AR-10A4 carbine accuracy

Teapot said:
How accurate and how much energy would the round retain if the .308 were shot from a 16'' barrel as opposed to the 20''?
Is there a place in the Forces for a 7.62 carbine do you think?
Click to expand...

Well in my opinion I think that every section should have a DMR with a DMR rifle in 7.62. I could see the advantages of this in Afghanistan.
 
The troops already have AR10 rifles and long-barrel C7 marksman rifles - but they don't talk about them. Hard to spot in the pictures because they all look so similar. Over on the Girls with Guns forum is a CADPAT AR10 being held up by a fellow CGN'er's girlfriend. (They both look great!)
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
The troops already have AR10 rifles and long-barrel C7 marksman rifles - but they don't talk about them. Hard to spot in the pictures because they all look so similar. Over on the Girls with Guns forum is a CADPAT AR10 being held up by a fellow CGN'er's girlfriend. (They both look great!)
Click to expand...

Are you talking about regular Infantry sections? or the Snipers?
 
I'm not sure which bunch have them. I'd expect the snipers have the AR's as part of their range of options. They talk about the C3A1, the MacBros .50 and maybe the .338LM Prairie Gun Works Timberwolf (?), but have been quiet on exactly what else is available to them.

The Diemaco longbarrels were described by a PPCLI major who was force protection company OC in Kabul. He chose that as his personal weapon (which seemed selfish considering that officers of his rank aren't supposed to be getting trigger time). I suspect the line rifle companies don't have too many of these "funnies".
 
Well in my time there the only AR10's I saw were used by the snipers.None of the QRF or us had anything but the C7. I do think however that every section should have a DMR, who qualifies as "marksman". The extra range, optics of the 7.62 could be used on the battlefield.
 
I'm no expert but I believe the 7.62NATO round really loses its benefits when fired from a barrel under 18". IIRC the round ends up leaving the barrel before there is a complete powder burn and velocity and accuracy are lost, but I may be wrong about that. Why would you want a shorty 7.62 anyhow?
 
That rifle has been there along time.
Most likely sold, just not taken off the site.
I bought a rifle and it was on the site for 2 months after I got it.

That rifle was 'custom-ized', it is not a stock barrel.
 
suprathepeg said:
I'm no expert but I believe the 7.62NATO round really loses its benefits when fired from a barrel under 18". IIRC the round ends up leaving the barrel before there is a complete powder burn and velocity and accuracy are lost, but I may be wrong about that. Why would you want a shorty 7.62 anyhow?
Click to expand...

If this is true, then would a faster burning powder be more effecient with a shorter barrelled rifle?
 
I BUILT an 18.75 barreled AR 10 SHORTY back about 1990. It worked flawlessly with 7.62 NATO BALL, and with all of the .308 comercial loads I tried in it, including the Remington Accelerators .. which have .30 cal sabots carrying .223 bullets.

I personaly don´t see much use for a < 18.5 barreled 7.62 NATO rifle ... with full powered ammo, the recoil stays the same, the muzzle blast increases tremendously, the velocity drops off considerably, and the increase in handling doesn´t improve enough to make it worth while.

Unless you want to download the .308 Win ammo to 7.62X39 Russian ballistics, which I have done in an AR 10, the 7.62 NATO ammo is too powerful for really fast follow up shots.

And if you want to shoot bulets with .30 Russian balistics, there are lots of other lighter and cheaper options available.

This is just my opinion, but it is based on lots of rounds through the AR 10 family.

IMHO,
if you want a .30 cal AR shorty, you would be way better off looking at the .300 Whisper varients of the AR 15.
LAZ 1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom