[glockamolee]

Can someone give me "real world" comparisons between the .223 and 7.62x39?

I'm considering another AK, but in .223. I'm hoping for a bit more accuracy and range. On a similar note, can the .223 reliably drop a deer as can the 7.62x39.

[Coronach]

Here we go again...

Seriously. Do a search (assuming it is working today). This topic is one of the most-beaten dead horses in firearms-boards history.

Mike :)

[JShirley]

Faster/lighter vs. heavier/slower. Search, indeed. :)

[Don't Tread On Me]

Wait, this can be answered right now.


Neither cartridge is more accurate than the other**. It isn't the .223 that does it, it is the AR-15 pattern rifles that produces the better accuracy.


That is fact, and there is absolutely no debate required.


** There might be a tiny difference in accuracy due to the .223 being straight, and the 7.62x39 being tapered, but the difference is probably too small to ever really matter. The difference rests on the rifle platform, all things being equal (match ammo being used in each)


As for range. There is NO difference in their range. There is a difference in trajectory. If having a flatter trajector, which equates to longer "point blank range", than yes, the .223 has more range. In reality though, it doesn't.

[TexasRifleman]

Neither cartridge works very well.

I'd recommend 9mm Ball.






(sorry, couldn't resist).

[GTSteve03]

Bah, both are sissy cartridges.

Git yerself a real Rifle, .30 caliber, M1 and shoot the cartridge God himself would use, the 30'06! :neener:

[MechAg94]

No, 9 mm sucks. You have to go with .45 ACP. :D :neener:

[MechAg94]

Of course, you have to include 5.45X39 in there. Don't forget .276 Pederson or 6.5 Grendal. :D

[R.W.Dale]

REAL MEN shoot 6.5x50r:D

[rbernie]

Manly bark-chewing, sand-eating, spit-in-your-eye-and-make-you-cry kinda men shoot 303R. :neener:

[lamazza]

7.62 more power to penetrate. .223 much more accurate and does plenty enough damage.

[gbran]

Since nothing else matters but shot placement, use a 17 cal pellet gun. It's cheaper and doesn't recoil.

[benEzra]

On a similar note, can the .223 reliably drop a deer as can the 7.62x39.
No. It is possible to kill a deer with .223, given very good shot placement, but there is very little margin for error. .223 is not even legal for deer hunting in many states.

[Turk]

I've seen men hit with both M-16"s and AK-47's. From what I've seen the wounds from the M-193 ball were the worst. If I had a choice (which you don't have) I'd want to take a hit form a 7.62x39 round over the M-193.

Accuracy. I've never shot the 7.62x39 out of anything but SKS and AK types and accuracy was ok for a combat situation. Shooting a M16A1 or a SP1 accuracy was excellent. The shooting platform means a lot but then I think the AK is a piece of crap. :)

Deer Hunting. a 223 Rem. will take down a deer with proper type of bullet and shot placement but why use that caliber when there are better?


Have a good day.


Turk

Remember to pray for our troops.

[The Infidel]

Soviet 7.62 makes a bigger hole. That's about it.

If you want a real 7.62, get an M1A or a FAL.

[MechAg94]

.223 is easier to shoot accurately IMHO. I think the 7.62X39 is plenty accurate but it is hindered by the cheap rifles and bad sights that most people use. If you spent $800 on an AK like you do with an AR, you could get an accurate rifle with better sights. Still, the .223 is easier to shoot accurately to me due to flatter trajectory and lighter recoil in the AR. Overall weight of the AR platform is much lower in carbines.

Deer hunting, I would stick with bigger cartidges. There are lots of surplus bolt action rifles out there that would work better or these handi rifles I hear people talk about.

[Vex]

*puts on the asbestos underwear*

I vote for 40S&W!

[JShirley]

Mojo sights will take care of the sight problem for $40. That's my main complaint w/ AKs.

[MTMilitiaman]

Mojo sights will take care of the sight problem for $40. That's my main complaint w/ AKs.

Kind of, but not really. The Mojos are a definate improvement and I consider them a must, but the AK is still plagued by a short sight radius that not even the Mojos can do much to improve.

I've seen men hit with both M-16"s and AK-47's. From what I've seen the wounds from the M-193 ball were the worst. If I had a choice (which you don't have) I'd want to take a hit form a 7.62x39 round over the M-193.

First, consider ammunition choice. Research the difference between the Russian M43 ball round and the Yugo M67 ball round. Then consider the Wolf FMJ has an air pocket in the nose just like the Yugo round.

Then consider what happens when the 5.56 doesn't expand and fragment. Having witnessed it, I have to say, it isn't impressive in the least. Fragmentation in any cartridge relies primarily on velocity, which is lost in flight. Diameter and mass are not, and the 7.62x39 has more of each. The lesson is that 5.56 may or may not expand, but the 7.62mm isn't going to get any smaller.

Accuracy. I've never shot the 7.62x39 out of anything but SKS and AK types and accuracy was ok for a combat situation. Shooting a M16A1 or a SP1 accuracy was excellent. The shooting platform means a lot but then I think the AK is a piece of crap.

Funny you should mention that. I have a brother and several friends in the Army and every single one of them uniformly hates, despises...loathes the M16. My brother will start cussing if you mention "M" and "16" in the same sentence. In fact I think he referred to it in basic more as "his POS rifle" than he did as an M16. Last I checked, he doesn't think any better of the M4 he was issued in Fort Campbell and carried in Iraq. These are people who have been around guns their entire lives--country boys who know how to shoot and know how a rifle should work. It isn't like the M16, according to them. My brother has told me he would be using his $320 Romanian WASR instead of the M4, if they would let him.

[pcf]

5.56x45 will zip right through your body leaving an itty bitty hole that you can laugh at. Ever put a staple in your finger? Like that, but only hurts as much as getting hit by a nerf bat. The only thing in this world less dangerous than the 5.56x45 is the 9x19 luger.

The 7.62x39 on the other just might have created the universe as we know it. According to some scholars a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, in the middle of a firefight two 7.62x39 bullets collided in mid air, the extreme tactical force created by the two bullets colliding is now known as the "big bang".

Scholarly stuff aside here are some facts, the 7.62x39 is second most powerful firearm cartridge in existence (number one is of course the 45ACP), and if you are hit by a 7.62x39 bullet your body will be instantly vaporize into primordial fluid. Even Chuck Norris would instantly die if hit in the pinkie by the 7.62.

Source of information: this is based off of information found on thehighroad.org

[rbernie]

Even Chuck Norris would instantly die if hit in the pinkie I think that the only way to settle this age-old debate is to ask Chuck Norris what he uses. Can't argue with THAT answer....

[Bigfoot]

If Chuck Norris was armed with the 5.56x45, and Sylvester Stalone had a 7.62x39 and they had a shootout, which one would win?

Chuck Norris rifle is a Mini-14, are they any good?

[R.H. Lee]

Any way you slice it, the .223 is still just a .22 caliber. The 7.62 is a full house .30 cal. You decide.

[Bigfoot]

So, your saying Stalone is the better actor. Ok, Stalone vs Bruce Willis then.

[Seraph]

According to some scholars a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, in the middle of a firefight two 7.62x39 bullets collided in mid air, the extreme tactical force created by the two bullets colliding is now known as the "big bang".
Any way you slice it, the .223 is still just a .22 caliber. The 7.62 is a full house .30 cal. You decide.
Today 07:02 PM
Good stuff. <insert three (3) ROFLMAO smilies>

[epijunkie67]

Part of the answer to this age old question is based on the NEXT question. Which is, what kind of ammo are you using? There's a heck of a lot of difference in .223 FMJ military vs soft point hunting vs ballistic tip varmint ammo. Same for the 7.62. Are you wanting to know how the military rounds compare or are you wanting to know how ALL of the different rounds compare?

The other question you have to ask is, what range do you plan on engaging the target at for each of these rounds? And what weapons platform are you using? Velocity from a short barreled M4 is going to be different than from a 24" bolt rifle and that, coupled with expected ranges AND which of the above rounds you plan on using, can make one or the other rounds the "best" for that particular shooting exercise.

Millions of people around the world are dead from both. That being said, in response to this question you asked, ;"On a similar note, can the .223 reliably drop a deer as can the 7.62x39.", the .223 isn't legal for hunting in several states. Take that however you chose to take it.

[Don't Tread On Me]

Any way you slice it, the .223 is still just a .22 caliber. The 7.62 is a full house .30 cal. You decide.


[ROFL, flame bait - I love it. This is grade A stuff too.]


Perspective!

The .308 is just 0.084" bigger than .223. Now that is what I call a giant leap in performance! :eek:

[.311 for 7.62x39mm]

[R.H. Lee]

The .308 is just 0.084" bigger than .223. Now that is what I call a giant leap in performance And it weighs more than twice as much (that's 100%+ increase) which is significant, no? :neener:

[pcf]

Stallone? Willis? Weaklings! The question should be, if Chuck Norris had a 5.56x45 and Steven Seagal had a 45ACP, in the epic battle for middle earth, which one would rule them all?

Ammo choices, ammo choices......
With the 5.56x45 the only choice is M193/XM193. It's tactical hyper velocity loading allows the the bullet to "tumble" when entering a semi viscous fluid substance. The centrifical acceleration from tumbling bullet tip exceeds the speed of light causing a cross dimensional vortex to form, displacing matter into Dimension-X. Many people think that these wounds are caused by "fragmentation", but that's because their simple minds can't handle the Law of Hyperspeed Quantum Displacement of Matter.

7.62x39 bullet selection doesn't matter, after it's 7.62mm wide, that's three tenth of an inch. Think about it. Quick think of something else that's three tenths of inch.............Couldn't do it, could you? Three tenths of inch is so big that you couldn't think of anything else near its size. I rest my case.

[MechAg94]

And the whole package weights 3 times as much right? :D

.308 is another league above 7.62X39.

[rbernie]

The .308 is just 0.084" bigger than .223. Now that is what I call a giant leap in performance! Getting serious for a minute, this is a specious argument in that it ignores the actual gain in frontal area between 5.56 and 7.62. The 223 has a frontal area (presuming no deformation) of 24.3 sq mm and the 7.62x39 has a frontal area of 45.6 sq mm. Therefore, the 7.62 bullet will create a hole almost twice as large (again, absent any deformation of the bullet via yaw-n-fragmentation or mushrooming).

[Bigfoot]

PCF makes a good point. The .45 ACP bullet is bigger and heavier then even the .308. The .45 ACP weilded by Stevan Segal beats them all, .308 included.

Or maybe, just maybe, the much higher velocity MIGHT make the 5.56 more effective than the 7.62x39? Naw, basing parformance on size alone is easier on the brain. And Segals is bigger so he wins.

[R.W.Dale]

HA! one needs not look any farther than the original assult rifle round 450/577
Think about it it's OLD it's BIG and it's SLOW the exact same critera that makes 45acp the the handgun of choice for the gods and mortals alike. A handgun cartrige so good that the minds mere mortals cannot grasp the full scope of its tacticalosity. A cartrige so devistating that even the mighty Zeuss fears it.
So why not go with a rifle cartrige with all of the same attributes.
http://www.svartkrutt.net/martini12stor.jpg

[gp911]

Wait, nobody mentioned that anyone staring down the "cavernous" barrel of a .45 will instantly empty their bowels until slide lock...

The only way to scare somebody to death faster is to rack the slide on a pump shotgun, because that is the scariest sound on earth.

The only thing scarier than either of those is to close the mirrored door of the medicine cabinet and see Chuck Norris is behind you.


gp911

[Bigfoot]

The only way to scare somebody to death faster is to rack the slide on a pump shotgun, because that is the scariest sound on earth.


Oh no you di-int. Ok, Jennifer Lopez with a 12 GA pump vs. Janet Jackson with a .450-577. Jen is wearing black leather w pumps and Janet has that one droopy boob showing.

[Nathanael_Greene]

Countdown to thread lock...

10...9...8...7...6...