Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Ishapore Enfields
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Best surplus ammo for nato 7.62x51 Enfield Pt 2
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Best surplus ammo for nato 7.62x51 Enfield Pt 2

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Best surplus ammo for nato 7.62x51 Enfield Pt 2
    Posted: August 11 2020 at 3:59pm
Federal Ammunition makes a factory 175grn .308 round that can definitely be used in a rifle chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO. 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
britinbc View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: August 08 2020
Location: bc canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britinbc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 11 2020 at 3:19pm
Hi All
        interesting thread
    i was about to ask if it was ok to use 308, as 7.62x51 is getting harder to find
    but i dont need to now 
      cheers J 

Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2020 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by The Armourer The Armourer wrote:

 

They used the standard proof round for 7.62 NATO.

But as a comparison the 308 SAAMI proof round is 35+ tonnes.





Interesting that 308 has higher pressures than 7.62 NATO

Comparisons :


This is exactly why the 308 is listed has having a higher PSI then that of the NATO 7.62

NATO EPVATEdit

NATO defines 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm and 12.7mm using the NATO EPVAT test methods, which includes pressure testing. Unlike the civilian testing methods NATO EPVAT testing procedures for the "NATO rifle chamberings" require the pressure sensor or transducer to be mounted ahead of the case mouth. The advantage of this mounting position is that there is no need to drill the cartridge case to mount the transducer. Drilling prior to firing is always a time-consuming process (fast quality control and feedback to production is essential during the ammunition manufacturing process). The disadvantage of this mount is that the pressure rises much faster than in a drilled cartridge case. This causes high frequency oscillations of the pressure sensor (approx 200 kHz for a Kistler 6215 transducer) and this requires electronic filtering with the drawback that filtering also affects the lower harmonics where a peak is found causing a slight error in the measurement. This slight error is not always well mastered and this causes a lot of discussion about the filter order, cutoff frequency and its type (Bessel or Butterworth).[9] For the 9mm NATO EPVAT specifies that for 9×19mm Parabellum (9mm Luger in C.I.P. nomenclature and 9mm NATO in NATO nomenclature), the transducer must be positioned at the mid case position (9.5 millimetres (0.37 in)) from the breech face instead of C.I.P.'s 12.5 millimetres (0.49 in) from the breech face. For NATO EPVAT testing of military firearms ammunition NATO design EPVAT test barrels with Kistler 6215 channel sensor transducers are used

Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2020 at 11:35am
Can you supply us with a side by side comparison with 303B proofing methods please?
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 751
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2020 at 11:09am
Originally posted by Goosic Goosic wrote:

You forgot to mention that they exceeded 20 plus tonnes of pressure to get the receivers to twist...


They used the standard proof round for 7.62 NATO.

But as a comparison the 308 SAAMI proof round is 35+ tonnes.





Interesting that 308 has higher pressures than 7.62 NATO

Comparisons :


Back to Top
britrifles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 2365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britrifles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 3:45pm
Both gas trap and gas port systems were in service when the M2 ball was developed, so it had to work in both.   Although, most of the Pre-1939 gas port M1s ended up being modified to the gas port configuration.   They were more concerned about exceeding the range safety zones with the M1 ball, so went to the lighter flat based M2 bullet to limit range.  I don’t think it had anything to do with concerns that the 173 grain bullet was damaging the Op Rod. 

I don’t recall if the elevation marks on the range drum were changed when M2 ball was introduced, out to 1200 yards, the trajectories are very close out to 800 yards.  

My only other comment in handloading is to be cautious when attempting to do light loads.  Some powders do not behave well with air space.  Not usually a problem in loading .308 to .303 pressures and velocities.  But with .30-06, where there is a lot of airspace with modern smokeless powders, this can be dangerous.  





Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Online
Points: 12697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 3:23pm
Unfortunately those are approximate calculated conversions. Useful for "checking it out" but not really accurate over the entire range.
On of the biggest things in reloading is CUP, Vs PSI.
the two do not change the same way over a range.
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
WilliamS View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: March 30 2020
Location: Camas WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WilliamS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by britrifles britrifles wrote:

It never made much sense to me that bullet were limited to a specific weight in a given rifle.   People have sworn that the gas system (Op rod) can be damaged in the M1 if you load anything above 150 gr bullets.  But they forget the M1 when approved for the US military the M1 .30-06 cartridge which used a 173 gr bullet was in use at the time, the M2 cartridge had not been developed yet. 

I can’t see how shooting 168 or 175 gr bullets, if properly loaded to not exceed published data, could damage the rifle.  But as I’ve said, I personally stay well below the published maximums for .308 in my No. 4 conversion.  It shoots the 168 gr SMK very well out to 600 yards.  

Personally I think bullet weight matters more for matching trajectory to the sights in milsurps than it does for safety.  For semiautomatic rifle function I think the pressure curve is more important (bullet weight plays a part but only a part).  Of course, when the M1 was adopted with M1 ball, it was with the gas trap system.  I think M2 ball (M1906 spec) was adopted before the change in gas systems, so I wouldn't be surprised if M1 ball in any non gas trap rifle could potentially have the wrong pressure curve.
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 3:10pm
The convertion  from PSI to CUP is PSI x 1.21 - 15817 =CUP
168grn .308 BTHP
40.0 IMR4064 has a PSI of 36882 and converts to a CUP of 28737.62
41.0 Varget  has a PSI of 42200 and converts to a CUP of 35425

174grn .311 BTHP 
40.0 IMR4064 has a PSI of 38700 and converts to a CUP of 31010
40.0 Varget has a PSI of 43900 and converts to a CUP of 37302

The interesting point here is that the published data has the .308 operating well below that of the 303 British 
Back to Top
britrifles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 2365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britrifles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 2:50pm
It never made much sense to me that bullet were limited to a specific weight in a given rifle.   People have sworn that the gas system (Op rod) can be damaged in the M1 if you load anything above 150 gr bullets.  But they forget the M1 when approved for the US military the M1 .30-06 cartridge which used a 173 gr bullet was in use at the time, the M2 cartridge had not been developed yet. 

I can’t see how shooting 168 or 175 gr bullets, if properly loaded to not exceed published data, could damage the rifle.  But as I’ve said, I personally stay well below the published maximums for .308 in my No. 4 conversion.  It shoots the 168 gr SMK very well out to 600 yards.  
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 10:24am
...as a sidenote,and this is just for the IMR4064 powder only. When used in the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge in conjunction with bullets from 125grn through to the 200grn bullet and loading to just the suggested starting grain, you never exceed the PSI reading of 47,000 which is 3000 PSI below that of the 50262 PSI of the 303B.
The equation is supplied in another thread of mine fyi...
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member

Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 10933
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 10:13am
interesting information , valuable to those that load for and shoot these old rifles [interesting i think of them as old and they are actually some of the newer made] ive always thought of the shotguns as being the less dangerous with no good logic behind the thought other than shotgun pressures ,
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 10:08am
You forgot to mention that they exceeded 20 plus tonnes of pressure to get the receivers to twist...
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 751
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 9:00am
Originally posted by Goosic Goosic wrote:

I understand your worry about using normal 308 Winchester ammunition.  Let me help alleviate some issues you may have. The Ishapore 2A1 was not made using recycled No1Mk111 receivers.  They were made with all new steel at the time and were proofed to 19 tons of pressure, unlike the normal 18.5 tons of the 303 cartridge. .


It is important to remember that SOME of the "A2's WERE manufactured using scrubbed re-cycled 303 bodies.

The 303 bodies were manufactured in an EN steel, which, believing it would offer better performance Ishapore changed the steel for the 7.62 to a 'better' SWES steel.
On proof testing the bodies twisted and the bolts jammed with both the 'oiled round' and 'dry round' tests.

Ishapore then reverted back to the EN (original) steel which when proof tested with the standard (at the time) 144 grain 7.62 it still failed the 'oiled round' test, but did pass the 'dry-round' test.

Even tho' the specification called for both oiled and dry round testing every subsequent rifle was only proofed using the dry round test.

Source :

"Gun Proof in India - An Historical Account." It was written by Mr. A. G. Harrison the former Proof Master at the Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India and was published in "The Gun Digest, 33rd Edition, 1979."

It is important to remember that bullet weight is important, and that the rifle was built to fire 144g bullets, so only 144g - 150g bullets should be used.
Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Online
Points: 12697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2020 at 6:46am
Not a clue, sorry. Usually if the OP in a thread is deleted the whole chain goes away?
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member

Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 10933
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2020 at 7:21pm
how come the OP is not here anymore ? 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.