Is it safe to shoot commercial .308 with this?

Why wouldn't it be?

>>34020542
Yes.

>>34020542
Yes? It's a commercial .308 rifle
Actual 7.62x51mm NATO barrels is really quite rare on the open market, all sporters or civilian variants of 7.62x51mm NATO guns have their barrels swapped for .308 barrels, or built with them from the ground up.

You'd basically have to find some kind of old bringback or a stolen military gun registered back during the the MG amnesty (but I guess the latter isn't relevant since you're a canuck), and even then those were more often than not converted because people wanted to actually shoot them.

It's in extremely few people's interest to have actual NATO chambers so you basically don't see it in commercially produced and traded weapons.

File: 13653014_1393449250672259_271091061572132509_o.jpg (62KB, 1200x414px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1200x414px

Any sort of barrel/chamber/pressure differences between 7.62 and .308 (and 5.56 and .223 for that matter) are nullified by the fact that the differences are relatively minute and modern guns are going to be strong enough to handle it. Even Chinese guns aren't going to blow up on you if you shoot .308 out of them.

You would be hard pressed to find any account of someone shooting only .308 out of a M305 and having it fail. Any failure would just be it being made in China and probably having a shitty heat treatment on something.

Check out CGN or the NZ equivalent, there are a lot of people with these that shoot .308 all the time with no issues. Anybody saying otherwise is just being autistic and has no bearing on real life.

>>34021066
Assuming these are with .308 barrels then is it safe to shoot 7.61x51mm NATO surplus?

>>34021145
thanks

>>34020542
I love that look.

>Let's copy it exactly like the wood, but to save money let's make it polymer

Some kind of odd-but-beautiful charm of seeing something synthetic but with absolutely none of the tactical embellishments that usually come with it.

>>34021147
.308 is generally loaded hotter than 7.62x51 is. It's sort of the opposite of the .223 vs 5.56 dynamic.

File: 308vs762.jpg (73KB, 640x509px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x509px

>>34021147
You won't find any so that doesn't matter, there's really nobody with 7.62x51mm NATO guns to sell surplus to on the civilian market, so they don't.

Unlike 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Remington, 7.62x51mm NATO and .308 Winchester really aren't quite so compatible at all in most cases. Pic related.

>>34020542
Yes.

>>34020542
an m14 isn't a garand fuckwit

Better safe than sorry with Chink crap, fuckwit

>>34021982
Norinco guns are not known for exploding.

>>34021982
there hasn't been a single case of exploding documented in cancuck land, so far.