I was in the military, specializing in armaments. The military literature mentioned that the 7.62 max pressure was 55,000 psi. If you read deeper into the file, it also mentioned that pressure was measured with copper crusher method. Now referred to as CUP. later, when transducers become the standard way to measure pressure, the industry adopted the system of referring to pressures as either CUP or psi. The military reference to 55,000 psi has caused many to believe that 7.62x51 is loaded to a lower pressure. No so. The limits for 308 and 7.62 are about the same - about 62,000 psi, as measured with a transducer. In practice, ammo of both flavours is typically around 56,000 psi, although I have found a few lots of 308 (Winchester Supreme match and IVI Lot 631) at 62,000 psi. Both were tested because they were causing problems in some rifles. The testing handbook specifies where the chamber pressure is to be measured. It varies from caliber to caliber. And sometimes (as in 7.62 -308) the place the pressure is measured is different in the two systems. If the place of measurement is the same, you can convert CUP to PSI mathematically, like converting MPH to KPH. But if the place of measurement is different, the two values bear no relationship to each other. There are some difference in the ammo specs - SAAMI vs. Military. The military case has a stronger, harder case head, so as to withstand violent extraction of automatic rifles. Military ammo has a muzzle flash spec. SAAMI does not. Military ammo will have a sealant in the neck. SAAMI does not. The lead core can vary in antimony content (hardness) and jacket thickness can vary as well, with military bullets being hard and commercial ammo being anything the maker finds easy to make. This test I watched just compared two different brands of ammo and assumed that the difference was due to NATO v Commercial. No so. Just brand A v brand B
I’m absolutely impressed at how you have compared very like for like ammo fired from the same rifles. Often in “comparison” videos you get a hollowpoint v fmj in wildly different calibre fired from vastly different weapons.
Your conclusion is what I thought. I would have pulled the projectile and fitted same in both, however the powders would also give a different result but that's what you were all about I'm guessing. Lastly being hit with either I don't think you would be quibbling about which 1 you used.
Kind of tested/played this with mild steel plates last summer. At 100 meters sellier bellot 8 gram/124grain 30-06 was able to penerate 10mm steel plate. Sako 8 gram/124grain did same. 308 version was also able to do that with same type of ammo but two plates were too much for both calibers. Both guns were bolt-actions and had 20-22 inch barrels.
This is why so many times, the "numbers" are meaningless to hunters. Bullet construction, powders, and bullet placement mean much more than numbers. These things are why hunters have killed moose for decades with "slow underpowered" leverguns. If you go only by numbers, a 223 is a better deer cartridge at 200yds than a 30-30. Excellent video, and loved the testing setup. Nice work.
I think a real comparison would be both had the same prodgies which i think the later might penitrate a little deeper. Great video keep up these video's.👍
Being new at this sport all I can say is WOW! Excellent examples of the capabilities that either of these rounds have. If you're unfortunate to be in front of any one of them, I seriously doubt that the difference in outcome would be different. Maybe for a Grizzly or Kodiak but to a human - nope.
You are comparing a military round loaded to have sufficient pressure on firing to operate a gas-powered fully or semi-automatic weapon and still have an effective range and kinetic energy on impact. That load with its often slightly faster burning powder and higher potential pressure is always going to have more velocity when fired in a bolt action sporting rifle using all of the power to propel the projectile, than a sporting cartridge of the same dimensions but loaded for maximum target accuracy, or for taking medium game humanely with precise shooting in the same rifle. I found the same thing happened with 6.5x55 rounds--the military stuff had a lot more oomph than the sporting stuff, but never shot as tight a group. The military stuff had more kick and a louder crack--but was surprisingly accurate nonetheless.
The jackets coming back after hitting steel is real... I had .308 and 30-06 rounds going through 3/8 steel but the copper jacket shrapnel are coming back at me on average at a 100 feet...Scary... Always wear saftey glasses at the range 👍😎🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
With the sled moving upon impact, you could set up a controlled sled and measure the effect impact had. Also, with the sled moving, your penetration depths will be different based on how much of the impact was offset by the movement of the sled. Just some thoughts. Good video, though.
The 7.62x63 will easily punch 1/2" mild steel and can punch 1" in some scenarios. There were some made with tungsten penetrators instead of the usual steel. They will blow through 1/2" armor plate and NIJ IV+ plates
What about the width? The math for finding out the capacity/volume of a cylinder, so you could get the depth and width to see how much actual damage they did. Otherwise, you can get one skinny deeper hole and one slightly less shallow, but much wider hole... but the smaller deeper hole would win, even though the other hole is significantly larger in size. I guess if penetration is your only factor then depth alone might be fine for that.
Zofia has the AK-47 it just has a funky thumbhole stock on it. The AK12 or AK74 shoots a small rifle calibe 5.45x39mm its a Russian version of 223/5.56x45mm which NATO uses in the M4, M16, Styer AUG, L86, and so on. The AK 47 shoots a rather big caliber 7.62x39mm which is leaning towards 308 the in between caliber, in between 556 and 308. 308 basically is 762x51mm you can shoot 7.62x51mm in a gun chmabered for 308 but you cant shoot 308 in a gun chambered for 7.62x51mm, 308 has much higher pressure than 7.62x51mm/762 NATO. 223 is funny because it has less pressure than 5.56x45mm, you can shoot 223 out of a gun chambered for 5.56x45mm but you cant shoot 5.56x45mm out of gun chambered for 223.
Good fun. However... While the demonstration tests shown were, to some degree informative, they were unrealistic and imprecise. Reason? Newtons Second Law of Motion. Basically- Unstoppable Force meets Immovable Object. To be truly representative the plates would need to be anchored to something significantly greater in resistance than the 55,000 psi generated when the cartridge is fired. The proverbial "hitting a brick wall" scenario. The target plates, whilst well presented, were stood in a slotted mount which was not rigidly anchored. Therefore, the slotted mounting frame and, the Steel Joist to which it was welded, were free to move along the ground with each bullet impact. As the mount was simply sitting on the ground (earth), it was impossible to replicate the resisting conditions for each impact. Therefore, each impact had a different and unquantifiable resistance between the steel and the ground. Movement along the ground caused by the impact varied with every shot. Unless and until you devise a method of completely and solidly mounting the plates, the demonstration will always be ambiguous. Point of interest... Along with looking for ricochet fragments, did you think to look for any Steel Slugs that the first shots may have punched out of the plates? Those would be far more interesting. I think the only consequence that really matters is the fact that if you happened to be shot with either of those rounds, it would, as a minimum, make your eyes water.
I would love to see a 7.62x51 and 7.62x54r comparison on that steel system you’ve got. Great system for being able to grasp the meaning behind the velocity numbers
When I was a child my father used to have an Fn FAL. That thing had some serious Penetration, the thing would go through railway tracks with minimal effort.
Not a fair fight! 7.62x54R is more comparable to 7.62x63 or commonly known as 30-06. (most people think the 63 is much bigger than the 54, but case volume proves they are remarkably similar)
@EdBert The 30-06 can launch a 180 grain bullet at the same speed as the 7.62x54R can launch a 150 grain bullet, which is over 2,800 ft/s. So they're NOT that similar, the 30-06 is marginally more powerful.
I'm a reloader of 308 and want people to understand that NATO rounds are tested using a different method then US ammo manufactures, that is why the pressures are different, the real test is using the same powder. it's the powder and bullet that make the difference
The pressures are close between the two. 7.62x51 has a different headspace spec that is much longer than 308 spec. 308 fired in a 7.62x51 chamber can lead to case failure.
@@randybird9979 No, it’s where the pressure is measured that’s the difference. Gas port pressure is what bends op rods, so that’s what the military cares about, SAAMI measures chamber pressure.
I think if your plate holder was totally secured( much heaver or well staked to the ground) you would have gotten through the 1/2" plate. Plate movement absorbed a lot of energy.
but, its not fair - because energy was diverted that could have been used to penitrate! still, interesting to compare to plate armor (as we move - like the plateholder!)@@minilathemayhem
assuming a perfectly inelastic collision (ideal) the force delivered to achieve penetration ... and now that I read this back, this will not occur, so it's theorycrafting on the internet.
Also as soon as one bullet is higher on the plate it's penitration due to the upwards rocking of the sled. I think of saw all the 308 at a higher position on the metal.
Use the zero on the caliper so you don't have to subtract the thickness of your straight edge. You can also add legs on the straight edge to clear the jagged edges of the hole without grinding.
should do your measurements by filling the hole with clay or something then measuring that. maybe even a powder and measure the weight to get the total volume of ejected materiel
I imagine bullet metallurgy had more to do with it than the cartridge's themselves. 7.62x51 FMJ might have harder gilding metal than Commercial .308 win FMJ, but that is all speculation.
Did roughly the same comparison a few years ago. Using 5.56/AR-15, 7.62x51/ M1A ,7.62x39 SKS and 30-06/ Springfield 1903 . All rounds were FMJ ball ammo, firing at 1/4 and 1/2 in plates @ 100yds. All rds penetrated 1/4 plate, only the 30-06 penetrated the 1/2 in plate.
thats what i was going to add. i have 3006 and it has gone through 1/2 steel in my shooting pit. i have over 1 inch of steel in plates and they do a great job stopping
You can see that the bullet geometry is different too. The .308 has a larger flat spot on the nose and you can see the lead on the tip at 6:22 , this helps the bullet mushroom and expend more of it's energy, thus you would expect a wider but shallower hole.
It's most likely bullet construction. Norma's FMJ is more of a target level, whereas milspec is typically a harder copper designed for more penetration. I think if you had the same bullets in both, most likely it would make a difference.
Really enjoying watching you evolve this process. And these are exactly the kinds of things I've always wished other content creators would do. Keep up the great work!
Pretty irrelevant test not knowing the PSIs. Also did our whizkid chronograph these two rounds to confirm the published velocities.They may have been about the same not 125 f/s difference.Cheers.
New test rig is WAY better. Also like your protection shield. Edit: I notice the test rig moving back quite a bit. What about staking or weighing it down with sandbags?
@@Stephanthesearcher Was to write the same. Rig jumps up, quite an amount of kinetic energy was pushing the rig instead of contributing to the penetration
@@OpenGL4ever Yes. E.g. military vehicles weigh 4-10 metric tons. They do not move a millimeter when hit by .308 . All energy goes to penetration / heating / malformation of projectile / possible ricochet. So if we want to know what happens to armor plates of vehicles, no movement should be allowed. Though here the bullet seems to be OTM (open tip match, boat tail), and not Armor Piercing. So not a final proof of how .308 or 7.62 NATO performs against armor plate.
These videos are quite refreshing in that they are straight to the point with no bull in between. No sponsorships, no skits, or any other such stuff to get in the way while still being interesting and relevant with a decent timeframe. Not that I mind them, but it can get grating after a while. Almost takes me back to the good old days of RU-vid prior to 2014. Keep up the good work, you earned yourself a sub and a like.
Just found your channel. Really like your evolving test methods (plate rack, grinding away the spalling, adding the spacer to normalize depths, etc). Thanks for producing this concise and useful content!
You could eliminate a variable by pulling the bullets from one cartridge of each caliber and then swapping them out. Repeat the test and see what happens.
You could also do the same with the powder of each, but in the case (no pun) of the 30-06 it might be better to pull the bullet, dump save the powder, hydro eject the primers of several and dry, and trim, resize the case to .308 specs, then reload all components with an eye to pressure in the trimmed cases from reduced volume. Take the bullet, powder and primer of the .308 and keep at its same pressure, but in the 30-06.
The 7.62 x 51 is the best battle round made. The spring-field m-14 best rifle made. Never seen a BAR or M-1 grand in the vietnam theater, if there was no 30-06 ammo , was useless. I was issued a Mater/ Tonka M-16 A2 COLt brand New. If you like 22 cal. you would love this. 69th Armor (recon) LZ Action.
Try using handloads with surplus bullets. You know, the ones that have a steel core with a little lead around it, followed by a thick jacket. Those will definitely go through that plate. The bullet construction is all important.
Even before the depth measurements I was guessing from the holes that the 762 was deeper. I don't know if it's the pressure as much as the placement. The holes closer to center are further away from the supports so the plate can flex more. If you want to be sure I'd fire a series of identical bullets across the width and see if you see an inverse correlation between distance from support or edge and depth. And only compare holes at same height to remove effects related to the plate only being supported half way up.
We were issued with FN Fal rifles during my service (1970's), the ball ammo packages had no reference to spec. details except for the caliber, 7.62x51. The penetration power on various objects/materials was very unexpected and amazing to see. Thanks for your time anf effort on this test.
@John Martlew FN Fal is a legend. I never understood why so many were destroyed or quickly re sold to third world countries, like for example, Turkey. Something fishy about this. I also see lots of negative feedback on that very fine weapon, which makes me even more suspicious.
@@elim7228 I agree, luckily they are available here in the US in various configurations, lots of parts were imported and the rights, new parts are being manufactured.
@@cayminlast yes and I have one I built years ago, great weapon but prefer the 7.62 54 ammo with steel flashed bulletts though the 54 has more performance
We were issued with the 7.62 SLR when I joined the NZ Army in the late 1960s. Half inch plate steel was easily penetrated in demos at 100 metres. We were taught that you seek out your enemies who had taken cover by firing through the barriers they hid behind. I think the half inch plate steel was part of the spec.
he surly used soft bullets, my 7.62x39 will penetrate 1/2 steel, but they are armor piercing, I shot an old Pinto 2300 eng. block with 762x39 over 1 inch per side went thru both sides, my 243 went thru 1/4 inch very easy, stay safe
@@guytech7310 Standard 7.62x51 ball rounds, NATO and Military Spec. They are different and of higher quality than most of the rounds bought in gun shops. They would also go through the compressed aluminium armour on the M113 on the flat sides.
@@rogerlewis6488 Aluminum is considerable much softer than mild steel. I have some old surplus M80 ammo from the late 1960s, it cannot penetrate 1/2 mild steel plate. I suspect you were firing 7.62 AP rounds which will penetrate 1/2 mild steel with no problem.
@@guytech7310 No, we were not using AP rounds, either in New Zealand or our troops in Vietnam. Just standard ball ammunition. You obviously have no knowledge of compressed aluminium armour which adequately resists most small arms fire, and is used on most armoured personnel carriers and their variants. I am also a qualified weapons instructor and served 21 years. The 7.62mm SLRs we had were capable of handling much higher breech pressures than any .308 or the copy cat SLRs available today apart from the few made to full military specs.
The lack of mentioning headspace as the reason you shouldn't fire a 308 Winchester in a 7.62 NATO chamber is disturbing. It's not a matter of pressure but headspace as the issue, as headspace in a NATO chambers are longer than 308 Winchester chambers. A 308 Winchester round can fire in a 7.62 NATO chamber, but if the chamber is at the large end of the headspace dimensions it could cause the 308 Winchester case to stretch and rupture. While only a few thousandths of an inch in difference it makes a whole lot of difference. SAAMI .308 Winchester: GO: 1.630 in. NO-GO: 1.634 in. FIELD: 1.638 in. FN FAL: GO: 1.6325 in. (FN & Brit/commonwealth. Canadian is 1.6315 in.) NO-GO: 1.638 in. FIELD: 1.640 in. 7.62 NATO (M14 US MILSPEC): GO: 1.6355 in. NO-GO: 1.638 in. FIELD: 1.6445 in.
I love that you test these things instead of just theorizing and pointing at box numbers… 7.62x51 isn’t the best for every situation, but you gotta respect how much goes into the development of rounds chosen for military application.
Reminds me of the ballistics gel conundrum of the slower rounds going deeper then the faster. I would imagine that at high speed and pressure, all these materials behave with similar weird fluid dynamics. Faster = more efficient energy transfer = less penetration 🤔 Idk but it seems like the case here
I'd love to see more comprehensive testing revolving around the .243 Winchester. Right now, in my .243 AR10, I run 100 grain soft points and 75 grain OTMs primarily. I also have some 58 grain TUIs I'll run for penetrators (solid copper slugs moving at 4k fps are no joke) The 243 has a massive range (by percentage) in projectile weights. 55 to 115 grains. While not quite as much energy as the 308, the lighter bullets typically mean a higher percentage of that energy is transferred into the target (115 gr HPBTs @ 3k fps deliver 2300 ft lbs, 55 gr @ 4k dps deliver a crazy 2k ft lbs - 5.56 m193 from a 20" barrel only delivers 1250 ft lbs) Why the .243 was never adopted for military use is beyond me. Especially considering performance at range. The 115 grain HPBTs @ 3k fps vs the mk118 lr at 2600 fps at 1,000 yards: .243 - 684 ft lbs @ 1637 fps, 1.36 second flight time *115 gr, 0.600 g1 bc, 3,000 MV* .308 - 538 ft lbs @ 1177 fps, 1.75 second flight time. *175 gr, 0.480 g1 BC, 2600 MV*
The numbers on the boxes are estimates, based on ballistic calculations, With a fudge factor added. It might be worthwhile to chronograph each cartridge before testing. Also why not use the same projectile in each cartridge.
Information about bullet weight and actual measured muzzle velocity (which yields energy) may also explain observed difference better than pressure as 308 WIN and 7.62 NATO have different specifications for how pressure is measured. Adding a chronograph lets you verify the stated versus observed energy.
I'm 99.99% sure that Turkish Nato ammo you used is steel core which would explain the deeper penetration over the standard full metal 308 ammo ! Good video I liked it next time try using same brand same projectile with the different cartridges and see what results are !
Yeah, it would be marked green tip (or maybe black tip) if it was steel core. My money is on differences in bullet construction. Slightly thicker jacket or something like that. There are so many variables, it's impossible to say without being there and examining the materials.
I did the same test with 5.56 using M855 vs a standard .223. And then tested against a .221 Fireball using 53gr Matchkings. Pretty amazing. Great video
You're probably right on the composition. But just a little extra velocity might destroy that round too. You know speed defeats armor but sometimes speed destroys the projectile too
@@winstonmichaels407 yes they are. He was comparing to FMJ rounds. Full metal jacket. His point was that the lead in the military round was probably denser than the civilian round
@@michaelmcmillan2776 i agree, but there must be some point where a bullet is designed to fragment or penetrate an armor. Depends on engagement range i guess
That’s a great test ! If you are a hand loader ? you could replace the bullets in each so the bullets would be the same, Hornady , Speer, Sierra or Nosler ! Same weight as the bullets you pulled ! The powder charges remain the same ! You could weigh the powder charge in each case but I’m sure the powder used in each is not the same burning rate ! Just a thought !
Just found your channel, excellent job. Ex-Canadian military, used the FN when I first joined before the 5.56 conversion. My basic instructors told us while training the standards for the NATO grade where different, and this round would outperform any civilian 308 round.
Wait, so you stood there without a shield and shot at a steel shield, to show you how effective your shield would be at protecting you from the ricochets generated by shooting at steel?
My experience is that if a low velocity bullet (as in a soft lead .22) doesn’t crater a plate, it creates a radial splash perpendicular to the direction of the projectile. High velocity jacketed bullets will crater the plate and can return bullet fragments.
There's more to it than that, you have to take into account, Bullet velocity, weight and composition. Those aren't ricocheting that close at that speed with that bullet composition, they're literally discentigrading on impact
Interesting, but a point to note. The test is limited by the elasticity of the target and penetration is possibly limited (and masked) by the energy absorbed in the sliding of the target and also the bending of the plate. Therefore the bending of the plate supports and location of the hit higher up or closer to one side will also have an effect, even at these rapid deformation rates. You might be getting to a point with this test where these effects are limiting how far up the effective power range that this test can go, but fun to see anyway..
Hello BANANA Bsllistic , I was just wondering why you don't seem to be concerned very much about the size of the group as this is as important as is how well the bullets penetrate. 😸
The 7.62 Nato may have penetrated deeper, but the diameter of the .308 appeared larger. Can you calculate the volume of those two holes in the ½" plate from the 24" barrel? It would be interesting to see the difference in the amount of steel displaced by the different rounds.
@edward hawkey So true, my friend. But, when it comes to zombies 🧟♀️🧟♂️🧟, I am going for the head-shot. Gotta take out what is left of their brain in order to stop them permanently.
@edward hawkey In both of your comments, true the walking dead series did color my comments, although I never watched it. But on the other hand it also depends on what caused the apocolypse. Was it some man-made bioweapon(virus), nuclear war, or climate change? The last two definitely are the Mad Max style.
308 and 762 pressures should be equal, I cannot believe there are still people making that mistake 7.62 55000 CUPS = 62000 PSI on 308 They are safe either way in either action as far as chambre pressures go. the ONLY problem is heavy bullets in 308 could overload the charging system of automatic rifles like an M14/M1A because slow powders have higher perssure at the gas port.. But that will not kaboom your rifle, its not a safety issue, it just a reliability issue for your oprod Now 556 vs 223 Remington, that is a problem because 223 has shorter lead rifling is rated for lower pressure So stuffing higher power 556 + the shorter lead = every round a proof round
Wait, so .308 runs at higher pressure than 7.62x51mm NATO? So it’s the opposite relation of .223 and 5.56x45mm NATO? Because 5.56 runs at higher pressure than .223, right?
Great video! I have been wondering about the cartridge I should use in my future Tavor 7 rifle, as I have always wanted to use the 7.62 × 51mm instead of the .308. Thanks for the accurate testing! Cheers!
the 1:12 twist barrel favors lighter bullets. People sing praises for match ammo in the 155gr flavors. I shoot Winchester white box M80 ball 149gr, because it is the cheapest quality food I can find. Works pretty well
The 7.62 would take a man down irrespective of distance or point of impact with sights up to 600. The new NATO round of 5.65, if it's not a debilitating area at 300 he can keep coming. I'll take my SLR over the SA80 anyday. I'd rather drop them at 500 than wait until they are 300/200 .
At 3:50 did you actually say, "It may have "WENT'" in ... Did you skip school the day they taught english? Did you ever learn this, GO WENT GONE ? Silly ?, of course you didn't. THUMBS DOWN . 4, if I had that many.
Just look at any reloading reference manuals, for the same grain bullet for caliber, the 308 Winchester section load data has much more grains than the 7.62 NATO section.
That's because factory 308 brass is thinner than milspec 7.62x51. 308 doesn't have to run in a belt-fed MG and have a stuck case have its head ripped off, not cook off from excessive heat, etc. If you run GI brass in a 308 load, you're told to reduce starting loads accordingly.
GAS ... GAS ... Gas operated guns require the proper gas (4895 Powder for the M1) volume AND pressure. Military (Gas operated weapons) have different design parameters, starting with that they run. 30 Cal NATO is made for that, to operate with the correct gas. Volume ... Thicker Mil Spec brass is resultantly smaller, so higher pressure from same powder. Combat ... They don't always have time to clean ... carbon dust grits lint hair sand (Oh No) ... so a margin of safely with a lower than MAX pressure. But, if you want to mess up YOUR M1 or M1A with that "better 308" please video, OK?
