Not Again: .223 vs. 7.62 by 39


PDA






Drakejake
April 27, 2005, 11:58 PM
Which of these two major calibres gets the edge for self-defense and battlefield use in semi-auto rifles? If a gang started firing at your house, would you pick up the Mini-14 or the AK? Does the much heavier bullet of the 7.62 compensate for the higher velocity and alleged tumbling motion of the .223? I know this is a stale topic but I would like some fresh ideas.

Thanks,

Drakejake

If you enjoyed reading about "Not Again: .223 vs. 7.62 by 39" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
natedog
April 28, 2005, 12:50 AM
Between a Mini-14 and an AK? AK anyday, but not because of the round. I prefer 5.56. Either will do, though.

Edited to add: It's not alleged tumbling. Fire a 5.56mm M193 round into nearly any medium denser than air (water, pumpkin, animal, ballistic geletin, etc.) and you can see the fragmentation for yourself.

g56
April 28, 2005, 01:01 AM
I would pick up my AR15, the 5.56mm is a more effective round than 7.62x39 and the AR is far more accurate. I'm not wading through the rice paddies or jungles of SE Asia, so reliability under jungle conditions isn't an issue, my AR has perfect reliability under the conditions that I use it.

epijunkie67
April 28, 2005, 01:07 AM
Realize you aren't going to get bullet fragmentation without enough velocity so in part it depends on your weapon system and range. The lighter, faster 5.56 will make it easier to hit at a distance though.

Up close I think either will cause plenty of damage and if the range is under 75 yards I'd pick the weapon that was the most reliable and fed hi cap mags the best. I think a better comparison might be between the AK and a keltec SU16. Both cheap, accept high caps, reliable, and the Su has enough barrel to utilize the 5.56. In that case I'd say.... Pick the one you're most comfortable shooting.

MagnumCaliber357
April 28, 2005, 01:10 AM
I would be more comfortable knowing my rifle can hit something past 300 yrds with decent accuracy ..Thats why id pick up an AR platform over the AK

If i want stopping power I'll match it with my 1911 at my hip :D

:scrutiny: Now if i had to go into a jungle filled with mutant zombies .... Id prob pick up the AK for reliablity and durablity

cracked butt
April 28, 2005, 02:09 AM
To use an updated version of a somewhat politically incorrect idiom (by some people's standards):

Its the Native American that matters, not the arrows he's using. ;)

rockstar.esq
April 28, 2005, 02:18 AM
Uhhh is the .308 Win an option? 45-70? How about 30-06?
Just messing around, I'd chose which ever one I could shoot better.

LiquidTension
April 28, 2005, 02:29 AM
If a gang started firing at my house I'd grab whatever was close and ready. In my case it would be....well, both 7.62 and .223. Of course, they're both coming out of AKs :neener: Does that help?

Seriously, at "gang firing at house" distances, you're not going to be taking advantage of the .223's accuracy edge, so you might as well grab whatever is reliable that you're comfortable with. In other words, your scenario doesn't lend itself to making a caliber distinction. As far as tumbling goes, both are going to go through the car door that is serving as the banger's protection.

That said, there will be no Mini-14 in my house unless it is given to me for free.

c_yeager
April 28, 2005, 02:57 AM
Its interesting that the ranges at which the accuracy of the AR15 make a difference are also beyond the range where fragmentation can be expected. ARs are DEFINATLY better at hitting targets at 300 yards than an AK, but at that range the itty-bitty bullet starts to make a difference. Really, U.S. snipers solved this dilema a long time ago by simply not using .223 to engage targets at long range. They use .308 (and some other stuff im sure) and for that sort of work it makes a lot of sense.

Of course the original poster didnt even mention the AR15 as an option. When comparing the mini-14 and AK47 accuracy isnt an issue, since they are pretty comparable. I would pick whichever one you have found to be more reliable. Conventional wisdom seems to indicate that the AK is the better choice in this department, but conventional wisdom doesnt help you much with you and your particular rifles.

Its academic for me anyways, I cant imagine a justifiable civilian shooting at 300 yards anyways. In real life i seriously doubt that even 20 yards is likely. At that range i dont think the choice matters very much. Both the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 have put a LOT of people in the ground, and there is no reason to expect that they wouldnt do the same for you.

Commissar Gribb
April 28, 2005, 08:41 AM
The obvious justification for shooting someone that far away is if they themselves are shooting at you with a rifle.

I see the chances of this being far rarer but still- that would be the situation.

Quintin Likely
April 28, 2005, 08:56 AM
If they're a few hundred yards away, that gives me the opportunity to make a strategic retreat before anything else.

I only have an AR, so if it were me, the choice would default to .223.

LeonCarr
April 28, 2005, 09:02 AM
Flame suit on :).

I like the AK better myself. I shoot the 7.62 x 39 because it is cheaper to shoot, and in my opinion has better terminal ballistics than the 5.56. We have heard billions of stories about stopping power issues with the 5.56, especially with the M4/M855 combination in places like Somalia and Iraq, but you very rarely, if ever, hear about Failure to Neutralize issues with an AK or SKS. At gang banging distances, either the AR or AK/SKS will work. For reaching past 300 yards, gimme a .308 or an '06.

I would say that I hate the Mini-14, but you have to care about a rifle to hate it :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Gewehr98
April 28, 2005, 09:40 AM
"Once more, into the breach dear friends..." ;)

foghornl
April 28, 2005, 09:54 AM
Since I don't own an AKxx or an ARxx, I'll pick up what I DO have...

The US Rifle Cal .30 M1...popularly known as "The Garand"


p.s. Love Gewehr98's lion pic....ROFL

thereisnospoon
April 28, 2005, 10:10 AM
"IF" bad guys ever come to my door, they'll be met first by my "ferociuos" 11 lb. boston terrier. If she doesn't lick them to death, she'll annoy the S*%T out of them while I grab the goods and stash the wife & kiddo. But she's about as effective as both the .223 and the 7.62X39 IMHO, just simply annoying. ;) Just kidding...sort of.

I'm a .308 guy and use my M1A for everything short or long range so this is a non-issue for me. If you think you can't afford a .308 battle rifle think again, the Saiga rufle is an awesome weapon based on the AK rifle system and still available from Kentucky Importers for >$300.00. Hi-cap mags will be available this summer. If you've got alittle more cash, get a VEPR for about $650.00 or a little more....once again AWESOME weapon based on AK system.

If you've got enough $$$$ for an AR you can afford a Norinco M1A. Of course that starts a whole other "STALE" debate about Norinco vs. Springfield. My Norinco seems to shoot just as well as any other and if something breaks after 10 gazzillion rounds I'll fix it. That s what spare parts are for.

"IF" bad guys come to my house at gang bang distance they will meet the Remington 12 gauge or the Volunteer Arms Commando Mark III .45 cal carbine. At >100 yards the .45 is just about as effective as both and I got 56 rounds in a drum. :D

To me this whole debate is summed up like this...choose the most gun you can afford and shoot it often enough to hit what your aiming at. When the hobgobblins come, ANY real gun you can hit with is better than a theoretically perfect weapon you've put off buying!

cookekdjr
April 28, 2005, 10:28 AM
If a gang started firing at your house, would you pick up the Mini-14 or the AK?

Samuel Jackson said it best (playing the gunrunner "Ordell" in the movie Jackie Brown):

"Here we go. AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely positively have to kill every [Art's Grammaw] in the room, accept no substitute."

Drakejake
April 28, 2005, 12:47 PM
I cannot resist adding that Jackie Brown includes a good lesson in personnel management. Samuel Jackson shows Robert De Niro a dead body in the trunk of his car. When De Niro asks who he is, Jackson replies, "An employee I had to let go."

Drakejake

walking arsenal
April 28, 2005, 12:58 PM
Give me my AK over the AR. My go to mag is a 40 rounder filled with pointed soft points, not the standard fmj round. The bugger works all the time, and up here were it gets really cold i want somthing that wont freeze up on me.

Essex County
April 28, 2005, 12:59 PM
Gefewr 98 is right on the money! Have examples of both. Refuse to enter this hog wallow..........Essex

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2005, 01:27 PM
Since I don't own an AKxx or an ARxx, I'll pick up what I DO have...

The US Rifle Cal .30 M1...popularly known as "The Garand"

You bet -- and with some decent softnose handloads. :D

jefnvk
April 28, 2005, 01:50 PM
but you very rarely, if ever, hear about Failure to Neutralize issues with an AK or SKS.

Could that be because teh US Army does not use the AK in large numbers?

Go with whatever you shoot best. I would probably plan for the 'kicking-in-your-door' scenario, not the 'theyre 300 yards away and trying to snipe me' scenario.

Zak Smith
April 28, 2005, 01:55 PM
We have an annual "AK vs. AR" 3gun-style Rifle match, in which each shooter shoots the entire match with his AR, and then reshoots the same stages with an AK.

On the CQB stage, scores were real close.

On the medium and long range stages (150-400 yards), the AR had a definite advantage due mainly to: vastly better sights (A2), accuracy, and ergonomics. Mag changes were faster with the AR.

-z

Gun God
April 28, 2005, 05:01 PM
5.56mm NATO versus 7.62mm SOVIET

Well, with your given scenario, a 5.56mm is alot more easier to control. Get some soft points and your set. Then again, a AK-103 can soften up a 7.62mm soviets recoil down and with soft points, can do a hell of alot better than 5.56mm.

mustanger98
April 28, 2005, 06:26 PM
M1 Garand, M14, .30-30, or 12guage

Gun God
April 28, 2005, 07:00 PM
M1 Garand, M14, .30-30, or 12guage

Can you choose any worser weapons? You are probably one of those old timers who think full power rounds are the best thing that ever happened. In the "gang shooting at your house" scenario, the fighting will be no more than 30-50 meters. It's COMPLETELY pointless to have a weapon that shoots a very powerfull round like the 30-06 or the 7.62mmNATO(.308 to you civilians). The reason is that the gang members are not just standing there waiting for you to shoot them. They are running around talking cover as you should be. Through out the confusion, when you do spot the enemy, you need to quickly shoot a few rounds rapidly and controllably because that just might be your only chance. It's FAR easier to do a "double tap" with a Mini14 rather than with an M14. I'll say it again, you dont like fragmentating 5.56mm ball rounds? Use soft points or hollow points. they will retain pretty much all of thier weight and devestate the enemy because of the bullets momentum and expansion.

Seriously, i hope some of you never get into a gun fight. Chances are that with the poor knowledge about wound ballistics and poor knowledge you guys have about combat skills, you probably wont make it out alive.

SpookyPistolero
April 28, 2005, 07:15 PM
Who knew this thread could wander across a bridge? All ye, therefore, beware what lurks beneath...

Reports that I have read (only second-hand) from Iraq seem to show that the 5.56 (that's .223 to you civilians :rolleyes: ) does quite well at close-quarters type distances. So for this scenario, I would just say pick whichever caliber you feel most comfortable shooting, and will practice with the most, on a platform that fits you best. We live in a great country that affords us all these options.

Only personally, I prefer something heavier, especially for intermediate distances. I also like the fact that I can get 1,000 rnds of 7.62x39 for around $80.

mustanger98
April 28, 2005, 07:16 PM
One thing forgotten in post #25 is that .30-06 and .308 turn cover, aka car body, into concealment. M2 ball will rip right through a car body and take out whatever's behind it. .30-30, even as a full power loading, isn't as powerful as those, but it'll get the job done in that situation; just that you won't shoot it as fast. If somebody needs less range and more chances to hit, that's why you put the 00 in the 12guage for the knockdown at closer distances, but 12 guage isn't the same as a .30cal for turning cover into concealment.

the gang members are not just standing there waiting for you to shoot them. They are running around talking cover

Come on... we're talking gang members here... they're standing out there holding whatever they got sideways.

Hey, if ya got dynamite and you can throw it far enough to put 'em under their cars, go for it.

natedog
April 28, 2005, 09:24 PM
I'd like to point out that all this:

Can you choose any worser weapons? You are probably one of those old timers who think full power rounds are the best thing that ever happened. In the "gang shooting at your house" scenario, the fighting will be no more than 30-50 meters. It's COMPLETELY pointless to have a weapon that shoots a very powerfull round like the 30-06 or the 7.62mmNATO(.308 to you civilians). The reason is that the gang members are not just standing there waiting for you to shoot them. They are running around talking cover as you should be. Through out the confusion, when you do spot the enemy, you need to quickly shoot a few rounds rapidly and controllably because that just might be your only chance. It's FAR easier to do a "double tap" with a Mini14 rather than with an M14. I'll say it again, you dont like fragmentating 5.56mm ball rounds? Use soft points or hollow points. they will retain pretty much all of thier weight and devestate the enemy because of the bullets momentum and expansion. Seriously, i hope some of you never get into a gun fight.

Chances are that with the poor knowledge about wound ballistics and poor knowledge you guys have about combat skills, you probably wont make it out alive.


Came from someone who said in another thread:

I'm 17 years old, and have never fired a gun.

-Nate

Zak Smith
April 28, 2005, 09:30 PM
It gets better:
http://ub3.homepagetools.com/modern_firearms/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=offtopic&Post=89&Idle=10&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=

:scrutiny:
I am a very stubborn person. I actually think firing a MAG 58 from the shoulder is not a problem!
How about a 8" Browning 1919, from the hip Mac-10 style? No, seriously, I've seen the footage...

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2005, 09:30 PM
Well, I reckon he told US. Of course in my personal experience, with a fleeting target you can use what little time you have to get off the best shot you can, or you can use it trying to control recoil. I've always found that one hit is better than a magazine full of misses.

But I'm only an old infantryman with a couple of years in combat. ;)

Zak Smith
April 28, 2005, 09:39 PM
Having shot a fair number of moving targets with rifles or shotgun slugs (in competition, not combat), to get as many hits as possible, I would prefer something with less sight picture disruption.

The assumption that a lighter-recoiling carbine implies "spray & pray" is a fallacy. That's a training problem.

If for a competent shooter, rifles "A" and "B" take the same time to aim the first shot, but rifle B takes 2x the time to recover vs A, in the same window of target opportunity, he will be able to get approx 2x the hits with rifle A vs rifle B. This would normally give an advantage to the intermediate cartridge carbine over the full power battle rifle.

With regard to terminal ballistics, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56 has been rehashed over and over again. Go read the Ammo-Oracle.com if you need a refresher. "Good" 5.56 loads have clearly superior terminal effects to 7.62x39.

-z

Gun God
April 28, 2005, 09:48 PM
WOW, I just got owned pretty badly. Anyway, as long as I follow forum rules, I'm alright.

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2005, 09:48 PM
Having shot a fair number of moving targets with rifles or shotgun slugs (in competition, not combat), to get as many hits as possible, I would prefer something with less sight picture disruption.

It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other. Penetration in combat is a major issue (people WILL hide behind thing when the shooting starts). Also, the liklihood of getting more than one hit, regardless of how little your weapon recoils is pretty low. Combat shots are VERY fleeting shots. Slow infantryment don't last long.

Berek
April 28, 2005, 09:57 PM
The original comparison was Mini-14 or AK. In that situation, the dependability of the action of an AK has proved itself time and time again in a wide range of situations in a wide range of conditions.

Meanwhile, we've seen the intro of AR, M1 and many more. In this spirit, may I intorduce the KPV 14.5 that I'm sitting on with the ZPU4 configuration loaded with APs. :neener:

For those unfamiliar, this is a heavy machine gun that fires a 14.5mmx114 Soviet round. It came in three models: ZPU1, ZPU2 and ZPU4. That is, 1 bbl, 2 bbl or 4bbl configuration. Cycle rate of 600rpm and a range of 8km. Granted, at 108.2 pounds, it's a pain to shoulder, but mounted on an H2 or APV, who cares? :p

Berek

Zak Smith
April 28, 2005, 10:22 PM
It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other.
Actually six of one and a dozen of the other. :neener:

Gun God
April 28, 2005, 11:23 PM
Penetration in combat is a major issue (people WILL hide behind thing when the shooting starts).

That's why you have 40mm grenades and anti-bunker AT-4 rockets. ;)

c_yeager
April 29, 2005, 02:40 AM
but you very rarely, if ever, hear about Failure to Neutralize issues with an AK or SKS.

Im a big fan of the AK but just for the sake of fairness lets remember that just about every one of the men in Somalia (blackhawk down) got hit at least once by an AK and managed to keep going. There are ample failure to stop issues with all rifles. Most every American soldier that gets wounded rather than killed is a failure to stop for an AK, and thats a LOT. Shot placement matters a lot with any weapon. The AR and AK can both kill people all day long, they can also give peopel superficial wounds all day long, it just depends on who is behind the trigger.

cookekdjr
April 29, 2005, 10:26 AM
The original comparison was Mini-14 or AK ...Meanwhile, we've seen the intro of AR, M1 and many more...
Samuel Jackson's quote aside...I would strongly consider a Rock River AR series...God I drool just thinking about that DEA carbine...Oh yeah... :evil:

Vern Humphrey
April 29, 2005, 10:39 AM
That's why you have 40mm grenades and anti-bunker AT-4 rockets.

But WE don't have them. :o

The 40mm DPICM penetrates no better than .30 Caliber AP. The AT-4, by the way, is a disposable recoilless gun, not a rocket.

Gun God
April 29, 2005, 11:42 AM
The AT-4, by the way, is a disposable recoilless gun, not a rocket.

The at4 is a rocket launcher. The main tube is NOT disposible. But the tube in which the rocket is all ready packed in as a munition is disposible.

Lets say your in a civil war and you have a squad. Wouldn't it be best to have 1 or 2 squad mates armed with a M82 50 rifle? It makes good sense. Should the need arise, you can shoot somebody that's hiding behind a thick barrier and take them out with ease. It also adds phsycological impact on whoever is hiding behind a formidable concrete wall.

Vern Humphrey
April 29, 2005, 11:58 AM
The at4 is a rocket launcher. The main tube is NOT disposible. But the tube in which the rocket is all ready packed in as a munition is disposible.

From the Military Analysis Network:

"The M136 AT4 is the Army's primary light anti-tank weapon. The M136 AT4 is a recoilless rifle used primarily by Infantry Forces for engagement and defeat of light armor. The recoilless rifle design permits accurate delivery of an 84mm High Explosive Anti-Armor warhead, with negligible recoil."

Lets say your in a civil war and you have a squad. Wouldn't it be best to have 1 or 2 squad mates armed with a M82 50 rifle? It makes good sense. Should the need arise, you can shoot somebody that's hiding behind a thick barrier and take them out with ease. It also adds phsycological impact on whoever is hiding behind a formidable concrete wall.

A modern squad is 9 men -- at full strength. The average infantryman carries about 95 lbs fully equipped. How will you add 2 M82s to that load?

Justin
April 29, 2005, 01:29 PM
A modern squad is 9 men -- at full strength. The average infantryman carries about 95 lbs fully equipped. How will you add 2 M82s to that load? Simple, you just download that particular patch for Counter Strike. Then you can, like, totally pwn all over the stupid |\|003|4$. LOL!!!!!!!11111ONE.

:rolleyes:

goon
April 29, 2005, 02:15 PM
How did we get to AT-4's and Barrett .50's? I don't know about you guys, but I don't have either of them at my disposal at this point in time. :rolleyes:

Between the Mini-14 and an AK, I would take the AK.
If you want accuracy, try a VEPR in .223. The one I owned did 1.5 inch 10 shot groups at 100 yards, fired prone off of sandbags. I did it several times just recreationally shooting at targets I had made by sticking a shoot-N-see dot in the middle of a paper plate and slinging rounds at it. The barrel was fairly warm when I did this. It was poorly balanced though, which is why I sold it. But no one is going to tell me that there is no such thing as an accurate AK.
I also owned an SAR-1 that was utterly reliable and about as accurate at 100 yards as a kid with a slingshot. But it did work every time.
Right now I would go with my Bulgarian/US (Arsenal USA) AK. It is minute of clay pigeon accurate and on a good day I can clean them off the backstop at 100 yards with only a handful of misses shooting offhand. Although it doesn't seem as accurate as the one M-16 I was issued (I only have that to work with because I have never shot an AR), it is well within my capabilities. Even with my Finn M-39 I can't really do better offhand than clay pigeons at 100 yards.
The only experience I have with the mini-14 was about two magazines worth of ammo. It was Federal 55gr IIRC and the gun was both unreliable and innaccurate. Not a good combination.
Because of that, out of the choices in the thread, I would go with my Bulgarian AK.

Bottom line is that I have only ever seen one AK broken and I have only heard rumors from friends of friends of people who post on the AK forum about them failing. Can't say the same for the mini-14 (although good mags will supposedly make a difference.)

For my money, any way you look at it the AK can deliver what I need it to do.

Gun God - No offense, but you are according to your own admission 17 and have never fired a gun, yet you are trying to debate with people who have been shooting since before I was born (I am 24 and have been shooting since I was 4). When I find myself in the company of older and more experienced shooters (and you can always tell who they are when you meet them), I shut my yap and listen to what they have to say. Read what the "old timers" here have to say then go get some trigger time.
Experience really is the best teacher.
No offense to you old guys either.

mustanger98
April 29, 2005, 06:44 PM
Quote:
I'm 17 years old, and have never fired a gun.

WOW, I just got owned pretty badly. Anyway, as long as I follow forum rules, I'm alright.

Gun God - No offense, but you are according to your own admission 17 and have never fired a gun, yet you are trying to debate with people who have been shooting since before I was born (I am 24 and have been shooting since I was 4). When I find myself in the company of older and more experienced shooters (and you can always tell who they are when you meet them), I shut my yap and listen to what they have to say. Read what the "old timers" here have to say then go get some trigger time.
Experience really is the best teacher.
No offense to you old guys either.

Okay, here's my $.02- At first, I thought we might have been dealing with Gunkid, John22, or whatever handle that assault-wheelbarrow-driving troll is going by this week again, until I saw the post in that other thread. The fact that we're dealing with an inexperienced 17 year old kid and not a troll shed's a different light on it.

Now, to "Gun God", no offense here either, but I would suggest a change of screen names, as the current one is indicative of a tinhorn or other wannabe, as well as it might be considered sacriligious by some. And you would be better off to ask questions than to spew "knowledge". BTW, I'm 30 and I've been shooting since I was 8, but much more regularly since I was 20. When I read something in a book, I say "from what I read" and cite it if possible, and if I did something I say "this was my results", but if somebody else read something or experienced it and got a different result, I'm open to discuss it and see what made the difference. And when you discuss military doctrine as it applies to small arms, you have to keep it in context. Not all military small arms doctrine is completely sound and can be outdone by another element of doctrine, or by a group who don't fight according to any currently accepted doctrine. Just like the comment about intermediate powered cartridges being better than full power- with a full power cartridge in a rifle in the right hands, an enemy armed with intermediate power arms can be engaged from outside their effective range, and outshot before they can get close enough to be effective with their intermediate powered arms. I aquired this viewpoint from some Vietnam vets I talk with and it beats getting shot to peices. Those same Vietnam vets mostly prefer the M-14 or Garand either one over an AR series rifle from experience with those while being up against an enemy armed with AKs. A bunch of those guys seem to prefer shotguns for close in, too. See my point?

Just read, ask questions, learn all you can about applying what you know and what you are yet to learn. And get you some trigger time with as wide a variety of rifles as you can in a variety of calibers- not just military stuff, but hunting rifles too. It's all good for something.

benEzra
April 29, 2005, 09:31 PM
12 guage isn't the same as a .30cal for turning cover into concealment.
It is if you're shooting slugs...check this out...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/6/

http://www.theboxotruth.com/Images/6-13.jpg

That's a piece of "bullet-resistant glass" (Polycast acrylic, 1 ΒΌ inches thick). It stopped 7.62x51 FMJ, but the 12-gauge slug, ah, penetrated. :what:

Browse that site a bit and you'll see that 12-gauge slugs are quite remarkable penetrators. I'm not a shotgun guy myself, but I wouldn't want somebody shooting at me with one...

Kevlarman
April 29, 2005, 10:52 PM
No 7.62x39 guns in my house, so I'll have to stick with .223 or .30-06.

For fun, check out this site:
http://www.smashandgrab.com/
Bullet resistant window film!

So when I'm a millionare and can afford to build a custom mansion, I'll have those window and 7" of sand surrounding all my walls. :neener:

mustanger98
April 29, 2005, 11:21 PM
benEzra, how about re-reading my post, which I've copied to this one. I said 00, meaning BUCKSHOT. I've seen 20guage slugs bore right through pine trees- probably 6-8" thick- and keep right on going. Stands to reason 12guage slugs will be tougher.

One thing forgotten in post #25 is that .30-06 and .308 turn cover, aka car body, into concealment. M2 ball will rip right through a car body and take out whatever's behind it. .30-30, even as a full power loading, isn't as powerful as those, but it'll get the job done in that situation; just that you won't shoot it as fast. If somebody needs less range and more chances to hit, that's why you put the 00 in the 12guage for the knockdown at closer distances, but 12 guage isn't the same as a .30cal for turning cover into concealment.

slaphappy
April 29, 2005, 11:31 PM
Hey guys, I'm new here. I like what I see so far. :cool:

I just wanted to say that "Gun God" sure gets around. He can change his name all he wants, but you can identify his posts anywhere. :rolleyes:

Oh, and give me a heavy (say 154gr) soft point in 7.62x39 over a .223 anyday. :D

Risasi
April 30, 2005, 09:49 AM
If you made me choose. I would go with the AK. But I would prefer the .223 round. So my choice would be an AK in .223

Personally though, I don't think in matters that much. I would be comfortable enough with either weapon.

igor
April 30, 2005, 05:12 PM
No .223's in the house, so I'll go with the AK.

That said, it sure would be a pleasure to go with an even less recoiling platform and make those 200+ meters shots easier. But such a shot is utterly rarely presented in these parts, and the concealment of the ever-present taiga-type forest here turns into cover if .223 is used. OTOH, it takes a sturdy twig to turn a bullet from a 7,62x39 off its intended course.

In-house, anything intermediate and hi-cap that functions reliably will do fine. So it's back to the beginning of this post...

Risasi
May 1, 2005, 12:14 AM
I'll still take the AK in .223 (or maybe 5.45, if I can substitute, in the great openess you can sacrifice weight for time. Wait for them to bleed out from a .22 hole, vs. a .30 hole) if that's a choice. I live in the unfrozen tundra of North America. The Great Plains. You can easily make 300-1800 yard shots if you wanted to. Actually, where I grew up you can see for miles and miles. There is no underbrush for me with which to snag my .223. On the home defense front of my parent's farm we had anywhere from 50 yards to the barn, to 150 yards to the shelter belt of trees, to 200+ yards to the next hill.

Granted I'd still rather have a much larger slug. .30 to .50 caliber. But like I said, it doesn't matter that much. I would be just as comfortable with 7.69x39. I'll just wait for them to get a little closer...

Now I work in the "Metropolis". I think I would still take the .223, as it's indigenious to the environment. :D Seems like everybody uses .223 here. And shots aren't going to be over 150 yards. Doesn't matter anyway. That's why I bought a .50 Beo. That's my ticket for close range work. And I can switch uppers to 5.56 if I run out of ammo. SO that means in SHTF I can get a standard loadout for the cost of one bullet, if I'm careful, and smart... :D

Gewehr98
May 1, 2005, 12:25 AM
You can easily make 300-1800 yard shots if you wanted to.
How much energy is left in a .223 round after it's traveled 1800 yards? :confused:

(That's assuming the tactical mall golf cart steady rest and taped-on trauma plates don't interfere with accuracy at that range...)

Risasi
May 1, 2005, 08:35 AM
No Gewehr,


YOU can make 300-1800 yard shots...sorry, I said that to show what kind of shot distances we are dealing with. And that there isn't that much twiggy underbrush for the .223 to deflect upon.

I ain't gonna try it. Besides that's why I got the 30-378 Weatherby. I'm good to about 600 yards with it.



Although thinking about it now, once the crops start popping up you might have wheat, oats, alfalfa, corn and soybean crops to deal with. Igor does kind of make a good point.

recondoc
May 1, 2005, 08:49 AM
If you are currently in a situation where a Gang could be showing up to shoot at your house, please reevaluate your lifestyle.
That being said, .223 will give you an accuracy edge at distance. 7.62R will make sure that nasty people stop when hit.
Not to mention that a rifle in 7.62 will be much more affordable and will give you that much more ammo money to become proficient.
My 0.02 worth,
Doc

Risasi
May 1, 2005, 09:00 AM
If you are currently in a situation where a Gang could be showing up to shoot at your house, please reevaluate your lifestyle.

Oh, you know my old neighbors? :D

Actually this is a rather decent caution to have. Multiple attackers. We've had to deal with large groups of people getting violent. And out of town it's not like there is a police officer driving by every five minutes.

Between hunters shooting into the houses, to vandals up to no good, to keggers getting a little too frisky with the local neighbors.

We once had about 40 cars come down the drive because some kids decided to move the party location after their current residence went out over the police scanners. (Everyone had one back then, BTW) Anyway, the number of people we had break into the neighbor's house was quite large. At least 80 people.

Beware the Mwizi

Gewehr98
May 1, 2005, 11:06 AM
Because my landlord didn't let me in on a little secret. The previous occupants of my duplex were hauled away by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department for drug sales and distribution. That would explain the hasty repairs to the doors, etc.

Regardless, Sac County didn't get the word out to the previous clientele. Those same crack/meth customers paid my wife and I a couple late-night visits to discuss business, and they didn't care that the front door and windows were closed and locked. A trusty Remington 870 with 3" OOOO Buckshot was called into action twice on my part. Once the sheriff's department explained why we had guests arriving, we moved. :(

benEzra
May 1, 2005, 07:25 PM
mustanger98, my bad. Should've read more closely.

You've gotta admit that was a cool photo, though. :D

recondoc
May 1, 2005, 07:46 PM
For up close and personal hunting for nasty folks, the AK is a mighty tough contender. When the .30 Russian hits something, it tends to stay hit.
I don't know how dirty your house might be but for really filthy environments, the AK leads again. In my curcumstance, there was lots of free ammo to be found almost everywhere I looked.

Too Many Choices!?
May 1, 2005, 08:44 PM
.223/5.56, quite possibly the worlds GREATEST close quarter battle round :) !
Now don't worry, I know many people think it's,"anemic", and other such silly things, but when the SHTF, What do the guys in green/brown(whatever color it is now?) use? For the above scenario, I would lean heavily toward an AR-15 pistol or M4gery(swingability and rate controled aimed fire rule this kinda situation I suspect), but those are not options. Thus, I would have to go with my WASR AK-47 clone(hopefully with a better sight like red dot:uhoh: ;) . Even with what I just wrote above, with an AK-47 and 30 rounds of 7.62X39, I would not feel at all UNDER-GUNNED :evil: :neener: ....

PS... The MINI-14 should not even be a variable in this equation :confused: :uhoh:

CPS1
May 1, 2005, 09:14 PM
"What do the guys in green/brown(whatever color it is now?) use?"
Actually looking at the post directly before yours I would say they use the AK. ;) That said, I'm an Ar kind of guy. Just personal preference IMHO. As for the round, there are really too many variables with each shot to say one is more effective than the other. i.e. velocity, cover, body armour etc.

mustanger98
May 1, 2005, 10:46 PM
benEzra:
mustanger98, my bad. Should've read more closely.

You've gotta admit that was a cool photo, though.

It is a cool photo. :D Now, that said, I haven't had time to go through that sight yet. Is there a photo on there of a 12guage slug's effect on a windshield? Reason I ask is the difference in the angle of the glass. Whereas windshield glass will deflect .223/5.56mm, I've heard .308/7.62mm will penetrate it with much less deflection. I've heard nothing whatever of this aspect applying to 12guage. I hate to just make an assumption. :scrutiny:

slaphappy
May 1, 2005, 11:28 PM
My opinion, and it's just that, is that if it's FMJ, then .223 is the way to go. SP?, 7.62x39 baby. A heavier soft point ought to be a MUCH better man stopper. Were talking about an urban situation, so the extended range of the .223 shouldn't be much of a factor.

No_Brakes23
May 2, 2005, 04:47 AM
Well, I will get the job done with either one. Personally I prefer the AK, I just shoot better with it despite having more training and experience with the M16A2.

I am not worried about the AR not hitting hard enough, and I am not trying any Hathcockian Headshots with the AK.

I live in Cali, so it is actually a choice between Yugo M59 SKS and SU-16CA for those two rounds. (Cause I ain't paying money for any Ruger Mini/Ranch, and .308 wasn't part of the original question.) I already own the Yugo, and I plan to buy the Kel-Tec. If/when I need to use them, I will defend my home with whichever weapon is most suitably configured to do so.

I prefer the M43 to the M885/M193, but either one will take care of business. The M43 is cheaper, so odds are, I will get more training in with it.

swgunner
March 1, 2007, 05:31 AM
as a gunnersmate in the navy we use m-14 m60. m4/16 whatever are too unreliable in hostile environs. in the persian gulf for example the sand is finer than baby powder and as the weapon is cleaned it sand blasts the gas tube making said weapon useless. the gas assembly of ak/aks/akm/sks is relatively immune. however hk has developed the hk 416 which is an awesome weapon. as others have said close-in go 12ga. or45 i personally think the tommy gun would excell in the scenario envisioned. also us army data has shown 556 to be ineffective at medium range when hostile force is wearing heavy clothing. the 6.8mm was supposed to have replaced 556 in the field but this did not happen, as usual bean-counters bbeat out guys on the front.

evan price
March 1, 2007, 05:50 AM
Geez guys....
Where's Gecko45 when we need him for the mall ninja report?

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n279/jj3902/horse.gif

JShirley
March 1, 2007, 06:25 AM
When the .30 Russian hits something, it tends to stay hit

recondoc, what are you basing this on? It's my understanding that 7.62x39mm hits in Vietnam were usually less severe than 5.56x45mm, unless bone was hit.

Now, I personally think there are a lot of folks with too much time on their hands dithering about combat ammo, and I will use expanding ammunition when I have that option, but 5.56 ball appears to typically be more damaging than 7.62 ball.

John

Glockfan.45
March 1, 2007, 07:09 AM
The Box O Truth shows that 7.62x39mm is better suited to penetrating the car bodies that would be used as cover in this scenario. Having both ARs and AKs I would grab the AK first and proceed to dispense the contents of a 75 round drum at those foolish enough to target my residence for a drive by. When thats empty (if any are still standing) I will do a "New York reload" over to the AR with a 90 round snail drum. Said bangers would never know what hit them :D . There see the best of both worlds. Arent guns swell?

recondoc
March 1, 2007, 07:17 AM
I was basing my theory strictly on personal experience in Iraq. I ended up using an adopted AK for quite a while and was impressed with it's ability to take care of business. This is not a bullseye match round and will not be effective out past about 200 (at least not for me it wasn't), but in the up close and personal scenario of urban work, it did very nicely. All of my comparison was strictly my observation shooting side by side with other Marines who were using 5.56.
My observations are to be taken as "they are what they are". I don't have any Mall Ninja qualifications. I only saw what I saw and lived to tell about it. Sorry I'm not a magazine writer who can expound upon the topic more eloquently.
Doc

JShirley
March 1, 2007, 07:39 AM
Heh. Well, I like the AK in general- and in fact, I was shooting an 7.62 RPK today at about 400 meters. Single shots were suprisingly accurate.

I wasn't questioning your eloquence, just your evidence. :) Glad it worked for you.

John

ShooterDave
October 23, 2007, 04:01 PM
honestly if the senario of a band of gangsters shooting up my house ever came up, i would grab what ever is loaded. at "across the street" distance even a 9mm will sufice. i always say even a .22 is better than nothing. in this type of senario recoil comes into play as far as shot placement. if a gang comes to your house and starts shooting, chances are they arent going to leave just because you start making pot shots at them. at that range 30 cal or 223 both work fine but the 223 is going to have less recoil so you will have more acurate double taps. personally if that happened ho me my first choice would be a hand grenade, second would be a Tompson .45, but seeing as how i dont have either i would have to go with what i own, and out of that it would be the keltec su16. however since the AK is the one that is loaded and at the ready than i think i would just grab that and try to escape however i could.

jpwilly
October 23, 2007, 04:36 PM
AK! :eek:

Vicious-Peanut
October 23, 2007, 04:38 PM
I would pick up my Mini-14 because I like it. I dont complain about it like most people....

Funderb
October 23, 2007, 04:40 PM
Personally I am going with the 7.62x39
The fact of the matter is, it puts more lead in the air.
Magazines are easier to exchange, and the penetrating capabilities are better than the .223. And it's about 10 times louder, so while you are less likely to hit anything in this situation, the SKS/AK is a lot more terrifying of a weapon.
But if you really want to scare them it's a short barrel high power cartridge. ( I know I say it everywhere, the m44)

[Oh, and tumbling was proved to be a moot point a while ago. That's why no one really cares about the 5.45x39. That stuff tumbles like no other.]

SpeedAKL
October 23, 2007, 04:41 PM
I've never fired a Mini-14, so I can't say for sure. I'll go with the AK because it's a known quantity that would get the job done. As for AK vs AR, I would probably grab the AR because I'm more comfortable using it. I find it easier and more ergonomic to use quickly, as well as being easier to place multiple accurate shots in a very shot amount of time.

Of course, I'd have one of the guys here in the apartment with the rifle I choose not to use, I'd be carrying the 1911 as backup, and someone would have to be toting the 12-gauge with the slugs

Comfort and familiarity are most important here. You don't want to use a powerful weapon that you've had basically no experience with when it's your life on the line. Either 5.56 or 7.62x39 will have more than enough power at the kind of range we're talking about, certainly more than any standard pistol caliber.

miko
October 23, 2007, 05:20 PM
If a gang started firing at your house, would you pick up the Mini-14 or the AK?
Futrther than 300 yards you can hit much easier with .223. Close up .223 will be much more devastating against unprotected target.

If you are talking about a firefight at 15-100 yards, with enemies hiding behind the trees and cinderblocks, I would get 7.62x39.

miko

jonboynumba1
October 23, 2007, 06:36 PM
I'm very comfortable with both the AK and AR platforms. With ball ammo (FMJ miltary type ammo wolf for AK and M855/SS109 for .223) either one will do about the same thing...that is put holes in things. The AK makes a bigger hole and penetrates a lot of things more aggressively (like kevlar and steel plates and chews up cinderblock and dirt berms better) Then again a small hole or a larger hole in kevlar are equally bad for the guy wearing it!

AK's are a bit better at chewing things up (if you can hit them)...but they are...well they are AK's clunky nasty triggers and poor ergonomics and (usually) woefully innaccurate but rock solid reliable. AR's (assuming you get a top quallity one: Colt RRA LMT ect) are generally very accurate...have light recoil anyone can manage...have total support gear choices of virtually everything a pro would use (because that is generally what pros and expirienced people run) And when the ball ammo fragments it can be a little nastier in things but that usually doesn't apply to carbines...which is what just about everybody preffers. Not to worry you can use whatever ammo you want including SP and HP! You can hit things pretty decently at 200yards with an AK and walk the rounds in at 300...but you aren't going to be calling any shots. I mean you can hit it generally in 4-5 shots at 300...somewhere. The AR?...well open sights 200 yards is easy and still fairly accurate...300...well you can usually hit the target...somewhere (but every shot nearly). And 400 I can usually scare the heck out of something if not nail the milk jug (I might hit either side of it repeatedly and never hit it in a mag). Open sights standing or leaning over a truck you aint gonna do much better than that with anything anyway without some luck. Past 200 yards the AR is obviously easier to do good work with and past 400 is starts to bite (16" carbine anyway) but then carbines are generally for 0-200yard work anyway.

If you don't shoot at those longer rangers you won't be hitting anything with either platform (it isn't easy I don't care what anyone on the internet says about it!) But it isn't anything you can't get good or at least decent at. Inside 100 yards the AR is simply faster...better sights lighter quicker handling with great ergonomics. It barely jumps when you squeeze rounds off so you can do it fast and still with a decent degree of accuracy.

Now as far as performance of the rounds- with quallity SP, BT or HP ammo that is made to actually expand and or fragment depending on velocity they BOTH get a LOT better. Probably the little .223 sees a much larger increse in effectiness. There are certainly more quallity choices in .223 than the rusky round to choose from. I bgelieve .223 to be just about the PERFECT 0-200M police type carbine round (with apropriate ammo...like 60gr Hornady TAP for instance) Even the federal bulk-pack 50gr HP round does impressive things to milk jugs over SP AK rounds.

Now I was raised up an AK guy...so this is not AR15.com nerd snobbery talking...I've shot countless thousands through em. But as for a surgical fast handling accurate reliable carbine with what you need and want for just about anything from urban to country farmhouse....up-close to 400M "anti-assault" carbines a quallity AR15 is hard to beat. They are just easy to run and easy to outfit and outfit for. Anyone serious about learning to use a tactical carbine should own one or at least borrow one and get familair with it. Then do the same with an AK...who's upsides are it is cheap, readliy available shoots cheap ammo (though not like it used to be...ahhh the good ole days!)

Generally women and kids can all handle an AR with a 4/6 pos stock...the AK...it depends on the shooter...it's pretty mild but more pronounced...it doesn't have a bad "kick" but it bucks and jumps around pretty good. It's much easier to quickly double tap targets on the move or in different positions or different targets or whatever with the AR. That is largely WHY we went to this type of rifle over the big .30 battle rifles. More ammo and faster handling. The " modern battlefield" has become an urban or semi-urban neighborhood more than a beach at Normandy. Carbines like the AR excell for this type of use.

So basically if you want something "evul" and "bad" looking to have a lot of fun with and shoot for fun and have around in case the Chinese start falling from the sky like the Russians in Red Dawn either one will do that...and BOTH are a TON of fun to own. If you have time and money to aquire one or the other you may as well buy the better one of the two.

I've owned AR's as have buds that also have had 500-1000+ rounds between cleanings repeaatedly and they never became "Jam-o-matics" as some claim. I honestly was waiting for that when I bought my first AR. Run good GI and Colt mags that drop free from your lower and have been tested with 6-7 rounds in each a few times (to sort out any with issues) and you'll never have any trouble either. Even a bad mag usually shoots the first 20-25 rounds fine anyway...so save the ammo testing them and just load 6-8 or whatever.

I reccomend anything you like from RRA with a chrome lined BBL and the match trigger option 10 mags a couple cases of ammo and if the piggy bank holds up an eotech sight. I'd just get a flat-top CAR (HB) as above and get a good flip up BUIS with the money you save not buying the carry-handle or fancy model. I like the HB in the 16" carbine...it stays settled better than a pencil bbl to me.

Then again a SAR-1 a couple cases of wolf 10 mags and a 2-3 day carbine class at a decent school would be money well spent as well. Try to shoot both and see what you like...they are both a lot of fun in different ways (so I reccomend both if time allows-LOL) If I had to choose one...well I wouldn't give up a good AR...a plow (AK) I could get over.

Once you go to the AR the AK is just a neat fun toy IMHO...others would dissagree...most people with a lot of training would probably preffer the AR. The people I know that ARE paid proffessionals almost all do. That is what talked me into the first one I bought...after that they tend to multiply on their own ;)

WOW- If that was any longer I'd need a publisher! ;)

HorseSoldier
October 23, 2007, 06:49 PM
Magazines are easier to exchange, and the penetrating capabilities are better than the .223.

If you're doing magazine changes faster with an AK than an AR, you need more practice with the AR. With a lot of work you can kind of get an AK to be fast, but I've never seen anyone trained on both who could get a new mag in an AK faster than on an AR.

Penetration with 7.62x39 is kind of a trade off -- you get better penetration with M43 type ammo, and a decidedly underperforming round once you hit someone. You get better terminal effects with M67 type ammo, but penetration (at least on car bodies and body armor materials) is inferior to M855 5.56mm.

Funderb
October 24, 2007, 12:07 PM
I'm only referring to ball ammunition. No gimmicks or upgrades.
We've found that the 7.62 does have more penetrating power than the 5.56, it's got a bigger butt on the bullet that helps it puch through.

Now I'm not saying that the AR is a bad rifle. It's great.

And I do agree with the training thing, I'm sure I'd be good with the AR with more practice, but the rocker motion with an AK mag is easier for me yet.

GunTech
October 24, 2007, 02:08 PM
I'd also have to disagree on mag changes. M16/AR-15 mag fall free. You can drop a magazine while grabbing the next one on an AR. You only have to get the mag into the funnel to reload, and not hit a groove in the mag well.

RE 5.56x45 v7.62x39, if I can use soft point ammo, I might pick the 7.62. With ball ammo, I'll pick the 5.56.

jonboynumba1
October 24, 2007, 02:51 PM
Had the exact same thought on mag chances and of course the safety and general ergonomics are worlds better on the AR...and that was coming from the AK family for me.

But to each there own...use what works for you...always more important than the cool factor or internet gun board aproval. It's pretty rare to hear that about the AK though...one exception I will make is with the ak generally the mag is either properly seated or it falls out (or doesn't click in) There are times with an AR improper handling can cause a failure to seat the mag completely and it usually goes un-noticed until you hear "click" However proper mag changing technique erases that possible issue. I also like that the mag and safety can be utilized with the rifle still up on target. You'd have to be pretty slick with an AK to be as fliud changing to a full mag like that with an AK still up and held on target...and without being a contourtionist you have to take your right hand off the ready position to manipulate the safety/selector. Which to me is the only truly bad part of the AK design...as simple sheetmetal guns go it is a pretty good design.

The 5.45x39 models are generally far more accurate and faster handling. I'm often surprised more AK guys don't cry foul comparing the old .30 7.62x39 versions to the AR -With the AK74 muzzle break they really shoot pretty slick. Not that I'd trade a AR for one. But I'm surprised they are not more popular in general. It's an excellent little round and carbine. And the ammo comes up cheap sometimes...notably cheaper than 7.62x39 occassionally when you catch it on sale or clearance.

Funderb
October 24, 2007, 04:54 PM
Jonboy,
do you know anywhere to find a bolt action 5.45x39?
I've seen one in my life, and would love to get my hands on one.
It's such a cool cartridge.

HorseSoldier
October 24, 2007, 05:27 PM
do you know anywhere to find a bolt action 5.45x39?
I've seen one in my life, and would love to get my hands on one.


There were some brought in back in the 90s, surplus East German rifles (for sharpshooters stationed on the Berlin Wall and other IGB fortifications or something). I've never seen one, but the word of mouth seems to be that quality is so-so, definitely not a true sniper sort of gun. I think they were really, really cheap when imported (before 5.45x39 was plentiful), but kind of hard to find now.

Funderb
October 24, 2007, 05:49 PM
thanks, much appreciated.

Slugless
October 25, 2007, 05:17 AM
GunTech,

Re: softpoint 7.62 vs ball 5.56, I'm thinking the same way, I may switch my SHTF rifle from my 20" AR to my SKS Sportster (AK mag type) with softpoints. I'm not sure about the whole penetration thing with softpoint, will have to shoot some trees or somthing.

The lady's SHTF rifle is an AR M4gery, so same ammo, spare parts, ergonomics, etc. is very appealing to go with 2 ARs. But the 7.62 softpoint...

I posted a quote re: 7.62 softpoint effectiveness from the NATO War Surgery handbook in another thread but don't have the book here 'cause I'm in Scotland on business.

The gist is that doctors don't see torso shot injuries from softpoint 7.62 in the hospital. They only see them in the morgue.

awwhite1012
October 25, 2007, 11:13 AM
for stoppage the ak but for range defintly the 5.56 thats what it was made for

mstirton
October 25, 2007, 10:18 PM
I currently have a few more mags loaded for the AK than the AR so I guess I'd be going with the SA-M7. The AR is lighter, kicks less, has the adjustable stock and Aimpoint so it would be better to give to my girlfriend.

oldfatslob
August 16, 2008, 02:22 AM
Yea, the young or old folks. Who's actually been against the 7.62 using the .223?

Wanna chime in?

My father, that's right a Vietnam Force Recon Vet, enlisted, not big mouth officer, knows about TET. Trained by Carlos Hathcock, yea, that's right White Feather, my brother was born in Camp Lejeune, USMC.

Got that? Enemy doped, arms corded, with SKS's. M'16 shot full mag on each one, still coming, .45, one shot dead, each one.

Point? Bigger bullet = bigger hole.

.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light. Glorified, modified, .22

I googled this .223 vs 7.62 just for the boredom. The responses I've read are alarming.

Zak Smith
August 16, 2008, 02:39 AM
Was it really worth resurrecting a thread that hasn't been posted for almost a year to post that? Are you offering anything new which hasn't been discussed before? Or just a re-hash of old points?


.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light
Perhaps, but it is a fact that 5.56 has less wind drift than 7.62x39:

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 | YARDS
7.62x39 0.289 2350 > 0.00 1.44 6.14 14.75 | wind (inches)
556 M16 0.243 3250 > 0.00 1.10 4.68 11.26 | wind (inches)

cliffy
August 16, 2008, 03:15 AM
A Nosler .224" diameter 60 Grain Partition bullet will work in any 5.56mm or .223 Remington case with devastating result. Yes, it's a soft-point, but totally more effective than any Full Metal Jacket. If wounding is more important than killing one's enemy, the affore mentioned Nosler fare is decidely not for one's application! Some, few, bullets were meant to kill upon impact: 60 grain Nosler Partitions, for example. 1898 Geneva Convention standards will not necessarily save one's life during a vicious firefight. Do modern day Terrorists require old-fashioned Geneva Convention rules? Rules to die for seem antiquated to me. If protecting my family, I use the best available, so American soldiers should have the same option. An M-16 loaded with Nosler Partitions would level the "Playing Field." Cutting through 3/8" plate steel at 100 yards, yet tearing through tough flesh with ease, makes me a believer in this effective, yet not so simple bullet design. Play fair, but not in wartime. Napalm knows no particular rules, so why should our bullets? Cliffy

MTMilitiaman
August 16, 2008, 03:47 AM
recondoc, what are you basing this on? It's my understanding that 7.62x39mm hits in Vietnam were usually less severe than 5.56x45mm, unless bone was hit.

Now, I personally think there are a lot of folks with too much time on their hands dithering about combat ammo, and I will use expanding ammunition when I have that option, but 5.56 ball appears to typically be more damaging than 7.62 ball.

Reading through four pages of this topic has been a painful reminder that rumors started are not often stopped. There is a lot of bad information floating around the internet, but there are also good sources of information. Anybody with the proper motivation can do a little research and quickly distinguish the good from the bad. The good information will be the information with sources that don't involve "My dad's friend's dad's uncle said..."

Both of these cartridges have fallacies and various vicious rumors that still plague them. We've all heard, "5.56 over penetrates in the house," "5.56 tumbles through air...going to the faster twist rate was a mistake..." or "5.56 was designed to wound, not to kill..."

Among the worst pieces of misinformation regarding the 7.62x39 is that it lacks effectiveness due to lack of tumbling or fragmentation effect compared to 5.56x45. This was caused by the original Soviet load adopted as the M43. This round was known to penetrate 6 to 8 inches or more in tissue before tumbling, and as Fackler observed, wounds were typically no worse than those inflicted by handguns, although they were often inflicted at much longer ranges.

http://www.rayguncharlie.net/sr/basics/pmrb.html

However, the Yugos designed a round around a flat based projectile with the same mass and velocity as the M43, but with a large air pocket in the forward 1/3 of the nose that halved the distance it took the round to destabilize and tumble in tissue. Fackler observed that this round, known as M67, performs similarly to the Russian 5.45mm round, known for its tendency to tumble. And while the stumpy Russian 7.62 doesn't have the trajectory of the 5.45 or the 5.56mm, it is considerably better at breaking apart many types of cover than the smaller caliber rounds. I don't know about their newer Military Classic, but Wolf's older 122 gr FMJ was designed and performed very similarly to the Yugo M67 round. I shot a small doe with this round, broadside, at about 50 yards, and can assure you that it tumbles not only in ballistic gelatin, but in tissue as well.

Here is one such round pulled and section lengthwise:
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/WolfFMJoutside.jpg
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/WolfFMJinside.jpg

For defensive use, neither cartridge is going to be at its best in most situations with ball ammo. There are other choices available for both. While better choices are available commercially for the 5.56 due to its domestic popularity, there are better choices available in 7.62x39 as well. My limited testing indicates that Wolf JHPs do in fact fragment violently in liquid mediums. The 124 gr Wolf Military Classic load is loaded with the Uly 8m3 "Sapsan" projectile, which is known to be a devastating and reliable performer in tissue. I tested the older 122 gr Wolf JHP alongside the above pictured 122 gr Wolf FMJ in water jugs and was suitably impressed by the results:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/AKtests1.jpg

Realizing that this may not be exactly applicable to performance in living tissue, it is still an impressive display of its performance relative to other rounds, which, IMO, is rather nicely.

With regard to terminal ballistics, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56 has been rehashed over and over again. Go read the Ammo-Oracle.com if you need a refresher. "Good" 5.56 loads have clearly superior terminal effects to 7.62x39.

I just went through ammo-oracle, again, and while there is lots of good information there, I couldn't find anything showing the effects of good 5.56 to be "clearly" superior to good 7.62x39.

With standard ball ammo, within the velocity threshold it was designed to do so, the 5.56 might have an advantage. But this would be a small advantage limited to a fairly close range--my reading indicated somewhere between 140 and 160 meters depending on barrel length--and even then, the SS-109 projectile is known to be relatively complex and inconsistent in its manufacture and performance. So when it happens, 5.56mm ball ammo might have a slight advantage over 7.62x39 ball ammo due to its fragmentation effect.

The tumbling effect of both Russian rounds, however, is far less dependent on velocity and is more reliable. Though the SS-109 projectile will tumble as well, its design makes it shorter than both Russian projectiles, and thus, less effective when relying solely on tumbling effect.

That leaves only a difference in shooting platforms. As a lefty, the AR is fine for me, the the AK fits better. Ergonomically, the AK puts everything where a southpaw needs it to be. I have a Romanian WASR with a Kobra on it that I would choose any day before any AR on the market.

However, before that, I would take an M14/M1A. Call me old or romantic if you will. I am 26, I've been shooting rifles since I was 4 years old, seriously since I was 11, and though in my "younger" and more way-word years, I tried to believe we had progressed beyond the designs praised by my grandpa, I've come full circle lately. I love my M1A and am far more confident in my ability to hit with it and in its ability to put human sized targets down quickly than I ever was with the M16 or the SAW. To each his own, but if gangbangers show up looking for a fight, I grab one of these:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/M1AandAKlillypad2.jpg

Rubber_Duck
August 16, 2008, 04:35 AM
MTMilitiaman,
Interesting read, thanks for posting. This debate will always exist as far as I'm concerned.

I own both rifles in question (and in their respective calibers) and I wouldn't feel the least bit undergunned with either, and both of mine have been so reliable that I would trust my life to either one.

That said, if gangbangers did invade me I would certainly grab the AK.

To further complicate the question, will the said gang members be firing on foot, or from a vehicle (aka drive-by)? In any case, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO will both be very effective at the short range assumed in the OP's "scenario".

texagun
August 16, 2008, 10:28 AM
oldfatslob:
Nice 1st post. Welcome to the forum.

My father, that's right a Vietnam Force Recon Vet, enlisted, not big mouth officer, knows about TET.

I was enlisted for 4 years, and an officer for 5 years. I was also involved in the TET Offensive at Hue/Phu Bai. I don't think my mouth got any bigger when I became an officer. You might not want to insult several members on here who also served.

I wouldn't feel the least bit undergunned with either, and both of mine have been so reliable that I would trust my life to either one.

I would agree with that statement. It's the person holding the rifle that makes the difference.

Art Eatman
August 16, 2008, 12:35 PM
If you're inside your house, doing your daily Keyboard Kommando thing when the Pagan Hordes assault your domicile, odds are you're gonna begin the festivities at no more than 20 to 30 yards--at most.

Any cartridge that's notably peppier than a .22 Hornet will suffice. I know of no semi-auto that won't hold minute of torso inside of 30 yards.

What's the question?

:D:D:D

Art

Mongrel
August 16, 2008, 01:20 PM
If you're inside your house, doing your daily Keyboard Kommando thing when the Pagan Hordes assault your domicile, odds are you're gonna begin the festivities at no more than 20 to 30 yards--at most.

Any cartridge that's notably peppier than a .22 Hornet will suffice. I know of no semi-auto that won't hold minute of torso inside of 30 yards.

What's the question?



Art


I love it when a good man shows up and puts these playground discussions in their proper perspective...

Thanks Art

RP88
August 16, 2008, 01:58 PM
I'd take an M4 in most situations, especially for home defense, because I don't want my AK making swiss cheese out of my house. But, I'd take an AK for just about everything else outside of desert/no-man's land type environments. urban, jungle, CQB...

also, the accuracy thing bugs me. Of course an x39 platform is going to fall short to a 5.56 platform, mainly because of range. What should be done is someone should compare the two in one caliber only, and in the same barrel length. Controls, constants, variables, etc. etc. etc. If you don't remember the scientific method, then go read up on it before you say things like 'the AK is woefully inaccurate'.

I also don't see how the 5.56 has anything over the x39 round, even if it fragments. That is a good 'if' right there, too. Perhaps the funniest thing is how people think that the 5.56 hits almost as hard as the x39. I just don't see how a negligible amount of extra velocity and fragmentation makes the bullet hit 600 ft-lbs harder than it really does - even out of an extra four inches of barrel.

If there is one thing that the AK has that I'll take any day over any Mxxx platform, it would be consistency.

Matt-J2
August 16, 2008, 02:17 PM
This thread made my brain hurt. I read the whole thing. I'm fairly certain I regret doing so, but the brain cells responsible for said certainly are out of action for a while due to this thread.

N1150X
August 16, 2008, 02:24 PM
Personally I am going with the 7.62x39
The fact of the matter is, it puts more lead in the air.

+1 thats my thought also honestly if they are that close (0-100 yards) you need a 12 gauge with slugs and buckshot but to answer your question I trust the 7.62 more than I trust the .223




.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light


same thing would happen to a 175gr 308 cuz every bullet is affected by the wind

sarduy
August 16, 2008, 02:35 PM
If a gang started firing at your house, would you pick up the Mini-14 or the AK?

i would go with the AK (7.62x39) because the gang will do a drive-by shooting maybe stop for a moment, and you want something with more power than a .223 and since almost all urban areas are limited under 50-150 yards from across the street i don't need anything that it's accurate at 300 yards...all i need is a hard hitting gun that is accurated at 150 yards...

on a side note: if a gang start shooting now to my house is because i been doing some bad things and they want payback how knows...but i'll grab the first weapon that i can get my hands on AR, AK, SKS....****.. even my remington....once those bullets start braking your windows...last thing you'll think is about caliber ballistic...

RockyMtnTactical
August 16, 2008, 07:34 PM
I prefer the 5.56 round. Much more bullet variety too, you can pick the bullet that performs the job you want it to.

rbernie
August 16, 2008, 08:57 PM
I know this is a stale topic but I would like some fresh ideas.

There are none to be had. ;)

Matt304
August 16, 2008, 09:41 PM
....

dscottw88
August 16, 2008, 10:29 PM
Between 5.56 and 7.62x39? I'd go with the 5.56.

Between the mini-14 and the AK? I'd go with the AK.

For the record though, I prefer the 5.56 M193's fragmenting capabilities much more than any 7.62 hole punch.

sarduy
August 17, 2008, 01:24 AM
1. get whatever weapon closer to you.
2. Call 911 (if possible) and try to count them
3. Use the item pictured bellow and RUN! (if you are alone) while talking to the police remember 3-5 bad guys againt 1 is not good odds..

if you have members of the familly..oh well... stay and protect them with your life!

http://www.holabirdsports.com/products/110965.jpg

collateral
August 17, 2008, 04:10 AM
I have a bushmaster 'm4', a yugoslavian m70ab2, and a n interarms wz. 88.

regardless of caliber 'effectiveness' at various ranges (any of the three will put the hurt on somebody at the op's range), I would want whatever gun I was most comfortable with (which for me is the wz. 88).

really the caliber makes no difference. either will negate soft body armor (which the gang members probably won't have anyways) at front lawn distances, they will both punch through car doors,
go with what you know. your life may depend on it.

all this talk about wanting to land hits at >100 yards is unnecessary. the topic wasn't about modern combat, it was about a relatively short range gunfight. bangers are probably going to be shooting with pistols, and shotguns. if they are well equipped they may have smgs or carbines but in my city, I think it would be unlikely.

just my opinion. no offense intended.

oldfatslob
August 20, 2008, 10:09 PM
Quote:
" I was enlisted for 4 years, and an officer for 5 years. I was also involved in the TET Offensive at Hue/Phu Bai. I don't think my mouth got any bigger when I became an officer. You might not want to insult several members on here who also served."

Never disrespected any members who served, however you enlisted, therefore you knew what it was like to be a grunt, therefore, you are the exception. Don't get me wrong, I have met some good officers, but the ones who are snoddy, and get people killed, or even others I've met that bolstered on about their "combat experience" when they should have known the ones that did have "combat experience" didn't bolster about them, and the other ones that my father regretted pulling into the fox hole, and was then criticized for by his other enlisted men for doing so, and others that busted him down because he didn't do exactly like the officers told him to (but still got the job done and saved his and others lives), I call them big mouth. However, not all are like that, and I have the utmost respect for those who served, except the ones who needlessly get people killed.

Quote:
"Perhaps, but it is a fact that 5.56 has less wind drift than 7.62x39:"

Show me. Other than that chart, you listed no source or whether the shots were fired at exactly at the same time. There can be several different wind velocities downrange at any given moment. Besides that, you think I'm gonna believe some manufacturers research that are promoting their own product? How about some independent tests with no bias?
And pretend you are a wind, man-wind, with 100lb pushing strength, and there are 2 other lead filled men, one 50lb and the other 70lb. Which can you push farther?

Heavier bullets are less susceptible to the same force of wind pushing them as lighter bullets. Point being, at those distances up to 800 yards which everyone is claiming the .223 is "accurate" to better ask a sharpshooter. But you could always use normal ranges when you are comparing normal "non-sniping" shooting with the 7.62 vs .223 say 150-300 yards, and have 2 shooters shoot rifle each at the same time with equal skill, and see how much they have to lead into the wind to get on target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm And the rifle designed around the 7.62 was the SKS, and I find it more accurate than the AK. So have one of the shooter use it.

Besides that, why do you think the 45 acp was invented? The 38 was not adequate enough to put down a drugged determine foe, whereas the heavier bullet was.

So, as far as what "I" am going to have to kill anything larger than a coyote, it'll be the larger heavier bullet. But anyone else is welcome to pick what they want.

Zak Smith
August 20, 2008, 10:13 PM
Show me. Other than that chart, you listed no source or whether the shots were fired at exactly at the same time. There can be several different wind velocities downrange at any given moment. Besides that, you think I'm gonna believe some manufacturers research that are promoting their own product? How about some independent tests with no bias?
And pretend you are a wind, man-wind, with 100lb pushing strength, and there are 2 other lead filled men, one 50lb and the other 70lb. Which can you push farther?

Heavier bullets are less susceptible to the same force of wind pushing them as lighter bullets.
False. It is BC not mass which matters. Wind drift is a function of BC and velocity.

If you don't believe the chart, run any ballistics program with BC and muzzle velocity numbers for various 556 and 7.62x39 loads and see for yourself.

You can lead a horse to water...

woodfiend
August 20, 2008, 10:24 PM
I would always go for the 5.56. The round is much more accurate and has superior terminal ballistics. Many times people have been shot with the 7.62x39mm and have kept on fighting. The reason for this is because of the fact that it is an overly stabilized heavy round that will trundle through everything without fragmentation. Now, if the round happened to shoot through a wall and into a person, the 7.62x39mm would trump the 5.56 because of the stabilization and would not fragment. I would plan on not shooting at people through walls and so I would use the 5.56. It would be less of a hazard to bystanders and is a better round that offers a wider spectrum of loads. That's my two cents.

Zak Smith
August 20, 2008, 10:27 PM
The reason for this is because of the fact that it is an overly stabilized heavy round that will trundle through everything without fragmentation.
No amount of spin stabilization that a barrel can effect can stabilize a bullet once it enters a medium as dense as water or flesh.

oldfatslob
August 20, 2008, 10:37 PM
I was mainly referring to after 300 yards, as in "sniping", but if you look at those "computer generated charts" which I'm sure the promoters of the .223 made, you'll see that out to 300 yards the difference in the wind drift is negligible, maybe 2.5 inches, didn't feel like doing the math. My point is that out past 300 yards, the .223 is not that good of a long range rifle because of the wind drift. I'd rather us an appropriate round with a long range rifle for that. Look and read what I wrote, thoroughly. But both of those rounds could hit a target to 300 yards, the question is using either hollow or soft points, what I prefer, which one would do more damage?

texagun,

I forgot to ask you, what was your observation on the effectiveness of the .223 round during the tet battle you seen? Would you have preferred a larger caliber?

Those men, is who you need to ask, like my dad and texagun. Not some folks like us who've not been in that situation looking at a computer chart.

If I want to shoot a horse that won't drink water, which would be more effective and humane? A 30 caliber, or a glorified hyped up ultra magnum 22? If I want to shoot that horse past 300 yards, I'll get a different rifle that either of those two.

1832
August 20, 2008, 11:41 PM
I resolved this debate by getting an AR Upper in 7.62x39. I would feel comfortable have either caliber on my Lower in an emergency. I must say that I was surprised at how well the 7.62x39 performed in an AR platform. Even with the steel cased stuff, it compared favorably with my 5.56 groups out to 200 yds. When I put some Lapua premium ammo through that 20" free float barrel, it was really an eye opener.

35 Whelen
August 21, 2008, 12:50 AM
This arguement amazes me. It reminds me of the silly justifications people used to argue that the 9mm is more effective than the 45 ACP. Higher velocity, blah, blah, blah.....
I have never shot a human being with either of the cartridges in question, and I hope I never have to. I have however killed many head of game with rifles ranging from .22 caliber to .45 caliber. Post mortem examination of wound channels in dead deer, elk and hogs is fascinating to me. I collect and keep every bullet I can recover from game I kill.
I can tell you, that in my experience, I have found that given like constructed bullets, with similar sectional densities, at remotely similar impact velocities, the larger bullet does more damage every single time. Think about it: all things equal, a .30 caliber bullet starts out making a larger hole than a .22 caliber bullet. Add to that the fact that a .30 caliber bullet will weigh more than a .22 caliber bullet, and now you've added momentum which will increase the penetration.
Please don't tell me about the "explosive effects" of .22 caliber bullets. I've seen that first-hand and can attest to the fact that all this does is lessen penetration. the only time this effect is important is when you're shooting vessels full of liquid in an attempt to impress your friends.
Bigger bullet=bigger hole.

35W

MTMilitiaman
August 21, 2008, 03:53 AM
Some people should read more and type less...

elmerfudd
August 21, 2008, 08:22 AM
I'm with 35 Whelen on this. A bigger bullet with more momentum and kinetic energy has the potential to do more damage and since I'm a civilian with bench full of reloading gear, I see no reason to confine myself to second rate bullets designed to conform to some absurd protocol of war.

Yeah, I do have a bunch of surplus ammo and new production military type ammo, but that's for plinking. For use against live targets, I go with modern commercial hunting ammo or reloads.

Zak Smith
August 21, 2008, 03:11 PM
I was mainly referring to after 300 yards, as in "sniping", but if you look at those "computer generated charts" which I'm sure the promoters of the .223 made, you'll see that out to 300 yards the difference in the wind drift is negligible, maybe 2.5 inches, didn't feel like doing the math. My point is that out past 300 yards, the .223 is not that good of a long range rifle because of the wind drift.
It's just worse after 300 yards. Here's the same data extended to 800 yards

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 | YARDS
7.62x39 0.289 2350 > 0.00 1.44 6.14 14.75 27.92 46.16 69.48 97.28 128.85 | wind (inches)
556 0.243 3250 > 0.00 1.10 4.68 11.26 21.54 36.38 56.71 83.14 115.31 | wind (inches)

Fact: 5.56 has less wind drift that 7.62x39.

5.56 is also not a particularly excellent long-range round, but 7.62x39 is worse.

Candiru
August 21, 2008, 05:00 PM
False. It is BC not mass which matters. Wind drift is a function of BC and velocity.


I can see how velocity directly influences wind drift: The faster a bullet gets to the target, the less time the wind has to act on it. What I don't understand is how the ballistic coefficient of a bullet makes any definitive statement about the bullet's susceptibility to wind drift. Published BCs are based on a bullet's reaction to drag along its path of motion when fired point-first. Wind drift is drag that acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion; the amount of drag is determined by the BC of the bullet as measured from the side, and I don't know that this is guaranteed to be proportional to the BC as measured from the front. In fact, it seems like sectional density from the side would increase with caliber: SD is proportional to mass divided by area, and for a section of a cylinder with constant density, mass will increase proportional to the square of the radius, while area only increases linearly.

What confuses the entire issue is that velocity can never be separated from BC. Load a 6.5 Creedmoor round to identical weight and velocity as 7.62x39mm and at any distance where ballistics matter, it'll be going a lot faster. Could it be that wind drift is dominated by velocity, not BC?

Zak Smith
August 21, 2008, 05:19 PM
Going along the lines of your post, BC affects flight time because velocity is lost at a slower rate.

Could it be that wind drift is dominated by velocity, not BC?
No, it's pretty clear that BC is the most important factor in downrange wind drift:



* Sweep BC
_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 250 500 750 1000 | YARDS
A 0.300 2700 > 0.00 2.88 6.70 11.52 16.45 | wind (moa)
B 0.400 2700 > 0.00 2.09 4.65 7.83 11.52 | wind (moa)
C 0.500 2700 > 0.00 1.64 3.56 5.85 8.54 | wind (moa)
D 0.600 2700 > 0.00 1.34 2.88 4.65 6.70 | wind (moa)

* Sweep Velocity
E 0.500 2500 > 0.00 1.83 3.98 6.55 9.49 | wind (moa)
F 0.500 2700 > 0.00 1.64 3.56 5.85 8.54 | wind (moa)
G 0.500 2900 > 0.00 1.48 3.20 5.25 7.68 | wind (moa)
H 0.500 3100 > 0.00 1.34 2.90 4.74 6.94 | wind (moa)


A practical interpretation of this data is that increasing the BC from 0.50 to 0.60 (which can often be done by simply choosing a better bullet) decreases the wind drift @ 1000 yards more than increasing the muzzle velocity from 2700 to 3100 (which is a huge difference in MV-- you need a much bigger case).

Now obviously there is a tipping point where your high-BC load is going too slow, but, it's lower than many might think, and it's usually in a flight regime where the shooter wants a lot less drop (or really: drop rate) to help with MV S.D. and ranging error. Here are three possible 308 loads:

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 250 500 750 1000 | YARDS
308 155 0.508 2900 > 0.00 1.45 3.14 5.14 7.52 | wind (moa)
308 240 0.71* 2200 > 0.00 1.51 3.24 5.21 7.40 | wind (moa)
308 240 0.71* 2000 > 0.00 1.75 3.75 5.98 8.35 | wind (moa)

308 155 0.508 2900 > -0.00 2.32 8.81 17.44 28.75 | drop (moa)
308 240 0.71* 2200 > -0.00 4.68 15.46 28.84 45.25 | drop (moa)
308 240 0.71* 2000 > -0.00 5.93 19.24 35.76 55.95 | drop (moa)

308 155 0.508 2900 > 0.04 -0.08 -0.25 -0.49 -0.84 | drop per yard (inches)
308 240 0.71* 2200 > 0.06 -0.15 -0.41 -0.77 -1.23 | drop per yard (inches)
308 240 0.71* 2000 > 0.06 -0.18 -0.51 -0.95 -1.52 | drop per yard (inches)



-z

Candiru
August 21, 2008, 06:23 PM
How is wind drift measured? I would imagine that thousand-yard-wide wind tunnels are in short supply.

Also, what I meant by asking about velocity and wind drift pertained to an apples-to-apples comparison of two bullets of identical weight and muzzle velocity, but different ballistic coefficients. Given that all objects fall at the same speed, the reduced bullet drop at range seen for a bullet with high BC means that it's getting there sooner, which means that it's spending less time having force exerted on it by wind. The heavy, high-BC .308 bullets listed also seem to contribute as much proof to the theory that bullet mass acts against wind drift as they do to the BC theory.

Zak Smith
August 21, 2008, 06:26 PM
Go read McCoy's tome on external ballistics-- or at least the highlights about accuracy and how the original models were verified against reality. The modeling of symmetric projectiles' flight is so good that the Army basically shut down their research group on the subject, a few decades ago if I remember correctly.


The heavy, high-BC .308 bullets listed also seem to contribute as much proof to the theory that bullet mass acts against wind drift as they do to the BC theory.
Except the computer does not know about the mass-- only the BC. The point is, it's all rolled into the BC value. You can accurately model small-arms trajectory (ie, not artillery) knowing just the MV and BC (and environmental conditions).

Candiru
August 21, 2008, 06:32 PM
Just to make sure, the McCoy book you're talking about is "Modern Exterior Ballistics: The Launch and Flight Dynamics of Symmetric Projectiles" by R. L. McCoy, right? If so, I'll definitely pick up a copy. Does he talk about the mechanism by which BC influences wind drift?

Zak Smith
August 21, 2008, 06:39 PM
That's it. It's a bit expensive. I'm sure he covers that; it covers everything.

subierex
August 21, 2008, 06:41 PM
At 300 yds, gimme a scoped bolt-action in a heavier caliber than either of those two. As such, I would choose the AK in 7.62x39 with M.O.Badguy accuracy.

TNThomas
August 22, 2008, 03:17 AM
If i was being shot at by gang members, i would pick up my ak, because i dont have an mini 14. But i would rather use my Mossberg 590, 9 shells of 00 should do the trick at close range a little better. I would rather not be in that situation at all,

Ignition Override
August 22, 2008, 03:47 AM
How about bad guys in a car who stop and shoot from the relative safety of it, or step just outside it then plan to jump back in-has this been discussed?
A guy out west says that he is in danger of a local gangbanger who knows where he lives-outside a city.

Being kind of new to any gun topic, wouldn't a round larger than .223 have a better chance of going through a windshield or a car door? I've read somewhere about problems with .223s penetrating windshields, or at typical angles.

If you don't have an AK (or the mag is empty), how about an SKS instead of a Mini 14 or AR-15, if the SKS is fully loaded, and where kids can not find it/reach it?
An loaded SKS with a loaded Mosin Nagant as back-up might help.
By the way, a suspected gangbanger offered the seller of my SKS $300, over in Nashville, sight unseen-an unsolicited phone call.
There was no ad for it. The stranger overheard one of his (seller's ) employees chat about it somewhere. Maybe the stranger thought it was an AK?
As back-up for a rifle, have you guys seen a Saiga combat shotgun in action? My brother and I saw guys testing one in Evansville last week at an empty range. They are developing a patent for a modified, fully-automatic version: Alliance Armament. It was impressive.
Even the semi- Saiga 12 might have my vote.

ziggy222
August 22, 2008, 04:04 AM
its not always about how big a hole the bullet makes.my 1st two whitetails i shot were with a 30-06 with 165 and 180 grain slugs.i was'nt impressed.they ran over 50 yards,one 100yards.i tried 125 grain gamekings slug and wow,they dropped immediately.i had a 125 grain 30 caliber slug going 3200fps,200fps short of what a 257weatherby magnum does,a gun thats killed every known animal on the face of this earth with a 117 grain slug going 3400fps.it caused immediate shock and death.i leaves a small slice all the way through with little damage to meat.there is a magic killing force for most bullet weights going over 3000fps.thats why i get fast kills with smaller bullets.i do make sure to use bullets that stay together long enough to go deep.i now use a 22-250 with 60 grain nosler partitions cause the 50 grain bullets are only offered in varmint bullets that blow up too shallow at 22-250 speeds but they two work.all my kills are immediate even if i don't hit a good area.i've had them drop dead on the spot from a hit anywhere from a gut shot to a shoulder hit.my hunting buddy uses a ruger223 bolt with 55grain gamekings and makes easy kills.this is'nt the only way to acheive kills,its just the reason why the 223 is a better killer than 7.62x39.yes smaller bulls have more wind drift than heavier ones at the same speed,but they are'nt going the same speed.if you push a light bullet fast enough then you get a light flat shooting accurate low recoil bullet with very little wind drift that creates instant shock resulting in death.now some soldiers have had to shoot people multiple times with the new guns their using now when shooting far away targets.this is because they shortened the barrels and lost vital fps needed for shock.its like being stabbed with a hot ice poker several times,but only when its a far shot.they needed guns short enough to get in and out of trucks quickly while policing over there.an 7.62x39 might do better in that situation but in one of our fine rifles and not some spray and pray type gun like our enemies are using.if the 223 is'nt getting up to speed then its loosing its best advantage.

MTMilitiaman
August 22, 2008, 04:11 AM
I can see how velocity directly influences wind drift: The faster a bullet gets to the target, the less time the wind has to act on it. What I don't understand is how the ballistic coefficient of a bullet makes any definitive statement about the bullet's susceptibility to wind drift. Published BCs are based on a bullet's reaction to drag along its path of motion when fired point-first. Wind drift is drag that acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion; the amount of drag is determined by the BC of the bullet as measured from the side, and I don't know that this is guaranteed to be proportional to the BC as measured from the front. In fact, it seems like sectional density from the side would increase with caliber: SD is proportional to mass divided by area, and for a section of a cylinder with constant density, mass will increase proportional to the square of the radius, while area only increases linearly.

The answer is really simple. You're hitting all around it, and I am sure given enough time, you'd eventually get it yourself.

It has to do with time of flight. The longer the bullet is in the air between two given points, the longer forces of wind resistance and gravity can act on the bullet. Gravity is pretty simple. It remains constant and its value is known. Wind resistance is harder to calculate. Barometric pressure and humidity, the density of the atmosphere as related to elevation, and other factors all contribute. Now you may think these factors are seperate from wind drift, but they are not.

A bullet with a high BC is going to resist drag better. It is therefore going to maintain velocity better, and slip through the air more efficiently. So its time of flight is going to be lower than a bullet that starts out at a similar velocity with a lower BC. Less time in the air means crosswind, like other forces, has less time to push on the bullet. Therefore, the bullet with the lower time of flight usually has less wind drift.

You can see that neither the 5.56 nor the 7.62x39 listed in the provided ballistics table has all that impressive of a BC. The BC on the 7.62x39's projectile has a slight edge, but it can't match the significant velocity advantage of the 5.56. Because the 5.56 has so much higher an initial starting velocity, it's time of flight is lower. This means gravity has less time to pull it to the earth, so it has less drop, and crosswind has less time to push it laterally off course, so it has less wind drift. And it is all related to BC and velocity. Mass counts more in terminal ballistics than in external ballistics.

The only effect mass has in external ballistics has to do with mass in relation to bore diameter. Bullets of similar construction in the same bore diameter tend to get longer as they get heavier. Longer bullets have higher BCs. Therefore, the aforementioned heavy for caliber .308 caliber projectiles you mentioned are favored not because of their mass so much as because mass in that diameter and construction gives them higher BCs, and consequently, lower time of flight downrange.

A 125 gr .310 caliber bullet is pretty light for its diameter, so the opposite is true of it, esp regarding its modest starting velocity--low BC + modest starting velocity = bad. The 7.62x39 has pretty good terminal ballistics but its external ballistics fail it miserably. This is fine because the cartridge was intended for intermediate ranges and power levels associated with assault rifles, and because the 5.56 is failed by its terminal ballistics more than its external ballistics, so it evens out pretty well in the end. Beyond 160 yards or so, the 5.56 is going to be below the velocity it can be relied upon the reliably fragment. And without fragmentation, the 5.56 loses most of its effectiveness relative to the 7.62x39 simple because while it may still tumble, the projectile isn't as long and therefore, it displaces less tissue when doing so.

This is why I am a firm believer that the effective range of the AK and the M16 isn't nearly as different as some would like to pretend. The AK retains the mass, energy, and momentum of the .357 Magnum at the muzzle, at 300+ yards, but suffers from poor external ballistics and only a moderate level of accuracy. The M16 has the accuracy and external ballistics to hit beyond 300 yards, but its chief wounding mechanism is dependent on velocity, which is lost with range. So in my experience, both rifles are best within 300 yards or so.

MTMilitiaman
August 22, 2008, 04:46 AM
its not always about how big a hole the bullet makes.my 1st two whitetails i shot were with a 30-06 with 165 and 180 grain slugs.i was'nt impressed.they ran over 50 yards,one 100yards.i tried 125 grain gamekings slug and wow,they dropped immediately.i had a 125 grain 30 caliber slug going 3200fps,200fps short of what a 257weatherby magnum does,a gun thats killed every known animal on the face of this earth with a 117 grain slug going 3400fps.it caused immediate shock and death.i leaves a small slice all the way through with little damage to meat.there is a magic killing force for most bullet weights going over 3000fps.thats why i get fast kills with smaller bullets.i do make sure to use bullets that stay together long enough to go deep.i now use a 22-250 with 60 grain nosler partitions cause the 50 grain bullets are only offered in varmint bullets that blow up too shallow at 22-250 speeds but they two work.all my kills are immediate even if i don't hit a good area.i've had them drop dead on the spot from a hit anywhere from a gut shot to a shoulder hit.my hunting buddy uses a ruger223 bolt with 55grain gamekings and makes easy kills.this is'nt the only way to achieve kills,its just the reason why the 223 is a better killer than 7.62x39.yes smaller bulls have more wind drift than heavier ones at the same speed,but they are'nt going the same speed.if you push a light bullet fast enough then you get a light flat shooting accurate low recoil bullet with very little wind drift that creates instant shock resulting in death.now some soldiers have had to shoot people multiple times with the new guns their using now when shooting far away targets.this is because they shortened the barrels and lost vital fps needed for shock.its like being stabbed with a hot ice poker several times,but only when its a far shot.they needed guns short enough to get in and out of trucks quickly while policing over there.an 7.62x39 might do better in that situation but in one of our fine rifles and not some spray and pray type gun like our enemies are using.theres other ways than my method,like using soft points but thats another subject.

Yes, and no.

When it works, shock can produce magnificent results. But it isn't as reliable as other wounding mechanisms.

Our family has had the opposite experience as yours. My dad loaded 165 gr Gamekings in his .30-06. At the velocities he was loading them, they came apart inside 100 yards. Typically, if there was an exit wound, it was just what remained of the core as all of the jacket and most of the core was found fragmented inside the chest cavity. But the animals still ran incredible distances before expiring. He switched to the 180 gr Gamekings, which stuck together and penetrate better, while still maintaining good expansion, and not only did the animals cover less ground after being hit, but exit wounds meant better blood trails in recovering them.

When I got my 7mm Rem Mag, my first deer was shot at a distance of about 30 feet, broadside, right behind the shoulder. The slightly compressed load of Hodgens 870 propelled the 160 gr Nosler Partition at over 3000 fps. At that velocity, the bullet fragmented and only the rear core fully penetrated the animal. Shock forces were immense. It looked like a grenade went off inside the animal's chest. Jacket fragments were found in the backstrap, as well as in meat between ribs near the brisket. The heart was blown out of its protective membrane and bruised. The lungs were blown to chunks, much of which was sprayed across the forest behind the exit wound, along with hair and bone. The animal still ran almost 30 yards before collapsing.

Then this last hunting season, my dad was packing a custom .338 Remington Ultra Mag. With a 30 inch Lilja barrel, this rifle was shooting 250 gr Matchkings over a chrono at over 3100 fps. He shot a smallish doe in the last minutes of shooting light. The deer turned slightly as the trigger broke and the quartering on shot missed the onside shoulder, penetrated diagonally across the chest cavity, and exited about 3 inches behind the last offside rib. The exit wound looked like a ragged 8 inch long slash or tear. At least a liter of blood along with chunks of lung and much of the liver was blown out of the exit wound. The deer reeled and covered over 90 yards, losing much of its entrails in the process, before succumbing to its wounds.

In all of these cases, the animal sustained far more shock forces than any .22 caliber centerfire is capable of producing, but the animals still covered amazing distances. My theory is that these shock forces can trigger the animal's instinctive flight drive more acutely than impacts which impart less of these shock forces. With these survival drives triggered, the animal's blood stream is flooded with adrenaline and endorphins which dull pain perception and allow the animal to sustain incredible damage while still covering seemingly impossible distances. It is the same reason why bows remain relatively effective within their range parameters as a high powered rifle--they are quieter, which is less alarming to the animal. It doesn't detect as much harm or danger as the sharp crack and boom of a high powered rifle, so it doesn't run as far before blood loss takes it toll.

There are two reliable stopping mechanisms for living beings. Neither of them is shock forces as related to so-called "hydro-static" shock. The first is to destroy the Central Nervous System with either a shot to the brain, or the spinal cord. The second is depriving vital organs of oxygen, usually through the destruction of critical cardio-respiratory structures. In this case, the animal goes into shock, but this shock is due to blood loss and occurs late enough that by the time it takes effect, the animal is unlikely to continue fighting/fleeing for any significant time period. At that point, death in imminent without immediate medical attention.

My experience shooting living things has taught me never to rely on shock forces imparted by a projectile to debilitate a living creature. I've seen it fail too many times.

ziggy222
August 22, 2008, 05:49 AM
those examples are slightly different than what i was talking about.your using large magnum rounds that are known for blowing them away lol.the only reason they ran as far as they did was likely cause they were alreaddy running all day with adrenalin.your 165 grain loads did'nt match the bullet.you needed to slow it down a bit or use a bullet suited for that speed.i can see your a big fan of magnums.thats cool.sometimes its fun to blow stuff up lol.i never had anything against my old 30-06.i'd still have it but i just don't have room for anything i don't use often.so many hobbies and so little space.but getting back on subject.the 7.62 has 20% less power than a 3030winchester.its just not that impressive to me.the russians are'nt completely convinced its what they want either or they would'nt be trying knew stuff like their 22x39.mtmalitiaman i like how you explained you opinion two.

cornman
August 22, 2008, 10:22 AM
.223 is a good varmint round.

MTMilitiaman
August 22, 2008, 12:14 PM
the russians are'nt completely convinced its what they want either or they would'nt be trying knew stuff like their 22x39.mtmalitiaman i like how you explained you opinion two.

The Russians are "experimenting" with the 5.45x39 because it makes more sense for them than it does for us. Their infantry doctrine involves more massed fire, and their troops aren't generally as highly trained as ours. A flat trajectory/low recoil impulse cartridge is easier to train conscripts on. Still, they obviously aren't completely convinced the 5.45x39 is all the need, or certain more highly trained units wouldn't still be demanding access to the close in firepower provided by the 7.62x39. It works both ways.

And I fail to see how my examples were not what you were talking about. I shot my first deer with a .223 loaded with 55 gr SPs. That failed to impress me. I used a .270 for a couple years after that, then moved up to a 7mm Rem Mag. I went with a 160 gr Accubond at about 2960 fps. And yes, magnums are generally favored in my family. We hunt deer as well as elk with the same rifles and loads and while it is possible to humanely take elk with much smaller cartridges, we have enough respect for their tenacity to use the largest cartridges we feel comfortable with.

The 7.62x39 may not have the power of some larger rounds, but it is more powerful and capable of better terminal effect than the 5.56. So if you're not impressed with it, you certainly shouldn't be boasting the effects of the 5.56 like they are something they are not.

oldfatslob
August 24, 2008, 02:21 PM
It never ceases to amaze me. The fact that folks will not read, will never get past the thing that is currently in their mind because it is clouding all other train of thought that a poster such as me is trying to convey.

Now let me be clear. Try to read this. Look at every word. Or don't respond if you're not going to bother.

Again, I was referring to the exaggerated claims that the .223 was a superior round because it has a longer range. Now put the 7.62 out of your minds past 300 yards because NO ONE is claiming that. Only the .223 promoters are claiming the effectiveness of the .223 past 300 yards.

Still reading or are you just skimming?

Try to study this.

Take some adhd meds.

The .223 is NOT SUITABLE for long range shooting because of the itty bitty round and the wind drift.

I AM NOT saying the 7.62X39 is.

Others are trying to say the .223 is. When in fact it is NOT.

Look at your own silly computer data charts on the wind drift. About 2 feet at 400 yards, will your sites or scope compensate for 2 feet? 83 inches at 700 yards, will your scope or sites adjust that much.

Get a clue yet?

Get a proper weapon for those ranges, the .223 nor the 7.62X39 is not. The claim that the .223 is a superior weapon because of longer range is BS because of wind drift.

Unless you need adhd meds and didn't take them, you get what I just wrote.

Sam1911
August 24, 2008, 05:31 PM
Hmmm... Condescending with a heavy dash of insulting. Tastes like...tastes like ... ahhh, I've got it! Tastes like the door hitting you in the a$$ on the way out!

".223 vs. 7.62 by 39?" I believe is the title of the thread. You've denigrated the rest of the posters, accused them of having psychiatric problems, suggested that they can't follow your blinding logic (Should have said, "I'll use SMALL words and short sentences, so I ... I mean YOU ... don't get confused!":D), and your final answer is...neither? :banghead:

Think we could find a less arrogant and boorish way to say, "I don't have anything more to contribute?"

:rolleyes:

Learn to communicate politely or "join the band," friend.
-Sam

oldfatslob
August 24, 2008, 07:09 PM
Yea, delete my account and bite me. You can't read what I wrote anyway, so there. Look at the stupid charts all you want, the .223 will never be very effective past 300.

35 Whelen
August 24, 2008, 07:10 PM
I agree with Mr. Slob. Perhaps he could have been a bit more eloquent in what he said, but I think he's correct in his assertion.

Also, sometimes I think people take possession of their favorite Tacti-kewl Kommando rifle, and immediately, whatever cartridge it happens to chambered for becomes the greatest combat AND hunting cartridge ever known to man.

Personally, I think neither cartridges in question is of much use past a couple hundred yards. And within that distance (as I said in a previous post) I firmly believe the larger bullet would be the better killer. Again, I base this on 30+ years of digging bullets out of dead game and tracing the path and damage wrought by said bullets. All things equal: Bigger bullet=bigger hole.

35W

Don't Tread On Me
August 24, 2008, 07:32 PM
There's no need for 100+ posts in a .223 vs. 7.62x39 thread anymore. I have the answer!


7.62x39mm SOFT POINT. End of debate. :p

No 5.56 can match the destructive power of that. No tumbling, no fragmentation, nothing. A 77gr at a blazing 2,830fps still doesn't come close. Forget 80's, they don't feed from a magazine - but even if they did, they still don't match an x39 soft point.

Generally, I really don't like the caliber or bullet-type nitpicking debates. As in the greater scheme of things, when you put the whole game into perspective, it is a MINOR concern compared to say - shot placement, warrior mindset, training etcetera....

For some obsessive types, it is an utter waste of brain power that is better used on other aspects of firearm defense.

Zak Smith
August 24, 2008, 08:42 PM
oldfatslob,

THR is different from other online forums. We value a certain level of civility, productive discussion, and arguments from cite-able facts instead of repeating myths and more or less baseless opinion. My first post after you resurrected this three year old thread questioned whether or not it was "worth it" to bring back an ancient thread when no new information or valuable arguments were presented.

Sam1911 is right on two counts: (1) your attitude and behavior in the last few posts, where you resort to personal attacks and condescension, is totally out of line on THR - and will not be tolerated; and (2) it is reasonable to assume that since the topic of discussion is "223 vs 7.62x39" that wind drift comments are relevant to that comparison.

I strongly recommend that when posters start a thread, or come into a thread, that they do so with a specific thesis idea in mind that will be helpful to the discussion, state that thesis clearly, and then back it up with data and a reasonable argument.

FMJMIKE
August 24, 2008, 10:23 PM
I use 7.62 X 39 hollowpoints in my AK. Not too many varmits will walk away from them..........:D

MTMilitiaman
August 25, 2008, 04:49 AM
those examples are slightly different than what i was talking about.your using large magnum rounds that are known for blowing them away lol.the only reason they ran as far as they did was likely cause they were alreaddy running all day with adrenalin.your 165 grain loads did'nt match the bullet.you needed to slow it down a bit or use a bullet suited for that speed.i can see your a big fan of magnums.thats cool.sometimes its fun to blow stuff up lol.i never had anything against my old 30-06.i'd still have it but i just don't have room for anything i don't use often.so many hobbies and so little space.but getting back on subject.the 7.62 has 20% less power than a 3030winchester.its just not that impressive to me.the russians are'nt completely convinced its what they want either or they would'nt be trying knew stuff like their 22x39.mtmalitiaman i like how you explained you opinion two.

My previous reply to this response was cut short because I had to go to work and have been away from keys for a couple days.

To continue, this is what really bothers me about arguments concerning the 5.56. Because this cartridge, more than any other, defies logic. It has been this way ever since some high ranking military brass and politicians were gathered together to watch people shoot watermelons with the then new plastic Black Rifle. People think there is something "magic" to it, and there just isn't.

The examples I listed were the exact same forces as those involved with the 5.56mm, just on a much larger scale. For them to be discredited as "not the same thing" and for it then to be suggested that I slow the bullets down to velocities they stick together makes so little sense that I can't believe I actually read it. I keep looking for some indicator of sarcasm.

Bullet fragmentation is bullet fragmentation. It occurs because forces involve stress a bullet beyond those which it was designed to handle while maintaining structural integrity. It is the same in the M855 ball round as it is in the Mk 262 Mod I OTM round as it is in the M118LR OTM round or a 160 gr Nosler Partition in a 7mm Rem Mag. The wounding mechanism is exactly the same. For someone to entertain the notion that this mechanism is what makes the 5.56 so effective, but it is different for other cartridges, is asinine and retarded in the extreme, and just goes to show how utterly and completely beyond reasonable debate some people are on this topic.

This could go on for ten pages and there would still be people arguing that the 5.56 is better because it fragments, or because of invisible purple shock gremlins, or some other nonsense that doesn't apply to any other physical force in this solar system, let alone any other cartridge.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 25, 2008, 09:13 AM
Well, if several years and six pages of debate haven't cleared it up by now, it doesn't look like this thread is going to be the one to do it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Not Again: .223 vs. 7.62 by 39" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!