|
|
|
|
|
by EdwardDiego
1237 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
> 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