What's new

IDN TAKE: Is the 7.62x51mm Calibre Assault Rifle Suitable For Conventional War?

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
FN_FAL_7.62_Assault_Rifle.jpg

The FN FAL (Fusil Automatique Leger - Light Automatic Rifle) is one of the most famous and widespread military rifle designs of the twentieth century. Developed by the Belgian Fabrique Nationale company
by Koustav K
Along the Indo-Pak border, where terrorist activities are at its peak, 7.62mm assault rifle plays an important role in the theater of action is very small and their targets are usually a small group of terrorists or insurgents. In such a case they want to eliminate their enemy than slow them down.

In a conventional war many armies prefer to use the 5.56mm bullets because they want to slow down the enemy by shooting at one but disengaging 2 to 3 soldiers whereas, during counterinsurgency operations, they always prefer to use 7.62mm bullets.

The India-China border where transportation is a big challenge, difficult to breath due to low oxygen, carrying a heavy 7.62x51mm ammunition is difficult. In such critical areas, the quantity of ammunition matters a lot. A 4g of 5.56x45mm case length is 44.70mm compared to a 12g 7.62x51mm with a case length of 51.20mm is very difficult to carry during a conventional war.

FN_Herstal_SCAR_7.62_Assault_Rifle.jpg

In mid-2008, FN Herstal introduced the SCAR® assault rifles, chambered in 7.62x51mm caliber and the 40x46mm enhanced grenade launcher module

5.56mm is vastly lighter, both for the ammunition and the associated weapons system. A soldier can carry roughly 3 times as much 5.56mm as 7.62mm. So a target miss from 7.62x51mm caliber bullet results loss of 3 numbers of 5.56x45mm caliber bullet which could easily injure multiple targets if not kill.

Smaller round means easier on the logistics, simply because they are smaller and take less space to transport. So the same convoy is going to be able to either transport more rounds or more space for other equipment or personnel.

The Excalibur Assault Rifle

5.56x45mm compared to 7.62x51mm caliber is relatively small sized, light weight, the high velocity that produces relatively low thrust, free recoil impulse and automatic fire accuracy which increases hit probability. There were concerns that the 7.62x51mm rounds were too powerful, too large, too heavy, exert too much recoil for light infantry weapons making it difficult to operate during a conventional war where the scenario is totally opposite to counterinsurgency operations that wounding the enemy as much as possible.

The 7.62x51mm will cost more per round because it represents more components. The cost of the 5.56mm may be a bit lower than the component costs due to the volume of 5.56 ammo produced. 5.56mm is also abundant & produced by many NATO countries, unlike 7.62mm.

“The lethality, of course, also depends on where a bullet hits.”

Koustav K is an ardent fan of IDN and a keen defense enthusiast. This piece on the Indian Armed forces preferred Assault Rifle was written exclusively for IDN. Views expressed are his own.

Admin - IDN

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08/idn-take-is-762x51mm-calibre-assault.html?m=1
 
AK -47 are Most Common Weapon And Most used weapon For 7.62mm Cartridges around the World in Any Combat i don't understand What is the base of Author Analysis o_O
 
AK -47 are Most Common Weapon And Most used weapon For 7.62mm Cartridges around the World in Any Combat i don't understand What is the base of Author Analysis o_O
Also author either don't know or else that most NATO members and USA is also shifting back to 7.62 X 51 caliber. increasing use of FN SCAR and HK-417 and new SIG 716 endorses it
 
we all know 5.56X45mm ammo is good for medium range combat but 7.62X51mm is leathel even in long range combat with very very leathel stopping power but question is we were using 7.62X51 cal for a long ;long time with FN-FAL based LMG assault rifles then why the hell did indian army generals or say IDN-MOD changed it to 5.56X45 based INSAS in the first place :hitwall:
 
we all know 5.56X45mm ammo is good for medium range combat but 7.62X51mm is leathel even in long range combat with very very leathel stopping power but question is we were using 7.62X51 cal for a long ;long time with FN-FAL based LMG assault rifles then why the hell did indian army generals or say IDN-MOD changed it to 5.56X45 based INSAS in the first place :hitwall:
Apparently one shot one kill to one shot wound one and u disable his aid also
 
AK -47 are Most Common Weapon And Most used weapon For 7.62mm Cartridges around the World in Any Combat i don't understand What is the base of Author Analysis o_O

The author is talking about the 7.62X51 mm NATO, which is completely different from the M43 rounds used in the AKs..............it's rather elementary.My advice, please update your knowledge about a topic before passing your opinions.
 
AK -47 are Most Common Weapon And Most used weapon For 7.62mm Cartridges around the World in Any Combat i don't understand What is the base of Author Analysis o_O
AK's use 7.62x39 mm cartridge, the shoddily written article is about 7.61x51 Nato round. The idiot is comparing a Full size rifle round with a intermediate cartridge.

Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm.

7.62 is basically a 30 cal round and technically unless the case length is mentioned it could be construed a multiple variety of 7.62 rounds

7.62x25 Tokarev - Is a pistol round
7.62x39 - SKS/AK47 intermediate round
7.62x35 - .300 AAC Blackout Stanag equivalent of the round above
7.62x51Nato - .308 Full size batle rifle round
7.62x54R - Rimmed full size battle rifle (SVD/Mosin Nagant )
7.62x63mm - .30 06 Springfield Full size battle rifle round
7.62x51R - Rimmed 30-30 winchester full size round (hunting round)
7.62x33 - .30 carbine - Intermediate round (M1 carbine)
7.62x38mmR - Nagant revolver cartridge


to name a few, without case size and it's intended application, 7.62 can mean a lot of different rounds.

we all know 5.56X45mm ammo is good for medium range combat but 7.62X51mm is leathel even in long range combat with very very leathel stopping power but question is we were using 7.62X51 cal for a long ;long time with FN-FAL based LMG assault rifles then why the hell did indian army generals or say IDN-MOD changed it to 5.56X45 based INSAS in the first place :hitwall:
Because there is no one glove fits all.

7.62x51 is an excellent round, it is my favorite round to shoot, it is also the most technical round to shoot. To take advantage of it's long range, optics are a must in my opinion. Few disadvantages are weight, cost of building a bulkier bolt carrier and receiver, and also it's not a very efficient round in full auto.

5.56 too is an excellent round, I personally had stayed away from this in my personal collection because of it's potato chip quality, you keep wanting more and more, but eventually I had to give in and soon will be building two Ar15's. I have shot quite a bit of 5.56x45 nato on the range, It may not be the most potent round but it is a less technical. It shoots flat to the ranges you can clearly distinguish the target, it is very controllable, chamber pressure are easy to deal with (and no I am not referring to case pressure).

Coming to Insas, please remember it was designed in the 80's, and 5.56 was the less of the evil back then. There was no 6.8spc or 6.5 grendel to choose from. It was light, easy to make, ideal engagement distance, controllable in full auto, and adopted to a design that borrowed heavily from the AKM with features of the FAL. The unfortunate part of Insas story is OFB did not continue to develop the platform. AR15/M16 today is relevant because of the continued development, and so is the AK. But Insas saw a few interim growth spurts and hence is such a disappointment to gun enthusiasts worldwide.
 
AK's use 7.62x39 mm cartridge, the shoddily written article is about 7.61x51 Nato round. The idiot is comparing a Full size rifle round with a intermediate cartridge.
So is the one you replied to!!
Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm.
I bet the author never has seen a firearm up close, let alone put his hands on one.
7.62 is basically a 30 cal round
Really??I thought they have got different case lengths, although I admit I've never seen a .30 cal in my life, so could be wrong there.
and technically unless the case length is mentioned it could be construed a multiple variety of 7.62 rounds

7.62x25 Tokarev - Is a pistol round
7.62x39 - SKS/AK47 intermediate round
7.62x35 - .300 AAC Blackout Stanag equivalent of the round above
7.62x51Nato - .308 Full size batle rifle round
7.62x54R - Rimmed full size battle rifle (SVD/Mosin Nagant )
7.62x63mm - .30 06 Springfield Full size battle rifle round
7.62x51R - Rimmed 30-30 winchester full size round (hunting round)
7.62x33 - .30 carbine - Intermediate round (M1 carbine)
7.62x38mmR - Nagant revolver cartridge


to name a few, without case size and it's intended application, 7.62 can mean a lot of different rounds.[/QUOTE]


Because there is no one glove fits all.
How about the Grendel or the Lapua Scenar, tried those yet??
7.62x51 is an excellent round, it is my favorite round to shoot, it is also the most technical round to shoot. To take advantage of it's long range, optics are a must in my opinion. Few disadvantages are weight, cost of building a bulkier bolt carrier and receiver, and also it's not a very efficient round in full auto.
5.56 too is an excellent round, I personally had stayed away from this in my personal collection because of it's potato chip quality, you keep wanting more and more, but eventually I had to give in and soon will be building two Ar15's. I have shot quite a bit of 5.56x45 nato on the range, It may not be the most potent round but it is a less technical. It shoots flat to the ranges you can clearly distinguish the target, it is very controllable, chamber pressure are easy to deal with (and no I am not referring to case pressure).
Frankly speaking, I didn't like the 7.62X51 mm a bit!!I mean the recoil was just too much for me.But then again, may be it's just me since at that time, I used to be a 181 cm, 48 kg telephone pole!! :P And also, I found it to be somewhat more difficult to aim with at 400 meter since the rifles had to be aimed so high to compensate for more parabolic trajectory of the round, that one would pretty much lose sight of the target.

Coming to Insas, please remember it was designed in the 80's, and 5.56 was the less of the evil back then. There was no 6.8spc or 6.5 grendel to choose from. It was light, easy to make, ideal engagement distance, controllable in full auto, and adopted to a design that borrowed heavily from the AKM with features of the FAL. The unfortunate part of Insas story is OFB did not continue to develop the platform. AR15/M16 today is relevant because of the continued development, and so is the AK. But Insas saw a few interim growth spurts and hence is such a disappointment to gun enthusiasts worldwide.
Right on the mark.But in my experience, I would say the INSAS isn't really as much of a piece of shiit as it has been made out to be over these years!!
 
So is the one you replied to!!

I bet the author never has seen a firearm up close, let alone put his hands on one.

Really??I thought they have got different case lengths, although I admit I've never seen a .30 cal in my life, so could be wrong there.



to name a few, without case size and it's intended application, 7.62 can mean a lot of different rounds.



How about the Grendel or the Lapua Scenar, tried those yet??

Frankly speaking, I didn't like the 7.62X51 mm a bit!!I mean the recoil was just too much for me.But then again, may be it's just me since at that time, I used to be a 181 cm, 48 kg telephone pole!! :P And also, I found it to be somewhat more difficult to aim with at 400 meter since the rifles had to be aimed so high to compensate for more parabolic trajectory of the round, that one would pretty much lose sight of the target.


Right on the mark.But in my experience, I would say the INSAS isn't really as much of a piece of shiit as it has been made out to be over these years!!

I have a tough time defending the 7.62x51 nato as my favorite rounds with friends and co workers. Most of them would use it as a hunting round, but it's not liked by most a range round. The aspect I enjoy is hated by most I know about the 7.62x51 Nato is it being a technical round, which might be good for my range enjoyment where I like playing with my mildot reticle, to touch 600 sometime even further, but in combat shooting a technical round can be a disadvantage.Also I strictly shoot full size rounds in bolt action which makes it a bit easier for my shoulders. The recoil doesn't bother me too much, I am quite used to 12 Gauge skeet. I do want to get a 300 winmag next but then there is the 6.5 Lapua that seems more attractive with every passing day, the only issue is I hate adding calibers to my collection. Right now as it stands its 9mm, 22lr, 7.62x51N, 7.62x 39, 7.62x54R, 5.56x45Nato, 12G.
 
Last edited:
The author is talking about the 7.62X51 mm NATO, which is completely different from the M43 rounds used in the AKs..............it's rather elementary.My advice, please update your knowledge about a topic before passing your opinions.
My bad
As far I know the 7.62x51 mm was made for LMG &Sniper purpose its not assault rifle round like 39mm

It was first used

In browning automatic rifle or BAR Gun which one of most hated gun in WW2 guns

And after M242

Russian version is 7.62x54mmr which used in SVD rifle for marksmen
7.62x70mm is Lapua magnum round

The round used for assault purpose is
35mm blackout used in Tavor-21
And 39mm which AKM




I like @MilSpec already mentioned the author should specific to round if he is saying 51mm them it's cannot used in basic infantry Assault rifle
 
Last edited:
It actually depends like for cqb 5.56 would be much better but for desert mountain snow Marsh creek sea battle of Indo pak 7.62 has more range and is more lethal thus better but for war against say invasion of Japan 5.56 would be better (just example )
 
It actually depends like for cqb 5.56 would be much better but for desert mountain snow Marsh creek sea battle of Indo pak 7.62 has more range and is more lethal thus better but for war against say invasion of Japan 5.56 would be better (just example )
7.62 x51 is not assault rifle round but for LMG
In action group there are 7-8 men where only 1-2 men carry LMG one is marksmen rest are assault guys

So I don't understand author take
 
7.62 x51 is not assault rifle round but for LMG
In action group there are 7-8 men where only 1-2 men carry LMG one is marksmen rest are assault guys

So I don't understand author take
Mate loads of assault rifle are in 7.62 it's lethal has range all you need for conventional war but for unconventional 5.56 in a building fighting insurgents works like a beast
 
Mate loads of assault rifle are in 7.62 it's lethal has range all you need for conventional war but for unconventional 5.56 in a building fighting insurgents works like a beast

7.62 x39mm is assault rifle cartridge
AK-47 or others

Author mentioned

7.62 x51mm which A LMG or Sniper cartridge
So his knowledge is poor
 
Back
Top Bottom