7.62x39 vs. .223

Originally posted by Jkd Up
reply to post by BigDave-AR

 

If you don't have one, I'd hve to recomend a Mosin-Nagant. It can be found new for less than a hundred bucks and, if nothing else, is great for dislocating shoulders

I have one scoped to 700 meters and the sheer ferocity of the bullet (even at that range) is incredible. I have shot a bowling pin at 300 meters and darn near ripped it in half. I think that is where you obviosly want a sniping rifle to possess.

I like your "Big Three" description. I have yet to fire a 7.62x51, but given the 54R... It's probobly just as impressive.

Yes indeed the Mosin is one hell of a rifle, was my first and it does kick like a mother but at $1 a shot a bit expensive.

I live up here in Alaska and I've heard that .223 is usually the caliber of choice when it comes to wildlife management personnel having to, unfortunately, shoot grizzlies that get too close to people or populated areas.

You could, of coarse, always choose to use the larger remington calibers (300 win mag or 308 for example) which are usually the caliber of choice for large game hunters up here like moose, sheep, and caribou.

However, in places like Kodiak where Grizzlies are basically everywhere, you have to have a method that you know will work. Typically, from what I've heard, .223 is preferred since one well-placed shot to the head will take a grizzly down no problem. I'm assuming the .223 is preferred over the other calibers for this application because of the velocity at impact.

I was in the Air Force for over 6 yrs. If I remember correctly, .223 (5.56mm) has a higher velocity, or at least closer up ,say, within 50-100 yards than the 7.62mm would have.

However, I believe Marine snipers still use standard NATO 7.62 rnds unless, of coarse, you're dealing with an area with much less physical and/or geographical cover where higher caliber is necessary to conceal your location. The 50 Cal. is definitely not going away anytime soon. Especially because of it's diverse military applications amongst all the armed forces.

Besides, the power to dismember a person from a mile away and still have noone know who shot you.. Priceless.

Originally posted by joejack

Originally posted by Jkd Up
reply to post by BigDave-AR

 

If you don't have one, I'd hve to recomend a Mosin-Nagant. It can be found new for less than a hundred bucks and, if nothing else, is great for dislocating shoulders

I have one scoped to 700 meters and the sheer ferocity of the bullet (even at that range) is incredible. I have shot a bowling pin at 300 meters and darn near ripped it in half. I think that is where you obviosly want a sniping rifle to possess.

I like your "Big Three" description. I have yet to fire a 7.62x51, but given the 54R... It's probobly just as impressive.

Yes indeed the Mosin is one hell of a rifle, was my first and it does kick like a mother but at $1 a shot a bit expensive.

1. If your Mosin-Nagant kicks "like a mother" you're holding it wrong, or very, very petite.

2. It's more like $0.12 / shot if you are shooting surplus ammo.

Originally posted by FarArcher
The .223/5.56 results after 200 meters get mixed.

The inherent inaccuracy of the AK after 200 meters gets mixed.

Not to say that neither one will kill after 200 meters, but neither one has a lot of reliability in terms of incapacitating hits.

I've dropped a runner at a tad over 400 meters with the .223, but there was a lot of luck involved.

The problem with these rounds is, "grunt."

Not a lot of "grunt" after 200 meters, and in fact they weren't designed to.

Both are close-in assault-type weapons, and a wise shooter will get a round with more "grunt" with the ability to facilitate kills beyond 200 meters.

I've been in a lot of debates on this issue and that is about as close of an argument as I've seen yet.

Funny there is a wiki on rifles for this debate...

en.wikipedia.org...

The 5.56x45 has an effective combat range of 550 meters and the 7.62x39 is 300meters.

I think for inside 50 yards I would rather have an AK. Long distance shooting...100meters or more I'd want an AR for accuracy reasons. AR's just have better sights. I love both my AK and AR though.

Originally posted by fatalwishes

Originally posted by FarArcher
The .223/5.56 results after 200 meters get mixed.

The inherent inaccuracy of the AK after 200 meters gets mixed.

Not to say that neither one will kill after 200 meters, but neither one has a lot of reliability in terms of incapacitating hits.

I've dropped a runner at a tad over 400 meters with the .223, but there was a lot of luck involved.

The problem with these rounds is, "grunt."

Not a lot of "grunt" after 200 meters, and in fact they weren't designed to.

Both are close-in assault-type weapons, and a wise shooter will get a round with more "grunt" with the ability to facilitate kills beyond 200 meters.

I've been in a lot of debates on this issue and that is about as close of an argument as I've seen yet.

Funny there is a wiki on rifles for this debate...

en.wikipedia.org...

The 5.56x45 has an effective combat range of 550 meters and the 7.62x39 is 300meters.

I think for inside 50 yards I would rather have an AK. Long distance shooting...100meters or more I'd want an AR for accuracy reasons. AR's just have better sights. I love both my AK and AR though.

6.8mm is definately a good compromise.

I say though that 5.56 wins for your standard soldier because you can carry more, it does massive tissue damage and the lighter recoil as well doesn't just allow better full auto fire, it also allows much better fire rate for accurate semi automatic fire. I've seen British soldiers firing at close range on enemy using their SA80's on semi auto to great effect rather than panicking and unloading their mags in full auto it gave them some accurate fire, but still at a high rate without depleting their rifles magazines so fast that they use them up on a small number of enemy.