.223 vs 7.62x39


PDA






xjedix
October 27, 2008, 06:43 PM
I took this interesting comparison picture of a .223 next to a 7.62x39 round.

.223 - 55gr @ 3,241 fps
7.62x39 - 122gr @ 2,396 fps

Any thoughts??



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v689/xxxjedixxx/KIF_5612.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about ".223 vs 7.62x39" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
woof
October 27, 2008, 06:46 PM
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.

3pairs12
October 27, 2008, 06:46 PM
.223 looks faster.

JDGray
October 27, 2008, 06:52 PM
The fat one looks like it would hurt more:D

xjedix
October 27, 2008, 06:52 PM
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.
.223 for zombies and 7.62x39 for robots??

Please explain what the job is of each, I am rather curious. I was under the impression they had the same job..... kill the bad guy. Question is, which one does it better??

This is not to spark a AR vs AK debate, this is purely about the ammo itself.


D

tribbles
October 27, 2008, 06:56 PM
Please explain what the job is of each, I am rather curious.

Apparently their job is to fuel multiple and endless online ".223 vs. 7.62x39" discussions, mostly as a subset of the multiple and endless online "AR vs. AK" threads.

jbech123
October 27, 2008, 06:58 PM
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.
Really? They attempt to do the job differently, but essentially they are both battlefield rounds for regular soldiers of a given army. A better analogy might be a regular screwdriver and a phillips head.

gotime242
October 27, 2008, 07:02 PM
This thread fails.

quatin
October 27, 2008, 07:05 PM
This thread fails.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/JohhnyStylz/funny%20stuff/owned3.gif

IndianaBoy
October 27, 2008, 07:07 PM
Any thoughts??

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Bill2e
October 27, 2008, 07:07 PM
The Energy on both rounds is very simular, I can not see how the 7.62x 39 is so supieror to the 5.56.

Sure the 7.62x51 is has more stoping power than the 5.56. But why the great debate on these two cartriges.

Bearhands
October 27, 2008, 07:10 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Gord
October 27, 2008, 07:17 PM
Looks like it's a slow day for THR...

Anyway, I've been thinking about getting my CCW, and I can't decide between a 1911 or a Glock 9mm. What do you guys think?

Evil Monkey
October 27, 2008, 07:19 PM
This is a discussion we've never engaged in before.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/fail-owned-mens-accessories-fail.jpg

Xzyl
October 27, 2008, 11:04 PM
.223 for zombies and 7.62x39 for robots??

That is correct.

We have a winner!

yenchisks
October 27, 2008, 11:12 PM
I like to see a 250 savage next to a 223rem(5.56)

Marcus L.
October 27, 2008, 11:23 PM
A picture says a thousand words:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6451/40052militaryassaultrifqr2.th.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=40052militaryassaultrifqr2.jpg)http://img508.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

I'd like to see an updated 7.62x39. One with a reduced case taper like the 5.45x39 and 9x39 have, and a more secure cripping area on the case. The Russians haven't used the 7.62x39 in any significant volume in decades.

Equipment trends are influenced by the results of usage.

RP88
October 27, 2008, 11:36 PM
Russians have been bringing back the x39 in small but increasing numbers.

the 5.45 and 5.56 rely on fancy ballistic effects for best results, yet even a 'bad' shot that hits its target in the kill-zone is gonna drop them and take them out of the fight as good as one that hits them as intended, with the fragmenting and yawing.

The 7.62x39 punches a hole through you so hard that it apparently feels like "getting hit by a car, then setting your insides on fire", according to a marine I met in school.

All depends on the training and shooter here.

elmerfudd
October 27, 2008, 11:44 PM
A picture says a thousand words:

Maybe for militaries, but why should a civilian restrict themselves to mediocre or poor bullets simply because our armed forces try to comply with the Hague Convention? Regardless of which cartridge you choose, there are much more effective bullets out there than the ones depicted above.

The 7.62x39 having a little more energy, a heavier bullet, larger frontal area and far more momentum should have an edge when it comes to stopping power, but a good expanding .223 will do the job too and will shoot flatter.

MikeG
October 27, 2008, 11:50 PM
.223 vs 7.62x39

Because rifle folks were jealous that pistol people had the eternal 9mm vs .45ACP argument.... :neener:

longdayjake
October 28, 2008, 12:20 AM
My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Any of your own thoughts or do you just steal them from the simpsons?

RockyMtnTactical
October 28, 2008, 03:41 AM
Both will do the job...

rangerruck
October 28, 2008, 03:59 AM
dpends, really. if you wanna kill zombies or robots, hiding behind doors and walls, you go with the 762. if you want max tissue rupturing, go with a slow twist 223, a 1/12 or even the origional 1/14 , with a 55 grain hollow point.
Very messy.
this is why the russians switched to the 545, had a better tissue damage/kill ratio as a percentage, than the 762. but that was before urban warfare, kevlar, bullet proof vests. they did their tests on the ammo from 50 to 300 yds, in open fields, probably on dead pigs, or Christians they pulled out of the Gulags.

woof
October 28, 2008, 07:58 AM
As a sport shooter and not a rambo wannabe, I say the difference is that the .223 is a flat-shooting long range round excellent for all manner of varmints. The x39 is a shorter range, higher energy round with .30-30 ballistics making it very suitable for deer.

If you enjoyed reading about ".223 vs 7.62x39" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!