SpudFiles

7.62x51mm IS the larger NATO round. 5.56NATO is 5.56x45mm. If you had ever been through basic marksmanship training in any first worl military, you would know this by HEART.

5.56mm is a RIFLE round, an SMG by definition is an automatic firearm that uses pistol rounds, e.g. the Thompson M1, which uses .45 ACP, or Heckler and Koch MP5, that uses 9mm OR, the Steyr AUG F88 Para/AUG SMG which uses 9mm parabellum.
Anything using the 5.56 would be considered a rifle, carbine, or LMG.

If your military uses something called an AUS88, then it's a purely internal designation that is completely unknown to the internet, the world at large, and the original manufacturer of the weapon. There is no variant of the Steyr AUG that uses the 7.62 NATO round, PERIOD.

Do yourself a favor, google "AUS88". There isn't ONE return for a gun of any type with that designation, in 19 pages of search results.
I even searched "AUS88 rifle" and got this, the ONLY return for a firearm in that search: http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/ga ... 00/845.htm
Please note that it refers to the "Australian F88(version of Steyr AUG)".

On the other hand, enter "Steyr AUG F88" in the search. I got 43 pages of returns, and in the first 20 pages, I didn't find one return that was NOT about the rifle.

There is also NO variant of the M-16 that uses the 7.62NATO round. The Armalite AR10, which preceded the M16 and looks almost identical to the M16, did use it, but they are exceedingly rare, and share no interchangeable parts with the M16 or any variant thereof.

If you want to continue in this vein, I suggest you begin checking YOUR facts. I invite everyone on this board, PLEASE fact-check me.

In the meantime, you're making yourself look more and more the fool.

For all:

After rereading the thread, I have to clear some things up where we're talking past each other.

Yes, the supersonic bang from a round going close by is fairly loud. But a suppressor isn't intended to do anything about that. It is intended to alter the sound of the shot from the rifle. It muffles the expulsion of supersonic gases from the muzzle, making it both quieter, and less easy to locate. It also contains all "flash" concealing the shot visually.

As I've said several times, the supersonic bang from the round does not give away the position of the shooter, because you do not hear it until the round is past.

Here's the basic physics, as well as I can explain without doing it in person.

The bullet leaves the barrel, and travels at a speed faster than it's own shockwave. It leaves a trail of shock/sound waves behind it. When it passes you, you very shortly thereafter hear the BANG of the first shockwave to reach you. After that, you will hear the BUZZ of the shockwaves generated during the bullets flight reaching you. At the same time, you also hear the same BUZZ of the shockwaves it generates as it continues to fly away from you, so you hear the same buzz from TWO directions, both receding AWAY from you. One buzz will end in the CRACK of the gun firing(unless it's suppressed, in which case it will be a duller, quieter "bang". The buzz in the opposite direction will end in the sound of the bullet finding it's final home. In any case, the echoes of the bullet's own travel resounding off objects around you will obscure the sound of the suppressed rifle's firing.

The CRACK of an unsuppressed rifle stands out from the echoes, the "bang" of a suppressed rifle is overwhelmed by the echoes of the bullet's travel.

With a sub-sonic round, you still don't get the "pfft" noise they used in the movies. If you're using a semi-auto pistol, you hear the sound of the action, usually a metallic clinking. If it's a bolt-action or break barrel rifle or pistol, you get a very quiet "whap". The bad news is about revolvers. The gap between cylinder and barrel is enough that you still get a nice, loud bang if you try to silence one. The only exceptions there are guns like the Mosin-Nagant revolver, which actually presses the cylinder forward against the barrel. Unfortunately, because of the rarity of the Mosin-Nagant revolver, and the fact that it uses a very unusual round with very unusual characteristics(it's CYLINDRICAL, as in, the nose is FLAT), only a fool would modify one to accept a silencer, if they did, the bullet would point ONLY to the MN revolver.



BIG EDIT

Bubba05 wrote: this is so we can utalise fallen enamys ammunition in our own fire arms, eg vertnam war battel for Long tan, Australian soldgers used ammunition taken from dead VC's AK 47's, in there australian issue SLR's, and won the battle.

I know my fire arms I used when i served and i knew what ammunition was required to operate my fire arms.

Bubba

How the hell did I overlook this? You just proved you've never been a member of any military organization, and have probably never fired a gun at all.

The SLR also known as the FN FAL, or Fabrique Nationale Fusil Automatique Léger, uses the 7.62NATO round. The NATO round is 7.62x51mm.

The AK47 uses the Russian 7.62x39mm round.

7.62x51mmNATO on the right, 7.62x39(AK round) at center, 5.56x45mmNATO on right


Neither could possibly have been used in the opposing sides' weapons.

These two rounds, and the 5.56x45mmm NATO, are the three most commonly used military rifle rounds in the world, and if you don't know them, you cannot possibly have been a member of the armed forces of any first-world country. You're full of sh*t, and you just exposed yourself to everyone here. Congratulations.

Please delete this, didn't mean to multi-post.

OK, both of you just shut the hell up, nobody really cares. If you want to bicker, feel free to do so in PMs, but seriously, I don't give a damn what army uses what specific model number on what round, or how many times they are forced to hold up their fingers when clowns pass them on the freeway.
We are talking suppressors, not the numbers printed on the sides of casings.

It has become a pride issue now, and neither is willing to give in, but I agree, do this in private messages, my email inbox is full enough.

ive had enough so talk to my Uncle, The Glimmerman.

You my friend are miss imformed about many subjects , the 7.62 is exactlty the same as the .308 win round no bigger no smaller , the round used in the ak47 is actually classed as a7.62 short and can be fired inany 7.62 or .308win rifle it is time you stopped hideing behind the labeling of every body os being a poor patriot the only one here is you so grow a brain . We in australia do not let out our military secerets out like you clowns no wonder you cant get things right , old saying LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS.
we play our cards very close to our chests.
As for silencers suppesors call them what you may i have been making then for nearly 50 years i dont know what you ever did for work but you cannot suppres something traveling over the sound barrier and to think you can your a bloody idiot , the supersonic boom beets you every time.
As for the battel for Long Tan, Talk to my brothe in law, He was there and sice you like serching this serch particapents loolk for Steve Williams. I have been told by him and other vets that with a small feild mod the AK47 magazine would fit into the SLR, Out here we know them as the SLR thats all they need to be called as they once again made by lithgow small arms in south western New south Wales.
As for 5.56 this is exactly the same cartrige as the .223 which my friend is a slightly longer version of the .222 threr again you can use .222 rounds in a.223 so before you run of with your mouth speeking crap get some facts right . I suggest you buy a good reloading manual

OH MY GOD! SHUT UP! NOBODY CARES!
could a mod please delete all of the offending posts? They are really getting on my nerves. Here I am doing my homework, then I get an email saying that someone has replied to "Silencers on Spudguns", and me, foolishly thinking it was an intelligent comment, go to check it out. Unfortunately, it is just these two bickering all day long. There are better uses of forum space.

seriously mods- can you do what I asked you to do in page 3?

Lock this thread!

It's seriously like 2 3 year olds arguing

And here I was expecting some kind of insight from JSR.
'Spose I'll have to do it.

You're both being somewhat argumentative with no necessity to be. We can be civil here.

Bubba is correct on there being a specific Australian version of the Steyr AUG, but not on the name - it's known as the Austeyr F88.
I do not believe any version of the AUG has a chambering in either of "the" 7.62mm rifle rounds, but however, there are versions of the AUG which are chambered in either 9mm Parabellum and .22 LR.

To switch to Bubba - I am worried by your case interchangeability ideas.
7.62x39 and 7.62x51mm are not compatible. The cases are different shapes and lengths, so using the 39mm case in a 51mm chamber is highly dangerous.
The .222 and .223 shouldn't be mixed either.

No, I'm not regularly using these rounds - however, I am more than smart and educated to know why putting a short case in a long chamber is going to go very wrong. Rifles cannot accept a round that is different to their chambering and still operate safely, because the cases are tapered and necked - they require the support of the chamber walls around the case, for the cases aren't strong enough to withstand the pressures alone.

Your other claims, although less worrying, are still not quite right - the .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO cases can sometimes be swapped. I believe that .308 casings have a tendency to jam in 7.62mm chambers, but not vice versa.
Nor is your claim that the .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO are identical correct - the external dimensions are identical, but the case thickness is greater on the NATO round.

I have to worry about your information sources, particularly the claimed AK/STANAG magazine modification, which sounds like it would be complex and destructive.
I can also do enough reading to find out that there were ammunition supply problems at the battle of Long Tan, although the solution was not to use the 7.62 round, there was ammunition air dropped in.

However, I'm now going to say, stuff the argument about the rounds. It's completely irrelevant to our discussion.

Your problem with suppression is a difference in what each of you are looking for in "silencing".
Dalton is talking about what I shall call tactical suppresion.
Bubba is talking about what I shall call covert silencing.

Tactical suppression is the act of hiding your location to give you the edge in a combat situation - for hiding the fact you are shooting is moot.
Covert silencing is what you look for when hiding the fact there was a shot - for a stealth mission, or possibly when hunting.

Tactical suppression does not require a subsonic round - Dalton is loosely correct about his supersonic shockwaves, however, there are circumstances where the shooter's location might become apparent from them - for example, should the round not pass the target (hitting something first), the shooter's location would be more evident.

Now, covert silencing - at the very least with tactical suppression, even should you not be able to tell exactly where the shot has come from, it is not silent.
That is what covert silencing relates to - moderation a weapon can have a greater purpose than hiding your location - frequently you wish to hide the existence of a shot at all, and for that, using a supersonic round will give it away.

I think that's quite enough now, but for one comment JSR missed:

and you just exposed yourself to everyone here.

Ew, nasty.

EDIT: Spelling.

That was so complete I feel sort of extra now

*walks into the woods, sits down on a log and cries*

Bugger, now I've got to cheer up Jack into the bargain. Curses, I really needed to go to bed as well.

haha Rag sure shut them up

Sorry guys, last post, and it's a partial apology. I won't apologize to Bubba, he shouldn't have opened his mouth without checking his facts, but I will apologize to the forum for dragging you guys through this crap with me.


On another note, I finally found an article on a suppressor's effects on accuracy, and I have to admit that I was wrong on that count.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_62893431
Mea culpa, Jack...

I do have one small safety note on the .308/7.62NATO thing. While the case is nearly identical, the powder charge is not. I can't remember which way it goes ATM, but one is considerably more powerful than the other, and if used in a rifle intended for the lower-power round, can cause a lot of damage and possibly failure of the breech and firing mechanism.

*raises his head in hope*

so everyone done biotching now?

Excellent job by the way Rag- you showed them lol