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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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!
One thing I would suggest is to add a weight to or secure the plate holder so there is no movement when the bullets strike the plate being tested. Though it may not, be an issue, it takes away any possibility of penetration loss
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
I believe the 7.62x51 penatrated deeper for the reason when you put the cartridges side by side just by the appearance these are military overruns and are of the highest standards with superior materials. Might be wrong, don't think so. Thanks for the video, the demonstration was helpful and good knowledge to keep in mind.
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 RUclips prior to 2014. Keep up the good work, you earned yourself a sub and a like.
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. 😸
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.
I'm glad someone's actually testing metal penetration the correct way. There's a risk of ricochet shooting a flat piece of any metal, yes. But whenever someone angles a piece of metal, the chances of the round deflecting entirely and not giving an accurate penetration measurement increase. I guess it's not worth the risk overall.
It's the first time I see your channel. Very well made stands and shield and setup in general. The best setup I've seen so far among guntubers man. Also perfect video montage and content production. Beautiful job man 👌👍
Hey Bananas' Great channel. Especially showing off the shop skills you have. Cutting. Grinding. Calibrations. Etc. I'm sure you've got a great shop. One suggestion is elevated target stands to save your back. Nice range set-up! Good collection! Keep slingin'em...
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
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.
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.
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.
Machinist here. Next time try setting the calipers to zero when measuring the piece of steel you use as a bridge, this time you do not have to subtract ;-)
Would have been interesting to start going up in bullet weight once complete penetration stopped. More mass at the target might have made a difference.
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.
As a reloader everything matters, brass, powder, bullet, primer, rifle, barrel length and twist. Factory ammo varies from bullet to bullet in the same box. Competition shooters hand load to remove the variables and match the round to the harmonics of the gun. There is a sweet spot.
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*
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
Just by looking at it in your hand, I can tell the 308 from the 7.62. and the 7.62 always has a discoloration on the neck of the cartridge whereas the 308 doesn't. Same thing when comparing the.223 from the 5.56
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.👍
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.
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.
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.
It's the bullet that makes the difference. The 308 should have preformed better but your were using target rounds. I would like to see a repeat of this with quality ammo.
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 !
Here is some additional info on 308 v 7.62. Primers. The military round has a harder primer than the typical 308. If you examine rounds that have been cycled through a M14 or a Ag42 you will see a definite primer strike mark on the primer. This is cause by the firing pin slamming forward when the bolt stops moving. A regular primer can be set off by this - called a slam fire. I have had it happen in a M14 and a SKS (with commercial primers).
The other side of this is that a commercial rifle may not have enough energy in the firing pin to fire a military round. My Rem788 only gets about 50% ignition when shooting military 7.62x39. A stronger spring will solve this problem. When shooting surplus ammo, one should consider why it is "surplus". Ammo will typically last for decades. If it has been sold off as surplus, it probably means that this particular lot number has failed to meet specifications. It may have a poor neck annealing, and some necks are splitting while the ammo is just sitting in storage. The point is, don't make a general assumption about ammo based on the surplus sample you shot. It may be ammo that has been deemed sub-standard. Neck annealing. All ammo is neck annealed as part of the brass case manufacturing. If a neck is not annealed, it will not last long in storage before necks start cracking. Commercial cases are cleaned after annealing, to remove the discoloration. Military does not concern themselves with "looks" and do not clean the stain. In fact, they want the stain, as proof that that batch of cases got neck annealed. The occasional case fails to get neck annealed. With military cases, it is obvious - no stain. In commercial cases you can tell by the sound of the cases in the case feeder. Annealed cases make a chunka -chunka-chunka sound. If a case gets in there that was not annealed, it rings like a bell. Head annealing and head construction. The case head of a military case has a hardness specification. A soft head/rim can pull off with a violent extraction in an automatic rifle. If you reload for a semi, military brass can be more reliable. The NATO ammo has a little cross stamped on the case head to indicate it meets the NATO spec. Not all military ammo meets this spec. The M14, for example, does not have a chamber that fully supports the case head. There are two cuts on the bottom of the chamber for the feed ramp. The NATO spec calls for a thick web in the case head so that there is solid brass, forward of the unsupported chamber area. IF a low web case is fired in a M14, it can bulge or even blow out. Not all military brass has the thick web feature. Santa Barbara brass, for example, has a very low web and I have seen it blow out.
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
If you buy a 7.62 rifle, check with the maker before you use commercial ammo or reloads. They ought to be able to give some guidance. I once had an HK91, and contacted the company. They gave me guidelines. BTW. the CETME was built to use lighter loads than current NATO SPEC ammo.
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
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
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.
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.
you have a great voice and also, you make these compelling to watch. i would suggest getting something to anchor the plate holder into the ground (like a dedicated concrete pad with studs that would fix your plate holder) the plate holder moves perhaps four inches when you are testing - and if you were to take the weight of the holder - that removes a tremendous amount of energy from your test - perhaps to the point where 308/7.2x51 might transit? still - i have learned from watching your videos (and i pass this along) God bless!
Measuring the volume of the penetrations with some thin oil or water and a measuring pipet would show more accurate data and differences between rounds👍
It comes down to the fact that every 7.62 shot was at the bottom of the plate therefore giving it more solid of a target whereas every .308 shot was closer to the top which made the target use energy to move. You can clearly see this happening in the video. Take each shot at the same point and then youll have a real test. Also do something to hold the target more securely in place for more accurate results. If you try to penetrate something that can move away from the projectile you will have skewed results every time. Take a knife and hold a piece of paper in the air..release it and try to stab it....little difficult..now hold it between two fingers and see how easily it slips through
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?
Would be nice to see a chronograph result for each of the barrel lengths vs ammo types for penetration testing. Like others have also recommended, adding some weight to the base would prevent the random amounts of plate/rack movement which is varying the amount of energy absorption by the plates and penetration of the each bullet for comparison. The upper vs. lower hits have different amounts of variability in the movement/rotation of the rack/base. I'd recommend lead shot bags which would add quite a bit of damping/energy absorption as well as weight, but the shrapnel from the impacts would tear up the shot bags unless you cover them up. Otherwise, lead ingots or more steel works, too. Good no frills video takes and results, I like the approach with cutting a lot of unnecessary rambling of unedited videos. There's a time and place for those, and this type of video isn't what people are looking for, for raw, unedited rambling video content. Nice job, as usual, appreciate you listening to your audience and taking the suggestions to heart, making the improvements provided.
Thanks for testing my suggestion! I am just as surprised as you with those results, but that's why we experiment. Loved the video thx again and keep em coming.
When loading with military cases that they are thicker then commercial cases. So the data is different when you load them ,also most military cases have crimp primers.
I've played with such tests before with various calibers, and what I found was really no major surprise...the harder the projectile, the more penetration. In non-armor piercing (simple FMJ), the antimony content is king, being as it controls the lead hardness/brittleness. If you doubt this, simply cast a half-dozen projectiles from pure silver...they will travel much faster, due to density, and due to being much harder than lead, will penetrate much further. LOL...may be some science behind the old 'silver bullet' legends of old, after all!
It HAS to be bullet hardness. You and maybe one other poster see this. Must now get my silver in cast bullet form! Best thing is, my local silver mint can do this! Hi Ho Silver, AWAY!
Perhaps solidly mounting your target would be more representative of the impact forces? The entire rig is moving backwards, which is the force imparted to the rig, absorbing the kinetic energy.
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.
I think this could be an example of energy transfer. The 7.62x51 is (according to the info given) 200 slower than the 308. Since the bullets were the same size, it must be the 308 was dumping it's energy much faster, pushing the edge out (leaving bigger crators). Where as the 7.62 has a fraction more time too leave energy behind, making the hole deep. My two cents, no one was asking for.
Interesting video. I am surprised the ZQ1 was consistently able to hit the target too. I bought a ton of the ZQ1 ammo when Walmart purged it, and it had horrible accuracy out of my Vepr, M1, and S&W M&P10. I thought it was me at first, but other ammo shot fine, and more consistent. But again, good video.
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.
Always interesting to see the penetration test done with various metals and bullets. It might be a minor difference in some cases but even a mm of penetration can be a life saver in some cases.
Next time stake your test fixture to the ground so it won't yield and slide backwards when the round hits it. That little bit of give can often change the results. Not by much but enough.
Make sure you give the idea of the targets, by comparing them with something more familiar. It's hard to judge target's real dimensions if you tend to record it with thzoom.
Chamber pressure doesn’t always mean higher velocity. A fast burning powder may make a high chamber pressure but reduce pressure as the bullet moves down the barrel. A slower burning powder may have a lower chamber pressure but keep that pressure pushing the projectile further down the barrel exceeding the velocity of the faster burning powder. Let’s say both cartridges have the same powder with different charges being the catalyst y for the pressure difference. The 308 would have a higher velocity. Now that doesn’t mean it will penetrate better because nato projectiles are probably made to penetrate to meet some kind of military standard. The 308 is not held to the same standard. I stopped the video to write this. I am going to go back and hit play to see if I eat my words. Hopefully the 308 isn’t shooting a solid copper.
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
This is 100% correct. Thank you for taking the time to post your reply.
Former Marine 0331. Retired correctional officer. SERT team member, and marksman. You guys nailed it.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night
And from a manufacturer's viewpoint, there is absolutely no need to produce different specs that would require complete sets of tools.
Thank you for taking the time to add something of value to these tests. Its great when someone with significant information shares it!
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.
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
military uses psi, civilian uses cup they are so completely different they can not be mentioned in the same breath
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 The formula PSI = -17,902 + 1.516 x CUP
Used them in the same sentence and formula... Gangsta
@@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.
@@randybird9979 no they do not. Cup is an antiquated way. They did away with that years ago.
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.
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.
O that's a great idea 👍
Completely agree. You can't be sure of flatness consistency with the grinder.
the grinding part was exciting to watch though haha
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
doesnt matter in this test as it was the delta we where interested in , not the depth
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.
I agree it came down to bullet composition.
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.
@@jasper5878 that’s what I own right now! The RIGHT arm of the free world :)
@@justinwiltshire9433 Can't wait till I get one!
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.
Probably should have hit the holes with the torch and made sure the lead and jacket weren't still in the hole to measuring depth.
I hadn't thought of hitting it with a torch, but that is a good idea.
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.
Yep, my thoughts as well. That sled was jumping big time
I think Taofledermaus has disproven this sort of theory in the past.
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.
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!
I really appreciate it! Still a lot of evolving ahead lol
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.
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!
One thing I would suggest is to add a weight to or secure the plate holder so there is no movement when the bullets strike the plate being tested. Though it may not, be an issue, it takes away any possibility of penetration loss
Exactly a LOT of the Impact was being absorbed by the plate rack lifting and moving when it is being HIt !
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.
Mans voice is deeper than an African gold mine
Yes he has a voice made for radio.
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.
Milspec M80 is actually bimetal jacket that includes mild steel not just copper.
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
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
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.
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?
Peg it......
a moving test rig reduces penetration
@@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
Nail it to the ground.
@@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.
I believe the 7.62x51 penatrated deeper for the reason when you put the cartridges side by side just by the appearance these are military overruns and are of the highest standards with superior materials. Might be wrong, don't think so. Thanks for the video, the demonstration was helpful and good knowledge to keep in mind.
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 RUclips prior to 2014.
Keep up the good work, you earned yourself a sub and a like.
Read some of the other comments and do a bit of googling re •223 & 5•56 differences and you might change your mind.
A bit of bull, pressures are taken different ways and so numbers are different, but pressure is roughly equal.
Having no sketche is really nice. So many gun tubers are so unfunny and cringe
@@benardman2665 right, just like this guy. NOT FUNNY
The entire premise is bullshit, don't kid yourself or others.
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..
What about STP? Standard Temp & Pressure?
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. 😸
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.
I'm glad someone's actually testing metal penetration the correct way. There's a risk of ricochet shooting a flat piece of any metal, yes. But whenever someone angles a piece of metal, the chances of the round deflecting entirely and not giving an accurate penetration measurement increase.
I guess it's not worth the risk overall.
The main reason the 7.62 NATO penetrated deeper than the 308 is because it has a steel core, whereas the 308 just has a traditional lead core.
It's the first time I see your channel. Very well made stands and shield and setup in general. The best setup I've seen so far among guntubers man. Also perfect video montage and content production. Beautiful job man 👌👍
@@automaticninjaassaultcat3703 😻❤️
This guy goes way more in depth with the difference of caliber power than these other gun channels.👍
Hey Bananas'
Great channel.
Especially showing off the shop skills you have.
Cutting. Grinding. Calibrations. Etc. I'm sure you've got a great shop. One suggestion is elevated target stands to save your back. Nice range set-up!
Good collection!
Keep slingin'em...
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
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.
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.
I think the test was for the majority of us that get rounds over the counter.
If it's a surplus weapon, it virtually doesn't matter whether you interchange 308 in a 7.62 gun or vice reversa.
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 Canadan Air Force?
@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.
@@george2113 South African Defense force, Technical services corps. Thanks.
@@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
Make sure you secured the plate, so it is in a fixed position to yield a more accurate reading.
It would be interesting to see the same tests at greater ranges. Maybe out to 500 or even 600 yards.
Yes, that would be great to test @ 100/200/300 M +
Yes very interesting, if same bullet weights and profiles have the same ballistics at increasing ranges
US Military Issue 7.62×51 fired from an M14 will penetrate 1/4" mild steel plate at 500 yards.
First hand experience.
"goes right though 3/8th" "happy to be behind that quarter inch shield" .............
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
Perhaps you were issue AP 7.62 rounds.
@@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.
Machinist here. Next time try setting the calipers to zero when measuring the piece of steel you use as a bridge, this time you do not have to subtract ;-)
What? I didn't realize what channel this was until he said "don't let ballistics drive you bananas"
Would have been interesting to start going up in bullet weight once complete penetration stopped. More mass at the target might have made a difference.
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.
As a reloader everything matters, brass, powder, bullet, primer, rifle, barrel length and twist. Factory ammo varies from bullet to bullet in the same box. Competition shooters hand load to remove the variables and match the round to the harmonics of the gun. There is a sweet spot.
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*
They probably didn't choose it because 4000 fps would drastically reduce barrel life span. I'd still love a 243 Win AR-10!
7.62 are almost always annealed for better chamber sealing. So they have the bluing around the neck.
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
Just by looking at it in your hand, I can tell the 308 from the 7.62. and the 7.62 always has a discoloration on the neck of the cartridge whereas the 308 doesn't. Same thing when comparing the.223 from the 5.56
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.👍
350 legend vs 30-30 would be interesting
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.
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.
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.
It's the bullet that makes the difference. The 308 should have preformed better but your were using target rounds. I would like to see a repeat of this with quality ammo.
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 !
Here is some additional info on 308 v 7.62.
Primers. The military round has a harder primer than the typical 308. If you examine rounds that have been cycled through a M14 or a Ag42 you will see a definite primer strike mark on the primer. This is cause by the firing pin slamming forward when the bolt stops moving. A regular primer can be set off by this - called a slam fire. I have had it happen in a M14 and a SKS (with commercial primers).
The other side of this is that a commercial rifle may not have enough energy in the firing pin to fire a military round. My Rem788 only gets about 50% ignition when shooting military 7.62x39. A stronger spring will solve this problem.
When shooting surplus ammo, one should consider why it is "surplus". Ammo will typically last for decades. If it has been sold off as surplus, it probably means that this particular lot number has failed to meet specifications. It may have a poor neck annealing, and some necks are splitting while the ammo is just sitting in storage. The point is, don't make a general assumption about ammo based on the surplus sample you shot. It may be ammo that has been deemed sub-standard.
Neck annealing. All ammo is neck annealed as part of the brass case manufacturing. If a neck is not annealed, it will not last long in storage before necks start cracking. Commercial cases are cleaned after annealing, to remove the discoloration. Military does not concern themselves with "looks" and do not clean the stain. In fact, they want the stain, as proof that that batch of cases got neck annealed. The occasional case fails to get neck annealed. With military cases, it is obvious - no stain. In commercial cases you can tell by the sound of the cases in the case feeder. Annealed cases make a chunka -chunka-chunka sound. If a case gets in there that was not annealed, it rings like a bell.
Head annealing and head construction. The case head of a military case has a hardness specification. A soft head/rim can pull off with a violent extraction in an automatic rifle. If you reload for a semi, military brass can be more reliable.
The NATO ammo has a little cross stamped on the case head to indicate it meets the NATO spec. Not all military ammo meets this spec. The M14, for example, does not have a chamber that fully supports the case head. There are two cuts on the bottom of the chamber for the feed ramp. The NATO spec calls for a thick web in the case head so that there is solid brass, forward of the unsupported chamber area. IF a low web case is fired in a M14, it can bulge or even blow out. Not all military brass has the thick web feature. Santa Barbara brass, for example, has a very low web and I have seen it blow out.
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
I was thinking this also.
In this case the bullet composition isn't the same, the alloys being different so this test isn't worth much
Aren't some bullets designed to destroy themselves, ie fragment? I believe that's more devastating than a bullet going through intact
@@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
If you buy a 7.62 rifle, check with the maker before you use commercial ammo or reloads. They ought to be able to give some guidance. I once had an HK91, and contacted the company. They gave me guidelines. BTW. the CETME was built to use lighter loads than current NATO SPEC ammo.
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
How did the m855 perform?
@Adam Khan LoL 🤣 my thoughts exactly. What a douche.
< 22-250
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
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 !
It’s not , I have both steel core with green tip and the regular ammo .
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.
Which is also why milspec 7.62 are not allowed (or didn’t used to be) in match competition
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.
WOW- big difference, and let's look at the bump in power with a 24" barrel!
Good work with the nice tight editing. No temptation to skip anything.
YES ... no filler
you have a great voice and also, you make these compelling to watch.
i would suggest getting something to anchor the plate holder into the ground (like a dedicated concrete pad with studs that would fix your plate holder)
the plate holder moves perhaps four inches when you are testing - and if you were to take the weight of the holder - that removes a tremendous amount of energy from your test - perhaps to the point where 308/7.2x51 might transit?
still - i have learned from watching your videos (and i pass this along) God bless!
I'm sure you would get a different result if the target holder didn't move backward on the bullet strike
You could call it a target sled!
That's a good one!
Measuring the volume of the penetrations with some thin oil or water and a measuring pipet would show more accurate data and differences between rounds👍
Wow, as a new .308 shooter this was an excellent video. I test fired my new 20 inch and found that it liked .308 better than 7.62.
Projectile weight (Length) is optional for one rate of twist only.
Your barrel therefore has one bullet type that will be best for that rate of twist.
It comes down to the fact that every 7.62 shot was at the bottom of the plate therefore giving it more solid of a target whereas every .308 shot was closer to the top which made the target use energy to move. You can clearly see this happening in the video. Take each shot at the same point and then youll have a real test. Also do something to hold the target more securely in place for more accurate results. If you try to penetrate something that can move away from the projectile you will have skewed results every time. Take a knife and hold a piece of paper in the air..release it and try to stab it....little difficult..now hold it between two fingers and see how easily it slips through
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.
Very true, supposedly its running up to 2,000 psi higher, but it all depends on the load.
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?
Call it the Banana Sled as it slides when you hit it
I would be interested to see what those two rounds were running on the chronograph. That could help explain the difference in penetration.
I would like to see WWII 30-06 black tip (ap) tested against the steel plates.
Would be nice to see a chronograph result for each of the barrel lengths vs ammo types for penetration testing. Like others have also recommended, adding some weight to the base would prevent the random amounts of plate/rack movement which is varying the amount of energy absorption by the plates and penetration of the each bullet for comparison. The upper vs. lower hits have different amounts of variability in the movement/rotation of the rack/base.
I'd recommend lead shot bags which would add quite a bit of damping/energy absorption as well as weight, but the shrapnel from the impacts would tear up the shot bags unless you cover them up. Otherwise, lead ingots or more steel works, too. Good no frills video takes and results, I like the approach with cutting a lot of unnecessary rambling of unedited videos. There's a time and place for those, and this type of video isn't what people are looking for, for raw, unedited rambling video content. Nice job, as usual, appreciate you listening to your audience and taking the suggestions to heart, making the improvements provided.
You needed a ricochet shield to protect you from your ricochet shield test.
Thanks for testing my suggestion! I am just as surprised as you with those results, but that's why we experiment. Loved the video thx again and keep em coming.
I really appreciate it! I was really surprised as well.
I'd like to see this done with AP rounds
When loading with military cases that they are thicker then commercial cases. So the data is different when you load them ,also most military cases have crimp primers.
I've played with such tests before with various calibers, and what I found was really no major surprise...the harder the projectile, the more penetration. In non-armor piercing (simple FMJ), the antimony content is king, being as it controls the lead hardness/brittleness. If you doubt this, simply cast a half-dozen projectiles from pure silver...they will travel much faster, due to density, and due to being much harder than lead, will penetrate much further. LOL...may be some science behind the old 'silver bullet' legends of old, after all!
It HAS to be bullet hardness. You and maybe one other poster see this. Must now get my silver in cast bullet form! Best thing is, my local silver mint can do this! Hi Ho Silver, AWAY!
I really haven’t noticed any real world difference between them in my Springfield M1A. But that’s at the range and hunting deer and elk.
Perhaps solidly mounting your target would be more representative of the impact forces? The entire rig is moving backwards, which is the force imparted to the rig, absorbing the kinetic energy.
3:54 'sliding target' is ABSORBING energy, each time.
I love these comparison videos
That steel rig should be called the “Slap Rack”
Interesting comparison, I used the 7.62x51 in the L1A1 (SLR) in the early 1980's, potent round
I Love My L1A1 I can Ring the Steel at 900 + Yards all day long !!!
If you use a fan sanding disc instead of the grinding disc you'll get less grinding marks.
I like how you don't waste viewing time on set ups or any of the other prep work for each shot. You get right to what we came here for, thumbs up.
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.
I think this could be an example of energy transfer. The 7.62x51 is (according to the info given) 200 slower than the 308. Since the bullets were the same size, it must be the 308 was dumping it's energy much faster, pushing the edge out (leaving bigger crators). Where as the 7.62 has a fraction more time too leave energy behind, making the hole deep.
My two cents, no one was asking for.
Interesting video. I am surprised the ZQ1 was consistently able to hit the target too. I bought a ton of the ZQ1 ammo when Walmart purged it, and it had horrible accuracy out of my Vepr, M1, and S&W M&P10. I thought it was me at first, but other ammo shot fine, and more consistent. But again, good video.
Maybe chronograph those rounds at the same time so we have a better idea of what we are actually looking at.
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.
I would have secured it to the ground or added weight so it wouldn't move.
3mm kinda matters. You should try the 30-06 as its 61mm. A 3088 runs out of steam at 149grain, I've loaded up to 225 for 30-06 for bear and moose
Always interesting to see the penetration test done with various metals and bullets. It
might be a minor difference in some cases but even a mm of penetration can be a life
saver in some cases.
Next time stake your test fixture to the ground so it won't yield and slide backwards when the round hits it. That little bit of give can often change the results. Not by much but enough.
Great setup. Looking forward to more content. Subbed.
Magnet test - My Win 147FMJ projectiles stick.
Reloader 15 41gns. Close enough for ranch work.
Make sure you give the idea of the targets, by comparing them with something more familiar. It's hard to judge target's real dimensions if you tend to record it with thzoom.
Chamber pressure doesn’t always mean higher velocity. A fast burning powder may make a high chamber pressure but reduce pressure as the bullet moves down the barrel. A slower burning powder may have a lower chamber pressure but keep that pressure pushing the projectile further down the barrel exceeding the velocity of the faster burning powder.
Let’s say both cartridges have the same powder with different charges being the catalyst y for the pressure difference. The 308 would have a higher velocity. Now that doesn’t mean it will penetrate better because nato projectiles are probably made to penetrate to meet some kind of military standard. The 308 is not held to the same standard. I stopped the video to write this. I am going to go back and hit play to see if I eat my words. Hopefully the 308 isn’t shooting a solid copper.