[roarcher]

> Anyway, have you ever tried keeping the crosshairs on the target with a semi-auto 7.62mm? Unless you've whacked a rather heavy suppressor (ironically enough, legal in my country, unlike the USA) on the end, recoil is going to make accurate semi-auto shooting impossible.

Militaries all over the world have employed semi-auto 7.62mm rifles for many years, including the L1A1 that you yourself brought up. You really should let them know that these weapons are impossible to shoot accurately. You would be doing a great public service by awakening them from their decades of folly.

[EdwardDiego]

So no-one uses 7.62mm chambered guns as their standard infantry weapon now because...?

Hint:

1) Weight of ammunition

2) Recoil during sustained fire

In other words, thanks for confirming my point. After all there's a reason that purchasing an L1A1 is a nostalgia buy.

[roarcher]

No, not "sustained" fire, whatever that means in this context, and not semi-automatic fire. Automatic fire [1].

> In 1954, the larger 7.62×51mm NATO rifle cartridge was selected as the first standard NATO rifle cartridge. At the time of selection there had been criticism that the recoil power of the 7.62×51mm NATO, when fired from a handheld lightweight modern service rifle, did not allow a sufficient automatic rate of fire for modern combat.

5.56mm NATO was explicitly introduced to make automatic fire from service rifles, which was thought to be useful during Vietnam, more practical, both in terms of recoil and in the number of rounds that an individual soldier could carry. That doctrine has more or less been abandoned, and the U.S. Army is moving back to a round that's much closer in size and energy to the 7.62mm NATO (.277 Fury/6.8x51mm) [2], [3].

Anecdotally, if you think a semi-auto 7.62 is uncontrollable, you haven't fired one. I have, and I promise it's not that bad. Here's a video of a guy shooting hammer pairs with a FAL: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_ov9Pm-qmNo

Does it look like he's having a hard time controlling it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#History

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM7_rifle

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.277_Fury

[EdwardDiego]

Rest assured, my opinion on the utility of a semi-auto .308 for hunting was very much obtained first hand across several guns. Hence my comment on the suppressor. That was on a friend's Norinco knock-off of an M14, the difference the extra weight on the end of the barrel made to recoil control was very noticeable.

But as much fun as it was chucking $40 of ammo downrange as fast as I could, it was obvious that semi-auto offered no advantage whatsoever over bolt action for hunting when trying to hit the hilar[0] of a red deer at 200 yards.

Oh, and I should've mentioned the heat issues that .308 being fired rapidly cause to a barrel.

[0]: https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.nz/f17/hilar-shot-55370/...

[roarcher]

In that case, I think your opinion of 7.62 recoil is colored more by the rifle than the round. The design of the M14 is...less than ideal for recoil control. The bore axis sits far above the point of contact with the shoulder, which creates an upward torque when recoil pushes backwards on it, resulting in excessive muzzle rise.

A large part of the reason AR-pattern rifles are so controllable is because the bore axis is in line with the shoulder. The FAL (and its clone, the L1A1) bore axis may not be quite in line with the shoulder, but it's much closer than an M14.

As far as the supposed heat issues...I think the goal posts are being moved quite a lot. I'm talking about controllability during semi-auto fire, that's all.

[EdwardDiego]

Well, heating up the barrel affects accuracy, and again, I'm judging semi-auto for hunting red deer in the New Zealand bush, a very particular use.

But, fair call about the guns I trialled.