5.56x45 or 7.62x39?

Inside 300 Yards, which cartridge has better terminal performance with FMJ?

  • 5.56x45

    Votes: 42 42.0%

  • 7.62x39

    Votes: 42 42.0%

  • They're about the same.

    Votes: 16 16.0%
  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Watson said:
I see so much criticism of the 5.56 I wonder what Redworld saw in it to sell the Russians on 5.45 and the Chinese on 5.8.
Click to expand...

I s'pose it is because militaries world-wide constantly develop and evaluate munitions designs using probability of incapacitation models (that are based upon criteria such as P[I/H], EKE, AKE, etc.) to analyse the efficiency of their, and their opponents', service calibers. Eventually, someone decides (for some reason or another) that they have better option and they field it. Seeing this, others analyse, evaluate, and follow suit if they see it as being a worthwhile change. It's just a game of ''musical chairs'' 'cept that it costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to play and no one ever wins because there is trifling little difference in each class of service caliber.
 
One would want the heavier bullet for military uses.

Generally speaking, people do not wish to get shot, thus they hide behind things that will provide cover. Therefore, it would be advantageous to be able to shoot through walls, doors, ceilings (the aggressor is above you), and floorboards (the aggressor is below you). Will bullets weighing under 75 grains accomplish this task? Yes, sure (especially interior walls; interior walls might as well be paper to a high vel. .223 rnd). However, FMJs weighing over 120 grains will do a much better job and at lower velocities. Militaries use the .50 Browning to eat vehicles. It's not just energy, it is also momentum. Humans are essentially bags of water held together with low-strength leather and propped-up with some hard-ish calcium sticks. Even handguns penetrate them if the humans aren't wearing protective armor. When aggressor humans are inside buildings, the good guys have to use adequate rifles providing serious penetration.
.
 
For human threats I will take a 7.62x39 over a 5.56 every time. Past 300 yards I would go for a 7.62x51. 5.56 / .22 is for varmit hunting.
 
A detailed explanation for those who just have to know:

I want a semi-auto rifle of some description for throwing lead at targets and general playing around. But I also want to know that if I needed to use it defensively (I have handguns and shotguns for home invasions, so think bigger), it would have the terminal ballistics to be decisive. Though I would not likely need to use it for this purpose past 150 yards, I can see no scenario where I would choose to use it past 300 yards.

As the primary roll is fun, ammo needs to be affordable. I have plenty of other guns where it is no so affordable. This one needs to be. And because I'll be buying bulk ammo, I will mostly have FMJ available in the unlikely event that I needed to press the rifle into a defensive roll.

Now, a PCC is fine. If it's reliable and trouble feel, and chambered in a powerful enough cartridge that I reload. That would be either 10mm, or .357Sig. Though this is proving tricky to find in a non-AR platform. Some say one design is good and reliable, other say maybe not so much, etc, etc.

Why not an AR? I've had one. It was fine. They don't excite me in the slightest. I hate the charging handle aspect of the design. If I don't like the gun, I won't shoot it. Someone did provide details of a Brownells AR18 upper. It alone is around $800, if I can find one. Then I need to address the lower and all that business. No problem for someone who enjoys assembling ARs, but an expensive headache to me. No AR.

I already have a Mini 14, I have a reasonable pile of 5.56. It's okay, but again I'm not that excited. I keep it because it's nice to have it around. It gets shot occasionally. I've previously had an M1 Grand, and an LRB Arms M14SA. Both fun, but big, heavy, ammo is a bit too expensive for my intended use.

I don't really want to spend more than $1000. I don't mind iron sights in the slightest (I used them on a the rifles above). I've never had an AK, and I think the design is really interesting. I know there are some out there that use a stanag magwell adaptor and come chambered in 5.56. PSA sell several and recommend using pmags. But obviously the design was originally intended for 7.62x39. The tapered cartridge seems a benefit to extraction, and parts are easier to find. 7.62 is the direction I had intended to go if I buy an AK (which I may or may not).

So this thread and this poll was about ONE factor in a list, to help me determine if there was any real benefit in straying from 7.62x39. It seems it is not a significant one.

Some may argue that ammunition cost or availability makes one a better choice than the other. Perhaps they're right, but from what I see, the market doesn't seem stable enough to predict that.
 
Last edited:
I will say that guns cost what guns cost. If you want a different 5.56 pill launcher outside of an AR15 or derivative, it's likely to be more $$. I'm the one that recommended the BRN-180. It's not hard to assemble one if you buy the major parts pre-assembled already, and you'll be very happy with it in the end. Piston, folding stock, side charging handle - everything that made old school, cold war guns fun.

AK-47's were designed to be minute of man. If you want one just to plink with, you'll be frustrated with the accuracy. Both the Vz.58 and SKS may do a bit better, but the former will be more expensive.
 
Everyone always coins the phrase minute of man when it comes to AK’s. And yet there are countless examples of 2-3 MOA AK’s. If you want to see a bunch of 2-3 MOA AK’s from someone who knows how to shoot then one just needs to watch RobSki’s video reviews on different AK’s. Somehow that guys finds AK’s from all different manufacturers and makes that are battlefield accurate, 2-3 MOA usually with some AK’s printing targets at the end of the 5000 round reviews being around 2 MOA.

As with any firearm an AK will like what it likes, it’s good to have a variety of ammo to test. But I’ve never shot ammo through an AK that was only “minute of man.”

AK’s aren’t as inherently as accurate as a design than the AR15, but they are certainly better than “minute of man,” which would be 16MOA+, what a biased statement. That talk comes from those who probably spends their time at dumps shooting trash rather than working on skills.

I don’t consider being able to clean clay pigeons at 100 yards being frustrated with accuracy. That is a realistic expectation to be able to accomplish with time behind the AK.
 
Probably the bigger thing to reason out between 5.56 and 7.62x39 is ammunition cost. But right now is not a good time to judge that for the future but it is something to consider.

Right now one can buy brass cases 5.56 for the cost of steel cased 7.62x39.

Eventually, steel cased 7.62x39 will come down but the reality is that 5.56 will always be difficult to beat on cost, likely for the rest of our lives, unless our government gets more tyrannical with their laws/regulations/taxation on firearms and ammunition.
 
BreechFace said:
Everyone always coins the phrase minute of man when it comes to AK’s. And yet there are countless examples of 2-3 MOA AK’s.
Click to expand...

It's not like I coined the term "minute of man". You've heard it before.

Cheap AK's with cheap Russian ammo (which seems to be where the OP is leaning) isn't going to be that 2 MOA accuracy. 3-4 MOA at 300 yards is about 10 inches, so I stand by my statement.
 
Yeah, I'm not in love with the AR charging handle, either. I'm more used to the HK style or just a fixed charging handle like my CZ Bren. I suppose if I'd have grown up with ARs or used one in the military I'd find the layout more intuitive but as it is it still feels a little "weird."
 
WrongHanded said:
A detailed explanation for those who just have to know:

I want a semi-auto rifle of some description for throwing lead at targets and general playing around. But I also want to know that if I needed to use it defensively (I have handguns and shotguns for home invasions, so think bigger), it would have the terminal ballistics to be decisive. Though I would not likely need to use it for this purpose past 150 yards, I can see no scenario where I would choose to use it past 300 yards.

As the primary roll is fun, ammo needs to be affordable. I have plenty of other guns where it is no so affordable. This one needs to be. And because I'll be buying bulk ammo, I will mostly have FMJ available in the unlikely event that I needed to press the rifle into a defensive roll.

Now, a PCC is fine. If it's reliable and trouble feel, and chambered in a powerful enough cartridge that I reload. That would be either 10mm, or .357Sig. Though this is proving tricky to find in a non-AR platform. Some say one design is good and reliable, other say maybe not so much, etc, etc.

Why not an AR? I've had one. It was fine. They don't excite me in the slightest. I hate the charging handle aspect of the design. If I don't like the gun, I won't shoot it. Someone did provide details of a Brownells AR18 upper. It alone is around $800, if I can find one. Then I need to address the lower and all that business. No problem for someone who enjoys assembling ARs, but an expensive headache to me. No AR.

I already have a Mini 14, I have a reasonable pile of 5.56. It's okay, but again I'm not that excited. I keep it because it's nice to have it around. It gets shot occasionally. I've previously had an M1 Grand, and an LRB Arms M14SA. Both fun, but big, heavy, ammo is a bit too expensive for my intended use.

I don't really want to spend more than $1000. I don't mind iron sights in the slightest (I used them on a the rifles above). I've never had an AK, and I think the design is really interesting. I know there are some out there that use a stanag magwell adaptor and come chambered in 5.56. PSA sell several and recommend using pmags. But obviously the design was originally intended for 7.62x39. The tapered cartridge seems a benefit to extraction, and parts are easier to find. 7.62 is the direction I had intended to go if I buy an AK (which I may or may not).

So this thread and this poll was about ONE factor in a list, to help me determine if there was any real benefit in straying from 7.62x39. It seems it is not a significant one.

Some may argue that ammunition cost or availability makes one a better choice than the other. Perhaps they're right, but from what I see, the market doesn't seem stable enough to predict that.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you started with a bias and just want confirmation. Just buy what you want because you are going to hear all kinds of biased information. My experience in law enforcement is that people really don't listen to sound advice from real experts and evidence. They are going to listen to someone that reinforces their bias and argue all the way to court and then some. Lots of people make a living telling people nonsense that they want to hear. A smart politician, lawyer, saleman and so on knows a good story and fancy chart will beat facts everytime.
 
Last edited:
If you want an AK, get one. They are a good rifle. They have their issues, mostly sights weight, and ergos. But a good AK with decent ammo is more than capable of making effective hits at 300 yards. Id say just stick with a native cartridge to the design, 7.62 or 5.45. In my experience the 5.56 AKs can be a bit problematic.
 
Last edited:
d2wing said:
Sounds to me like you started with a bias and just want confirmation. Just buy what you want because you are going to hear all kinds of biased information. My experience in law enforcement is that people really don't listen to sound advice from real experts and evidence. They are going to listen to someone that reinforces their bias and argue all the way to court and then some. Lots of people make a living telling people nonsense that they want to hear. A smart politician, lawyer, saleman and so on knows a good story and fancy chart will beat facts everytime.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, especially online! Regardless of what you buy, it'll be better at some things than others. There is no perfect caliber.

And as much as I love 7.62x39, if cheap, accurate plinking is the goal, then 5.56 is the better round. Fifteen years ago, it would be Russian Brown/Silver/Golden Bear-Tiger-Wolf ammo all day long. 'Not so much today.
 
WrongHanded said:
A detailed explanation for those who just have to know:

I want a semi-auto rifle of some description for throwing lead at targets and general playing around. But I also want to know that if I needed to use it defensively (I have handguns and shotguns for home invasions, so think bigger), it would have the terminal ballistics to be decisive. Though I would not likely need to use it for this purpose past 150 yards, I can see no scenario where I would choose to use it past 300 yards.

As the primary roll is fun, ammo needs to be affordable. I have plenty of other guns where it is no so affordable. This one needs to be. And because I'll be buying bulk ammo, I will mostly have FMJ available in the unlikely event that I needed to press the rifle into a defensive roll.

Now, a PCC is fine. If it's reliable and trouble feel, and chambered in a powerful enough cartridge that I reload. That would be either 10mm, or .357Sig. Though this is proving tricky to find in a non-AR platform. Some say one design is good and reliable, other say maybe not so much, etc, etc.

Why not an AR? I've had one. It was fine. They don't excite me in the slightest. I hate the charging handle aspect of the design. If I don't like the gun, I won't shoot it. Someone did provide details of a Brownells AR18 upper. It alone is around $800, if I can find one. Then I need to address the lower and all that business. No problem for someone who enjoys assembling ARs, but an expensive headache to me. No AR.

I already have a Mini 14, I have a reasonable pile of 5.56. It's okay, but again I'm not that excited. I keep it because it's nice to have it around. It gets shot occasionally. I've previously had an M1 Grand, and an LRB Arms M14SA. Both fun, but big, heavy, ammo is a bit too expensive for my intended use.

I don't really want to spend more than $1000. I don't mind iron sights in the slightest (I used them on a the rifles above). I've never had an AK, and I think the design is really interesting. I know there are some out there that use a stanag magwell adaptor and come chambered in 5.56. PSA sell several and recommend using pmags. But obviously the design was originally intended for 7.62x39. The tapered cartridge seems a benefit to extraction, and parts are easier to find. 7.62 is the direction I had intended to go if I buy an AK (which I may or may not).

So this thread and this poll was about ONE factor in a list, to help me determine if there was any real benefit in straying from 7.62x39. It seems it is not a significant one.

Some may argue that ammunition cost or availability makes one a better choice than the other. Perhaps they're right, but from what I see, the market doesn't seem stable enough to predict that.
Click to expand...

Bear Creek side-charger upper on the lower of your choice, in either caliber. Done.
(Mic drop)
 
d2wing said:
Sounds to me like you started with a bias and just want confirmation.
Click to expand...

Well that was not the case. Had I been looking for confirmation that 7.62x39 was the preferable choice in an AK, I would have just asked that.

I was actually seriously considering a 5.56 AK for a number of reason that are specific to the cartridge. I simply wanted information about efficacy of FMJ between the two cartridges as one more factor in the decision. Which is why I specifically asked about it. Had people brought up compelling evidence that the smaller lighter faster bullet was significantly more effective at stopping a threat, I would have carefully considered that information.
 
WrongHanded said:
Well that was not the case. Had I been looking for confirmation that 7.62x39 was the preferable choice in an AK, I would have just asked that.

I was actually seriously considering a 5.56 AK for a number of reason that are specific to the cartridge. I simply wanted information about efficacy of FMJ between the two cartridges as one more factor in the decision. Which is why I specifically asked about it. Had people brought up compelling evidence that the smaller lighter faster bullet was significantly more effective at stopping a threat, I would have carefully considered that information.
Click to expand...
It is. But in an AK it doesn't matter much. It has been proven for 50 years or more in combat all over the world. But don't let that influence you. Bias beats information.
 
d2wing said:
It is. But in an AK it doesn't matter much. It has been proven for 50 years or more in combat all over the world. But don't let that influence you. Bias beats information.
Click to expand...

Well, now's your chance to show me some information on how the 5.56 is significantly more effective.

Edit: I'm serious about this. It was the entire point of the thread. If you've got evidence that one is superior to the other where terminal ballistics is concerned, please show me.
 
First we had 7.62x39mm and then 5.56x45mm... 7.62x39mm spawned 5.45x39mm... 5.56x45mm spawned 7.62x35mm (300 AAC Blackout)... If anyone of these was exceptionally better than the other we would see far more countries' military using one over the others but we don't. That is far more influenced by political forces than the individual cartridge's performance. The idea that either of the OP's cartridges are substantially better or worst than the other is not sustainable with a honest look at the data. Both cartridges have strengths and weaknesses and if you play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses either cartridge is a viable service cartridge and nearly every political conflict for the past 50+ years have proven them so.

The "Indian" is far more important than either of those "arrows".
 
Last edited:
Either cartridge will "do the job", you just need to decide which features matter to you in the intended firearm. Nothing wrong with pursuing non AR forearms, but nothing on earth has the aftermarket support, so you may have to use whatever else you decide on as it comes from a factory. ARs are also the cheapest game in town, and nearly the most accurate design wise. Ammo will always be "garbage in, garbage out", what I want to know though, is where everyone is finding this claimed brass case 5.56 for cheaper than steel case 7.62x39. x39 is almost always 5 to 10c a shot cheaper for the basic ball ammo than 5.56. is there a secret club I don't know about?

You almost can't separate the cartridge from the firearm type or model for these discussions. Ammo cost is a concern, but getting a 5 moa ak vs a 1.5moa ak can be a major cost hurdle. There aren't any more $250 Norinco aks floating around anymore. There are several good non AR rifles out there, but 16" durable models in any caliber just can't compete with the AR platform cost wise, and often weight wise. Best non AR option I know about is the VZ rifles in 7.62x39. or a galil. Both are worth the $$$, but it's big $$$. Try some stuff out, and see what you like. Pick the gun and shoot the cartridge it comes in...
 
mcb said:
First we had 7.62x39mm and then 5.56x45mm... 7.62x39mm spawned 5.45x39mm... 5.56x45mm spawned 7.62x35mm (300 AAC Blackout)... If anyone of these was exceptionally better than the other we would see far more countries' military using one over the others but we don't. That is far more influenced by political forces than the individual cartridge's performance. The idea that either of the OP's cartridges are substantially better or worst than the other is not sustainable with a honest look at the data. Both cartridges have strengths and weaknesses and if you play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses either cartridge is a viable service cartridge and nearly every political conflict for the past 50+ years have proven them so.

The "Indian" is far more important than either of those "arrows".
Click to expand...

That's a good perspective.

Looking at it from the perspective of the US military which tends to evaluate the lethality of such munitions in terms of probability of incapacitation, or P[I/H],—using the P[I/H] model developed in 1968 by Sturdivan & Bruchey which is still employed in the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory ORCA (Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment) computer program's ballistic insult sub-routine, the provisional P[I/H] values (expressed as a decimal probability) amongst the 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x35mm, and .50 BMG M2 are—

7.62x39mm M43 and M67 = 0.6227
5.56x45mm M193 = 0.6201
5.45x39mm 7N6 = 0.5328
7.62x35mm = 0.5906
.50 BMG M2 = 0.9769

As can be seen from the probabilities above, the US military used the BRL model to evaluate the M-16 and clearly chose the M193 cartridge for its nearly identical probability of incapacitation (P[I/H]) to the Soviet M43 and M67 while simultaneously allowing our troops to carry significantly more ammunition for equal system mass.

Since the difference in P[I/H] between the Soviet 7.62x39 M43 and M67 and the US 5.45x45 M193 is about one quarter of a percentage point, it is probably not worth considering given that the performance of the shooter will likely outweigh the minor statistical difference which likely falls within the range of statistical ''noise''.

Both calibers are effectively the same.
 
Last edited:
What’s so wrong if a guy DOES want an AK in x39 and asks the simple question - should I consider a 5.56 instead?
 
adcoch1 said:
what I want to know though, is where everyone is finding this claimed brass case 5.56 for cheaper than steel case 7.62x39. x39 is almost always 5 to 10c a shot cheaper for the basic ball ammo than 5.56. is there a secret club I don't know about?
Click to expand...

Ammoseek

Both of the below are from the same company, the cheapest on both on Ammoseek https://sentryammo.com/, I don't have any affiliation with Sentry Ammo and I've never purchased from them, just listing for the answer to a question.

PPU m193 spec, new manufacture, brass case = 200rds @ $70.80 = $0.354 / round not including shipping
BVA 7.62x39 FMJ, steel case = 500rds @ $182.99 = $0.366 / round not including shipping

I bet you haven't paid much attention to steel case the past year, steel cased x39 has gone up significantly since RUS/UKR, sanctions, etc. It's starting to come down slowly, but I don't know if we will ever see sub $200/1000 steel cased x39 ammo ever again. Once it hits $250/1000 again I'll probably end up getting another 10k or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
7.62x39 or 5.45x39 ?
Replies
7
Views
911
MechAg94
M
TrickyDick
  • Locked
Designing a New Rifle Platform
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
TrickyDick
TrickyDick
C
  • Locked
7.62x39 vs 7.62×51
2
Replies
44
Views
20K
elmerfudd
E
S
  • Locked
Saiga 7.62x39 vs .223 questions/thoughts
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
rangerruck
R
C
  • Locked
Saiga SHTF Rifle.. 5.56x45, 7.62x39?
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
9K
Conall
C
Back
Top