Good CALIBR

[FeralCr]

Is there a version of CALIBR that is... Ya know... Accurate?

 

When I say accurate I mean:

 

M1 Garand using a 30-06

.308 and 7.62x51 being the same thing

etc

etc

[ZeonicGlory]

The 20th Century Weapons mod has the M1 Garand firing the 30-06. I think some guns were rechambered for sake of being able to get good amounts of ammo, though.

[SnakeTheFox]

.308 and 7.62x51 being the same thing

 

Contrary to popular myth, .308 and 7.62x51mm are not exactly the same thing (slightly different case dimensions).

[FeralCr]

.308 and 7.62x51 being the same thing

 

Contrary to popular myth, .308 and 7.62x51mm are not exactly the same thing (slightly different case dimensions).

 

 

That being the case, that the diameter of the brass on a .308 is 7.8mm in stead of 7.82mm on a 7.62x51. In fact, all the differences between the two are, at max, a .5mm difference which is inconsequential because anything that fires a .308 will fire a 7.62x51mm and vice versa. Something I am well aware of, because not only do I own an m40 [Remington 700 with a free floating barrel and five radial rifling] but I also hand load my own rounds. So it doesn't make any sense to have them firing the different rounds. Or, rather, it doesn't make any sense to have a weapon that accepts .308 but doesn't fire the 7.62x51mm.

 

Regardless, I appreciate the reply. Any other mods anyone knows of?

[NaboeN]

Sorry for being offtopic but another difference is that 7.62x51mm NATO is killing/military weapons while the .308 is for hunting, therefor the common massproduced ammunition is using different amounts and kinds blackpowder (I seriously don't remember the appropriate word for it now) making the use of for example the 7.62x51mm NATO in a hunting rifle might cause some minor issues, while the .308 in a military weapon will have a chance of blowing up as the .308 uses a much stronger load. You don't need the same to kill a man as you would need to kill a moose.

 

But as of now, CALIBR is the best we have, but there is another ammo mod or two out there.

[deadweight]

You seriously think that military pattern rifles have lower tolerances for overpressured case loads than civilian hunting rifles?

 

 

Edit: More constructively, military firearms have both higher tolerance for stress within the chamber and more variance in the length of the cartridge, referred to as "headspace." The function of a military firearm is far, far more critical than the operation of a civilian one, and so military rifles are constructed with this in mind. A soldier's life, and the lives of his comrades depend upon his weapon functioning correctly, a hunter rarely places his life in the hands of his rifle. Furthermore, there are differences between military loads and civilian.

 

In short, military rifles are built tougher than civilian ones, military headspace specifications are different than civilian ones, and you have more chance of a civilian firearm blowing up in your face if you screw up the headspacing than you do a military one. You can get away with firing a military firearm more safely (relatively) than a civilian one if its headspacing is off and the bolt won't close on a field reject or no-go gauge, but either way is dangerous.

 

 

 

Here are a couple of pages you may find interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headspace_(firearms)

 

http://www.cruffler.com/trivia-October99.html

 

 

Relevant to the topic at hand, the second link goes into considerable detail regarding headspace and the differences between civilian and military cartridges, including, usefully, a comparison of 7.62mm NATO vs .308 Winchester.

 

7.62mm NATO has a minimum headspace .00015" greater than .308, and the 7.62's headspace also averages out to be longer by .002" or more. While the .308 is considered to be the commercial version of the 7.62mm NATO round, there are subtle differences which make interoperability between the two cartridges potentially unsafe, and while FeralCR may trust his sight and potentially his life on headspace roulette, I certainly don't and you definitely won't catch me feeding my 7.62x39mm SKS a .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm) or a .400 Corbon in my .40S&W Glock G22.

 

 

 

With regards to CALIBR and F3, I don't know whether or not there is some way to make a firearm accept more than one particular kind of ammunition. Certainly not without the use of scripting.

[FeralCr]

In short, military rifles are built tougher than civilian ones, military headspace specifications are different than civilian ones, and you have more chance of a civilian firearm blowing up in your face if you screw up the headspacing than you do a military one. You can get away with firing a military firearm more safely (relatively) than a civilian one if its headspacing is off and the bolt won't close on a field reject or no-go gauge, but either way is dangerous.

 

7.62mm NATO has a minimum headspace .00015" greater than .308, and the 7.62's headspace also averages out to be longer by .002" or more. While the .308 is considered to be the commercial version of the 7.62mm NATO round, there are subtle differences which make interoperability between the two cartridges potentially unsafe, and while FeralCR may trust his sight and potentially his life on headspace roulette, I certainly don't and you definitely won't catch me feeding my 7.62x39mm SKS a .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm) or a .400 Corbon in my .40S&W Glock G22.

 

There's a huge difference between a the slight variation of a .02mm difference and the massive variation of 3mms, you can't compare the two.

 

Oh, and that thing about military rifles and your life, tell that to the Army snipers using the m24 long action, that's poo jams all the *ban* time because it's made to take both .308 AND 30-06 round (depending on what barrel you use) and to those piece of poo M16s that jam if you sneeze at them.

 

 

---

 

 

Thanks for all the great responses, didn't want to get into an argument about the differences in ammo type, but I got the answer to my question.

[deadweight]

The difference between most rifles and the M24 is that the conversion to a different cartridge was factored into the M24's design process. However, only a few of the rifles were originally intended to be transferred over to the .300WM cartridge, more as an interrim measure than anything else.

 

 

I found this on snipercountry.com

 

Fred - I was on the planning and testing board for the M24. It was in deed designed to change over to 300 Win Mag. The M24 was first designed for SOF only until the regular army got involved. SOTIC built the original prototypes and had General Guest fire them at Camp Butner, NC. By the end of the day he was convinced that the "new sniper rifle" (since M24 wasn't its designation yet) was the way to go. The problem was the fight with Ft. Benning paper shooters. We wanted only a few to be changed over down the road, as a medium range weapon (900 to 1100 meters). Fort Benning wanted them all changed over. This fight continues over 10 years later. In the mid 80s we were still looking at several other rounds, the .338/.416 being one for even longer ranges, the .50 for hard target 800 to 1500 and the 14.5mm for past 1500. The Naby jumped in and muddled the waters with a rapid purchase, of the Barrett. My question was why not the M2 MG for the Navy and EOD since it weights about the same and does the rapid follow on shot, is more durable, and a heck alot more accurate. The .300 has advantages in night sniping as wind is not as critical, and does reach a speck further than the .308. We really wanted something that was more than a baby step past the .308 and was looking at the 300 Win Mag more as a stop gap until more study was made on the bullet issue. I know this will get some noses out of joint so jump in wherever you guys want. Lucky for me I kept copies of all the paperwork that flew about during that deal. SOCOM let Benning in so that they wouldn't foot the whole bill. I think some of the guys at Rock Island still remembers me from when I threw a Pelican case across the room when they were talking about 5 years for the bullet, 3 years for the barrel to match the bullet, and another 5 years to develop the end product. The Pelican case contained one of our guns and I said the civilians buy the dam things on a daily basis.

 

Rick <[email protected]>

Fayetteville, NC USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 22:43:50 (EST)

 

 

and don't consider this an argument, it isn't. It's people discussing things that go bang. That's all :)

 

 

As for the M16, they don't call it the 40 year failure for nothing. A sideways glance and those things're bunged.