M60 machinegun ammo pt ll
7.62 NATO ammo:
M59 Ball
M60 High Pressure Test
M61 Armor Piercing
M62 Tracer (orange tip)
M62 Tracer Overhead Fire Mission (red tip)
M63 Dummy
M64 Grenade
M80 Ball
M80 Ball (Overhead Fire Application)
XM276 Dim Tracer
M852 Match
M160 Frangible
M172 Dummy
M82 Blank
All are designated for use in both machine guns and rifles, with the exception of the M80 OFA, which is designated for use in machine guns during live fire overhead training. I note the specs are the same as standard M80; this ammo is subjected to extremely strict quality control, reasonable given its intended use.
redcedars
M59 Ball
M60 High Pressure Test
M61 Armor Piercing
M62 Tracer (orange tip)
M62 Tracer Overhead Fire Mission (red tip)
M63 Dummy
M64 Grenade
M80 Ball
M80 Ball (Overhead Fire Application)
XM276 Dim Tracer
M852 Match
M160 Frangible
M172 Dummy
M82 Blank
All are designated for use in both machine guns and rifles, with the exception of the M80 OFA, which is designated for use in machine guns during live fire overhead training. I note the specs are the same as standard M80; this ammo is subjected to extremely strict quality control, reasonable given its intended use.
redcedars
0
-
For what it's worth...I used some linked 06' ammo in my Garand. It functioned and shot well. It was only maybe 48 rounds or so from the 250 I de-linked. Maybe continued use could cause problems?
Maybe this isn't comparing apples-to-apples?
I'm glad I got some of the last 7.62 Match ammo from the CMP...also was a good source of surplus .30-06' and .30 carbine!0 -
Here's the other link on 7.62 vs. .308
http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/ammopressure.htm
__________________________________________________________
"Father, yes son, I want to kill you" - Jim Morrison0 -
I have used Surplus ammo for years. A lot of it has been in links. I used my M1a's, and Garands. NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. Only problems that I have been told about are, some of the foreign ammo is dirty, and some guns like the Garand that are old, may need to replace the hammer spring.... just too light. [:)]
It will hurt you, More than it will hurt me..
Life Member... N R A
American Legion, MECU, MWCA, SMSC, BSC, NASDS
Thanks for all the help!0 -
GreenLantern:
Took some digging but I finally found the site:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/7_62vs308.htm
Got it bookmarked this time.
All those interested in knowing what you're doing and being safe please check this one out. This subject has been about beaten to death here, and I don't want to go over it all again. On the other hand, looking for this site, I had to tiptoe through all those old tulips again. Got a couple of good laughs over some of the posts by folks who ought to know better.
redcedars0 -
red, interesting and useful post - thank you!!! By any chance do you know how the M80 OFA is distinguished or is it purely by the box?
Also, I don't know if I were one of the ones who "should know better" but I definitely learned something today from the various links provided. I've always said that these are the same. Well, the outer dimensions are . . . but not being too knowledgeable about the weapons systems, I had not considered the fact that the NATO spec chamber can be so different from the commercial spec.
Mark, virtually none of the .30-06 or 7.62x51 military ammo was ever loaded for use in specific weapons - the standards and loads were the same and MGs were designed to function with the same ammo used in shoulder weapons. The only exception which comes to mind is some special loadings by US Ctg in 1918 for Marlin MGs used in some of the later planes of WWI, which had special, reinforced, primer crimps because the primers would back out with the standard crimp when fired in this particular weapon. The difference is striking - not only is the crimp itself much more robust, but it had three stakes as well (see below).
0 -
Icon, as far as I can tell, there is no special marking of the M80 OFA cartridge comparable to the tip marking for the M62 and M62 OFM.
I don't recall you being among those who "should have known better", but I wasn't keeping score either. Many folks are under the mistaken impression that 7.62x51NATO and .308 Winchester are just different names for the same thing. I know I thought so for years. Someone I respected pointed out the distinctions, and was very helpful in guiding my research of the subject, which in turn led to a more general study of ballistics. There were some sharp exchanges when I tried to make the same point here. I have no problems with folks like the fellow from Missouri who said "Show me." But a couple of folks simply refused to accept the simple facts, and while they wouldn't believe me, neither would they look up the specifications themselves, even though it isn't too hard to find all the info. Then GreenLantern came up with the site I posted earlier, which apparently made it easy enough even for the "experts".
My main concern was to caution against the willy-nilly shooting of .308 Win in a 50-100 year old battle rifle. These rifles were originally chambered for cartridges developing only 2/3 of the .308's pressure, and rechambered in some Third World armory to 7.621x51 NATO (or, worse still, 7.62 CETME). It is very nearly a proof load for some of these old rifles and a steady diet of proof loads in an old bolt is just not a good idea. Throw in a little excess headspace and the potential for a real problem should be apparent. The notion that you can buy an old surplus rifle cheap and shoot a relatively high performance round is very attractive to novices and less knowledgable shooters on a budget. These are the very same people who are least likely to recognize the indications of excessive pressure or headspace before a real problem occurs. I just thought it was irresponsible for some folks to continue to propogate potentially dangerous mythology while refusing to even review the evidence.
And now you have given me a question for you. Did Marlin make machine guns for aircraft use in WW1? I was not aware of any US made guns used on WW1 service aircraft. We made a lot of Liberty engines, but didn't produce many planes, and as far as I knew they were using Vickers or Lewis guns.
redcedars0 -
quote:Originally posted by redcedars
Took some digging but I finally found the site:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/7_62vs308.htm
Don't know if I've seen this one before? Looks like good info, and bookmarked!
__________________________________________________________
"Father, yes son, I want to kill you" - Jim Morrison0 -
Yeah GreenLantern you posted a link to this site back when. You have posted links to a couple of others since. I thought I had this one bookmarked but I guess I didn't. So I had to go back and sift through a few old threads for a while until I found it. I remembered thinking at the time that it had some good info.
redcedars0 -
Iconoclast;
Interesting photo/speciman you posted. I have the same cartridge/headstamp/three punch primer in my meager/somewhat diverse collection.
I would post my photo and a profile photo of it w/my Grandfather's WWI dog tags if I knew how. I sent it to the president of the local VFW nearby and still have it on my computer.
I haven't taken the time to learn how to do that yet. I understand I have to have a place to store it besides my hard drive and provide a link to it if I remember a prior posting about it?
I need to find a "host" for my images...does that make me a parasite? [:D]
Does your ISP still provide memory for such storage? I used to have that with AOL, but am with MSN now. You used to have to do it that way w/ebay early on before they had space for you to use.0 -
ft knox
You do need to find a host. Your ISP may give you some free space, if not try running "image hosting" as keywords on your search engine. There are some freebies out there, at least for a little space. Upload your pics to the host. Open the reply or new topic box. On the toolbar click on the fourth button from the left. Paste the address URL for the pics in between the two bracketed codes.
redcedars0 -
redcedars:
Thanks. I decided to "tackle it" despite the fact that I should be SLEEPING! ANYWAY, I get focused and "hell's bells!"
I did find some storage on MSN and have my pics there now, but the addresses I'm putting between the brackets aren't working. I have clicked on my images where they are stored and looked at "properties", but am having difficulty getting the right syntax. You can probably see my red "X" where the image should be. Look at that if you care to and any suggestions/perceptions would be appreciated.
Thanks again.0 -
ftknox
Make sure you are getting the complete and correct address in between the two sets of bracketed codes. Keep on messing around with it and you will get it.
redcedars0 -
redcedars:
Thanks again...still at it!
Regards0 -
redcedars:
I had to give it up for now. [B)] I futched around tremendously, talked to four MSN tech reps who were conflicting/contradictory and generally not to interested or convincing...what do you expect in the middle of the night I suppose! [:(!] The capt. will likely lock-out the topic before I get it...oh well. [:(]
I've done this on AOL before...been awhile. Don't know what's up here? [?]
Tomorrow is another day...I mean today is another day...yawn! [xx(]0 -
I finally got an MSN Tech Support Professional to admit that they "MASK" all of the files that customers put on their storage space that comes with your "PAID" subscription so that "non-MSN" subscribers/affiliates/invited-guests will not be able to access your files (i.e., photos).
There is no allowance for general internet access by "OTHERS" to your stored files via. hyperlinks. I will likely be changing my ISP very soon. Microsoft is yet proving themselves once more to be the greedy uncooperative monopolistic bully of the software industry!
It's no wonder I have been getting double-talk and contradictions from them all night!0 -
ft knox:
If you can attach the file to an e-mail, send it to me and I will try to post it for you.
redcedars0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments