308 vs 7.62 NATO: Huge Difference On Steel

[@peelreg]

I was in the military, specializing in armaments. The military literature mentioned that the 7.62 max pressure was 55,000 psi. If you read deeper into the file, it also mentioned that pressure was measured with copper crusher method. Now referred to as CUP. later, when transducers become the standard way to measure pressure, the industry adopted the system of referring to pressures as either CUP or psi. The military reference to 55,000 psi has caused many to believe that 7.62x51 is loaded to a lower pressure. No so. The limits for 308 and 7.62 are about the same - about 62,000 psi, as measured with a transducer. In practice, ammo of both flavours is typically around 56,000 psi, although I have found a few lots of 308 (Winchester Supreme match and IVI Lot 631) at 62,000 psi. Both were tested because they were causing problems in some rifles. The testing handbook specifies where the chamber pressure is to be measured. It varies from caliber to caliber. And sometimes (as in 7.62 -308) the place the pressure is measured is different in the two systems. If the place of measurement is the same, you can convert CUP to PSI mathematically, like converting MPH to KPH. But if the place of measurement is different, the two values bear no relationship to each other. There are some difference in the ammo specs - SAAMI vs. Military. The military case has a stronger, harder case head, so as to withstand violent extraction of automatic rifles. Military ammo has a muzzle flash spec. SAAMI does not. Military ammo will have a sealant in the neck. SAAMI does not. The lead core can vary in antimony content (hardness) and jacket thickness can vary as well, with military bullets being hard and commercial ammo being anything the maker finds easy to make. This test I watched just compared two different brands of ammo and assumed that the difference was due to NATO v Commercial. No so. Just brand A v brand B

[@johntremblay704]

This is 100% correct. Thank you for taking the time to post your reply.

[@kurtphillips7038]

Former Marine 0331. Retired correctional officer. SERT team member, and marksman. You guys nailed it.

[@markstephens5120]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night

[@lifepolicy]

And from a manufacturer's viewpoint, there is absolutely no need to produce different specs that would require complete sets of tools.

[@peterparsons7141]

Thank you for taking the time to add something of value to these tests. Its great when someone with significant information shares it!

[@PatrickLarkiewur]

I would love to see a 7.62x51 and 7.62x54r comparison on that steel system you’ve got. Great system for being able to grasp the meaning behind the velocity numbers

[@jasper5878]

When I was a child my father used to have an Fn FAL. That thing had some serious Penetration, the thing would go through railway tracks with minimal effort.

[@justinwiltshire9433]

@@jasper5878 that’s what I own right now! The RIGHT arm of the free world :)

[@UNGOC_Engineer3231]

@@justinwiltshire9433 Can't wait till I get one!

[@EdBert]

Not a fair fight! 7.62x54R is more comparable to 7.62x63 or commonly known as 30-06. (most people think the 63 is much bigger than the 54, but case volume proves they are remarkably similar)

[@EdBert]

@adrienmcintire5544 "not that similar" but the difference is "marginal"? Umm...okay. The two are closer to each other than the 7.62x63 is to the 7.62x51. Many people only compare the 63 to the 54 measurements, not knowing the case capacity of the Russian brass is larger than the length indicates.

[@greganderson2013]

I'm a reloader of 308 and want people to understand that NATO rounds are tested using a different method then US ammo manufactures, that is why the pressures are different, the real test is using the same powder. it's the powder and bullet that make the difference

[@randybird9979]

military uses psi, civilian uses cup they are so completely different they can not be mentioned in the same breath

[@Subtlenimbus]

The pressures are close between the two. 7.62x51 has a different headspace spec that is much longer than 308 spec. 308 fired in a 7.62x51 chamber can lead to case failure.

[@asherdie]

@@randybird9979 The formula PSI = -17,902 + 1.516 x CUP Used them in the same sentence and formula... Gangsta

[@tombryant4518]

@@randybird9979 No, it’s where the pressure is measured that’s the difference. Gas port pressure is what bends op rods, so that’s what the military cares about, SAAMI measures chamber pressure.

[@dontworrybout2664]

@@randybird9979 no they do not. Cup is an antiquated way. They did away with that years ago.

[@markkaminski2416]

Did roughly the same comparison a few years ago. Using 5.56/AR-15, 7.62x51/ M1A ,7.62x39 SKS and 30-06/ Springfield 1903 . All rounds were FMJ ball ammo, firing at 1/4 and 1/2 in plates @ 100yds. All rds penetrated 1/4 plate, only the 30-06 penetrated the 1/2 in plate.

[@bullofthewoods9374]

thats what i was going to add. i have 3006 and it has gone through 1/2 steel in my shooting pit. i have over 1 inch of steel in plates and they do a great job stopping

[@kodamachan9713]

Use the zero on the caliper so you don't have to subtract the thickness of your straight edge. You can also add legs on the straight edge to clear the jagged edges of the hole without grinding.

[@bokiNYC]

O that's a great idea 👍

[@doelbaughman1924]

Completely agree. You can't be sure of flatness consistency with the grinder.

[@MuscadineMarlon]

the grinding part was exciting to watch though haha

[@pattygreen8064]

should do your measurements by filling the hole with clay or something then measuring that. maybe even a powder and measure the weight to get the total volume of ejected materiel

[@Stephanthesearcher]

doesnt matter in this test as it was the delta we where interested in , not the depth

[@stewie84]

I love that you test these things instead of just theorizing and pointing at box numbers… 7.62x51 isn’t the best for every situation, but you gotta respect how much goes into the development of rounds chosen for military application.

[@alexistaylor969]

Probably should have hit the holes with the torch and made sure the lead and jacket weren't still in the hole to measuring depth.

[@bananaballistics]

I hadn't thought of hitting it with a torch, but that is a good idea.

[@brucesmith8680]

I think if your plate holder was totally secured( much heaver or well staked to the ground) you would have gotten through the 1/2" plate. Plate movement absorbed a lot of energy.

[@johnpoole8321]

Yep, my thoughts as well. That sled was jumping big time

[@minilathemayhem]

I think Taofledermaus has disproven this sort of theory in the past.

[@prestonburton8504]

but, its not fair - because energy was diverted that could have been used to penitrate! still, interesting to compare to plate armor (as we move - like the plateholder!)@@minilathemayhem

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

assuming a perfectly inelastic collision (ideal) the force delivered to achieve penetration ... and now that I read this back, this will not occur, so it's theorycrafting on the internet.

[@jeffsim8664]

Also as soon as one bullet is higher on the plate it's penitration due to the upwards rocking of the sled. I think of saw all the 308 at a higher position on the metal.

[@ForlanceAbice]

These videos are quite refreshing in that they are straight to the point with no bull in between. No sponsorships, no skits, or any other such stuff to get in the way while still being interesting and relevant with a decent timeframe. Not that I mind them, but it can get grating after a while. Almost takes me back to the good old days of KZbin prior to 2014. Keep up the good work, you earned yourself a sub and a like.

[@andrewholdaway813]

Read some of the other comments and do a bit of googling re •223 & 5•56 differences and you might change your mind.

[@bobm7275]

A bit of bull, pressures are taken different ways and so numbers are different, but pressure is roughly equal.

[@benardman2665]

Having no sketche is really nice. So many gun tubers are so unfunny and cringe

[@charlesmeaux3954]

@@benardman2665 right, just like this guy. NOT FUNNY

[@rumnboats7612]

The entire premise is bullshit, don't kid yourself or others.

[@skitidet4302]

You can see that the bullet geometry is different too. The .308 has a larger flat spot on the nose and you can see the lead on the tip at 6:22 , this helps the bullet mushroom and expend more of it's energy, thus you would expect a wider but shallower hole.

[@TranceMechanic7]

Really enjoying watching you evolve this process. And these are exactly the kinds of things I've always wished other content creators would do. Keep up the great work!

[@bananaballistics]

I really appreciate it! Still a lot of evolving ahead lol

[@Tk210ism]

The lack of mentioning headspace as the reason you shouldn't fire a 308 Winchester in a 7.62 NATO chamber is disturbing. It's not a matter of pressure but headspace as the issue, as headspace in a NATO chambers are longer than 308 Winchester chambers. A 308 Winchester round can fire in a 7.62 NATO chamber, but if the chamber is at the large end of the headspace dimensions it could cause the 308 Winchester case to stretch and rupture. While only a few thousandths of an inch in difference it makes a whole lot of difference. SAAMI .308 Winchester: GO: 1.630 in. NO-GO: 1.634 in. FIELD: 1.638 in. FN FAL: GO: 1.6325 in. (FN & Brit/commonwealth. Canadian is 1.6315 in.) NO-GO: 1.638 in. FIELD: 1.640 in. 7.62 NATO (M14 US MILSPEC): GO: 1.6355 in. NO-GO: 1.638 in. FIELD: 1.6445 in.

[@stumpyhigginbottom3466]

Just found your channel. Really like your evolving test methods (plate rack, grinding away the spalling, adding the spacer to normalize depths, etc). Thanks for producing this concise and useful content!

[@josephstorm6093]

I like how you don't waste viewing time on set ups or any of the other prep work for each shot. You get right to what we came here for, thumbs up.

[@dth4237]

This guy goes way more in depth with the difference of caliber power than these other gun channels.👍

[@user-nq4dg4ot7n]

Just found your channel, excellent job. Ex-Canadian military, used the FN when I first joined before the 5.56 conversion. My basic instructors told us while training the standards for the NATO grade where different, and this round would outperform any civilian 308 round.

[@Longtrailside]

I agree it came down to bullet composition.

[@francobuzzetti9424]

i love how you did EVERYTHING the way I'd do it! I'll definitely be watching more!

[@cayminlast]

We were issued with FN Fal rifles during my service (1970's), the ball ammo packages had no reference to spec. details except for the caliber, 7.62x51. The penetration power on various objects/materials was very unexpected and amazing to see. Thanks for your time anf effort on this test.

[@george2113]

@John Martlew Canadan Air Force?

[@elim7228]

@John Martlew FN Fal is a legend. I never understood why so many were destroyed or quickly re sold to third world countries, like for example, Turkey. Something fishy about this. I also see lots of negative feedback on that very fine weapon, which makes me even more suspicious.

[@cayminlast]

@@george2113 South African Defense force, Technical services corps. Thanks.

[@cayminlast]

@@elim7228 I agree, luckily they are available here in the US in various configurations, lots of parts were imported and the rights, new parts are being manufactured.

[@lutomson3496]

@@cayminlast yes and I have one I built years ago, great weapon but prefer the 7.62 54 ammo with steel flashed bulletts though the 54 has more performance

[@JustinHunnicutt]

Even before the depth measurements I was guessing from the holes that the 762 was deeper. I don't know if it's the pressure as much as the placement. The holes closer to center are further away from the supports so the plate can flex more. If you want to be sure I'd fire a series of identical bullets across the width and see if you see an inverse correlation between distance from support or edge and depth. And only compare holes at same height to remove effects related to the plate only being supported half way up.

[@lloydsloan4421]

You could eliminate a variable by pulling the bullets from one cartridge of each caliber and then swapping them out. Repeat the test and see what happens.

[@eligriggs9221]

You could also do the same with the powder of each, but in the case (no pun) of the 30-06 it might be better to pull the bullet, dump save the powder, hydro eject the primers of several and dry, and trim, resize the case to .308 specs, then reload all components with an eye to pressure in the trimmed cases from reduced volume. Take the bullet, powder and primer of the .308 and keep at its same pressure, but in the 30-06.

[@TheFilthy5ifty]

Glad to see your channel taking off

[@kweeks10045]

I did the same test with 5.56 using M855 vs a standard .223. And then tested against a .221 Fireball using 53gr Matchkings. Pretty amazing. Great video

[@StephaunBaker]

How did the m855 perform?

[@elim7228]

@Adam Khan LoL 🤣 my thoughts exactly. What a douche.

[@zackzittel7683]

< 22-250

[@deltatango5086]

Thanks! I always find 7.62x51mm NATO vs .308 Win content very interesting and entertaining 😁

[@MrTacklebury]

It's most likely bullet construction. Norma's FMJ is more of a target level, whereas milspec is typically a harder copper designed for more penetration. I think if you had the same bullets in both, most likely it would make a difference.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

Milspec M80 is actually bimetal jacket that includes mild steel not just copper.

[@canuckmagnum5841]

I imagine bullet metallurgy had more to do with it than the cartridge's themselves. 7.62x51 FMJ might have harder gilding metal than Commercial .308 win FMJ, but that is all speculation.

[@rogerlewis6488]

We were issued with the 7.62 SLR when I joined the NZ Army in the late 1960s. Half inch plate steel was easily penetrated in demos at 100 metres. We were taught that you seek out your enemies who had taken cover by firing through the barriers they hid behind. I think the half inch plate steel was part of the spec.

[@randybird9979]

he surly used soft bullets, my 7.62x39 will penetrate 1/2 steel, but they are armor piercing, I shot an old Pinto 2300 eng. block with 762x39 over 1 inch per side went thru both sides, my 243 went thru 1/4 inch very easy, stay safe

[@guytech7310]

Perhaps you were issue AP 7.62 rounds.

[@rogerlewis6488]

@@guytech7310 Standard 7.62x51 ball rounds, NATO and Military Spec. They are different and of higher quality than most of the rounds bought in gun shops. They would also go through the compressed aluminium armour on the M113 on the flat sides.

[@guytech7310]

@@rogerlewis6488 Aluminum is considerable much softer than mild steel. I have some old surplus M80 ammo from the late 1960s, it cannot penetrate 1/2 mild steel plate. I suspect you were firing 7.62 AP rounds which will penetrate 1/2 mild steel with no problem.

[@rogerlewis6488]

@@guytech7310 No, we were not using AP rounds, either in New Zealand or our troops in Vietnam. Just standard ball ammunition. You obviously have no knowledge of compressed aluminium armour which adequately resists most small arms fire, and is used on most armoured personnel carriers and their variants. I am also a qualified weapons instructor and served 21 years. The 7.62mm SLRs we had were capable of handling much higher breech pressures than any .308 or the copy cat SLRs available today apart from the few made to full military specs.

[@Harry-ff4db]

my type of Testing ! plain ,simple, straight to the point !

[@nicholaspratt8473]

What? I didn't realize what channel this was until he said "don't let ballistics drive you bananas"

[@MichaelGonthier-s1p]

Hey Bananas' Great channel. Especially showing off the shop skills you have. Cutting. Grinding. Calibrations. Etc. I'm sure you've got a great shop. One suggestion is elevated target stands to save your back. Nice range set-up! Good collection! Keep slingin'em...

[@Goodtimesvideos1122]

Thanks for testing my suggestion! I am just as surprised as you with those results, but that's why we experiment. Loved the video thx again and keep em coming.

[@bananaballistics]

I really appreciate it! I was really surprised as well.

[@wbforsure2104]

I'd like to see this done with AP rounds

[@dk6024]

Good work with the nice tight editing. No temptation to skip anything.

[@victorboucher675]

YES ... no filler

[@Kesssuli]

Kind of tested/played this with mild steel plates last summer. At 100 meters sellier bellot 8 gram/124grain 30-06 was able to penerate 10mm steel plate. Sako 8 gram/124grain did same. 308 version was also able to do that with same type of ammo but two plates were too much for both calibers. Both guns were bolt-actions and had 20-22 inch barrels.

[@johnbegler7687]

One thing I would suggest is to add a weight to or secure the plate holder so there is no movement when the bullets strike the plate being tested. Though it may not, be an issue, it takes away any possibility of penetration loss

[@secretsquirrel1534]

Exactly a LOT of the Impact was being absorbed by the plate rack lifting and moving when it is being HIt !

[@nicomeier8098]

Try using handloads with surplus bullets. You know, the ones that have a steel core with a little lead around it, followed by a thick jacket. Those will definitely go through that plate. The bullet construction is all important.

[@jhutch1470]

I think the test was for the majority of us that get rounds over the counter.

[@longtsun8286]

I appreciate your attention to detail, your devotion to objective and scientific measurements.

[@comeandfindme.45]

Wow, as a new .308 shooter this was an excellent video. I test fired my new 20 inch and found that it liked .308 better than 7.62.

[@victorboucher675]

Projectile weight (Length) is optional for one rate of twist only. Your barrel therefore has one bullet type that will be best for that rate of twist.

[@EricTheOld]

The comments are great and so was the video. I've subscribed

[@MrJtin69]

I love these comparison videos

[@galesams4205]

The 7.62 x 51 is the best battle round made. The spring-field m-14 best rifle made. Never seen a BAR or M-1 grand in the vietnam theater, if there was no 30-06 ammo , was useless. I was issued a Mater/ Tonka M-16 A2 COLt brand New. If you like 22 cal. you would love this. 69th Armor (recon) LZ Action.

[@kevinm5177]

New test rig is WAY better. Also like your protection shield. Edit: I notice the test rig moving back quite a bit. What about staking or weighing it down with sandbags?

[@hvyduty1220]

Peg it......

[@Stephanthesearcher]

a moving test rig reduces penetration

[@juhanivalimaki5418]

@@Stephanthesearcher Was to write the same. Rig jumps up, quite an amount of kinetic energy was pushing the rig instead of contributing to the penetration

[@OpenGL4ever]

Nail it to the ground.

[@juhanivalimaki5418]

@@OpenGL4ever Yes. E.g. military vehicles weigh 4-10 metric tons. They do not move a millimeter when hit by .308 . All energy goes to penetration / heating / malformation of projectile / possible ricochet. So if we want to know what happens to armor plates of vehicles, no movement should be allowed. Though here the bullet seems to be OTM (open tip match, boat tail), and not Armor Piercing. So not a final proof of how .308 or 7.62 NATO performs against armor plate.

[@kilcar]

I owned a Springfield M1A1, National Match 7.62 x 51 caliber 25 years ago, and new to target shooting , recall nothing in the Springfield manual of the time about .308 vs. 7.62 x 51. Thanks for the great video.

[@paulcollyer801]

I’m absolutely impressed at how you have compared very like for like ammo fired from the same rifles. Often in “comparison” videos you get a hollowpoint v fmj in wildly different calibre fired from vastly different weapons.

[@BuckF0eJiden]

I'd love to see more comprehensive testing revolving around the .243 Winchester. Right now, in my .243 AR10, I run 100 grain soft points and 75 grain OTMs primarily. I also have some 58 grain TUIs I'll run for penetrators (solid copper slugs moving at 4k fps are no joke) The 243 has a massive range (by percentage) in projectile weights. 55 to 115 grains. While not quite as much energy as the 308, the lighter bullets typically mean a higher percentage of that energy is transferred into the target (115 gr HPBTs @ 3k fps deliver 2300 ft lbs, 55 gr @ 4k dps deliver a crazy 2k ft lbs - 5.56 m193 from a 20" barrel only delivers 1250 ft lbs) Why the .243 was never adopted for military use is beyond me. Especially considering performance at range. The 115 grain HPBTs @ 3k fps vs the mk118 lr at 2600 fps at 1,000 yards: .243 - 684 ft lbs @ 1637 fps, 1.36 second flight time *115 gr, 0.600 g1 bc, 3,000 MV* .308 - 538 ft lbs @ 1177 fps, 1.75 second flight time. *175 gr, 0.480 g1 BC, 2600 MV*

[@Lexicologist1971]

They probably didn't choose it because 4000 fps would drastically reduce barrel life span. I'd still love a 243 Win AR-10!

[@jimalexander9230]

It would be interesting to see the same tests at greater ranges. Maybe out to 500 or even 600 yards.

[@nelson587]

Yes, that would be great to test @ 100/200/300 M +

[@winstonmichaels407]

Yes very interesting, if same bullet weights and profiles have the same ballistics at increasing ranges

[@adrianfirewalker4183]

US Military Issue 7.62×51 fired from an M14 will penetrate 1/4" mild steel plate at 500 yards. First hand experience.

[@peterparsons7141]

The numbers on the boxes are estimates, based on ballistic calculations, With a fudge factor added. It might be worthwhile to chronograph each cartridge before testing. Also why not use the same projectile in each cartridge.

[@michaelmcmillan2776]

You're probably right on the composition. But just a little extra velocity might destroy that round too. You know speed defeats armor but sometimes speed destroys the projectile too

[@rommelstar1]

I was thinking this also.

[@TheTeehee11111]

In this case the bullet composition isn't the same, the alloys being different so this test isn't worth much

[@winstonmichaels407]

Aren't some bullets designed to destroy themselves, ie fragment? I believe that's more devastating than a bullet going through intact

[@michaelmcmillan2776]

@@winstonmichaels407 yes they are. He was comparing to FMJ rounds. Full metal jacket. His point was that the lead in the military round was probably denser than the civilian round

[@winstonmichaels407]

@@michaelmcmillan2776 i agree, but there must be some point where a bullet is designed to fragment or penetrate an armor. Depends on engagement range i guess

[@stos-the-lad7845]

Great video bud. No fluff or ego. Just solid content.

[@biohazard20161]

The 7.62 Nato may have penetrated deeper, but the diameter of the .308 appeared larger. Can you calculate the volume of those two holes in the ½" plate from the 24" barrel? It would be interesting to see the difference in the amount of steel displaced by the different rounds.

[@biohazard20161]

@edward hawkey So true, my friend. But, when it comes to zombies 🧟‍♀️🧟‍♂️🧟, I am going for the head-shot. Gotta take out what is left of their brain in order to stop them permanently.

[@biohazard20161]

@edward hawkey In both of your comments, true the walking dead series did color my comments, although I never watched it. But on the other hand it also depends on what caused the apocolypse. Was it some man-made bioweapon(virus), nuclear war, or climate change? The last two definitely are the Mad Max style.

[@normanmallory2055]

That’s a great test ! If you are a hand loader ? you could replace the bullets in each so the bullets would be the same, Hornady , Speer, Sierra or Nosler ! Same weight as the bullets you pulled ! The powder charges remain the same ! You could weigh the powder charge in each case but I’m sure the powder used in each is not the same burning rate ! Just a thought !

[@saintac31Northernsoul]

Used 7.62 ×51 national rounds in battle in the Lebanon they went straight though 1/2 inch steel all day long you to stabilise the target so no movement.Depth penetration will go up slightly

[@SBC97281]

Information about bullet weight and actual measured muzzle velocity (which yields energy) may also explain observed difference better than pressure as 308 WIN and 7.62 NATO have different specifications for how pressure is measured. Adding a chronograph lets you verify the stated versus observed energy.

[@kettle_of_chris]

I really don't know much about ammo - and I Loved this video! Easy to understand and follow along. Thank you!

[@thesnipercat6792]

It's the first time I see your channel. Very well made stands and shield and setup in general. The best setup I've seen so far among guntubers man. Also perfect video montage and content production. Beautiful job man 👌👍

[@thesnipercat6792]

@@automaticninjaassaultcat3703 😻❤️

[@danielv7964]

I would be interested to see what those two rounds were running on the chronograph. That could help explain the difference in penetration.

[@untermench3502]

I have some .308 bonded 150 gr FMJs that I bet will penetrate better than a cup and core 150gr FMJ. They were pulled from a supposed NATO spec 30-06. I bet you are right about the bullet construction. The testing I did was not as formal , but what I observed was that the bonded bullets held together better on impact.

[@JohnDoe-lx3dt]

Mans voice is deeper than an African gold mine

[@smartazz61]

Yes he has a voice made for radio.

[@aussiefarmer8741]

Your conclusion is what I thought. I would have pulled the projectile and fitted same in both, however the powders would also give a different result but that's what you were all about I'm guessing. Lastly being hit with either I don't think you would be quibbling about which 1 you used.

[@Chemo735]

Wait, so you stood there without a shield and shot at a steel shield, to show you how effective your shield would be at protecting you from the ricochets generated by shooting at steel?

[@hookeaires6637]

My experience is that if a low velocity bullet (as in a soft lead .22) doesn’t crater a plate, it creates a radial splash perpendicular to the direction of the projectile. High velocity jacketed bullets will crater the plate and can return bullet fragments.

[@dontbetreadin4777]

There's more to it than that, you have to take into account, Bullet velocity, weight and composition. Those aren't ricocheting that close at that speed with that bullet composition, they're literally discentigrading on impact

[@aussienscale]

Like the jig to hold the different plates and having a uniform angle of each shot. I think you are right, different compositions of the actual bullets makes all the difference.

[@biggsy..215]

I think a real comparison would be both had the same prodgies which i think the later might penitrate a little deeper. Great video keep up these video's.👍

[@seldom_seen8713]

Awesome review...Thank you Sir.

[@jangchief]

Reminds me of the ballistics gel conundrum of the slower rounds going deeper then the faster. I would imagine that at high speed and pressure, all these materials behave with similar weird fluid dynamics. Faster = more efficient energy transfer = less penetration 🤔 Idk but it seems like the case here

[@kevinberdine]

I really enjoy these comparisons!

[@mefirst5427]

Just look at any reloading reference manuals, for the same grain bullet for caliber, the 308 Winchester section load data has much more grains than the 7.62 NATO section.

[@bananaballistics]

Very true, supposedly its running up to 2,000 psi higher, but it all depends on the load.

[@anthonykaiser974]

That's because factory 308 brass is thinner than milspec 7.62x51. 308 doesn't have to run in a belt-fed MG and have a stuck case have its head ripped off, not cook off from excessive heat, etc. If you run GI brass in a 308 load, you're told to reduce starting loads accordingly.

[@victorboucher675]

GAS ... GAS ... Gas operated guns require the proper gas (4895 Powder for the M1) volume AND pressure. Military (Gas operated weapons) have different design parameters, starting with that they run. 30 Cal NATO is made for that, to operate with the correct gas. Volume ... Thicker Mil Spec brass is resultantly smaller, so higher pressure from same powder. Combat ... They don't always have time to clean ... carbon dust grits lint hair sand (Oh No) ... so a margin of safely with a lower than MAX pressure. But, if you want to mess up YOUR M1 or M1A with that "better 308" please video, OK?

[@scottmansfield1734]

My first day seeing this channel. Pew Pews AND cool metal fab rolled into one!!!! 👍🏼👍🏼

[@ASelman]

Interesting, but a point to note. The test is limited by the elasticity of the target and penetration is possibly limited (and masked) by the energy absorbed in the sliding of the target and also the bending of the plate. Therefore the bending of the plate supports and location of the hit higher up or closer to one side will also have an effect, even at these rapid deformation rates. You might be getting to a point with this test where these effects are limiting how far up the effective power range that this test can go, but fun to see anyway..

[@victorboucher675]

What about STP? Standard Temp & Pressure?

[@Will-sk9oj]

Hello BANANA Bsllistic , I was just wondering why you don't seem to be concerned very much about the size of the group as this is as important as is how well the bullets penetrate. 😸

[@stijnvandamme76]

308 and 762 pressures should be equal, I cannot believe there are still people making that mistake 7.62 55000 CUPS = 62000 PSI on 308 They are safe either way in either action as far as chambre pressures go. the ONLY problem is heavy bullets in 308 could overload the charging system of automatic rifles like an M14/M1A because slow powders have higher perssure at the gas port.. But that will not kaboom your rifle, its not a safety issue, it just a reliability issue for your oprod Now 556 vs 223 Remington, that is a problem because 223 has shorter lead rifling is rated for lower pressure So stuffing higher power 556 + the shorter lead = every round a proof round

[@joshmabry2624]

I'm 99.99% sure that Turkish Nato ammo you used is steel core which would explain the deeper penetration over the standard full metal 308 ammo ! Good video I liked it next time try using same brand same projectile with the different cartridges and see what results are !

[@Hill_billy_fred]

It’s not , I have both steel core with green tip and the regular ammo .

[@R3dp055um]

Yeah, it would be marked green tip (or maybe black tip) if it was steel core. My money is on differences in bullet construction. Slightly thicker jacket or something like that. There are so many variables, it's impossible to say without being there and examining the materials.

[@dustin7037]

Keep making content! Your videos are awesome!

[@skeetersaurus6249]

I've played with such tests before with various calibers, and what I found was really no major surprise...the harder the projectile, the more penetration. In non-armor piercing (simple FMJ), the antimony content is king, being as it controls the lead hardness/brittleness. If you doubt this, simply cast a half-dozen projectiles from pure silver...they will travel much faster, due to density, and due to being much harder than lead, will penetrate much further. LOL...may be some science behind the old 'silver bullet' legends of old, after all!

[@hallmobility]

It HAS to be bullet hardness. You and maybe one other poster see this. Must now get my silver in cast bullet form! Best thing is, my local silver mint can do this! Hi Ho Silver, AWAY!

[@driverjamescopeland]

0:49 - definitely shows the difference in ballistics calculations. According to the displayed figures... there's 125fps difference in muzzle velocity (just over 4.5% advantage to the .308)... but energy is 9.5% higher. Speed comes at the sqaure of energy, so the difference shouldn't be more than 9%.

[@crossbones80]

Great video! I have been wondering about the cartridge I should use in my future Tavor 7 rifle, as I have always wanted to use the 7.62 × 51mm instead of the .308. Thanks for the accurate testing! Cheers!

[@touge242]

the 1:12 twist barrel favors lighter bullets. People sing praises for match ammo in the 155gr flavors. I shoot Winchester white box M80 ball 149gr, because it is the cheapest quality food I can find. Works pretty well

[@michaellowery928]

Great work sir. Keep 'em coming!

[@martyn6792]

Interesting comparison, I used the 7.62x51 in the L1A1 (SLR) in the early 1980's, potent round

[@secretsquirrel1534]

I Love My L1A1 I can Ring the Steel at 900 + Yards all day long !!!

[@wsplawn]

Would be interesting to include chronograph velocities w/ each round tested. Cool video. Thanks

[@douglanders5558]

Would be nice to see a chronograph result for each of the barrel lengths vs ammo types for penetration testing. Like others have also recommended, adding some weight to the base would prevent the random amounts of plate/rack movement which is varying the amount of energy absorption by the plates and penetration of the each bullet for comparison. The upper vs. lower hits have different amounts of variability in the movement/rotation of the rack/base. I'd recommend lead shot bags which would add quite a bit of damping/energy absorption as well as weight, but the shrapnel from the impacts would tear up the shot bags unless you cover them up. Otherwise, lead ingots or more steel works, too. Good no frills video takes and results, I like the approach with cutting a lot of unnecessary rambling of unedited videos. There's a time and place for those, and this type of video isn't what people are looking for, for raw, unedited rambling video content. Nice job, as usual, appreciate you listening to your audience and taking the suggestions to heart, making the improvements provided.

[@austin4776]

Interesting, informative, and straightforward. Good video man. Can't stand all the ridiculous intros the other KZbin channels do. Kentucky ballistic, demolition ranch, etc. However Garand thumb pulls it off IMO

[@deanhoward4128]

You could call it a target sled!

[@bananaballistics]

That's a good one!

[@jamesbobo5377]

I believe the 7.62x51 penatrated deeper for the reason when you put the cartridges side by side just by the appearance these are military overruns and are of the highest standards with superior materials. Might be wrong, don't think so. Thanks for the video, the demonstration was helpful and good knowledge to keep in mind.

[@jmsmaxwell]

Always interesting to see the penetration test done with various metals and bullets. It might be a minor difference in some cases but even a mm of penetration can be a life saver in some cases.

[@williammitchell1864]

One major difference is that both the .308 Winchester and the 7.62x51 both have different head stamp markings surrounding their primers. A .308 Winchester will say: .308 Winchester with the name of either Remington, PMC, or Winchester on it's head stamp and the military equivalent won't, the military version will just have the lot number on it's head stamp.

[@85Sirex]

Interesting video. I am surprised the ZQ1 was consistently able to hit the target too. I bought a ton of the ZQ1 ammo when Walmart purged it, and it had horrible accuracy out of my Vepr, M1, and S&W M&P10. I thought it was me at first, but other ammo shot fine, and more consistent. But again, good video.

[@BlAcKVeNuM911]

Subbed because you can fab, shoot, and know how to have a fun time safely. Keep up the good work!

[@stevenhoman2253]

Perhaps solidly mounting your target would be more representative of the impact forces? The entire rig is moving backwards, which is the force imparted to the rig, absorbing the kinetic energy.

[@danielswartz6818]

I would like to see the same test of the 308 military and a 30-06 military.

[@paulb7830]

With the sled moving upon impact, you could set up a controlled sled and measure the effect impact had. Also, with the sled moving, your penetration depths will be different based on how much of the impact was offset by the movement of the sled. Just some thoughts. Good video, though.

[@alexgataric]

I would have secured it to the ground or added weight so it wouldn't move.

[@monta247]

To be most effective as a shield there needs to be a inverted pitch to downward deflect the projectiles.

[@doctorartphd6463]

Excellent video...very informative. Thank you !!!

[@protonneutron9046]

Wow, thanks for the test!!

[@daviddavids2884]

6:32 there is a bias in your loose and moving target, towards unequal energy absorption. the differing elevations of the points of impact affect the transfer of energy into the target, each time.

[@edmoore1661]

Excellent! Nice job and thanks!

[@jamesrae5351]

Excellent video. Good job 👍

[@darylwalker2569]

I need to restock my 308 target ammo since my supply was depleted by the Norma recall. Great video, I will consider 7.62 NATO. THANKS!

[@X00000370]

I would guess that the 7.62 ammo you tested was "tougher" than the 308. Maybe, if you could switch the ammo brand next time there could be a reversal in results?

[@doctorartphd6463]

Interesting question...... 👍

[@rustonhpd]

Thank you!. I'm impressed!

[@russellsmith8175]

Love your comparison on barrels

[@TO-do4cv]

Thanks Great video,good job. 👍👍👍

[@MarkJacksonGaming]

-- What you want to do is have 2 'shields' and stagger them a little. Anyways, thumbs up. Always enjoy the content.

[@bentoncushing8693]

Great public speaking voice,,,,thank Ur parents,,show is good,,,thanks