Why is it that the AK-47 can fire 7.62mm at full automatic whereas the Western rifles fire single-shot because of the recoil? The M-14 fires full-auto but I heard that doing so makes it an anti-aircraft gun because the recoil drives the muzzle up so much.

Is it because the Russians use a smaller 7.62mm cartridge with their AKs?

What Western rifle can fire 7.62mm fully-automatic accurately...the G3 or FN FAL?

And why hasn't Western nations adopted a 30-round 7.62mm magazine?

I take it the 7.62mm SCAR-H, M110, and M-14 EBR still fire single shots...on trigger pull for one round fired.

Thanks in advance.

I know when Canada was using the FN C1 and FN C2, both were capable of automatic and they used a 7.62 round. Typically the C1 was fired single round with a 20 round mag and the C2 was fired on fully automatic and used a 30 round magazine.

It had nothing to do with the capabilities of the guns. During testing in Vietnam and other conflicts, it was found that after the first 3 rounds, the soldier was off target and wasting ammo. Single shot is more effective and Western militaries adjusted their training to aimed, single shots as opposed to mass spraying. That is why the M16A2 has single fire and 3 round burst. It was decided that dedicated Automatic weapons (M60 and later M240B) would be used for laying down suppressive fire.

Hi Peter,
AK-47 fires 7.65x39 mm while older western rifles fir 7.82x51 mm or .308. /.65x39 mm is easier to handle than the heavier NATO rond. Interestingly the AK-47 is the only assault rifle wheer you switch to full-auto than to semi-auto. I once shot 7,92x33 mm (Sturmgewehr44) and found it pleasant to handle.
Cheers
H.-H.

Right on the money!! I would add that it was standard during the cold war and the heyday of NATO to only use either the 7.62mm or 5.56 mm ammo to keep supply problems under control.
It is also interesting that most Eastern block ammo was just slightly bigger than ours so we couldn't use any captured ammo. There were cases where the Eastern Block could use our ammo,such as the 81mm mortar because I believe their mortars were 82 or 83mm and so on.
As far as big rounds go. Speaking as a former ground pounder,ammo is heavy and the bigger the round(7.62 in the M14 as opposed to 5.56 in the M16 series) the more you have to lug around. I always preferred to carry a basic load of 210 rounds of 5.56mm over the same amount in 7.62 any day of the week as an M16 will kill you just as dead as an M14,no matter what the deskchair rangers say.
J

When I joined up (many moons ago) my personal weapon was the SLR L1A1 which was obviously 7.62 semi automatic. The British Army has always put the emphasis on marksmanship as more than one round to kill someone's a waste of ammo..lol. When they originally tested the FNFAL as a possible replacement for the Lee Enfield they found that in fully automatic mode it was extremely inaccurate so therefore built it themselves under licence as the L1A1 as a semi auto. There was a heavier barelled FNFAL developed with a bipod as a squad automatic weapon (pretty much the same stupid idea as the LSW) which some countries adopted but realistically if you want a base of fire you want something belt fed. When we made the change over to the SA80 most of us asked nicely if we could have our SLR's back as we were not impressed. I much preferred a heavier round. The Soviet round is actually shorter than the NATO 7.62mm round so theoretically we could have used it but I was never convinced as I'm sure it would have caused stoppages being shorter.

7.62 is the diameter of the bullet, and the common nomenclature of calling a round "7.62" or ".30 cal" is misleading because there are many different cartridges of the same diameter. The round used by the AK-47 has a much smaller casing than the 7.62 NATO round used in the M14. The M14, FAL and the SCAR H, for example, are considered "battle rifles" because they fire a full strength rifle cartridge (essentially a .308), which are designed for li g range engagements. Weapons like the AK-47, AK-74, M16 and M4 are "assault rifles" because they fire a smaller intermediate cartridges ( 7.62, 5.45, and 5.56, respectively) designed primarily for engagements out to 300 meters (although are still effective at ranges beyond that) and for fully automatic fire. The M16 family can actually fire much faster than the AK family in automatic fire, and are more controllable. The reason why the west does not implement full auto fire but rather burst and single-shot is due to doctrine, not weapon capability. While those in the service probably can correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is beginning to incorporate automatic fire on their M4s now.

Western 7.62 NATO rounds (full strength rifle Rouds similar to the .308) are used for medium machine guns like the FN M240 family and for designated marksmanship rifles. The power and range of the round is not worth the weight of the ammo or weapons to replace the intermediate cartridge firing weapons because engagements in combat rarely occur beyond 300 meters, distances where the 5.56 and 5.45 rounds are optimal. Us special forces have access the the SCAR H, which is a battle rifle. The H has the weight and recoil of the M4, but because the power of the .308 cartridge is not needed for almost all combat engagements, it is doubtful that it will ever replace the M4.

The HK G3, Standard service rifle of the German Bundeswehr and quite a few other armies in europe and outside fired the 7.62x51 Nato. The weapon could use fully automatic fire but training was mostly for aimed single shot and even volley fire out to 400m (the official lethal range was listed at 1100m, marksman trsined for 700m with a 4 power scope).

Burst was used in close combat and even there the training was getting 2 to 5 round bursts of. (Short bursts where also trained for the MG3 maschine gun) With some training one could control the weapon and actually hit nearby targets. Well at least a 190cm/120kg semi-serious bodybuilder type could (and yes, I normally lugged around the MG3)

Thanks for all the information and answers.