reconsidering 5.56mm

meanmrmustard said:

That sounds reasonable. .25 cents a round, limits the test to more budget friendly testing, although I think that price point more accurately represents what is obtainable in 762x39. Lotta good rounds in 556 that well exceed that price.

Next time I visit my father, ill see about setting up a torso test at 300 yards.

Does that distance represent what you're doing?

Click to expand...

i wouldnt mind seeing what some ammo does at 300, the big problem with ballistics gel tests is they are all done at point blank range, bullets will perform differently, yaw more suddenly, expand less or whatever as distance increases so its always a poor comparison for rifle ammunition thats going to be shot at targets up to and maybe beyond 400 yards

i think i would keep my tests to the low cost ammo, maybe not 25 a round, but at least test what is offered by brands like wolf, tula, golden tiger, bear, etc

my ammo at 30 cents a round included the price of bulk once fired brass, reloads on that brass would only be 23 cents a round, as cheap as the 7.62x39, i should consider a progressive press to reduce some of the labor in reloading because there are other calibers i reload for too that it would aid

i think i need to get a few more guns first before i do more testing, i lost a lot having to pay for medical bills, my only 308 now has a .311" bore which isnt suitable and the AR15 i used was borrowed from a relative

well, my situation is unfixable, but stable and wont be getting any worse, but i had to sell of rifles like an M1A, PTR-91, AUG clone, i have on my list an AR15, AR-10, and more AKs

i think my next two rifles would have to be an AR-15 of my own, and build up my last AK-74 kit as a 5.45 rifle so i can compare the two.. 5.45 has the range, accuracy, recoil and lightweight properties of 5.45, but better barrier penetration (maybe due to the steel/copper bimetal jacket) and a much larger wound cavity as that very long bullet tumbles almost instantly

meanmrmustard said:

I have heard that about 545, but I've no experience of it myself.

As for the AR, are you going 556?

Click to expand...

yeah, the AR would be 5.56, unfortunately there are too many compromises with 6.8 and 6.5 on the AR15, a lot of them are due to pressure limitations, 300 blackout doesnt interest me all that much since it doesnt offer much over the much cheaper 7.62x39 and certain pistol calibers perform at least as well when suppressed..

277 wolverine has me interested a bit though, it has about 100fps more muzzle velocity than 7.62x39 using 110 grain bullets that have a significantly higher ballistic coefficient so its much flatter shooting than 7.62x39 but with all the advantages in barrer penetration, energy, and not including the brass i could load up .277 wolvering for $0.26/rd using the remington 115 grain bullets

this also has me interested in coming up with my own .277" wildcat based on the 7.62x39 case but unlike 6.5 grendel, i would keep the taper of the cartridge (so unlike the grendel there will be lots of quality magazines available for it) and also unlike the grendel, pressures would be increased to 62kpsi.. if the AR-15 cant handle that, thats its problem because the AK can

Sapper771 said:

Justin,

Is this a platform concern or a caliber concern? I saw that you used a borrowed AR of unknown quality and an AK in 5.56. Just wondering which platform YOU prefer.

As far as calibers go, what caliber are you confident with? Which caliber can you use more effectively? Are you the only one thats going to be using this rifle?

Example: I love my AK in 7.62x39.....but I am clearly better with my AR in 5.56. So the AR in 5.56 is my primary rifle based on MY performance with it.

Click to expand...

to be completely fair, there are things i hate about all of it, things i hate about 5.56, things i hate about 7.62x39, things i hate about the AK, things i hate about the AR-15.. everything has to be this massive compromise between one major flaw over another that it fuels this constant bickering from fanboys on both sides that cant take a step back and realize, neither one is perfect and if one was, there wouldnt be an arguement

sure i wish the 5.56 has more energy, better penetration, and performed better from shorter barrels, and i wish 7.62x39 was lighter and flatter shooting... i wish the AK didnt have to be some compromise or another just to get a functioning optic on it and that i didnt need a frickin garage equipped with shop tools just to change out a part here and there.. i also wish the AR-15 didnt have a buffer tube, could have a proper folding stock or even put into a bullpup configuration (which i found i REALLY liked with the AUG clone i used to have)

it could be the fact im a raging perfectionist to the point of it almost being obsessive, or having just enough technical knowledge and engineering knowledge to see flaws most people see, or maybe im over annoyed with rampant fanboyism on both sides, but if there was a low cost, non proprietary, viable option 3 for any of it, i might just go for that

but of the two im actually beginning to learn more AR15 because even though theres all these stupid little parts everywhere that can and will fail and break (murphys law) the parts are so common and easily replaced and easier to repair

30-30 is 7.62x39 just with a horribly low ballistic coefficient from flat or rubber tipped bullets and a rim.. the illusion that 30-30 has even remotely more energy than 7.62x39 comes from the fact the numbers on the 30-30 ammo box is done with a 20-24 inch barrel while 7.62x39 is done with a 16

so i was reading an article about luckygunner that was testing out all sorts of low cost 5.56 ammo and it brought up one dimensions to the cost and labor aspect in barrel life and how its reduced rather significantly by the use of bimetal jacketed ammunition of which most the steel case ammo happens to be.

the more frequent need to change barrels and the PITA it can be to do this on an AK without a shop press, headspacing gauges, and a drill handy will raise costs and labor of the steel cased ammo and you certainly arent going to get brass cased match ammo as cheap as i can hand load it for

i think im going to stick with loading up my own ammunition which also means i would be sticking with 5.56 or one of its derivatives.. i want to test out 277 wolverine even more now because with a 100fps boost over 7.62x39, a much higher BC bullet that still weighs about the same it gives all the advantages of 7.62x39, with a much flatter trajectory and would only cost me about $0.03/rd more than my 75 grain 5.56 ammo

so i will focus more on the AR-15 and getting a progressive press

OilyPablo said:

I don't think it's an illusion. Have even you shot both?

Click to expand...

yes, i have, and the perception in there being a difference comes from the longer barrels on the 30-30, the numbers on the back of your ammo box with 30-30 is done with a 20-24 inch barrel as well, cut a barrel down to 16" and compare and you wont notice a difference

ive had factor 7.62x39 ammo up higher than 2,500fps from an SKS barrel and have gotten 150 grain hand loads over 2400fps while remining within the pressure limits.. news flash, thats all a 30-30 can do either... why does this surprise anyone? 30-30 is very low pressure

Lloyd Smale said:

that the 5.56 doesn't compare to the 762x39 in power.

Click to expand...

it does after about 200 yards, the heavier bullets do anyway, 55 grain definitely not