new member with question


PDA






e.williams
March 25, 2010, 03:50 PM
First hi guys, new to the site. I am in other forum sites and kinda know how things work so please dont bash me too much. I know there are 100 threads about 7.62 and 5.56, but my two part question is a little more specific. I cant decide between the two and here is why. What round fits my wants is unclear to me. I do understand both and have shot both. Question is will a 5.56 do what I want when needed. Being, damage a target through a wall -house 2x4 drywall or normal building materials ect. with any kind of stopping power. Also how about normal urban cover such as a car door? In the open either one will work with a well placed round but will I get results from a 5.56 with less than perfect conditions? I do understand the trade off such as- accuracy and weight, amount of ammo carried, recoil, ect... More or less is the 7.62 more of an all scenario round than the 5.56 (standard fmj). Second is I dont want to spend $1000 on a sight, but $500 or so is okay what can I do for close range such as eotech and aimpoint but at the same time put a round down range at 200+ really dont like the flip to the side 3x optic, sorry so long--- i will sit back and watch the noob comments fly !

If you enjoyed reading about "new member with question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
March 25, 2010, 03:54 PM
On the ammo choice, the 7.62 will certainly work for what you describe but it's hard to see a situation for most of us where we would NEED 7.62 over 5.56. If you are shopping from scratch the 5.56 would seem to be the best choice for the reasons you mention; weight, recoil, etc.

Proper ammo choice can get good performance from 5.56 in most situations a civilian is likely to run into, we don't have to be limited to FMJ like many military folks.

You've got to ask yourself how often you see needing to shoot into cars :)

Here's a thread you might want to read, with lots of good info on this subject, mostly about the 5.56.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=513586

Gregaw
March 25, 2010, 03:54 PM
If you are shooting through walls or car doors the 7.62*51 will be a better choice. The smaller faster 5.56 will be more likely to fragment. Both will go through walls and doors, but the larger bullet will do so with more consistency and energy left over.

Edit: Oh, and welcome to THR!

zstephens13
March 25, 2010, 05:09 PM
I second Gregaw.
If you want penetration and stopping power through walls and metal, the x51 would be the ideal choice.

Bear 45/70
March 25, 2010, 05:31 PM
I'm with Major General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov on this. He flat out stated that it was not necessary to replace the 7.62X39 with the 5.45X39 round (the Soviet equivelant of the 5.56). On top of that, here is Washington you can't deer hunt with a 5.56 (223 Remington) and it if isn't enough gun for deer then it just ain't enough gun for Bad Guys.

e.williams
March 25, 2010, 09:15 PM
so far good info guys, but what do u guys think of my optics needs. i know this is a tough one. I want quick target acquisition at close range but also want to put rounds down range on target at 200+ yards. I dont like the flip to the side x3 mags. so what does a guy do? dont wanna spend $1000 on the trij with doc on top, so do I put a 3x optic on top and put a doc site on the side rail and go to canting the rifle for close range? would like to find an optic to fit both needs for $500 maybe it doesnt exist ...thnx

happygeek
March 26, 2010, 12:52 AM
Last I looked an Aimpoint M68 was running $400 to 450 and the 3x magnifier was another $400. You could get on of those nice SpecterDR Elcan sights that switch between 1x and 4x with the flick of a lever on the side, but they were around $1800 last time I looked. I've used one and they are nice. My shooting improved dramatically with the 4x. I'd never used magnification before, wish I owned one.

Once I can work it into the budget I'm looking to get a cheap red dot for more like $100 to 150, but it's for my 22LR M4ergy so I'm not so worried about quality.

Tirod
March 26, 2010, 11:02 AM
Penetration is a direct result of the kinetic energy available to the bullet. Since there is an upper limit to velocity out of gunpowder propulsion, mass is generally considered the variable that can improve penetration results on a large scale.

Translated: You can push a small bullet only so fast, big bullets will do a better job (in this case.)

The best results of penetration in a one man portable weapon would be a .50 Cal Browning bolt action. Begs the question can anyone hump that in the streets during urban combat? Not so much. Is shooting through cover that important? In the Army's view, not so much, as the average soldier doesn't carry a weapon capable of it to a significant degree. The logisitcs and handling would be significant. The Army also has other one shot weapons it can use for those situations.

On the other hand, receiving fire from a big gun tends to concentrate return fire, as it's the most dangerous weapon on the to do list. Somebody with that kind of power jumps to the top of the list for return fire, by multiple shooters. It's the exact reason the Squad Designated Marksman is often equipped with an accurized M16, not something larger. It cuts down on preemptive first shots if it blends in with the rest of the troops.

The Army doctrine is to train harder than how combat generally is - practice with iron sights at 250m and then enjoy using a quality red dot. Optics aren't bulletproof, they go down when hit, and having the skill then is when you need it.

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 04:55 PM
Penetration is a direct result of the kinetic energy available to the bullet. Since there is an upper limit to velocity out of gunpowder propulsion, mass is generally considered the variable that can improve penetration results on a large scale.

Translated: You can push a small bullet only so fast, big bullets will do a better job (in this case.)

The best results of penetration in a one man portable weapon would be a .50 Cal Browning bolt action. Begs the question can anyone hump that in the streets during urban combat? Not so much. Is shooting through cover that important? In the Army's view, not so much, as the average soldier doesn't carry a weapon capable of it to a significant degree. The logisitcs and handling would be significant. The Army also has other one shot weapons it can use for those situations.

On the other hand, receiving fire from a big gun tends to concentrate return fire, as it's the most dangerous weapon on the to do list. Somebody with that kind of power jumps to the top of the list for return fire, by multiple shooters. It's the exact reason the Squad Designated Marksman is often equipped with an accurized M16, not something larger. It cuts down on preemptive first shots if it blends in with the rest of the troops.

The Army doctrine is to train harder than how combat generally is - practice with iron sights at 250m and then enjoy using a quality red dot. Optics aren't bulletproof, they go down when hit, and having the skill then is when you need it.
You would be wrong. Theory sounds nice but in reality it just doesn't happen.

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/Penetration.htm

Robert
March 26, 2010, 05:01 PM
As far as optics go, why not stick with irons? Unless your eyes are not all that good. A well trained rifle man should be able to make shots with a rifle out to 300 or even 400 meters with nothing more than iron sights. I have made 400m shots with my FAL using only irons. That being said, if I had the money I'd put an ACOG on my FAL in a heartbeat.

jimmyraythomason
March 26, 2010, 05:10 PM
if it isn't enough gun for deer then it just ain't enough gun for Bad Guys.
The reverse of that is also true. BTW,.223/5.56 is legal for deer in many states.

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 05:35 PM
The reverse of that is also true. BTW,.223/5.56 is legal for deer in many states.
If the 5.56 is such a great man stopper (never any proof of this BTW) why is the military looking at new larger calibers for their new improved weapons system. Oh and the military back in the 60's did everything in it's power to refuse the 5.56 and the POS M16. Then of course McNamara jammed it down their throats, politics at it's best.

Robert
March 26, 2010, 06:00 PM
What does any of that have to do with the original question? The OP asked in the given situation which of the two I have selected would work better? X or Y?

Red Tornado
March 26, 2010, 09:38 PM
For caliber, I imagine 5.56 would probably server your purposes...if you feel you'll be under gunned, go with 7.62. I can't really answer for that.

However, for quick acquisition and longer 300+ shots, the best (IMO) solution would be what is usually classified as 'peep and post'. That's what they're made for, learn 'em, love 'em, use 'em. :)
RT

Art Eatman
March 26, 2010, 09:55 PM
Don't be in a big hurry to buy anything. Around the house, most anything will do. As a fair number of granny ladies and Bad Guys have discovered, a break-open 20-gauge with most any old shot load is quite often fatal.

There are specialty rounds in .223 which blow up readily without excessive penetration of walls. Such may exist for the AK round, but I just don't know. As far as hits at 300 yards, I've seen quite a few relatively new shooters with ARs hit the steel turkey target at that distance with iron sights from field positions.

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 10:05 PM
Don't be in a big hurry to buy anything. Around the house, most anything will do. As a fair number of granny ladies and Bad Guys have discovered, a break-open 20-gauge with most any old shot load is quite often fatal.

There are specialty rounds in .223 which blow up readily without excessive penetration of walls. Such may exist for the AK round, but I just don't know. As far as hits at 300 yards, I've seen quite a few relatively new shooters with ARs hit the steel turkey target at that distance with iron sights from field positions.
Why the hell would you want a 300 yard rifle for home defense? Way to much gun and a waste of time.

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 26, 2010, 10:18 PM
what I want when needed. Being, damage a target through a wall -house 2x4 drywall or normal building materials ect. with any kind of stopping power. Also how about normal urban cover such as a car door? ... More or less is the 7.62 more of an all scenario round than the 5.56 (standard fmj).

I would say that the scenario you describe would be better suited to the 7.62. (At least 10 people are going to fuss at me over the effectiveness of the 5.56 now, but that's okay too; it's all opinion, brother).

From the 28 years I've been hunting deer in Kentucky thickets, I am of the opinion that the bigger, heavier 7.62 simply does a better job of plowing through through brush and branches (or walls and car doors) that cause the smaller, faster 5.56 to disintegrate before getting to the target.

KR

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 10:45 PM
I don't know about every where else for sue but shooting someone, even a BG thru a wall isn't gonna qualify as SD most places.

If you enjoyed reading about "new member with question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!