Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Still lots of 16A2s in rear units. 
I see'em everyday.
I see'em everyday.
"Small Caliber Leathality" or Why .223 Doesn't Suck
- Thread starter Blind Bat
- Start date
- Status
alsaqr
Member
+1
I often kill hogs with a .223 and the M193 ball round, sometimes very big hogs. Have killed dozens of hogs with that round: Most were bang flops. My aiming point is always the same; low behind the shoulder.
You are exactly right about the yawing. Whether or not the bullet hits a rib, it penetrates about 5-6 inches, turns sideways and breaks apart at the cannelure.
When the bullet breaks apart, the fragments shred the lungs and heart. Often the diaphram and liver are also torn by fragments. Usually the only recognizable part of the bullet is the flattened nose. The bullet expends all of its energy within the body of the animal.
At ranges in excess of about 200 yards from the 22 inch barrel of my CZ rifle, much of the bullets magic is gone: While the bullet still yaws, it does not fragment as much as it does at closer ranges.
Hello all,
Im new to this and realize this is an old thread but Ive been doing some reading in various forums on the comparisons between .223 and 7.62x39, as Im trying to decide between the two in a Saiga... I just finished reading this which may be of some interest...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html
Im new to this and realize this is an old thread but Ive been doing some reading in various forums on the comparisons between .223 and 7.62x39, as Im trying to decide between the two in a Saiga... I just finished reading this which may be of some interest...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html
Maverick223
Member
AAtkinson, welcome to THR, but I would highly recommend that you start a completely new thread rather than revive one that is long dead such as this one.
FWIW, I would choose the 7.62x39mm because it is an AK, this is not to suggest that the .223Rem/5.56NATO is inferior in any way, just my preference for this particular platform. In most other platforms I generally I prefer the .223, due to logistics (magazines, et al), and many other platforms were designed with this American cartridge as a standard chambering and later modified to accept the 7.62x39mm (conversely the opposite is true with respect to the AK platform).
FWIW, I would choose the 7.62x39mm because it is an AK, this is not to suggest that the .223Rem/5.56NATO is inferior in any way, just my preference for this particular platform. In most other platforms I generally I prefer the .223, due to logistics (magazines, et al), and many other platforms were designed with this American cartridge as a standard chambering and later modified to accept the 7.62x39mm (conversely the opposite is true with respect to the AK platform).
There is a very good discussion of this in Alexander Rose's American Rifle. Originally, the AR-15 had a 1:14 twist and some of the early prototypes produced by Colt were even slower. The unstable bullet caused massive wounds- which were worse than the 7.62 NATO. The cult of accuracy forced a faster twist rate so that the gun could be used accurately at longer distances. Also there was some research by the Army that showed that wound severity had more to do with velocity than bullet weight or caliber.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
To the extent that Alexander Rose or anyone else suggests that the twist rate is responsible for whether a spitzer bullet upsets in flesh, they do not understand basic principles of science and are horribly wrong.
Recommended reading on this subject:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=449255&highlight=twist+upset
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=382884&highlight=twist+upset
RedLion
Member
I'm pretty sure the author of this article will never be satisfied with any .308 or larger round because no bullet can provide "one round knockdown power".
alsaqr
Member
Bingo!!!
The guy is talking trash.
RebelRabbi
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
- Messages
- 78
This article infers that the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 are EQUAL in Terminal Performance. That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The article states that the 7.62x51 M80 round is in the same band of performance as the tested 5.56 rounds, which seems to be correct. However, the article states they did not test any other 7.62x51 (such as the M118LR 7.62x51 or any commercial 7.62x51).
In any case, the more interesting part of this article is the stuff they omitted. Check out Shawn Dodson's post of DocGKR's comments on that.
What they need to do, if they want to stay with the 5.56. Go to a bullpup design, like the rest on NATO. The MSAR, made in Pennsylvania, offers a rifle with a 20" barrel that is around 3" shorter than the M4. I think they should develop a cartridge around a 80gr 6mm bullet. It could offer a bullet with more energy than a 5.56 and a higher BC. They won't though, so...
Maverick223
Member
Amen...long bbl...short OAL, all in a BP package full of tasty goodness...what's not to like?
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
+1 and +2, yeppers.
HorseSoldier
Member
The bigger problem is detecting a target, positively ID'ing him as a bad guy, and getting hits on him in the first place -- and 308 doesn't help with any of that (and actually hinders the last if you look at multiple shot strings).
A longer barrel helps with ballistics of current .mil ammo, but rather than a new weapon, we could get pretty much the same effect by fielding ammo designed for optimal performance out of a 14.5" barrel, instead of shooting ammo built for 20" barrels through carbines.
A longer barrel helps with ballistics of current .mil ammo, but rather than a new weapon, we could get pretty much the same effect by fielding ammo designed for optimal performance out of a 14.5" barrel, instead of shooting ammo built for 20" barrels through carbines.
Ballistic Energy is what you need to look at. Yes the 5.56 NATO round will rip flesh and yes it can kill people...but so can a .22 LR...can't say I'd necessarily want to take a .22 LR to war -- but then again it would be better than nothing. Some bean counter named McNamara made the decision to go to the 5.56 NATO back in Viet Nam and our military hasn't looked back since. If the troops had their choice in weapon calibers I would wager that most would select something in the .243 to 6.8mm range, or maybe even .308 range. One thing a smaller caliber does allow our troops to achieve is fire superiority at an economical price. But other than that it is not the most effective caliber our military has ever selected. Just my 3 cents worth.
Shadow Man
Member
Really now? I was aware of BTOTM (Boat Tail Open Tip Match) and while they bear a similar resemblence to BTHP, they are a far cry from HP's. Not having shopped for HP 5.56x45mm rounds lately, I couldn't comment upon their availability.
However...Maverick was right; I would welcome a new thread about this, because this one is long, long dead, and I don't look forward to having to wade through 5 pages of posts to add anything useful to this conversation. So, AAtkinson, feel free to start a new thread along these same lines, and welcome to THR.
A buddy of mine works for Federal Cartridge Company and he says that the military has been buying the BTHP's up big time. I don't know if the regular G.I. is getting this stuff but I do know that the Spec. Ops boys are using them. The BTOTM doesn't have the scribing that the BTHP's do typically so you don't get the same "Mushroom" effect that you would out of a typical BTHP; at least that's what I've been told.
Zerodefect
member
The newer 5.56 77gn OTM's do work well out of a 16" 1/7 barrel. I'd feel better using that than M855.
The 5.56 is plenty for 200 and less. The heavier 110gn 6.8spc might be a better choice. But I don't think that 5.56 is weak. 6.8 is more powerul, but is it more effective than the new 77gn OTM rounds? I'm not sure. Also the 6.8 has to go faster than 2600fps to work well.
As for the Ak's 7.62x39 the holdover required to get on target at 100 and 200 yards is 2 times more than the Ar's 5.56, thats crazy. Trying to get an optic to stay in place on an Ak is an exercise in futility. I have alot of trouble shooting an Ak. To me the Ak and its round are rubbish for anything past 70 yards.
As for 7.62 in the FN Scar heavy, Larue OTM, Ar10 etc, is it really needed? there is more than one way to skin a cat when the baddies are 300+ yards away.
The 5.56 is plenty for 200 and less. The heavier 110gn 6.8spc might be a better choice. But I don't think that 5.56 is weak. 6.8 is more powerul, but is it more effective than the new 77gn OTM rounds? I'm not sure. Also the 6.8 has to go faster than 2600fps to work well.
As for the Ak's 7.62x39 the holdover required to get on target at 100 and 200 yards is 2 times more than the Ar's 5.56, thats crazy. Trying to get an optic to stay in place on an Ak is an exercise in futility. I have alot of trouble shooting an Ak. To me the Ak and its round are rubbish for anything past 70 yards.
As for 7.62 in the FN Scar heavy, Larue OTM, Ar10 etc, is it really needed? there is more than one way to skin a cat when the baddies are 300+ yards away.
Shadow Man
Member
Well, I don't want to call your buddy a liar, so I'll just say that I've never seen any BTHP's in theatre, and I personally wouldn't want to use them. Natives in both areas wear very heavy articles of clothing, one group to keep the heat out, the other to keep it in, and I'd be very concerned about a HP prematurely opening on that thickly weaved material.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
One concern is running out of ammo. If you were out on patrol and at M14 or
M16 rate of fire, would you rather have 80 rounds or 200 if you got caught in a prolonged battle or seige or multiple engagements without resupply. A rifle with ammo is much better than a plastic club. No question the 7.62 is more powerful and has a greater effective range. Also an M16 is better if you have to shoot out of a confined space or ackward position.
M16 rate of fire, would you rather have 80 rounds or 200 if you got caught in a prolonged battle or seige or multiple engagements without resupply. A rifle with ammo is much better than a plastic club. No question the 7.62 is more powerful and has a greater effective range. Also an M16 is better if you have to shoot out of a confined space or ackward position.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I've heard quite a few people refer to the Mk 262 Mod 1 77-grainers as "hollowpoints," unaware that the fact that it has an open tip doesn't make function like a true hollowpoint. Sounds like a really good load.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Black+Hills+Mk+262+Mod+1
Shadow Man
Member
I've heard that the surgeons say a wound with a Mk 262 Mod 1 looks like it has been made by a 7.62x51, not a 5.56x45. If I'm using a 5.56 platform, I prefer the Mk 262.
- Status
Similar threads
