... not the reverse, although my .308 Galil eats both just fine.

 

[rayd8]

I think you got that backwards on the 7.62NATO and the .308...


.308 fired from a 7.62NATO chambered weapon is NOT good to go... not the reverse, although my .308 Galil eats both just fine.

Yep, I'm corrected...thanks Stomper. I guess the other option is to check Headspace if your inclined to run 308 in your 7.62:

Fulton Armory: What's the Difference between .308 Winchester & 7.62x51mm NATO?

 

[madcratebuilder]

so all the forums I read where they say you shouldn't shoot .308 out of a 7.62 guns is wrong?

Depends on bullet weight.

I think you got that backwards on the 7.62NATO and the .308...


.308 fired from a 7.62NATO chambered weapon is NOT good to go... not the reverse, although my .308 Galil eats both just fine.

Most semi-auto 7.62 nato chambered rifles well shoot both .308 and 7.62. You have to pay attention to the bullet weight when shooting .308. Heavy bullets can damage parts on semi's. Most are safe with up to a 175gr bullet.

Another thing to watch for when shooting .308 in a semi is the commercial .308 has a soft primer compared to the 7.62nato and you may have a slam fire. Always have the muzzle pointed down range when chambering a round.

 

[Cougfan2]

Sounds like you have it figured out. FYI, I called DPMS after I had purchased my DPMS SASS used and had pretty much the same question. DPMS confirmed that I could use either 7.62 X 51 or .308 ammo with no problems in their rifles.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I hope those with re-arsenaled small ring Mausers from Spain etc. that were converted to 7.62x51NATO don't read this thread and think they are good to go.
The SAAMI spec of 62K PSI on the .308Win could potentially cause them a lot of grief, and maybe some body parts!

Cartridge Pressure Standards

 

[madcratebuilder]

I hope those with re-arsenaled small ring Mausers from Spain etc. that were converted to 7.62x51NATO don't read this thread and think they are good to go.
The SAAMI spec of 62K PSI on the .308Win could potentially cause them a lot of grief, and maybe some body parts!

Cartridge Pressure Standards

This is a myth!

Read this paper that FALPhil wrote several years ago.

I couldn't post the carts, if anyone wants a copy of this pdf pm me and I'll send a copy via email.

The Truth About 7.62x51mm NATO and 308 Winchester
By FALPhil
Introduction
The internet firearms and shooting culture is a relatively close knit group and very computer savvy, as
hobby groups go. Many of the community are members of the several dozen discussion groups that
revolve around the special interests of gun owners.
Because of the nature of the internet and the inherent tendency of human beings towards believing
anything that sounds reasonable, without applying critical thinking skills (probably a result of trends in
government school systems – but that is another treatise), there is much misinformation available to the
casual gun enthusiast about a variety of subjects concerning firearms.
One of the most pernicious of these "urban legends" is that there is a significant difference in the
pressures between the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and the 308 Winchester cartridge. The
misinformation indicates that using the commercial offering in a military weapon will visit death and
destruction of biblical proportions upon the miscreant who would attempt such a thing.
I first ran into this ugly rumor in 1996, while participating on the rec.guns usenet forum. It made for
interesting reading. At one point, a well-known Highpower Match competitor, who will remain unnamed,
asked the question, "Why would you expect significant differences in pressure when commercial and
military cartridges are loaded with the same technology (powders, primers, cases, and projectiles) and the
velocities are very close to each other?"
This issue reared its ugly head a couple of years ago when the many boatloads of Ishapore 2A1 rifles hit
the US shores. Much disinformation about what was safe in these fine rifles was bandied about over the
internet.
That got me to thinking. My brother had been a lab technician at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the late
‘70s, so I called him to ask him about it. It turns out that he worked on artillery dispersal, but he still knew
some technicians involved in small arms research. He said he would reach out to them and get back to
me with some information.
About a month later, my brother called and described to me the method (in general terms) by which small
arms ammunition is tested by the US Army. After speaking to him, I came to my own conclusion that 308
Winchester and 7.62 NATO were completely interchangeable.
However, I am an unknown to many firearms enthusiasts. So, in order to support my position, I have
performed a little research and documented my findings.
The Cartridges
The .308 Winchester is a rifle round and is the commercial version of the military 7.62x51mm NATO
centerfire cartridge. The .308 Winchester was introduced in 1952, two years prior to the NATO adoption
of the 7.62x51mm NATO or T65 round as it was known during testing. Winchester (a subsidiary of Olin
Corporation) branded the cartridge and introduced it to the commercial hunting market as the 308
Winchester. Winchester's Model 70 and Model 88 rifles were subsequently chambered for the new
cartridge. Since then, the .308 Winchester has become one of the most popular short-action big-game
hunting cartridges in the world. It is also commonly used for civilian target shooting, military sniping, and
police sharpshooting.
The purpose of the T65 was to achieve the same or similar performance of the then-standard 30-06
cartridge in a package that was more conducive to reliability in fully automatic weapons and infantry
weapons under extreme conditions. A weight savings was a by-product of the project, but it was not a
primary consideration
While Winchester intended the T65 (later named 7.62x51mm NATO) and 308 Winchester ammunition to
be identical and fully interchangeable, there are some differences. The two primary differences are the
specification of chambers size between the two, and the construction or the cartridge case.
Chamber Size
Look at the table below. The right column represents a military headspace gauge specification; the left
one, the SAAMI specification. With many military rifles, the chambers can be significantly longer than,
say, a Remington 700. Note that the military chamber would fail a NO GO check with a SAAMI gauge, but
pass a FIELD check using the proper military gauges.
There is a .013" difference in acceptability, between these two specifications. This is significant in that,
for reloading purposes, brass will stretch more in a military chamber upon firing, thereby reducing the life
of the brass and possibly promoting case head separation. But that additional length will allow a round to
chamber in an incredibly dirty weapon, which is a requirement for military applications.
However, it must be noted that this is the chamber specification and not the ammunition specification.
The external dimensions of the two types of ammunition are nearly identical.
Cartridge Case Construction
In my personal experiments, I have found, on average, that commercial 308 Winchester cases are able to
contain approximately 58 grains of water, on average. The average for Lake City 92 cases, according to
my measurements approached very close to 56.2 grains of water, and for Portuguese NATO marked
cases which are Berdan primed, the average was close to 55.9. All brass had been fired once was sized
with the same die, a Hornady New Dimension 308 Winchester die.
These water measurements indicate that, for the military cases, the brass is thicker. This finding was not
unanticipated, as the military brass weighs more, and the military specification calls for the "beefing up" of
the area around the web for the purpose of providing an additional safety margin in case the cartridge is
fired in an automatic weapon and the charge is ignited before the cartridge is completely in battery in said
weapon.
This characteristic also has implications for hand loaders and other enthusiasts where pressure is
concerned. More on that later

Regulating Bodies
The American Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (commonly abbreviated as SAAMI
and pronounced "Sammy") is an association of American firearms and ammunition manufacturers.
SAAMI publishes various industry standards related to the field, including fire code, ammunition and
chamber specifications, and acceptable chamber pressure. SAAMI is an example of industry selfregulations.
In the United States firearms and ammunition specifications are not overseen by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission or any other branch of government. Firearms enthusiasts should
be aware that only manufacturers that are members of SAAMI are bound by the Institute's guidelines. All
other adherence to SAAMI specifications is strictly voluntary.
The European equivalent of SAAMI is the Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des
Armes à Feu Portatives (Permanent International Commission for Testing Portable Firearms, commonly
abbreviated as C.I.P. or CIP). CIP is funded and mandated by several governments that are part of the
European Union.
There are two other organizations that are germane to this discussion. They are the US Army and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Each has its own specifications and testing methodologies
which are not influenced by commercial interests unless there is a very good reason.
Pressure
Despite working together, the two main industry standards organizations SAAMI and C.I.P. have
assigned different standards for some cartridges. This leads to officially sanctioned conflicting differences
between European and American ammunition and chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber
pressures.
Under SAAMI proof test procedures, for bottlenecked cases the center of the transducer is located .175"
behind the shoulder of the case for large diameter (.250") transducers and .150" for small diameter
(.194") transducers. For straight cases the center of the transducer is located one-half of the transducer
diameter plus .005" behind the base of the seated bullet. Small transducers are used when the case
diameter at the point of measurement is less than .35".
Under C.I.P. proof test standards a drilled case is used and the piezo measuring device (transducer) will
be positioned at a distance of 25 mm from the breech face when the length of the cartridge case permits
that, including limits. When the length of the cartridge case is to short, pressure measurement will take
place at a cartridge specific defined shorter distance from the breech face depending on the dimensions
of the case.
The difference in the location of the pressure measurement gives different results than the C.I.P.
standard.
According to the official C.I.P guidelines the .308 Winchester (referred to as 7.62x51 by CIP) case can
handle up to 415 MPa (60,190 psi) piezo pressure. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge
combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers.
The .308 Winchester and 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges are not identical and there are minor differences
in their inner case dimensions, though SAAMI does not list either cartridge as unsafe in a firearm
designed for use with the other. [ <broken link removed> .
NATO EPVAT testing is one of the three recognized classes of procedures used in the world to control
the safety and quality of firearms ammunition.
EPVAT Testing is described in unclassified documents by NATO, more precisely by the AC/225 Army
Armaments Group (NAAG).
EPVAT is an abbreviation for "Electronic Pressure Velocity and Action Time". This is a comprehensive
procedure for testing ammunition using state-of-the-art instruments and computers. The procedure itself
is described in NATO document AC/225 (Com. III/SC.1)D/200.
Unlike the C.I.P. procedures aiming only at the user's safety, the NATO procedures for ammunition
testing also includes comprehensive functional quality testing in relation with the intended use. That is,
not only the soldier's safety is looked at, but also his capacity to incapacitate the enemy. As a result, for
every ammunition order by NATO, a complete acceptance approval on both safety and functionality is
performed by both NATO and the relevant ammunition manufacturers in a contradictory fashion.
For this, a highly accurate and indisputable protocol has been defined by NATO experts using a system
of reference cartridges.
The civilian organizations C.I.P. and SAAMI use less comprehensive test procedures than NATO, but
NATO test centers have the advantage that only a few chamberings are in military use. The C.I.P. and
SAAMI proof houses must be capable of testing hundreds of different chamberings requiring lots of
different test barrels, etc..[7.62 mm. STANAG 2310 and NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection AC/225
(LG/3-SG/1) D/9.]
The US Army continues to use (as of 1995) the M-11 Copper Crusher device for pressure measurements
of small arms ammunition. The M-11 was enhanced, when in 1982, it was noted that the results
generated at the high end of the test range did not meet NATO standards. [Defense Technical
Information Center, ARMY BALLISTIC RESEARCH LAB/APD, Accession Number : ADP000024]
What is interesting to note is that around the time of the engineering change to the M-11 Copper Crusher
device, the US Army changed the units of measurement for the device from PSI to Copper Units of
Pressure, or CUP. Both SAAMI and CIP used the copper crusher method until the advent of inexpensive,
reliable piezoelectric strain gauges, at which point, both organizations converted their methodologies to
take advantage of the newer technology.
The copper crusher method was the standard for small arms pressure measurements since the late
1800s. A copper pellet just like a small watch battery in placed in the test pressure chamber which is
attached to the cartridge chamber, the test round is fired and the copper pellet is then measured with a
micrometer. The micrometer measurement is then converted into a PSI reading by using a chart that
converts the length of the pellet into a pressure reading. The charts are constructed using the theoretical
modulus of compression for the particular copper alloy used in the pellet, and may or may not have any
relation to the actual absolute pressure. BUT, the results of the copper crusher method are always
relative to previous results, which allows for determining what is safe and what is not.
Both SAAMI and the CIP have detailed specifications for the arrangement and dimensions of the copper
crusher. Because these two systems are not identical, the two crusher standards cannot always agree.
Further, as explained above, CIP crusher ratings are generally a bit higher than SAAMI's due to
differences in definitions. Also, SAAMI is generally more conservative with older military rounds, such as
the 8mm Mauser.
With the SAAMI methodology, the piston is positioned over the brass case, and the case will rupture
somewhere below 20,000 PSI. The resulting sudden jump in pressure under the piston magnifies
problems with piston inertia, and this makes the reading more sensitive to parameters such as burning
rate, case strength, and true peak pressure. The CIP methodology requires the piston case be drilled at
the sensor location, and the benefit is that crusher and piezoelectric ratios are much more consistent from
cartridge to cartridge, allowing them to reasonably use a conversion formula.

Pressure Confusion
However, neither method addresses the figure "50,000 PSI" that is so often misquoted, especially by
"expert" sources such as 6mmbr.com and surplusrifle.com.
This figure comes from the US Army in various technical manuals, most notably, TM-D001-27
The real problem is the confusion between the old and the new methods of pressure testing. The old
pressure testing method used for the 7.62 NATO cartridge started out life in the 1950s and is still
published today in the US Army Technical Manuals. The figures are based on the copper crusher
method in CUP, but are published as PSI.
The new method is the piezoelectric strain gauge transducer method; it is the same technology used
today to show an automobile's oil pressure. The piezoelectric strain gauge transducer pressure method
is a direct pressure reading based on an absolute standard, where the older copper crusher method a
conversion based on a relative measure and a conversion chart. And this is why you see the difference in
the pressure readings, but the older 52,000 CUP is equal to 62,000 PSI (piezoelectric transducer
method).
Today, these two methods are called CUP and PSI and the readings are different, but 52,000 CUP
equals 62,000 PSI and both are the same pressure, similar to the way 60 MPH equals 100 KPH.
To add even more confusion about the Ishapore 2A1, which started me on this article, many shooters
want to use the headspace specifications set by NATO, which is different from what the Indian Army set
for the Ishapore rifles.
In the figure below, you can actually see a page from an older reloading manual in which equivalent loads
are portrayed in both CUP (C) and piezoelectric transducer PSI (P).
Karl Kleimenhagen points out:
In Denton Bramwell's article [http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf], a formula is
derived using a basic statistical analysis of SAAMI's ratings, covering only pressures between
28,000 and 54,000 CUP :
piezo = 1.52 * crusher - 18
He also demonstrates that within this pressure range, the CIP appears to have generally used a
simple conversion between their crusher and piezo ratings, roughly equal to:
piezo = 1.21 * crusher - 2.8
CIP pressures are multiples of 50 bar (about 700 psi), probably rounded after the conversion.
(Please note that CIP crusher readings should not be equated with SAAMI CUP crusher
readings.)
In the 09/1968 issue of Handloader, Lloyd Brownell presents test data (crusher, but not
necessarily CUP) which suggests a linear conversion formula is not the best choice, and in my
Powley Computer I use:
piezo = crusher * ( 1 + ( crusher^2.2 )/30000 )
From 0 to about 60 ksi crusher, it fits both SAAMI's ratings and Brownell's data well, but it is low
at the high end of Brownell's data. Brownell's data shows little to no error below 20 ksi, and a
curve fit to only his data between 20 and 67 ksi crusher is:
piezo = crusher + ( (crusher - 20) ^ 2.3 ) / 210
Conclusions
The pressure difference between the two rounds is insignificant, the real problem is commercial
ammunition has thinner cases that were not designed to shoot in military chambers BUT we do it all the
time anyway and this why you see more case head separations on commercial cases fired in military
chambers.
The M118 special long range round is loaded to 52,000 CUP (all other U.S. 7.62mm are 50,000 CUP)
which would be equal to the pressure levels of commercial ammunition, this means actually there is no
pressure difference between the .308 and 7.62 NATO for the M118 cartridge.
No accurate conversion between copper crusher and true pressure exists, but approximations can be
made. In all the conversions outlined above, pressures are in thousands of PSI (KPSI). Expect errors of
several KPSI, or about 15%, with such formulas. Many factors determine how much the indicated
pressure reading from a crusher misses the true pressure, and the error varies among cartridges and
even among different loads for one cartridge. The conversions might be accurate enough for many
practical purposes.
So, to sum everything up, the pressure difference between the 308 Winchester and the 7.62x51mm
NATO is less than 2,000 PSI which is statistically insignificant. The same pressure variation may be
achieved by firing any rifle on a hot day and on a cold day or by changing brands of primers. It is safe to
shoot 308 Winchester in your 7.62x51 rifles (even the Ishapores) and vice versa. Handloaders should be
aware that they should reduce the amount of powder when using military 7.62 NATO cases by about 10-
12% and work up to safe pressures with corresponding velocities.
References:
[1] ANSI/SAAMI document Z299.4-1992 is the principle source for the SAAMI crusher and piezoelectric
ratings listed here. The ratings listed are the "maximum average pressure". The book they offer is dated
and doesn't include the ratings of newer commercial cartridges. The procedures and definitions should be
current.
[2] The CIP documents are available on their site, and these were the reference for CIP procedures,
definitions, and piezoelectric ratings. In these, past standards for crusher ratings are no longer listed.
Instead, they refer you to past editions when proofing for a cartridge for which no current standard exists.
[3] The Soapbox of Karl W. Kleimenhagen (Karl's Soapbox)
[4] Accurate Reloading Guide -
<broken link removed>
20Winchester%20Pages%20260%20to%20262.pdf

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Sounds like you have it figured out. FYI, I called DPMS after I had purchased my DPMS SASS used and had pretty much the same question. DPMS confirmed that I could use either 7.62 X 51 or .308 ammo with no problems in their rifles.

Important distinction. Never assume

 

[Sabertooth]

Well done and clears up a lot. Also answers some of the question I had about the two.

 

[cwegga]

This is a myth!

Read this paper that FALPhil wrote several years ago.

I couldn't post the carts, if anyone wants a copy of this pdf pm me and I'll send a copy via email.

Conclusions
The pressure difference between the two rounds is insignificant, the real problem is commercial ammunition has thinner cases that were not designed to shoot in military chambers BUT we do it all the time anyway and this why you see more case head separations on commercial cases fired in military chambers.

So the end result is that it is still UNSAFE but not necessarily because of pressure...

 

[jake2far]

The difference:
1. .308 headspace, 1.630-1.634
2. 7.62x51 headspace, 1.635-1.6405
3. .308 case is thinner at the base of the case
4. 7.62x51 is thicker at the base of the case
The original 7.62x51 was designed for full automatic machine guns, it needed greater clearance in the chamber for reliable feeding, firing, and extraction of the cartridge; the thicker case allows for more stretch during firing, keeping the head of the case attached to the rest of the case during the violent extraction.
In a nut shell if your weapon is marked 7.62x51 it would be a good idea not to fire .308 ammo in it until you find out what it headspaces at, if your weapon is set at the longer chamber dimension for the 7.62 (1.637+) and you use a thin walled .308 it could result in a head seperation. If the chamber measures in the standard .308 area to tight 7.62 (read 1.630-1.635) it is safe to fire .308 ammo in a 7.62x51 marked weapon. The pressure is the same, but the chamber dimensions are not.
Hope this helps

Jim

 

[BrentN]

I recently bought a Ruger Scout, .308, and have been researching this myself to make sure that x51 will be safe to plink with. Jake's post seems to be on the money from what I've found concerning the headspace. I'm also looking into reloading, and it seems there may be issues with brass fired thru a "loose" x51 chamber, then being reloaded for .308. Neck trim and case life come to mind. Please correct me if I'm off track.

 

[Idaho44]

Recently purchased a DPMS upper and ran into the issue of NOT being able to chamber 7.62x51 (military) rounds (bcg would not close completely). So thinking the issue was the bcg, I bought a 'higher end' bolt and carrier. Still 'no go'! I tried a .308 win and it worked. Ran a couple of mags and tried the 7.62 again, nope. Long story short, the barrel in 'unmarked', no indication of caliber or twist rate. It shoot fine with .308 but will not chamber the 7.62, Dedicated .308, since I have a lot of 7.62 (factory and reloads) I sense a 're-barrel' in the future after I crank through the .308 ammo.