The New Ruger SR-762 Rifle

Ruger SR-762 rifle

Sturm, Ruger & Co. announced the release of the new SR-762 rifle.  The new rifle is chambered in 7.62 NATO (aka 7.62×51) and uses a two-stage piston system like the one used in the SR-556 rifles.  The 16.12″ barrel is chrome lined and threaded for the easy addition of a suppressor.  A Mini-14 type flash suppressor ships standard.

The SR-762 will ship with three Magpul magazines, folding iron sights, rail covers and a soft-sided carrying case.  MSRP is $2,195.  Many readers may already know this, but the 7.62 NATO cartridge is based on the .308 Winchester cartridge.  Both cartridges can be fired safely from the SR-762 rifle.

Ruger SR-762 kit

From Ruger:

Ruger Introduces the SR-762 Piston-Driven Rifle Chambered in .308 Win./7.62 NATO

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is pleased to announce the new Ruger® SR-762™, bringing the .308 Win./7.62 NATO cartridge to the popular SR-556® family of rifles. The SR-762™ offers the downrange authority of the .308 cartridge in a two-stage, piston-driven rifle that runs cooler and cleaner than traditional gas-driven AR-style rifles.

The SR-762™ is an ideal rifle for those who appreciate the familiar and ergonomic AR-style platform. The .308 Win./7.62 NATO cartridge is perfect for hunting medium and most large-sized game and enhances the capability of the AR-style platform in defensive or tactical roles.

The SR-762™ retains the features of the original SR-556® that make it a solid performer among AR-style rifles. The patent-pending, two-stage piston delivers a smooth power stroke to the one-piece bolt carrier, which reduces felt recoil and improves the rifle’s durability. The four-position gas regulator allows the shooter to tune the rifle to function reliably with a broad variety of ammunition and in varying environmental conditions.

A heavy contour, 16.12” chrome-lined, cold hammer forged barrel with a 1:10” twist features exterior fluting to minimize weight, yet provides outstanding accuracy. With the Ruger® Lightweight Adaptable handguard in place, the SR-762™ weighs 8.6 pounds and balances comfortably.

Three 20-round MAGPUL® PMAG® magazines are provided with the SR-762™. Folding backup iron sights, a Hogue® Monogrip®, Picatinny rail sections and rail covers add considerable value to the package, as does the six-position stock, sight adjustment tool, and a soft-sided carry case.

The Ruger® SR-762 has a suggested retail price of $2,195


Richard Johnson

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.


Advertisement

  • Patrick Mingle

    I’m usually more of a 5.56 guy but this is sharp looking rifle!

  • Doom

    >16.12″ barrel

    WHY!?! WHY!!??!!??!!

    WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
    they better come out with a Hbar 20+” barrel.

    • Nicks87

      16 in. barrel AND it’s chrome lined as well…
      No thanks.

      • Clint Notestine

        are you gonna be firing commie 308?

        • Doom

          chroming makes it more reliable for extraction and WAY easier to clean.

    • Anonymoose

      Because everyone loves their barely-legal barrels.

      • Doom

        everyone except ME D:

        • Anonymoose

          I’d actually like one with a 24″ barrel. :L

    • Brandon

      Is there really that much of an accuracy benefit with an HBAR?
      I’ve fired an AR15 with a 20″ HBAR and it feels very heavy and unbalanced.

      • Doom

        recoil reduction, heat dispersion, less barrel vibration, and it looks nice in my opinion.

        • Bill

          Nope. Shorter barrels have more favorable harmonics than longer ones. Note the many 16-20″ precision rifles for sale today when the category was dominated by 24 and even 26″ barrels for decades. Why? Tests have shown the shorter barrels are more accurate.

          • Doom

            thats why it needs to be a heavier barrel. yes, thin short barrels are more accurate than thin long barrels. but if it is thicker it reduces barrel flex

          • mikee

            Doom – ten years ago I may have agreed with you however, once again technology has moved on. The ideal profile for an accurate barrel in most applications is a medium to heavy Palma profile. The reason for this is that specialist barrel manufacturer’s techniques, metallurgy, computer simulations combined with field testing as well as ammunition loading components has proven that the old style heavy barrel has little if any advantage in accuracy any more.

          • Doom

            Palma barrels look like sporter barrels to me, and those things drift off target quickly after a few rounds.

          • DiverEngrSL17K

            Doom, I was going to say something about this, but you hit the nail on the head first. What everyone seems to have forgotten in the course of this debate is the fact that the flexion of any barrel is dependent on it’s length RELATIVE to outside diameter, wall thickness, material composition and barrel harmonics, NOT merely how long or short it is ( which seems to have become, quite incorrectly, the focal point of the argument without due consideration for proportion ).

          • mikee

            Not necessarily true anymore. Shorter barrels don’t cut it in FTR competiton – especially where longer ranges are concerned.

          • Laserbait

            The reason that you don’t have many long range shooters with short barrels is because of the velocity loss. They need/want all the velocity they can get, coupled with accuracy. Short barrels are more accurate, for any given diameter (a 0.920″ 16″ barrel will be more accurate than a 26″ of the same quality), however, because of the velocity loss there will be more drop (and a quicker transition to transonic speeds which can destabilize bullets) and precision shooters don’t want that.

          • mikee

            Laserbait – you’re right with additional qualifications. However I should have also mentioned that, a) lots of current newer competiton projectiles due to their design parameters won’t stabilise in shorter barrels and hence affect accuracy; b) Newer powders, for example Reloader 17, give superior performance in longer barrels due to the nature of their deflagration rate. Been there done that and still doing that!!

          • Esh325

            If shorter barrels were more accurate, then why don’t say sniper rifles have say 10 inch barrels? I’ve only heard this strange theory about shorter barrels being more accurate recently.

          • loopydupe

            Shorter barrels of the same contour are more rigid, and are perhaps more likely to have more ‘inherit’ accuracy. True.

            But, the slower you throw the bullet, the longer it’s in the air, and while it’s in the air, it’s falling and catching wind. Gravity is consistent, and you can account for it pretty well with consistent ammo, but wind can be tricky.

            Flattening out the trajectory, simplifying external ballistics, as range increases, that can become a big priority. Big enough that it’s worthwhile to very slightly sacrifice how perfectly straight the bullet was thrown in the first place.

    • BOB

      I agree, speed is king. If I’m rocking a 7.62 its cause I want to reach out there, not clear a house, if I want barrier pentration in the house and CAN’t get a 20inch .308 in there, I’d opt for a x39, not a 16 inch version of the .308. I love short barreled carbines but loath short barreled MBRs

      • me

        This. So much this.

        Every rifle cartridge has a barrel length below which the ballistics become seriously suboptimum. For 5.56mm it’s 16″ or so, which is why the Army’s 14″ M4 carbines have problems with bullets failing to yaw and fragment in soft tissue. For 7.62×51 it’s around 18″ or so.

        If I can’t sling a 168gr MatchKing or AMAX at 2500+ at a safe chamber pressure, I don’t want it. If I can’t throw 147s or 150s at 2700+, well, if I wanted lesser .30 caliber ballistics I’ve got an SKS that weighs less and is cheaper to feed for almost the same performance.

        oh. Having examined one of these rifles at a gun show this weekend, I found it a lot heavier than anything with a 16″ barrel and an M4 stock has any reason to be, and very muzzle-heavy. Maybe a different choice in freefloat tubes could help on that score.

        I’d like to see Ruger try again, and add 2″ to the barrel, gas system, and handguard. Hopefully this wouldn’t make the weight distribution that much worse. Maybe a different handguard could mitigate this.

    • Michael

      Why 16 inch? To make money.
      Most people want a 16 inch “tactical” rifle nowadays.
      This is a sweet looking rifle, but not cheap

  • fjkhoury01

    You know what the American shooting public needs…more AR variants.

    • Guest

      Hey, it’s still a grand less than all other .308 piston ARs afaik…

  • Anonymous

    For $500 less you can get an M&P-10 with a respectable 18″ barrel, ambi controls, and nearly an entire pound lighter.

    • Doom

      ambi controls suck if you are right handed, and their ambi control looked pretty sub par. Also a pencil barrel and the recoil looked horrific.

      • iksnilol

        How can ambi controls suck when they are y’know ambidextrous?

        • Clint Notestine

          because if you are a righty your fingers will start touching things it wasnt designed to

          • Foo

            You’ll put your eye out, kid.

          • ThomasD

            “This is my rifle, this is my gun…”

        • Doom

          Like clint said, they are in the way if you are right handed, when you flip the safety down to shoot it will rub the top of your trigger finger.

  • Sam Cadle (TFB)

    I am a large frame AR guy, and I am also a believer in the piston systems… With a 20″ barrel this thing would be unstoppable… But they really seem to have crippled it for any sort of medium range application, not to mention the muzzle blast you are going to get out this thing. Maybe when they come out with a 20″ version I would be more interested… But until then its a great concept to me…

  • schizuki

    Needs a 18″ barrel and a fixed stock. If it’s in .308, it’s a rifle, not a carbine.

    • Anonymoose

      Barrel length and caliber determine whether something is a carbine or not. .223 and 6.8 aren’t pistol cartridges, and there are carbines chambered for those, so why could a gun chambered in .308 not also be a carbine?

      • BOB

        aside from bullet weight (the lesser component of m*v^2) a bullet out of a short barreled .308 has very little to no speed advantage over a x39, so why not just rock an ar in an off caliber or a carbine in x39? Lighter, cheaper, less recoil and flash… Short barreled MBRs are not efficient. You get most the weight with less range and KE. lose/lose

        • schizuki

          Yep, seems to me if you want to fire a 7.62 bullet out of a carbine, then 7.62×39 or .300 Blackout has you covered. A 7.62mm NATO out of a 16″ is a waste of powder.

        • longtimeoff

          with modern powders and heavier bullet weights the .308 will far outclass an x39 in carbine form. Testing has shown that modern powders only need 16-18 inches to achieve complete burn and deliver the speed similar to that of older powders requiring a 20-26 inch barrels.

          • mikee

            Longtimeoff – carefull with your pressures Eugene!! (paraphrasing Pink Floyd….axe).

          • longtimeoff

            Check out this 12.5 inch .308 AR at 200 and 300 yards.


            Big Shooterist is the channel.

      • schizuki

        Let me re-phrase. If it’s in .308, it SHOULD be a rifle, not a carbine.

        • Anonymoose

          I think what you mean is that should be IN a rifle, not in a carbine. .300 BLK and 7.62×39 are for designed to be shot from carbines; 7.62×51 NATO, like 5.56x45mm NATO and 5.45x39mm, is only in carbines because a lot of civilians like their barely-legal barrels and the military doesn’t have to buy a third caliber that doesn’t suck out of short-barreled guns (this is why the Individual Carbine program allowed 7.62x51mm NATO entrants- heavier boolits perform better than light 5.56mm boolits from the short barrels that our modern, mechanized Army prefers). Plenty of the world’s militaries have issued short-barreled FAL and G3 variants (not to mention WWII-era carbines like the No.5 Lee-Enfield and the M38 and M44 Nugget) simply because they didn’t want to add another, shorter-cased cartridge for carbines that would mess up their logistics.

  • Aaron E

    I suppose it was inevitable that Ruger would release a .308 version. The rifle looks nice, and has some nice features, but it’s not really set up to be a long distance shooter – more of a heavier bullet carbine. The 16″ barrel would be stretched at distance. Chrome lined is nice for cleaning, but not preferred for true precision rifles. And then there’s the stock … they didn’t even put on an upgraded collapsible stock. That thing would have to go.

    Personally, I’d save another $500 and get the GA Precision GAP-10. GA is well known for making some incredibly accurate rifles, and they did it right when they produced their semi-auto .308. GA will officially guarantee 1-MOA accuracy out of the box, but I have talked with several users who advise that 1/2-MOA groupings are common.

    http://www.gaprecision.net/ga-precision-2013-custom-rifles/ga-precision-g.a.-precision-gap-10-.html

  • schizuki

    “Many readers may already know this, but the 7.62 NATO cartridge is based on the .308 Winchester cartridge.”

    Nope. Other way around. Winchester developed the .308 from the 7.62
    NATO (then called the T65). The T65 was developed from the .300 Savage.

    • dedanann

      Wrong, 308 Winchester came out two years before Nato 7.62

      • schizuki

        You’re confusing production dates with design dates.

        http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2011/02/history-30-80-wcf-origin-of-308.html

        “In 1944 Springfield Armory was instructed to develop the new weapon and Frankford Arsenal to develop the cartridge. Guided by general cartridge dimensions and desired ballistics established by the Chief of Ordnance, Frankford Arsenal purchased a supply of commercial .300 Savage brass from both Winchester and Remington and assembled them into test cartridges to determine pressures, velocities, and appropriate powders and primers. Once it was concluded that the project was feasible the Arsenal produced 10,000 prototype cases for further development and designated the cartridge the T65. Over the course of the next five years the T65 went through several design changes including neck length, shoulder angle, and case length. The final case design was approved in 1949 and designated the FAT 1E3 but tests continued until August 1954 when the assembled cartridge was standardized as the 7 .62 x 5lmm NATO.

        “Even though some of the prototype Frankford Arsenal cases mysteriously made their way into wildcatter’s hands in 1950 and 1951, it wasn’t until 1952 that the Chief of Ordnance gave Winchester permission to use the FAT 1E3 case commercially. Winchester introduced both the cartridge, the .308 Winchester, and its new Model 70 Featherweight Rifle in late 1952.”

  • schizuki

    This is an 18-20″ barrel, fixed stock and two recalls away from being on my gotta-get list.

    • Clint Notestine

      its an AR-10 so plenty of parts like butt stocks n such

      • schizuki

        I don’t have an unlimited supply of money to customize every firearm I buy.

        • Clint Notestine

          its 50 bucks

      • Anonymoose

        It’s also piston-operated, which might throw some people off while attracting another set of customers.

  • Clint Notestine

    the brits picked the 16in barrel for the L129a1 so obviously its not a big factor for them… maybe they have it right

  • Laserbait

    I love you guys, you kill me… If it was released as a 20″, you’d be complaining that it wasn’t a 16″ or 18″. If it came out with a fixed stock, you be complaining that it didn’t have a adjustable stock. I’m surprised no one has complained that it’s a piston gun.

    • schizuki

      Um… no. If it came out in 20″, then people who like short barrels would complain. If it came with a fixed stock, then people who like collapsible stocks would complain. I imagine nobody has complained about the piston because there are no big DI fans who have read this so far.

      Different people value different things in firearms. We’re not just a bunch of naysayers who automatically criticize whatever a gunmaker builds and then insanely and arbitrarily criticize the exact opposite. What an absurd comment you’ve made.

      • Laserbait

        Not absurd at all, it was an observation of all the comments that that I have seen on here, and most every article here.

        • schizuki

          So you’ve observed the same people saying utterly opposite things? If you ever see me do that, let me know so I can get a CAT scan. I highly doubt that when Ruger puts a 20″ barrel on this rifle I’m going to say, “That’s dumb, it should be a 16″ just to be contrary.

  • http://www.fnhusa.com/ Kyle Sarver
  • longtimeoff

    As much as I like the AR platform I would rather have seen a beefed up Mini-14 in .308 instead of yet another AR rifle. And 2000 dollars? Give me a break.

    • Doom

      a mini 14 in 308 is called an m14 lol. this >needs< to be done though. i wonder if they cant because of investment casting?

      • longtimeoff

        Springfield uses investment casting for their M1
        a receivers with good success. Ruger announced a .308 Mini several years ago then made excuses for not bring it to market.
        come on MFG’s make a good looking .308 semi auto carbine/rifle that is not AR based.

        • Doom

          ah, the more you know. actually I may have known that, arent they made in Canada? the receivers that is

    • me

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_XGI

      Bill Ruger tried it 29 years ago. They were able to get the rifle to cycle but could not, by all accounts, get it to shoot any ammunition much under 5 MOA. Which is why they announced it, and put it in their catalogs, then it never hit store shelves and they dropped it down the Memory Hole.

  • Kevin Nguyen

    I got a WOA SS SPR 18″ chopped to 14.6″ pinned AAC Blackout muzzls brake that’s stiff and straight like a morning wood :-) Mega Arms Billet Upper/Lower + EOtech 553 = 10 lbs or 11 tons with M4-2000, POI = 0. I would have to say pre 18″ @ 100-200 to post 14.6″ < or = 1MOA.

    We can all argue or agree, its optic + shooter that really counts IMO.

  • Ragsdale0509

    No you’re all wrong! It needs a 23.5″ barrel and a side-folding stock. You folks kill me ;-) Tough crowd. Nothing Ruger does is ever right. Nevertheless, their stock is $70 per share now and they’re one of the most, if not the most, profitable firearms companies in the US. I think Ruger knows a thing or two about what the public wants to buy. No doubt they’ll sell a lot of them. For everyone else, you can always build what you want or have GA Precision build it for you.

  • Strayz

    How about just buying this rifle and slapping a can on it to make up the extra 6-8 inches everyone seems to think is missing. Because we all know everyone that is posting up a complaint about the shorter barrel, are all shooting at 1200 yards and pulling MOE from the Bulk ammo they purchased from Earl’s gun shop around the ‘corner.

  • igyz

    Can anyone tell me the correct picatinny rails to buy to mount an Atlas BT10 (1913) bi-pod?