SVD vs WWSD - Time & Grains on Target
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- InRange is entirely viewer supported, please consider it:
/ inrangetv
The SVD is a notorious Soviet era DMR, which has proven itself on the battlefield. It is chambered in a battle cartridge, and belabored with a less than optimal BDC which requires dialing in known distances on targets before engaging.
The WWSD is a modern AR15, and when paired with an ACOG and MK262 77 grain ammunition, is very accurate and easy to shoot.
Let's time getting the same amount of grains on target, requiring 2 hits from the WWSD rifle to every single hit from the SVD at 300, 400 and 500 yards and see what conclusions we can come to about these platforms.
I wish there were more ranges like this on the east coast (US). Excellent vid!
Thanks!
I'm excited to go out shooting in AZ this winter, my parents just moved there and seeing all these vids makes me want to try shooting out there. In the meantime I just built my own back yard range in Montana, it's only about 100 yards but It's so nice to not have to shoot at the uphill public range where I have to share the range with morons or folks from cali who think the municipal gun range is a hiking area.
@@joshuaradick5679It is so amazing to be able to legally shoot from my front porch. Moved out of the city a couple years ago - so much less stress.
There are ranges better than that in PA. I've seen them on youtubes.
Same, Maryland ain't got shit. Sure Delmarva exists..four hours and a lot of traffic away.
I'd be interested to see how a decent AR-10 in .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor would fare in this test. Actually both, now that I think about it.
Itd be interesting to see the WWSD vs a ar10 or sigs new spear.
AR-10 would be no better than the SVD - same cartridge, probably even a lighter rifle so significant recoil. Spear would be interesting - is the full power military ammunition available commercially yet?
@@alun7006 i doubt the fill power stuffs out yet. While your probably right i was tjinkkng the ar-10 might be a closer "apple to apples" comparison simply cause its the big original brother to the ar 15 platform.
@@alun7006The AR-10 would have a much better trigger and (assuredly) a much better that karl would be more familiar with.
It might not change much but there is more than just the weight of the gun in a change between dragunov and ar-10.
@@alun7006 I haven't shot an AR-10 past 300 yards yet... But at 300 yards I can put 4 out of 5 rounds (sometimes all 5) on an IPSC target very quickly. I'm shooting each round about the same time I'm hearing the steel target ping. It takes a 308 a little less than .4 seconds to reach 300 yards and about .8 seconds for the return ping. So I'm sending 5 rounds down range in about 5 seconds give or take. I'd say 7 seconds max. This is in the same shooting conditions as him, on a bench with a bipod. Granted... I'm not switching targets. But my point isn't that I could clear this course of fire in 5 seconds with an AR-10, its just that an AR-10 would have less recoil than the SVD. I think if Karl had an AR-10 he could clear the course faster due to only putting 1 round per target. Even more so if he tuned the gas system like he did the WWSD.
m110 is basically modern match for dragunov. That would be interesting comparison.
This video makes multiple points all at once:
7.62 x 5.56 (properly loaded) and 5.56 has merits that 7.62 does not.
The SVD is a cool, but outdated design that was always just "good enough".
Pencil barrels aren't a problem anymore.
Is the SVD optic and rifle outdated? Absolutely, but that's not the whole equation here - the ability to have almost no recoil and to lay down fire rapidly matters more than the idea of first round hits, and 7.62 will always disrupt your sight picture and follow up more than 5.56.
77 grain MK262 is a fascinating middle ground that brings more bullet mass to the table, as well as a better ballistic coefficient, yet doesn't weigh down the shooter with carry weight but still has minimal recoil.
Nice that you bring a complete resume of the points that you wanted to bring across. Thanks for the video, Karl.
Except you'd have to get 3 hits of Mk262 Mod 0 to equal the energy of just one hit of 7.62x51 (175gr SMK) at 500yds.
Is there anything practical that energy will do or is it just “more”?
While im inclined to agree on all points i think youre trying to prove too many at the same time.
The SVD is a cool, but outdated design that was always just "good enough".
That is clearly shown
Pencil barrels aren't a problem anymore.
My understanding was that their issue used to be point of impact shift under heat. Youve made tests before that showed that not to be an issue with modern barrels. This test alone would if anything be a counterexample given that you needed more rounds each run with the WWSD. Im not saying it actually is, just that this test isnt an indicator.
7.62 x 5.56 (properly loaded) and 5.56 has merits that 7.62 does not. the ability to have almost no recoil and to lay down fire rapidly matters more than the idea of first round hits, and 7.62 will always disrupt your sight picture and follow up more than 5.56.
That 5.56 has less recoil and so allows for faster followon shots is obvious so the really relevant question is by how much and how much does it matter.
So lets look at the data and see how much it is and if we cant at least somewhat reduce the impact the SVD had on the results.
So the basic data says you took an average 2.32s per shot with the WWSD compared to 3.86s on the SVD so almost twice as good.
However the first SVD result had a lot of searching for targets in the distance transition and the last run had a malfunction so id use the best result 3.57s to account for those at least somewhat. I think this is still doesnt fully account for the SVD but this gives the first conclusion. The 7.62 takes about 50% more time per shot.
To try to get the SVD out of the data ill assume the accuracy difference (1.2 rounds per hit in the WWSD and 3.1 for the SVD) was entirely down to the gun/optics.
So with these assumptions for a hypothetical WWSD in 7.62 we would expect
For the 7.62 the average time to be at 12.85s
For the 5.56 the average time to be at 16.70s for same grain on target.
For the 5.56 the average time to be at 8.35s for same hits on target.
So if you think grains on target matter the 7.62 should be about 24% better and if you think hits matter the 5.56 should be about 50% better.
Obviously there are massive assumptions here and very little data to actually draw from. Id love to see actual testing with comparable rifles/optics to see where the actual difference lies.
Thank you for the video though i do very much enjoy those tests
@@509Gman Absolutely. For example M193 55gr FMJ is only going to have 172ftlbs of energy vs the 419ftlbs of Mk262. It's pretty much the whole reason for Mk262 coming about.
So why the need for that extra energy? Well if the baddie is behind something like a block wall or a vehicle at range (500yd) then the 1250ftlbs of energy is going to do the job of punching through that cover.
The thumbnail made me think that the SVD was somehow underslung on that WWSD.
We got us a breaching SVD under our precision lightweight AR15
An underslung DMR is the next generation tactical force multiplier for the combat squad of the future, didn't you know?
@@hobbitronic I want that on that in the USA Today AR-15 attachments meme
😂
@@Omniseedtrue peace and friendship between the Americans and the Russians at last!
This is essentially the exact concept that led to the initial development of the MK12 series of DMR rilfes in US service. Fast, accurate fire inside of 800yds with rapid followups
the whole story is in you being able to spot your misses multiple times with the WWSD and correct before your spotter could inform you of your miss.
Absolutely the point. Thank you :)
So isn't it more about the scope vs the old PSP scope?
*PSO*
@@olgagaming5544 Only if the SVD had half the recoil, a better scope might mean your target remains in the optic but you're still recoiling off target which makes spotting your hits/misses difficult.
While I agree with the sentiment of the video, and in fact bought my KP15 lower specifically to build a 20" gun since before the 20" WWSD was announced, I would still like to see a more modern 308, like an AR10, with the same optic do this same compaimrison. I know it's still going to be slower, but I think it will be a lot closer.
It will be closer, but the lesson still applies - hits on target faster matter more along with recoil recovery.
@InrangeTv for sure. I love my Cetme, and I do still kind of want a more modern 308 of some kind, but like you said unless I need to shoot through something tough, I have no doubt my AR would perform better.
@@ZeroSuitSamo Scar-H, MARS-H, SR-25, hell even a PSA gen 3 AR10. The comblock marksman rifles are kind of shit at what they do. They were better than a standard infantry rifle in their time. These days, the available platforms render something like an SVD obsolescent at best and obsolete at worst. Hell, a cheap bolt gun with an equally cheap modern scope would probably beat that SVD.
I’ve seen quite a few people bash on the WWSD rifle. I love the rifle I put together off a KE Arms kp15 lower. The faxon pencil barrel has been great and I couldn’t be happier with how my rifle turned out. Great video as always
Mine has not been reliable (I am hoping that it's either an ammo or mag problem), so I can understand some people being frustrated with it. Due to various obligations, I have only had it out once on the range.
@@mpeugeot I've seen people on video say they had issues with Lancer mags but I have not experienced these issues. I am running a standard young manufacturing bcg, faxon pencil barrel, bcm pnt trigger, midwest industries combat rail, standard carbine buffer system, and a vg6 epsilon soon to be a vg6 delta muzzle device. I do not own a complete WWSD rifle but my own version of the CDR
I knew from the get go that I wanted a lightweight LPVO on it, so I went with the .625 hanson barrel. In my mind it IS the dmr version. 77gr shoot about 1.5moa, 62gr gold dots 1 moa and my 40gr varmint load absolutely bugholes. Since I only have a 1-4 on it I stopped load development with that gun when I got to that point. Good enough for it's jobs. I carry it every day on our farm, rain or shine, AND shoot drills/train with it. Most of the time it's my hunting rifle too. Light, accurate, reliable. Freaking perfect.
The light recoil & quick follow up shots is indisputable with 5.56. I still chose a rifle in 7.62 back in the day. An important task for me in our team was the need to quickly disable approaching vehicles. A heavier round has value in that. Also good for punching through walls. But definitely overpowered for most other rifle combat applications. Nice thing about being part of a “nonstandard” unit is getting to use whatever gear you want.
Facinating video. Really shows why the Mk 12 SPR with the Mk 262 was such a forward thinking concept.
I agree.
I like the idea of “grains on target” with time pressures.
I’m going to use that concept in more evals & comparisons.
few targets stay still after hit once, hard to evaluate how this reflects real world
energy at range could be one other point of comparison
@@toolthoughts good point!
@@toolthoughts Indeed, though the difference in ease of putting lead in target at all between these two platforms makes it hard to say if the .308 is truly worth it.
@@mghegotagun .308 has never been optimal, you can have a round that is (at least on paper) as effective and has less recoil by going with a slightly lower caliber and better external ballistics
Karls "grains on target" theory is off.
7.62x51 175 SMKs
MV 2600fps
BC .505
@ 500yds 1800fps and 1250ftlbs of energy
5.56 Mk262 Mod 0
MV2600fps
BC .372
@ 500yds 1500fps and 419ftlbs of energy
So to put the same amount of energy on target you would need to get 3 hits of Mk262 vs 1 hit of 7.62x51
I understand that there's a whole bunch of arguments that can be made about this being unfair or whatever.
But sheer hell damn that was some fun shooting Karl.
Reckon we could look at other 5.56 bullet weights?
I'm wondering how much of this is also due to you using and knowing the acog more than the LPs? Or do you regularly use the lps-1?
I've shot that SVD for over 10 years.
@@InrangeTv nice! They are fun to shoot 😁
@@InrangeTv you haven’t spent much time calibrating the turret in those 10 years, nearly every target required an elevation adjustment after having dialed, that should never happen.
@@InrangeTv thanks for clarifying. I was also wondering if familiarity was a factor.
Modern metallurgy matters, and I think we can see a real generational difference in consistency on top of the inherent handicap of dealing with greater recoil sort of stack up. I'm not shocked that a modern made rifle in a more intermediate cartridge can out-perform a gun built in the 1980s or 1990s using a larger, heavier recoiling cartridge.
@@Kinetic.44 good point
comparing a trijicon optic with schott glass (best glass in the world) to an eastern european low end optic
not a very fair comparison
i would like to see this redone with trijicon optic side mounted on the SVD for a real fair comparison
1950s
@@_SchwartzHe's talking metallurgy, so the important thing is when these specific guns were manufactured, not designed. Given it's a Chinese gun in the US, 80s or 90s is likely a good estimate and we know when the WWSD was manufactured.
@@Kinetic.44 it's a difference in cartridge. 5.56 is outperforming .308 inside of 500 yards, which is on the wider end of most firefights.
Very interesting comparison. Having also seen Bloke and Henry recently with their SLR and SUIT combos it would be interesting to see what effect putting the ACOG on the SVD would have in order to isolate how much of the improvement can be explained by the newer optic.
It would be interesting to see someone who has as much trigger time with SVD as Karl has with AR-15 to do the test. And, naturally, the SVD should be a tuned shooter not a collectable that is kept in the original condition because its historical value.
@@azgarogly A more scientific test would be multiple shooters, each doing multiple trials, with an AR15 and AR10 that are as identical as possible except for the round.
@@theflyingfish66 That depends on what you are testing. If only the battle rifle caliber vs intermediate small caliber cartridge, then yes, the rifles with similar ergonomics should be used and multiple shooters with different backgrounds.
We had such a difficult time keeping our M14 DMRs running that we took the Leupolds off them, put them on one of the M16A4s in the squad, and just considered that to be our DMR. Standard M855 is a poor substitute for M118LR, but we could at least keep the M16s running, and sending anything back at the enemy was better than harsh language. Later, we gleefully turned in our M14s for Mk 12s. The Mk 12 was the most coveted weapon system, and Mk 262 did everything we asked of it out to 600+ yards. So there is absolutely precedent for replacing antiquated 7.62mm systems with modern 5.56mm systems, with excellent results.
Aye aye! Absolutely agree and that's what we saw with the DMR program with MK262.
...But but the m14 is the bestest rifle ever!
Im a brit, who doesnt own any guns cos obviously, and i found your channel through forgotten weapons (i love history). From my relatively outside point of view it seems that most of the hate for the WWSD doesnt have much to do about the gun at all, and seems to be deflections from peoples views on Karl (Hi Karl).
As for this vid, i think you've made valid points on how recoil can affect how you can find a target, and how the march of time can lower the impact of even the most venerated piece of technology.
Out of curiosity, what ARE peoples views on Karl? i have only seen his content on inrangetv, and i didnt see anything that would let me make major judgements on his character, other than that he is providing interresting content...
@@random.3665well the fact that him and gun Jesus no longer collaborate should give you a good idea of how Karl is as a person.
I stand up for what I believe in, and that includes LGBTQ+ rights - something some cowards and capitalists won't do because it might hurt their bottom line or image in a community filled with too many bigoted and hateful consumers. I also don't attempt to publish books by white nationalists either...so yeah, I guess you could say we have different approaches to this topic that are irreconcilable.
@@TomReinke89 The Second Amendment is for everyone
@@TomReinke89 Given that Ian has directly answered that question in the comments to his videos, and that answer being "There isnt enough time for me to do everything i like at once, and other projects have taken precedence over inrangetv.", i dont see how that is relevant.
Man this would make a great series. I'd love to see a lot of gun/optic combos up against the WWSD+ACOG (and maybe a piggyback rds if you change the venue.)
The scope made a huge difference. Great content as usual
The scope, bipod setup and better ergonomics of the AR in general made a huge difference. Put the SVD scope on the AR and you would shoot a little worse then the AR as tested. Then switch the bipod from the muzzle end of the hand guard to where the SVD’s is near the receiver end and you would shoot still a little closer to the SVD. And finally change the AR’s superb ergonomics to somewhat similar to the SVD’s and you’re probably going shoot about the same as the SVD. I figure the bipod and scope are somewhere around 80-90% of the difference though.
@@kiloalphasierra even with the ergonomics and the scope of the svg the AR would still be a lot faster. The recoil difference is a big factor.
@@kiloalphasierra I would say, the familiarity with the weapon is a 80% of success here. SVD as a platform is absolutely capable of making first shot hits within 500 m. That would mostly negate the followup shot difficulty with 308 vs 556. So 556 would clearly have an advantage, but it would be 3 times difference.
@@azgaroglyis it, though? The group size of an svd at 500m is roughly the size of the target
@@sgtkasi Correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK SVD can shoot 5" groups at 500m.
Isn't that smaller than a head sized target?
Karl never stated, what target is he shooting, but it looks like a chest sized one?
So it seems that when the rifle is in a good condition and tuned properly, the scope is in a good condition and zeroed, the shooter knows exactly where the rifle shoots at relevant range settings with given ammunition... making a first shot hits at 500m should be possible, far easier at 300m.
Excellent vid! Too bad it just cost you a Big Dragunov sponsorship 😅
I know. Totally ruined the relationship.
This test didn’t show anything other than the ACOG is a better scope than the LPS-1, and that the LPS-1 isn’t zero’d properly and/or the BDC turret isn’t calibrated correctly.
The lack of a single first round hit from the SVD (whereas every target had a first round impact from the AR) is proof enough that the added recoil of the 308 was not the reason the SVD performed poorly.
Ergonomics, scope, and bipod position are probably the main reasons the SVD suffered.
I don’t disagree that 223 is probably the better cartridge for the distances in this test but at least do a fair test. If this test was set up correctly (all variables removed other than cartridge) the 308 would’ve won easily as you would’ve had first round impacts on every target and the recoil would’ve had much less effect.
Everything you say about the 5.56 vs. 308 I don't dispute. In that type of situation I would prefer the 5.56 rifle given the choice of these two. With that said, while I think the main "big army" infantry rifle should still be chambered in 5.56 NATO, I think there is a place for 7.62 NATO rifles.
If the place for 7.62 NATO is for barrier penetration or further than 600m engagements, then there are much better choices than 7.62 NATO.
When It comes to engagements further than 600 meters I'm not convinced a rifle of any caliber is the best choice assuming you have luxury of supporting arms. At typical contact distance (inside 300 to 400 meters) being able to shoot through walls when I don't have supporting arms is a place for the 7.62 nato round. Maybe I should have said crew served weapons instead of rifles.
Also, love your content.@@InrangeTv
@@rdsii64the 7.62 GPMG definitely still has a place. The 7.62 rifle is obsolescent.
i would like to i would like to see this test again with the svd having a modern optic to see what difference the optic makes
By some people's standards, the ACOG isn't even modern. lol
Invalid test, Karl didn't salute the glorious General Secretary before shooting the SVD
Also since that's an NDM 86 then "nOt a ReAl DrAgUnOv"
@@robertkalinic335 So explain how the AR-15 won then? Would have thought some contra ghost previously known as, 'Blowtorch' or 'The Nun-fucker' would have felt disrespected without any acknowledgement.
The game changer here was optic and ammunition. The PSO scope was cutting edge in the 60’s, but it’s dated. Not using match ammunition in the SVD handicapped it as well. I’d say a more fair comparison would be equal optic and both having match ammunition. The WWSD is an awesome rifle. I love what you’ve done with it. However, my experiences with the SVD are much much more positive than this. I’d like to see a redo with the equalizers I mentioned.
Of course that's part of it, but that doesn't totally address the issue of 7.62 vs properly loaded 5.56 being superior. The reason I chose the SVD for this was to make both points at the same time.
@@InrangeTv I’m absolutely not debating the properly loaded 5.56 is an excellent choice. Everything has its place and purpose. I’d still be interested in slapping some super nice glass on both, and shooting both with good ammunition for…science. Lol.
@@connorburnes7697Or alternatively, swapping the WWSD to an older 4x scope and requiring 3 hits with bulk 55gr ammo. I'm sure that would drag the 5.56 down but I imagine it would still run a good chance of outperforming the 7.62
it'd be interesting to see if you could get ahold of a 5.56 chamberedsvd/sks, or a 7.62 chambered wwsd equivalent rifle and see how they perform with similar ammo types.
I think the having to dial in bullet drop is probably less important than the muzzle climb.
dialing in the range is probably easier for a conscript than remembering what the pips mean in a bdc reticle
Don't want to introduce too many equalisers, or the WWSD might lose. A true equivalent match of a tuned, modern 7.62 with good optic being fired by someone who knows it well, against his tuned, modern WWSD with good optic that he knows well - which would be much much closer. If not a win for the 7.62 - not such a good advertisement for _his_ gun!
It's uncanny (and really cool!) how the spotter can spot the hit on the 500yrds target before the microphone picks up the impact ping.
Physics is amazing!
Apples and oranges.
Great video. I love this format and type of content
Glad you enjoy it!
Please repeat the test using the WWSD and the Army's new Spear Do you think you would get the same results?
Good luck getting a spear
How much is the original PSO optic worth? Must be a lot since you're not willing to risk it.
Not that much by itself, but mine is matching.
Here in the UK we have no gas system to help soak up recoil and I have to say the best modification I've made to my SVD is the ability to use muzzle devices. The JP recoil eliminator makes 54r feel like .223
Totally invalid test. You didn’t compare calibers. You compared the AR-15 and ACOG against the Dragunov and obsolete optic.
I actually have this idea of having my ar308 as a close-range battle rifle and a 20 inch ar15 as a dmr.
Cause I don't lose sight picture with the red dot on the 308 and being able to perforate cover is more useful at closer ranges.
Meanwhile a 20" 556 is pretty much ideal for dmr as shown in the video.
Home defense would be a 16" 556 as well due to over penetration. But as an all-round battle/survival rifle, 308 seems to be more useful.
I'm interested to know how much the results of this test would change if the distances were at 600, 700, and 800 yards. I'd consider .308 to be gross over kill for any unarmored target within 500 yards, but I would also argue that isn't really what that round is made for to begin with.
Yet it was already quite hard to make hits with the SVD at 500, never mind 6, 7 or 8.
@@InrangeTv To clarify, I was more questioning how the performance of the rounds changes at that distance. I'm only guessing, but I think that the times would be closer together at longer distances due to 5.56 losing effectiveness at longer distances. This is only a theory, of course, which is why I would like to see that test. Either way, great work on this one. I always enjoy when you make these kinds of videos.
US Army should drop the M7 and go back to the M16 for infantry. Maybe put 16" barrels on some modern M4's and call 'em M16A4 or A5 or whatever.
An old-school head-to-head on the clock between an older design and a newer design, both rifles and optics - I love it! And yeah, not surprising the AR reigns supreme even with more shots required, but fun way to get another data point. Shoutout to Kevin and his lovely toys in the Red Dawn bay next door!
Apples to oranges. regardless very interesting. but as many are saying, comparison to a comparable modern ar-10 platform would be much more viable.
Thats not fruit 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I understand the military wanted a firearm with more range and penetration, but the new service rifle by sig just doesn’t make sense to me. Still think getting our m16s rechambered in a modern cartridge like the 6ARC would have been better. Little more recoils but much less weight.
I like the grains on target idea, and would like to see more of this kind of testing. TBF this test was pretty unfair against the 30cal. If you replicated the test with a modern ar-10, with modern glass and gear it would have been closer. Maybe have someone who was not intimately familiar with the wwsd rerun the test.
Would have been closer but the conclusions would have still been the same.
As soon as i get my inheritance from grandma i will buy a WWSD KP-15!!!!!
Really interesting concept for a testing objective, the "number of grains on target". I think the differing quality of optics played a significant role in this test and i would love to see a another inRangeTV comparison between disimilar platforms but with more equivalent sighting technologies. Keep up the great work!
impressive and informative, thank you
So modern manufacturing, thinking and refinement makes a better product. Who would have thought it!
Beautiful and informative video as always!
Thanks!
Do you think the pencil barrel heating up somewhat caused the slower times?
If you haven’t yet you should check out the primary arms micro prisms, they’re super small and super light, imo they are perfect for the concept of the wwsd.
Well done, Karl!
Basically you proofed a big reason why the change in standard infantery rifle caliber to 5.56 happened, just by showing it on longer ranges.
I remember from bassic training long ago when we were told: "a good riflema needs between 2 and 3 seconds for an aimed shot whe he sees a new target, thats the time you get to move between cover." So even a little over 20 years ago the idea was that he will only get 1 try on the target before its in cover again, so better make that count and not having to regain sight of the area the last target dissapeared is very usefull.
0:24 Someone at the range is having fun spraying and praying
Agreed, _R A P I D F I R E_ sure is fun
shockingly, a modern optic is better than a 60s optic. tbh I'm surprised the dragunov held up as well as it did, I would have expected much longer time between shots. but, excellent video as usual!
Great video. Interesting to see your times with the 308 shortend from run 1 to 3, when the 556 increased from run 1 to 3. Any thoughts on that Karl? Just smal samplesize or trend?
Keep up the awesome videos!
My guess; he's able to run the 5.56 fast enough that its thinner barrel heats up so it's printing wider groups each run, while the thicker barrel of the 7.62 shooting more slowly the accuracy doesn't change significantly from run 1 to run 3
Get your 20” WWSD at KEArms
Code LD2023 through 9-5-23 for 20% off
"we are not paid off by Big Dragunov™" 😂
I would almost argue field of view and eye relief are more important than magnification power in some cases.
Fudds arent gonna like this one, Karl
I know. Comments are already rollin' in.
the fact the spotter called hit... then a second later we heard the ring... wow
WWSD vs Ian´s AK4D CLONE G3 ?
WWSD will handily win, maybe with less of a % difference, but the same lessons apply.
I'm not surprised that the WWSD handily won. I do think it would be interesting to see this comparison done again with an AR-10 platform in 308 that had been optimized in a way similar to the WWSD project. (I understand that this would be much more difficult than WWSD due to the relative lack of components for an AR-10 compared to an AR-15)
Totally concordant results with the "Battle Rifle Trials" you did a few years ago. Though the SVD wasn't part of those tests, I'd guess it would perform less favorably than an AR-10, with both worse in comparison to an AR-15. A smaller cartridge means less recoil, faster follow-up shots, and more rounds on target. Good ergonomics and optics just can't make up for that.
To address your points:
7.62 x 5.56 (properly loaded) and 5.56 has merits that 7.62 does not.
True, 5.56 has merits that 7.62 does not. Weight and recoil would be the main two, but the 7.62 has merits that the 5.56 does not. Better range, less responsive to wind, more energy on target, penetration of armor/cover. It would be interesting to see the two compared when you have a different goal, like trying to get through body armor on a timer.
The SVD is a cool, but outdated design that was always just "good enough".
Agreed, no arguments there.
Pencil barrels aren't a problem anymore.
I'd like to see a shootout with a few profiled barrels to test this more.
6.5 has even better range and wind resistance and energy than 5.56 or 7.62 at distance. Penetration: the Venn diagram of “things 5.56 can penetrate” and “things 7.62x511 can penetrate” aren’t as far away from concentric as might be believed, it’s a small percentage that isn’t in both. A GPMG is indicated for chewing through cover anyway, outside the scope of this test. Most body armor stops both. Some body armor doesn’t stop 5.56 but will the bigger cross-sectioned 7.62.
I think that this demonstrates proof of concept.
It'd be interesting to repeat this with a decent AR in .308
Only reason for 308 is distances over 600/700 meters or body armor penetration. That being said, level 4 plates can stop 50cal these days. Even 50cal AP... So being able to hit a melon with fast follow ups is worth more than hitting C zone.
The SVD struggles at 500, never mind 6 or 700 meters. Defeating armor is a stupid thing to chase, hits matter, multiple hits matter more.
@@InrangeTv that's why I said 308, not SVD.
As well as my statement that it's more valuable to hit precise or have more chances to do so, than hit a bigger piece of a target with more power which still won't be sufficiant to defeat armor.
testament to that reticle good lord that was fast.
Nice test between a acog and a pso1 maybe you should compare it to a modern .308 instead of a 60 year old one, and a long range optimized load instead of 150 grain
You realize that 500 yards is not long range but mid range right?
@@InrangeTvsounds like you should be using m193 then, and maybe using the bgc in the pso1 would help
Was there a reason you didnt hold over using the LPS-1's reticle? Doesnt seem like a fair comparison if you're using the BDC on the ACOG and dialing elevation on the SVD.
Lps-1 doesn't have a BDC, neither does the PSO-1.
@@InrangeTv Isn't that what those chevrons at different heights are for?
@@InrangeTvwhat are the chevrons on the right reticle at 1:14 if not a BDC? :/
Those are only used for targets past 1000, which is what the elevation dial maxes out at.
@@InrangeTv ah gotcha. That makes sense. Now that you mention it they do look like they're probably at least a mil or two apart.
I've always been interested in seeing 62 grain soft point hunting rounds pressed into a DMR sort of role. They may not be match level performance accurate, but I've heard 62 grain federal fusions are still very accurate rounds with among the best terminal performance while having barrier blindness to somewhat make up for not being a .308.
That was pretty darn slick! Long text ahead:
IMO, I think the philosophy of use for 7.62 NATO versus 5.56 in DMRs really comes down to logistics and other factors. In specific scenarios where one is free to choose whatever, I feel that 77gr 5.56 in a decent rifle (not just WWSD but of course let's take it as an example) can be used effectively even at extended ranges. 7.62 NATO probably held fast in military roles because it's a common round and often is the preferred choice for extended ranges in those applications. Though of course, training, preferences and in situations where you're not limited in choice, one should weigh their options.
If I remember correctly, an example of a 5.56 DMR would be the Mk12 was deployed during the GWOT and was really well liked. Within the typical ranges of 5.56, and even some discussion between Josh and Henry in their analysis of the Mk12 in their Speedway video, they'd say that such a weapon could perform really well within 600m, and they could push farther. I feel that 5.56 nowadays is getting a sort of bad wrap from some circles but until there is a scenario where 5.56 is completely irrelevant (which for the foreseeable future, I doubt), it'll have a place.
I'd say it'd be a scary prospect to take two to the chest from a couple hundred metres in such a short time from a 5.56 gun even if you had a plate. Sure, 7.62 NATO has punch and can provide more muzzle energy but it's more recoil, more weight, reduced capacities within a similar form factor, and getting something as heavy hitting to shoot as soft, not impossible, but unlikely.
The whole reason the Army just adopted the SIG Spear in 6.8x51 (277 Fury) was because 5,56 cannot go through armor at distance. Keep in mind Mk262 was a CMP/National Match load that just so happened to fill a need. The 77gr Sierra Match King or Tipped Match King is designed as a target/varmint projectile. Not even designed for game.
Now as the US Service is moving away from the AR/5,56 it's going to be with us for a very long time. If it's TEOTWAWKI time and I'm given the choice between a SIG XM5 and a WWSD it's a simple choice because WWSD is everything you need.
@@angusmotorsports4715it's not about armor penetration as even .338 won't penetrate the standard plate on point blank range
5.56 did well against the .308 because you used better higher bc bullets. 168 to 175 grain .308 should've been used except you were trying to keep the grains similar.
77 grain MK262 is a fascinating middle ground that brings more bullet mass to the table, as well as a better ballistic coefficient, yet doesn't weigh down the shooter with carry weight but still has minimal recoil.
Absolutely amazing content. I would like to see this test again against a modern .308, such as the Ruger SFAR, POF Revolution, or Tavor 7. Would the target re-acquisition problem still apply? (I only have experience with pistols and shotguns (IPSC and precision shooting). I have no idea how these rifles behave; I've never shot one, so I don't know if that's a stupid question or not).
Is there a possibility of a WWSD AR-10?
No.
Could potentially do something similar yourself with a POF DI Revolution (or one of the newer lighter weight SR-25 type rifles)
My things. While i like the comparison, and it makes a great point of putting rounds down range, and getting effective hits. The 308 at 500 yds has roughly the energy of the 5.56 at the muzzle, while the 5.56 at 500 yds is roughly 22wmr. You would need more like 3-4 hits to equal the energy. While ik energy isn't everything, its still something. 308 at 500 yds even if wearing plates is still dumping a ton of energy into a target. And as he pointed out the 308 can still penetrate barriers. Love the video but im not completely sold yet. Now an Ar-10 is 6.5 against the WWSD, that would be interesting.
Also I love the WWSD rifle, I already have an 18" build with one and plan on doing an AR9 soon.
There are two followups/additional data points that I think would make this more informative and perhaps more "fair". Assuming that in traditional InRange style these targets were unpainted do you think that "finding" the targets with the SVD gave you an advantage? As in you already knew what you were looking for when you moved to the WWSD.
Second point that would be interesting is what would a novice, or at least less experienced long range shooter, do with these guns? I think the same results would hold true but I think it would be interesting to see.
Somethings off with why the SVD did so poorly. Most shooters wouldn't miss a HST at 300 yards off a bipod on a bench. Maybe it a lower quality of trigger, poor optic, unstable bipod or rear support. It could be a mismatched ammo to the particular barrel, we don't know how well that ammo groups out of that rifle other than what you tell us.
I think a better match would be a modern 308 AR with similar bipod, similar topic and the same trigger.
Didn't the "Ostfront 1987: Walther WA-2000 vs SVD Dragunov" video from a few years ago say the same thing?
I love the concept of this video! But I do feel the comparison is a bit unfair because of the wildly different impact the optics had. I would really love to see this 308 v 223 concept done with the same optic setup.
Very informative video, thanks for the quick comparison.
I still love the dragunov and want one, even knowing all of its shortcomings.
Thanks for watching!
What would be the performance drop of 5.56 at ranges above 600m?
Would that be a niche for 7.62 or would you just go to a .338 for that so you can push out to 2000m with the same ammo?
A modern SR25 with M118LR ammo would be an interesting comparison.
Is this the Faxon barrel or Kinetic Mfg barrel?
Nice shooting!
Now take a crank triggered SG-43 and walk the bullets on the target... LOL. This does illustrate how important recoil management is. I would like to see the same test done with an RPK using the bipod. I suspect that a bipod would make a big difference in follow up shots.
The SVD has a sort of StarWars look.
I think the point being made is WWSD platform / cartridge is tactically superior to SVD. I’m okay with the AR platform and don’t have a dog in this race, but I think it’s comparing apples and oranges. A SVD in the same caliber still wouldn’t be comparable because the WWSD rifle is pretty optimized in design. Nice video, good fun.👍
I wonder if it matters between 308s, such as the G3 or FAL if they would perform better.
I wonder how the AK4D would do vs the SVD, since they are from the same era, shots similar calibers, but one is a "DMR" while the other is a "battle rifle". Granted, you can't go beyond 650 with the AK, but it's probably cheaper, and more plentiful than the SVD or the PSG-1.
Having then watched the second half of the video, i understand that that's not the point of this video, but would still be interested to see if the SVD is worth anything past its very very sexy lines.
Having typed this out, i just realized that i could've just gone over to check Henry's numbers... would've still been interesting to see the action side by side.
So if this isn't a apples to oranges comparison I dont know what it. An AR10 (M110 configuration) with ACOG and a bipod could put 4 times as many grains on target as that AR15 while having way more terminal effect at range. I think someone is trying to sell more wwsd rifles during the current SPR trend.
The SVD and the 74u are the two com-block weapons I actually want.
I am wondering, how many first shot hits it would be a) with SVD if it was not some off shelf historical firearm (essentially a museum piece), but fine tuned rifle with all it's aspects refined as it's opponent WWSD is, and b) if Karl had same amount of ammo run through it as he has with this particular WWSD, AR-15 in general and ACOG each separately and in combination.
It is absolutely clear, that intermediate cartridge has advantage over a full power rifle one in certain scenarios. But in this particular test I see the operators proficiency with the gun plays far larger role than the difference between calibers.
Also I suppose in combat situation it is a hit on target and amount of umpf that matter more than "grain on target".
Ukraine needs a few thousand WWSD 2020s, or at least the Civil Defense economy version.
Would energy on target not be a more useful real world comparison? The 7.62 has twice the grains but more like three times the energy of the 5.56. So the equivalent is three hits to one. Looking like the WWSD would still manage it though. Against the old Druganov and its sketchy optic, anyway.
This video is more like ACOG vs PSO-1
No, it's 308 vs optimized 5.56.
That ACOG makes the difference 4X power with best glass in the market SCHOTT glass.
Sure the WWSD did better on average for the first 3, but if you look at the trends the Dragunov was going to start doing better on round 4.
Idk what the purpose of this is! You shot 2 different calibers, yes in a perfect world doing the math may work out. But you are not shooting in that, there are so many variables that you didn’t mention.
Holy smokes!
Very interesting Karl. Awesome job Sir
Glad you liked it!
Karl, that bus is talking smack about you. It needs some grains on target.
As others have said, would be nice to see the same test with something newer, like a good Ar10 or Scar-H with an adequate optic.
Now do a tuned (with the necessary bells and whistles)AR -10 VS a tuned AR-15!
Surely interesting regardless, but i have to wonder how much the sight quality actually played into this.