7.62 x 39 vs .223 (5.56)
Man the .223(5.56) is just so little. I thought the 7.62 x 39 was a small caliber until I saw the .223 round up close. Opinion's please.
0
-
You're opening a can of worms, but here's my opinion:
The 7.62x39mm is a hell of a lot better than a 5.56mm NATO for any kind of combat operations. I've fired both with live ammo (I own an AK, and I've fired enough M-16s to be sick of them), and I'd pick the .30 cal any day of the week and twice on Thursday.
The downside is that the 7.62x39mm is a heavy round with a smaller amount of powder than the other .30 cal rounds out there, so it doesn't quite have the reach that the 5.56mm (.223) has. BUT (yes, there is a but) most combat engagements happen within 100 meters, which is the best range for both rounds, and within that distance, the AK can fire a 7.62x39mm with enough accuracy and precision to make it a significant threat on the battlefield. This fact, when paired with the higher kill power of the 7.62x39mm under 100 meters makes it a much better battlefield round than the puny 5.56mm NATO.
I'd rather carry an AK in combat than an M-16 OR an M-4. But if I had my choice for a combat rifle out of all the ones out there, I'd pick an FAL or a G3 (HK 91).0 -
Yep, pretty much agree with Zulu. I think that 5.56 round is a pea slinger. The 7.62x39 is a slug too, but head and shoulders above the 5.56. This country made a big mistake when it moved away from the 7.62x51. 0 -
Never let it be said "The 556 is a girly man round" 0 -
Ballistics Results
Cartridge Information
Index Number Cartridge Type Weight (grs.) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient
R223R1 Remingtonr Expressr 55 Pointed Soft Point 7 1/2 0.197
R762391 Remingtonr Expressr 125 Pointed Soft Point 7 1/2 0.267
Velocity (ft/sec)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Remingtonr Expressr 55 PSP 3240 2747 2304 1905 1554 1270
Remingtonr Expressr 125 PSP 2365 2062 1783 1533 1320 1154
Energy (ft-lbs)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Remingtonr Expressr 55 PSP 1282 921 648 443 295 197
Remingtonr Expressr 125 PSP 1552 1180 882 652 483 370
Short-Range Trajectory
Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300
Remingtonr Expressr 55 PSP 0.0 0.6 zero -2.0 -5.6 -11.2
Remingtonr Expressr 125 PSP 0.1 zero -2.2 -6.7 -14.0 -24.5
Long-Range Trajectory
Cartridge Type Bullet 100 150 200 250 300 400 500
Remingtonr Expressr 55 PSP 1.6 1.5 zero -3.1 -8.2 -26.2 -58.6
Remingtonr Expressr 125 PSP 1.5 zero -3.8 -10.4 -20.1 -51.3 -102.50 -
Ok here is my real life experiment I did.
I shot a 762X39 out of an AK47 at a steel gate post 3 inches in diameter that was filled with concrete.
Distance was 50yards.
762X39 busted through the front side and that was it.
I shot a 556 out of an AR with 16" barrel and the round busted through the front side and would dent/bulge the far side of the same post.0 -
Right loads right rifle correct shooter anyone can make a round a good one. 0 -
Maybe in the Nam combat ranges averaged less than 100 meters, but that doesn't mean they ALWAYS are. Both the .223 and 7.62 X 39 are mouse gun calibers.
The last serious all-purpose battle rifle we had was the M-14 (7.62 NATO), and the REALLY last one we had was the M-1(.30-06). The only reason we switched to the 16 was because the rifle manufacturers - mainly Colt - needed some new busines. Also, girls could handle the (no) recoil and light weight of it.
Our troops do pretty well with the 16, but far fewer would be dead if they shot a more serious round that could keep encounter ranges at more than 200 meters.
Flame on.
D.0 -
I wonder if this post will start more arguments than tha NRA vs GOA post?[}:)][}:)][}:)][;)] 0 -
The original goal of the .223 was to acheive bullet fragmentation, wherein, upon impact, the bullet would yaw and then fragment at the cannelure, causing very nasty wounds. The required velocity for this to happen is around 2700 FPS. This concept was proved feasible and effective in Vietnam.
However, current military strategy has been to shorten the barrel length to 16" and increase bullet weight, which means the critical velocity is never acheived, and consequently the bullet only yaws instead of fragmenting. In other words, the .223 could be a devastating round, but only when fired from a full length rifle and using the correct high-velocity loading.
As it exists currently, the .223 is more like an ice-pick - it stabs right through the target causing little damage as it goes.0 -
I understand what you are asking. I recently decided to purchase my first AR. I went through the same thing; AR-15 vs AR-10. I eventually purchased the DPMS Panther LR 308AP4. My suggestion is to ask the questions:
What are you going to use it for? Plinking on the range(5.56)? Some medium to long distance hunting(7.62)? Personal defense around your homesite(5.56 or 7.62)?
Also go find a range that will allow you to shoot both. Travel a couple hours if necessary, you will be spending $750-$1500 on a good one, so you might as well like the one you buy.
I will use mine alongside my Remington 7400 30.06 for hunting wild hogs in the Savannah River Valley and for the "cool" factor around my local range for medium to long distance target shooting.
Just my 2 cents.0 -
One of the most read texts on the subject seems to be the "Saga of the M16" by Dick Culver.
I quote (not boring):
"Yes you say, but what about that fantastic "meat ax" effect that the 5.56mm round has on flesh? Won't the 5.56 mm tear a man's arm or head off if it hits him? In a word, no! This is a myth that has been perpetuated since the AR-15/M16's earliest days, and here is as good a place as any to lay this claim to rest! The original .223/5.56mm was derived from the little .222 Remington or at best the .223 Remington Magnum Cartridges.
Now the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum originally used a 40 or 45 grain bullet and a 1-14 barrel twist. Ballistic engineers found that 55 grain bullet pushed the stability of the 1-14 twist to the absolute limit in terms of stability. The initial rounds loaded for the 5.56mm were marginally ballistically stable, and tended to tumble if anything got in its way.
This was apparently especially true of flesh. A 55 grain bullet striking flesh when only stabilized with a 1-14 twist, tumbled with devastating results, but it had a problem - it was only marginally accurate.
Now it's possible to have a bullet that is known to tumble, but if it won't reliably hit the target at the maximum effective range you are in big trouble. After the initial test results (including some in Southeast Asia) were in, it was apparent that this WAS an effective round (assuming that a tumbling bullet was employed)! However, it also became obvious that this rifle wasn't exactly a "tack driver" in terms of accuracy. Air Force cold weather tests in January 1963 showed definite "bullet wobble" around the projectile's rotational axis causing unacceptable accuracy. As any good ordnance folks would do, they tightened the twist to 1-12 and the accuracy improved.
The order to change the barrel twist was signed by Robert S. McNamara on the 26th of July 1963. The accuracy immediately improved, but the "magic bullet" quit tumbling! All of a sudden, we had a reasonably accurate round with a bullet that was essentially ineffective in terms of cleaving flesh with the much vaunted "meat ax effect". The round was now reasonably accurate, but much underpowered for its designed maximum effective range of 500 yds."0 -
Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the reasons used to switch to the .223 was because the ammo was lighter and in thje field a soldier could carry more rounds. Personally I see this as a good reason in WWII or Vietnam but as far as I know in Iraq soliders are never far from resupply trucks or their home base and therefore it would be far easier for a soldier to carry the 7.62 rounds and resupply (in munutes or hours) versus days like in previous wars. 0 -
the 5.56 is smaller caliber and low power, yes, but it's intended to break apart at the cannelurlleurelele when it hits a soft target and yaws, crating a small scale shrapnel effect inside the wound channel. since flesh is elastic, it "balloons" and the fragments 'pop' the balloon.
the 7.62x39 (military) on the other hand has no caneurrelele, and relies entirely on yaw and its flat bottom to create a larger wound. unfortunately it penetrates rather far before starting to go sideways. but when it does, it does so reliably.
there's a very good book that goes over all this, and it's a fairly common book, but I forgot the name of it right now.
so regarding damage potential, you do get more bang for your buck with the 5.56. it's just that the 7.62 paid more in the first place. the 7.62 gets the added benefit of better penetration to deny cover to hostiles.
there's plenty other reasons why the 5.56 is used instead of some medium power .30 besides simply wound potential. most importantly was the consideration of hit probability in full auto fire. other that that, it's lighter, uses less cleaning supplies, costs less materials to produce, etc.
so you can see that for those reasons and economy of scale, the 5.56 is better suited to military applications. however, 7.62x39 is the right choice for the civilian who would engage hostile targets under 200 yards with semiauto fire and doesn't need to buy 30,000,000 rounds or worry about the logistics.0 -
oh yeah, regarding 5.56 breaking apart at the cannelurelele, supposedly after about 130? yards it doesn't have enough velocity to do that. so wound potential drops considerably.
regarding hitting what you're aiming at, 5.56 ammo is made better, 7.62 ammo is always cheaply made, so if 7.62 ammo was made to the same standard as the 5.56 it would shoot better. that's the opinion of peter g. kokalis.
and the 7.62 has a lot of bullet drop.
so it's like choosing between a fencing epee or a baseball bat.0 -
The way i see it, if your shooting more than 100-125 yds for accuracy you want the 5.56, If your looking to for stopping power at about 100 yds the 7.62 would be your best bet. But what i really like is the 6.8 caliber round theyve been testing. 6.8 seems just right not to big not to little. -Dave 0 -
I always thought a .223 round looked a little puny.About 10 years ago I bought a Handi-Rifle in 223 because I got a good deal on it and I had 25 pounds of 223 brass and no rifle to use it in.The Handi-Rifle was pretty accurate so I took it on an afternoon deer hunt even though I have heard the 223 will not kill a deer stories.I took a nearly perfect broadside shot at a big doe at little over a hundred yards.I put the crosshairs on her neck and shot.The deer crashed where it stood,kicked twice and never moved again.Since then I have lost count of the deer I took with a 223.I think the 223 is a better round than I gave it credit for.As far as the 7.62x39 I feel sure it would make a good deer round but all I have ever had was a SKS and I cant shoot iron sights good enough with my old eyes to shoot at a deer with it. 0 -
Boy, I never thought I'd see such politically correct, brainwashed people here.
This is a lot like the 9MM vs .45 ACP argument. 9MM=115 grain bullet weight, .45=230 grain bullet weight. Is the conclusion obscure?? One must hit the target twice with a 9MM to put as much weight as 1 hit with a .45.
Why would one NEED to carry a lot of ammo?? So one could support full-auto firing. Why would one NEED full-auto firing?? To support shoddily trained troops...and more, and more.
Both the 7.62 X 39, or 5.56 are designed so that small people can carry them.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Both the 7.62 X 39, or 5.56 are designed so that small people can carry them.
I don't think so, Chuck.0 -
I find it hard to argue about combat situations as i have no experience. But when engaged with a hostle target is it safe to say that your accuacy drops because of panic and adrenaline surges and your shot placement might not be true every time you pull that trigger and surpressing fire might be an important aspect. The more ammo you can lay down to keep there heads down maybe the better. I am not saying i am right just seems logical. feel free to correct me.
As far as the 5.56 being not as poweful like said before its a the heavyness of bullets 180 grain vs a 55-75 grain bullet.0 -
Shucks Chuck, Don, Dan.
D.0 -
Excellent information. Thank's everyone. 0 -
Everyone just needs to carry a semi-auto .50 BMG rifle of some sort. Get rid of all the other calibers in the world. .50 BMG primary weapon with a .45 ACP sidearm. We'll all be uberhappy then. 0 -
Yeah. 50 BMG minimum. Those other puny rounds are nothing more then a nusiance to the enemy. Much like buzzing mosquitoes. 0 -
I don't care the caliber; out to 200 yards with any modern (reasonable) centerfire rifle I will hit you in the head, offhand on the first shot 95% of the time.
I am a rifleman.0 -
...I think we are trying to compare apples with oranges here! The .223 was developed as a combat cartridge, and believe it or not ...NOT to kill! The thinking is it's better carry alot of ammo and to wound a solider so he's hollering for help from his buddies then to kill him outright! However the cartridge has to be "bad" enough so he knows he's hit. Russians must think the same thing because the went to the 5.45x39 cartridge!
...NOW if your trying to "kill" something big then .30cal is way better. But 30-06 is way better then 7.62x39 in this roll! My $0.02 anyway!0 -
... I bet that Jim Zumbo will pick an AR-15 in .223 [}:)][}:)][}:)]! 0 -
I still would not call the 7.62 round small. As far as my use goes, both for plinking at the range 0-200 yds. Shooting hogs 0-150 I'll use my SKS. Shooting coyotes 0-300 I'll use my M4. 0 -
Hmmm...since the majority of us aren't military, and aren't limited to hardball ammo...I'll take my AR loaded with 55grn V-MAX (or, any 55grn JHP for that matter) as a stopper over 7.62x39 any day. And if I can EVER get a off the rack semi-auto rifle in 7.62x39 in the same weight and capable of the same accuracy as my Bushy A2--and also has the same choice of bullet weights & types, I'll think about switching.
My SKS is ok, but if I ever have to grab a rifle for a serious social encounter, I'll have my AR.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
Everyone just needs to carry a semi-auto .50 BMG rifle of some sort. Get rid of all the other calibers in the world. .50 BMG primary weapon with a .45 ACP sidearm. We'll all be uberhappy then.
You say that, but at the AUSA show last year Barrett was pitching an M82A1 with a 20-inch barrel, an EOTech, and a pintle mount. Based on the pictures, I can only assume they had close-range anti-vehicle and anti-entrenched sniper roles in mind (with more ROE precision than the Ma-Deuce could offer).
Also keep in mind that the Army and Marines both had some (albeit brief) interest in Tony Rumore's Tromix Sledgehammer.
Edit: This is completely and totally off topic, but I can't pass up an opportunity for a Tromix pic. This is a 12-gauge Saiga-variant machine shotgun with a 10 round magazine.
0 -
The only solution is a real-life test: for this I submit the following. Get a Savage M24. the top barrel is already available in .223; all that needs to be done is remove the shotgun barrel and replace it with a 7.62x39 chambering. then when you see an enemy, fire both cartridges simultaneously, then see what happens. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
30 comments