7.62x39 vs. .223

Modularity is king...

Personally for economic purposes we have a pair of m16a4 civilian style variants with 6 position stocks chambered in 5.45 by 39... We also chamber Uppers in 5.56 7.62 russian and soon to be sundry others....

Bottom LIne is 5.45 by 39 costs less than half what the absolute CHEAPEST 5.56 surplus ammo costs ... and with our environment quantity has a quality all it's own...

(fun fact the 5.56 nato and 5.45 by 39 rounds use the same magazines which cuts down even more on stuff we have to buy again for the two cartridges)

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by Jkd Up

 

environment plays a huge role in choice.

in an indoor, moisture, sand, dirt free atmosphere choose the .223

any environment outdoors where debris moisture or dirt contact the weapon go with 7.62x39

murphy's law HAS kicked in MANY times causing death to the soul with the jammed m-16/ar-15...

anyone who relies on these garbage guns is palying russian roulette.

an sks will never let you down, ice, mud or sand..

I have to agree with you there.. When I was in the Army, I had 2 different m16's jam on me, coincidentally on qualification days.. The M16/Ar-15 is more accurate because it has much tighter tolerances in the action, The AK isn't as accurate because its tolerances are very loose, BUT, having loose tolerances means there is room inside there for everything to keep moving, even if there is dirt/debris in the action. I think the m16's are "cool" looking, but id pick an AK/SKS any day. They keep on ticking. I know many people who have said theirs AR is, but they are shooting from a bench, with a nice clean weapon. Besides, an AK/SKS rifle is just dirt cheap, as well as ammo, compared to the AR platform.


Deebo

7.62 vs. 5.56 is quite a debate. The answer is quite simply, "it depends."

There is a multi-trillion dollar, beast of a machine, called The United States Armed Forces and "The Military Industrial Complex." These two combined have spend more money and time, using the latest technology, with some of the most intelligent minds, all to figure out the best way to arm our troops.

These people have decided that the 5.56 is the best all purpose round for our general infantry. There are many factors involved in this choice. Here are a few:

The 5.56:
Has a lighter weight, allowing for more rounds to be carried.
Has a flatter trajectory.
Fragments up to 200m leaving a far bigger wound.
Beyond 300m has a high "wound" probability. The idea being in battle a wounded soldier takes two other soldiers to tend to him.(3 men out of the fight)
Less recoil. Try a 3 round burst with an AK at 100m...let us know how you do.
More accurate.
More distance, stays super sonic longer.
Most importantly...it's cheaper.

This isn't to say the 5.56 doesn't have it's short comings. It doesn't have the stopping power (energy). It's more affected by wind and foliage.

If I was hunting game and had choose between the two it would be the 7.62.
For a SHTF senario I prefer the 5.56 off the AR platform.

It's an age old debate and the only real answer seems to be the 6.4 Grendel or the Rem 6.8

This is possibly the oldest argument known to man.

Well not the oldest.

In my humble opinion, .223 is king for 90 % of people seeking a "...." rifle. A rifle they dont need, nor know of any future need. Its to have. I have one. i love it. If you need a more powerful bullet than .223 go .308.

Personally Im in the camp of easier to handle muzzle rise with the .223. Many people not only buy the rifle, they buy a nice optic also. Have you ever tried to shoot an ak47 with a trijicon on it? Can be done, but difficult. Even with an eotech, most people could not aim an ak repeatedly. The AK just jumps too much. Not so with .223

i do love the AK tho. Great fun.

Another thing to consider is the distance of the contacts you plan on reaching out and touching... In my experiance, engagement was rarely longer than 500 meters. Not to say it didn't happen, but after that the weapon is not as much the savior, as the person pulling the trigger. I have seen a lot of 5.56 ammo shot twards a window here one person dropped two soldiers with an AK.

reply to post by Jkd Up


My take:

the lower kick of the .223 makes it a better round for combat and situations where you would need to fire faster than 1 time every 10-20 seconds.

The 7.62 is a good sniping round (i am not as big a fan of the .223 to bring down anything larger than 100lbs consistently).

I would rather see sniping rifles return to the 30-06. I use a 30-30 for deer hunting. Talk about packing a punch. I just think that the .223 is too small for anything larger than 100 lbs.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I agree! Thanks for your input. I really like my 7.62x54R... But that is a subject for another post.

reply to post by Jkd Up


Long time OP....

Sorry to catch this one so late. I am sure what I will say has already been covered ad nauseum. Buy I never shy away from a chance to blab on shooting

Ammunition, or more correctly, the differences in ammunition change the physics equation depending on what you want to accomplish. Both their designs were driven by different prevailing thoughts of the day and what was believed to be needed by the troops. There was no one, be-all-end-all parameter. Instead, they were both the product of a concert of desired parameters.

Which is better at killing a human? Well, they both have proven reliable. A lot of graves can attest to that. You read a lot of the same about this or that sized ammunition for taking down this or that sized critter. A lot of it is an irrelevant discussion compared to shot placement and energy upon the target.

Personally, I feel a good tool box is a tool box with flexibility. If I need a 7/8" socket, a 1/2" will not do or vise versa. I like both cartridges. Holding my feet to the fire? If I had to chose one for shooting people, the .223/5.56 will do the job more precisely, at a longer distance, more consistently. The .223/5.56 will deliver enough energy to do the job using the speed side of the equation. A human being is not that tough of a critter compared to a hog or deer. They will go down.

Thanks for the post OP. Good stuff to talk about.

reply to post by ABNARTY



My Friend! Always a pleasure to have your two cents (even your four, five and six cents) worth!

I agree with the toolbox theory as well. But because of this thread I have learned far more about the ammo in question them I could have hoped to! I applaud everyone for their input and know there is even more out there, so I'd love to hear it!

My SHTF Weapons,

-MSAR STG-E4 in 5.56 NATO, 18.5 in heavy barrel, EoTech L-3 Holo. optics

-Smith and Wesson M&P in .357 Sig or .40 S&W, interchangeable drop-in barrels so can fire either cartridge with the same action.I prefer the .357 Sig cartridge over any other pistol round but it's nice to be able to fire either cartridge when it comes down to ammunition availability.

-Trued Weatherby Vanguard SUB-MOA in 7mm Rem. Mag. with Nikon 4 - 16 x 50mm optics, Harris Bi-pod...it's just a 1000 yard plinker...

-19 inch Garud Ang Khola (chop-chop baby)

6.5 Grendel would be my caliber of choice for NATO to adopt if they really ever wanted to improve upon the 5.56 cartridge, IMO it's the best caliber that's been developed for a battle rifle.Best platform would be based upon the Steyr Aug.

I just want to add that barrel length and twist along with type of action also greatly impact a weapons performance.Bullet weight and cartridge powder load as well.
Just as a mechanic can fine tune an automobiles engine the same can be said of a ballistic weapon.

reply to post by bozzchem


I have some brass 7.62x39. The brand is MFS and its very expensive as far
as 7.62 goes.

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by kozmo

 

bs.. where???? the 5.56 is not gonna drop someone unless it a head shot.. 39 will drop you with one shot..

now, are you actually gonna suggest that the ar/m16 rifles dont have jamming problems?? really?

i spent 6 years in usmc

Did you read what I wrote? I'm not debating the m16 platform... I am debating the ROUND - the m16 is NOT the only 5.56 platform ya know. Over 10K rounds through my Sig and not one jam. I also don't disagree that the 7.62 will drop you in a single shot - I stated that I would rather shoulder a .308 than a 7.62 and that the 5.56 is an effective round for what it was designed to do.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Jkd Up

 

My take:

the lower kick of the .223 makes it a better round for combat and situations where you would need to fire faster than 1 time every 10-20 seconds.

The 7.62 is a good sniping round (i am not as big a fan of the .223 to bring down anything larger than 100lbs consistently).

I would rather see sniping rifles return to the 30-06. I use a 30-30 for deer hunting. Talk about packing a punch. I just think that the .223 is too small for anything larger than 100 lbs.

Unless you are a 8 year old girl, the kick of a .223 vs. that of a 7.62x39 is a moot point. They both have very very little recoil.

In Viet Nam 8 year old girls were using the AK quite effectively against our troops, firing faster than once every 10-20 seconds.

Neither one is a good "sniping" round, as they haven't the terminal velocity to bring down a target beyond a few hundred yards or so.

PS - compare the military standard loads for the .308 to the .30-06 and you will see that the ballistics are nearly the same. This is why the .300 WM and the .338 Lapua are now becoming the sniper calibers of choice - out beyond 1000 yards the magnum power really helps.

reply to post by Jkd Up


This may have been posted here on ATS somewhere but I am too lazy to hunt it down.

www.youtube.com...

It is a penetration test between several types of ammunition discussed in this thread.

www.beartoothbullets.com...

The above link breaks it down even further by allowing you to enter all the variables ro build the round you need.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou



Except those particular rounds were not what the choices were.

I, personally, am a fan of the .308. You get the ballistics from the pointed round (as opposed to the 30-30 which i referenced earlier), and a decent muzzle velocity. No, it may not be as effective over about 300 yards (maybe only 200)...but i am not killing people. I am hunting deer and hog in the Texas brush.

I use a Marlin 336 with the Marlin scope. It was my dads rifle. Nothing special. But well known and very, very reliable. I will probably buy my son the same thing. I like the lever action rifles. Feels like the old west when you use them.

I couldn't even begin to tell you what would work at a 1000 yd range, outside of the 30-06. Never had need for that kind of shot.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou

why do these threads always end up being m16 vs ak debates?

In my experience, cheap surplus 7.62x39 is a lot easier to comeby than cheap .223 (which sounds like an oxymoron to me ).

As for overcoming accuracy issues, my AK has a longer, heavier barrel than most, and spat rounds better than the .223 Mini-14 I ended up getting rid of. Granted, I regret that decision.

reply to post by tomcat ha


Lack of understanding? Lack of experience? Much more of a hot button discussion? Sort of like how any discussion will always devolve into sex, politics, or religion. It is the black hole of firearms discussions. Once you cross the event horizon, there is no return.