have you guys heard of the 7.62x40? I have never heard of

It looks like very good quality, but why not just go the 300 blk route? Seems more future proof.

>>32888742
it just seems super gimmicky.

What was weird was I saw it on a older rifle, and not an Ar-15.

Is there any older rifles that fire a 7.62x40?

I was assuming it was a typo, but Google is not showing anything.

File: 400F41E9-ED59-447A-B05F-657A652F7246-270-0000007BB1113FCE_tmp.jpg (31KB, 640x260px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x260px

>>32888748
Probably 7.62x45 you were looking at in a vz52

>>32888810
thats what it looked like. the retards put 40 on it.

File: I want to laugh.jpg (180KB, 1370x344px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1370x344px

>>32888724
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9740mm_Wilson_Tactical

Tacticalfags, when will they ever learn?

>>32888748
Could've just originally been a .223 with a new barrel to accommodate the round.

The world is full of boutique cartridges that are restricted to a handful of manufacturers and which perform within a few percentage points of their closest competitor.

Don't give it too much thought, it's just WC making a 30 caliber for the ar15 and they focused on supersonic instead of subsonic aspects.

>>32889618
Saved me the trouble of posting. Guess we could could get into the whole mag trimming issues and limited bullet weight but why bother

>>32888724
oh look, another clone of 7.62x39 and .300 memout

File: WP_20150719_001.jpg (3MB, 3552x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3552x2000px

>>32888810
that's missing the upper handguard

>>32889402
Why not just use regular 5.56 then instead of making another snowflake round?

>>32889402
isn't the 300 blackout based on the 223 casing?