AR-10 7.62mm Project Leonidas Rifle

Rammer Jammer

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin/imcart/display.cgi?item_id=762krifle&cat=6&page=1&search=&since=&status=

762krifle_1.jpg


After a year of development, we are proud to offer Project Leonidas.

12.5 inch Leonidas Rifle in 7.62x51 NATO. Featuring:
--12.5 inch Barrel with 1 in 10 Polygonal Rifling
--Noveske 7.62 NMm1 chamber
--762K 10 inch Handguard
--Pinned 17-4 Gas Block
--Extended Feed Ramps
--Charging handle, std
--Smith Vortex (Standard), KX3, or AAC 7.62 SD Flash Suppressor (Please specify which when purchasing)
--Troy BUIS
--3 Tango Down rail panels

(The rifle comes with the parts listed above only.) Shown with KX3, and the AAC 7.62 SD flash suppressor. The AAC M47-2000, and AAC 7.62 SD sound suppressors are shown for reference only. The AAC sound suppressors are not included with purchase.

The optic is the S&B Short Dot with LaRue Tactical SPR mount. It is available with the rifle at an additional cost.

This rifle is designed to offer the operator battlefield recovery of linked 7.62 NATO ammunition, and to maximize accuracy with M118-LR.

This is a NFA item. FFL/SOT, department or unit letterhead required for purchase.

Armalite AR-10 $3357, 12.5 inch barrel, NFA item $3375, 14.5 inch barrel, non-NFA item.

DPMS 7.62 $3320, 12.5 inch barrel, NFA item $3334, 14.5 inch barrel, non-NFA item.

Non-NFA rifles are supplied with a permantly attached AAC 7.62 SD flash suppressor.

Select Fire/Full Auto is available to military and law enforcement organizations with a written request on unit/department letterhead. Military and law enforcement pricing is available and will be quoted on an individual basis with a letterhead request for quote, (RFQ).
 
Good on the Noveske boys. A shorty(ish) AR-10 is not an easy thing to design. Must have taken a lot of tinkering with the gas system to maintain proper function, yet ensure that the .308 round does not lose a good chunk of its velocity.
 
didn't the FAL teach us that an assault rifle in 7.62 nato is overkill?


The brits in the falklands war had semi auto FAL's cause they're just too much gun to handle.


bad idea and a waste of money IMO
 
didn't the FAL teach us that an assault rifle in 7.62 nato is overkill?


The brits in the falklands war had semi auto FAL's cause they're just too much gun to handle.


bad idea and a waste of money IMO


I think you forgot to put your razz, and funny icons up. Some people here might think you are actually serious about that comment. Your quote should look like this.:D

didn't the FAL teach us that an assault rifle in 7.62 nato is overkill?:p:runaway:


The brits in the falklands war had semi auto FAL's cause they're just too much gun to handle.:canadaFlag::p:evil::evil:


bad idea and a waste of money IMO:p:p:p:D:D
 
This rifle is designed to offer the operator battlefield recovery of linked 7.62 NATO ammunition, and to maximize accuracy with M118-LR."

So this thing is belt fed? can't linked ammo be stripped down and used in any gun of the same caliber? I'm confused
 
This rifle is designed to offer the operator battlefield recovery of linked 7.62 NATO ammunition, and to maximize accuracy with M118-LR."

So this thing is belt fed? or can't and linked ammo be stripped down and used in any gun of the same caliber? I'm confused

Not belt fed, you can delink the MG ammo and use it (or M118-LR if you have it).
 
I simply don't get it???

Much as I love the original AR 10 platform, I just have to ask ...
what exactly is the tactical role of any 7.62 Nato chambered firearm which has a barrel this short??

With the 7.62 NATO Battle Rifle cartridge, when you chop the barrel shorter than 18"- 20", the point of diminishing returns is quickly reached, and velocity drops a LOT, while muzzle blast and flash increase a LOT more. If you go short enough on the barrel, you can actually get those 7.62 NATO bullets exiting at about the speed of a 7.63 X 39 bullet. This ballistic package is delivered from a launcher that is heavier and bulkier and infinitely LOUDER than most any 7.62 X 39 chambered system.

So what is the point?

Admittedly,
these "?short battle rifles?" .. or are they "?CQB carbines on steroids?" ... or are they "??assault rifles for the hearing impaired?? ... do have some tacticool charisma, but it seems to me that once again, someone has confused a battle rifle with an assault rifle. Someone who has never fired a short barreled rifle without ear protection. Or is the soldier of the future to be issued electronic earplugs to go with this cool new toy?

So what exactly are you supposed to do with a HEAVY, BULKY, 7.62 NATO firearm that is crippled to the point that the terminal ballistics duplicate 7.62 X 39 Russian?

Before I bought such a short barreled abortion, I'd look long and hard at an AR 15 in 7.62 X 39, or in .300 Whisper.

Or for that matter,
what is the point of a 5.56 Nato firearm with a barrel shorter than 14.5"???
I confess [ mea cullpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ] that I've had a few of these orphans. I built [2] 7" AR 15 Gaboomeloudens, and I've owned a Dlask 10" MINI Moose, and a Dlask 10" CQB.

When I chronoed Winchester white box 55 Gr Ball out of my 20" barrel, and again from my 7" barrel, I got velocities of 3100 fps, and then 2100 fps. 55 Gr bullets @ 2100 fps?? So what excatly would you do with this ballistic package?

IMHO, if you are going for a shorty for a CQB role, it would be much more sensible to look into something like a .300 Whisper, or even easier, a 7.62 X 39 with heavier bullets. Both of these will provide ballistics that are far superior to the 5.56 from a short barrel. And both of these will provide ballistics almost equivalent to the 7.62 NATO bullet from a 12.5".

Which is why the super expensive, super short, super cool AR 10 in the pictures above, is doomed, like the Dodo bird, to be an evolutionary dead end.
Of course,
YMMV
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
All very good points, but if you produce that rifle in a barrel length of 16"-18" you should maintain enough ballistic advantage to make that platform a great 7.62mm rifle, that gives you the ability to be a multi role rifle short enough for CQB, or urban enviornment and long enough for reaching out a ways with a little HP when needed. I personaly would love a FN SCAR-H if and when it becomes available. I think both the .223 and the 7.62 have roles to play in these types of rifles.


Just an opinion.
 
For pounding vehicles ( especially windshield) and certain barriers like masonary walls, heavy bullets outpenetrate 5.56. Since the supply system already has 7.62 (for the MG and the DMR), this is a logical choice. That's why there is demand for short 7.62. For exposed targets, 5.56 will do the job. However, if you don't have 40mm and light machine guns, you probably want a 7.62 to patch up some of the capability.

The point is, if you cannot maneuver your rifle to clear the window or around the corner, all the awesome ballistic is wasted. The first priority is the ability to hurl the body to the spot to hit the target - then the terminal business. And also, supply and logistic for the fodders - you can have funky stuff that strikes like a lightning bolt, but without consistent supply the rifle is just a club. (or a spear with the bayonent)




I simply don't get it???

Much as I love the original AR 10 platform, I just have to ask ...
what exactly is the tactical role of any 7.62 Nato chambered firearm which has a barrel this short??

With the 7.62 NATO Battle Rifle cartridge, when you chop the barrel shorter than 18"- 20", the point of diminishing returns is quickly reached, and velocity drops a LOT, while muzzle blast and flash increase a LOT more. If you go short enough on the barrel, you can actually get those 7.62 NATO bullets exiting at about the speed of a 7.63 X 39 bullet. This ballistic package is delivered from a launcher that is heavier and bulkier and infinitely LOUDER than most any 7.62 X 39 chambered system.

So what is the point?

Admittedly,
these "?short battle rifles?" .. or are they "?CQB carbines on steroids?" ... or are they "??assault rifles for the hearing impaired?? ... do have some tacticool charisma, but it seems to me that once again, someone has confused a battle rifle with an assault rifle. Someone who has never fired a short barreled rifle without ear protection. Or is the soldier of the future to be issued electronic earplugs to go with this cool new toy?

So what exactly are you supposed to do with a HEAVY, BULKY, 7.62 NATO firearm that is crippled to the point that the terminal ballistics duplicate 7.62 X 39 Russian?

Before I bought such a short barreled abortion, I'd look long and hard at an AR 15 in 7.62 X 39, or in .300 Whisper.

Or for that matter,
what is the point of a 5.56 Nato firearm with a barrel shorter than 14.5"???
I confess [ mea cullpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ] that I've had a few of these orphans. I built [2] 7" AR 15 Gaboomeloudens, and I've owned a Dlask 10" MINI Moose, and a Dlask 10" CQB.

When I chronoed Winchester white box 55 Gr Ball out of my 20" barrel, and again from my 7" barrel, I got velocities of 3100 fps, and then 2100 fps. 55 Gr bullets @ 2100 fps?? So what excatly would you do with this ballistic package?

IMHO, if you are going for a shorty for a CQB role, it would be much more sensible to look into something like a .300 Whisper, or even easier, a 7.62 X 39 with heavier bullets. Both of these will provide ballistics that are far superior to the 5.56 from a short barrel. And both of these will provide ballistics almost equivalent to the 7.62 NATO bullet from a 12.5".

Which is why the super expensive, super short, super cool AR 10 in the pictures above, is doomed, like the Dodo bird, to be an evolutionary dead end.
Of course,
YMMV
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
"if you produce that rifle in a barrel length of 16"-18" you should maintain enough ballistic advantage to make that platform a great 7.62mm rifle, that gives you the ability to be a multi role rifle short enough for CQB, or urban enviornment and long enough for reaching out a ways with a little HP when needed?

POSitively right ...
which is why back in the 1980s, I built an 18 1/2" AR 10 flat top, with co-witnessed red dot and irons. This was the PERFECT Battle rifle/CQB weapon compromise, capable of very fast CQB mutiple hits, and capable of reaching out and smacking something a fair distance off, with a fair bit of muzzle energy. Won a lot of money at "Bowling for dollars" shoots with that rifle.

But there is a BIG difference between 18.5" and 12.5 inches and the ballistics they both generate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"For pounding vehicles ( especially windshield) and certain barriers like masonary walls, heavy bullets outpenetrate 5.56. Since the supply system already has 7.62 (for the MG and the DMR), this is a logical choice. That's why there is demand for short 7.62. For exposed targets, 5.56 will do the job. However, if you don't have 40mm and light machine guns, you probably want a 7.62 to patch up some of the capability.

The point is, if you cannot maneuver your rifle to clear the window or around the corner, all the awesome ballistic is wasted. The first priority is the ability to hurl the body to the spot to hit the target - then the terminal business. And also, supply and logistic for the fodders - you can have funky stuff that strikes like a lightning bolt, but without consistent supply the rifle is just a club. (or a spear with the bayonent)"


If we are speculating battlefield pick ups for re-supply, how would 7.62 NATO in a 12.5" AR 10 outperform 7.62 Russian in an 12.5" AR 15, especially if the AR-15 was set up to take AK mags? If you were winning the firefight, there would supposedly be a lot more 7.62 Russian rounds [ probably already in AK mags ] to pick up, than there would be anything else??

PLUS, the shorty 7.62 Russian AR 15 would be lighter, quieter, and faster on multiple targets, than any 12.5" AR 10 in 7.62 NATO, which is going to be way overpowered, with lots of powder wasted outside the muzzle, but then ballistically crippled by short barrel to come very close to the 7.62 Russian in effectiveiness any way??

Once agin, I think someone is blurring the roles between CQB and Battle rifle.

Just ask all those guys who created 12 - 14 lb "?CQB?" shorty M-14s with their Sage/etc alloy stocks. I'll bet there aren't a lot of them still trying to shoot CQB with the M-14.

Now if you bull pupped the M-14, then you might have something really useful for BOTH CQB and Battles... but of course here in Canukistan, such thoughts would be "verbotten".
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Personally, picking up any ammo that is scattering around in the street or bunkers is a pretty desparate measure ( you might as well borrow their weapons too, )but I would go "borrow" linked ammo from friendly forces. Every NATO forces has some linked 7.62 for their MG. If you need battlefield pick up, I think the battle is lost and chance is that you are going to die pretty soon. 99% of the days people get ammo from their own system - I don't see people jsut go raid an arms cache and use whatever junk ammo stashed up in some holes.


Regular infantry doesn't need a 7.62 shorty, they have LMG and 40mm. For people who are not allowed to have grenades, or for some reason they cannot bring the MGs with them, nice to have a 7.62 carbine around for certain scenarios This is not an optimal solution, but people just make do with whatever it is around without creating more complicated problems.If people have a bunch of M14s, the quickest way to make them useful is to drop in a stock instead of going out and buy some unknown systems run by 3 guys in a garage shop.
 
Last edited:
I'm still dreaming of a XRC-M in .308. Anyone happen to have any graphs illistrating MV vs. Bbl Length?
 
Back
Top Bottom