5.56 and the 7.62x39
- Thread starter Archangel14
- Start date
- Status
Rodman579
Member
one of my very good friends runs a federal le unit that only goes after wanted violent felons and he has been involved in several shootings. he has a 3 inch binder of photos from results of all different sorts of calibers. he said the 223 ammo he issued has only stopped the threat immediately when it was head shots. in his opinion and experience he dislikes the caliber and of course he is only allowed to use what ammo he is issued. he said for his work 12 gauge is the way to go in a long gun and he prefers a 45acp glock as a sidearm.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,430
I watched the video. Very interesting.he compared 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO, both FMJ. 7.62x39 was not shown. Of course the 7.62 NATO is superior in every way. For a FMJ 5.56 to do much damage it must hit some resistance like bone or heart, fragment or tumble according to him. It doesn't say much about the 7.62 x 39 because he was using mostly military data and is mostly about FMJ US rounds. Then it goes on the pistol rounds. Cavitation is very important in rifle wounds, pistol wounds it is not a factor. He showed x-rays of a man shot twice in the chest area with a pistol that survived, and a video of a guy shot twice with a 9 MM that got up and walked away.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,430
Also according to that video the kill zone is smaller with a FMJ round. The reason being you need a direct hit on the core of the body and must include the heart or spine and brain. This is also true of pistol bullets and bullets not fast enough for cavitation. With high speed expanding rifle bullets you can get a kill shot by just hitting the lungs or other vital organs. Or at least have better odds because much more soft tissue is damaged and you do not have to relay on events like hitting a bone to upset the bullet. Also a brain shot is not always fatal. Not even always disabling. People can survive horrible wounds or even several of them.
moxie
Member
It should also be pointed out that the Russians switched from the 7.62x39 to the 5.45x39 back in the '70s. It is very similar to our 5.56x45 ammo and is the standard now in Russia and many communist bloc countries using the AK-74 vice the AK-47.
breakingcontact
Member
This argument is often had equating civilian use and military use. Yes our military uses a small high velocity bullet as do the Russians now.
They do not use these in a vacuum folks! In the military, these rifles are supplemented with automatic weapons and heavy weapons.
So saying "its good enough for the army, its good enough for me!", shows a lack of understanding of how the military employs and fields weapons. They are not stand alone.
A guy carrying an M16/M4 is going to be covered by an M249 or M240 and perhaps a Mk19 and/or M2.
They do not use these in a vacuum folks! In the military, these rifles are supplemented with automatic weapons and heavy weapons.
So saying "its good enough for the army, its good enough for me!", shows a lack of understanding of how the military employs and fields weapons. They are not stand alone.
A guy carrying an M16/M4 is going to be covered by an M249 or M240 and perhaps a Mk19 and/or M2.
The police are using 5.56 as well, and they are not being backed up by medium or heavy machine guns, mortars or artillery.
Not only that, the Russians actually decided to move away from the 7.62x39 to a smaller caliber round.
Last edited:
Zerodefect
member
As far as the AR, it's a complete non-issue now.
6.8 SPC
.300 BLK
.50 Beowulf
Will each provide all the performance you want. It doesn't have to be 5.56 vs 7.62x39 anymore.
6.8 SPC
.300 BLK
.50 Beowulf
Will each provide all the performance you want. It doesn't have to be 5.56 vs 7.62x39 anymore.
MCgunner
Member
How 'bout the AR10 in .308?
They won't be covered by machine guns or indirect fire in a building, which is the use most relevant to civilians.
Tier 1 units in the Army and Navy are using 4.7, 5.56 and reports of 300 BLK (who knows if true?) inside structures, not 7.62x51 machine guns.
Zerodefect
member
Just make sure the moon isn't behind your target. It'll pop.
breakingcontact
Member
Police...operating in teams, with armored vehicles and on.
Yes. The Russian military has moved to a smaller caliber as well. I said that.
Yeah, 15 " groups at 500yds with 55 grain fmj is horrible groups. Now, not much energy, but can we stick to facts. BTW, I am not a fan of 5.56.
Purely subjective but hold a .223 and 7.62x39 round in your hand and look at them side-by-side.
.223 is .22 caliber, 7.62x39 is .30 caliber, now which would you prefer to use for hunting?
I've had .223 rifles twice in my lifetime, had to justify it both times to myself....abundance of cheap ammunition, universally available, etc., etc. .
I sold the Mini-14 and converted the .223 AR to 6.8spc, I have no need for .223 when there are other more useful, utilitarian calibers out there. Unless you shoot prairie dogs or coyotes a lot I would say that most any centerfire caliber can be used for defense, but why go towards the lower end of the spectrum? Not to say it's wrong, if you want it, get it. But as most of us are on budgets, I prefer a larger caliber that can afford more uses than a smaller one that is limited in it's applications.
I would suggest to anyone who NEEDS an AR, if they want to use it hunting, look seriously at the alternative calibers available for it.
I have one 7.62x39 that I will never get rid of, it's a SLR-95 and I have killed a deer with it and it died pretty quickly. The 7.62x39 is a soft shooting round and pretty deadly within it's limitations.
For me, I have no use for .223 and would choose many other calibers over it should I need to go rifle shopping again.
If I were to do it over again I'm not sure I'd even go the 7.62x39 route as the 6.8spc is available. The 6.8 exceeds the performance of the 7.62x39 in almost all areas and is inherently more accurate and available in more accurate platforms. The only drawback is lack of cheap plinking ammunition.
.223 is .22 caliber, 7.62x39 is .30 caliber, now which would you prefer to use for hunting?
I've had .223 rifles twice in my lifetime, had to justify it both times to myself....abundance of cheap ammunition, universally available, etc., etc. .
I sold the Mini-14 and converted the .223 AR to 6.8spc, I have no need for .223 when there are other more useful, utilitarian calibers out there. Unless you shoot prairie dogs or coyotes a lot I would say that most any centerfire caliber can be used for defense, but why go towards the lower end of the spectrum? Not to say it's wrong, if you want it, get it. But as most of us are on budgets, I prefer a larger caliber that can afford more uses than a smaller one that is limited in it's applications.
I would suggest to anyone who NEEDS an AR, if they want to use it hunting, look seriously at the alternative calibers available for it.
I have one 7.62x39 that I will never get rid of, it's a SLR-95 and I have killed a deer with it and it died pretty quickly. The 7.62x39 is a soft shooting round and pretty deadly within it's limitations.
For me, I have no use for .223 and would choose many other calibers over it should I need to go rifle shopping again.
If I were to do it over again I'm not sure I'd even go the 7.62x39 route as the 6.8spc is available. The 6.8 exceeds the performance of the 7.62x39 in almost all areas and is inherently more accurate and available in more accurate platforms. The only drawback is lack of cheap plinking ammunition.
Swampman
Old Fart
Yep!
That's exactly what the whole world has been searching for.
A way to get the legendary reliability of the AR in a .30 caliber weapon.
No need to rely on those jam-o-matic AK's and SKS's any more...
Swampman
Old Fart
As you can probably tell from my sig line, I'm not a huge fan of .223/5.56 when used for other than its original design intent (i.e. blasting small vermin into fine red mist).
However, given the parameters you've set up, I'd probably choose the 5.56 (WITH a 20 inch barrel), loaded with old Remington production M193 bullets (loaded to 5.56 spec with new powder and primers), or later production Norinco 55 grain fmj. Either of these bullets will fragment reliably and quickly after minimal penetration in tissue, producing horrific wounds.
7.62x39 just isn't as effective with fmj. Even with the best fmj loads, like Chinese flat based lead core or Yugoslavian M-67, you're only getting a shorter "neck" before the bullet starts to yaw, it's NOT going to almost totally fragment like a properly constructed M-193 projectile at high velocity.
At most, you might get a few small chunks of lead squeezed out of the base, but nothing like the hundreds of sharp, high velocity fragments produced by an M-193 impact out of a 20" barrel at close range.
Other 7.62x39 fmj rounds are even less effective. The M-43 steel core rounds act like they were designed for minimal wounding. They travel a looonnng way point forward through soft tissue before they even start to yaw, often exiting a human body while still point forward and totally intact.
With a more realistic choice (for a US civilian) of 7.62x39 ammunition featuring Lapua or Hornady expanding bullets, I'd go for the 'x39 every time, even though 5.56 lethality can be stepped up quite a bit with more effective projectiles too.
Please keep in mind that I was pretty specific in my choices of 5.56 projectiles, there's no military requirement that M-193 ammo fragment in soft tissue and production lots aren't tested to see how they perform. Some of the most accurate .223 fmj bullets, like the Hornady 55 grain, are very resistant to fragmentation at 5.56 velocities.
If I were unsure about the frangibility of my 5.56 fmj, I'd feel better carrying Yugo M-67.
I don't think I've ever read a firearms related passage that short, containing that much misinformation and that many errors, unless it was written by an anti gun politician...
However, given the parameters you've set up, I'd probably choose the 5.56 (WITH a 20 inch barrel), loaded with old Remington production M193 bullets (loaded to 5.56 spec with new powder and primers), or later production Norinco 55 grain fmj. Either of these bullets will fragment reliably and quickly after minimal penetration in tissue, producing horrific wounds.
7.62x39 just isn't as effective with fmj. Even with the best fmj loads, like Chinese flat based lead core or Yugoslavian M-67, you're only getting a shorter "neck" before the bullet starts to yaw, it's NOT going to almost totally fragment like a properly constructed M-193 projectile at high velocity.
At most, you might get a few small chunks of lead squeezed out of the base, but nothing like the hundreds of sharp, high velocity fragments produced by an M-193 impact out of a 20" barrel at close range.
Other 7.62x39 fmj rounds are even less effective. The M-43 steel core rounds act like they were designed for minimal wounding. They travel a looonnng way point forward through soft tissue before they even start to yaw, often exiting a human body while still point forward and totally intact.
With a more realistic choice (for a US civilian) of 7.62x39 ammunition featuring Lapua or Hornady expanding bullets, I'd go for the 'x39 every time, even though 5.56 lethality can be stepped up quite a bit with more effective projectiles too.
Please keep in mind that I was pretty specific in my choices of 5.56 projectiles, there's no military requirement that M-193 ammo fragment in soft tissue and production lots aren't tested to see how they perform. Some of the most accurate .223 fmj bullets, like the Hornady 55 grain, are very resistant to fragmentation at 5.56 velocities.
If I were unsure about the frangibility of my 5.56 fmj, I'd feel better carrying Yugo M-67.
I don't think I've ever read a firearms related passage that short, containing that much misinformation and that many errors, unless it was written by an anti gun politician...
I'm skipping 2 pages of replies and responding only to the OP.
The question raised is which rifle round is more lethal at 50-75 yards.
Either round is going to be just as accurate as another at this distance. Either round is going to put a hole through a bad guy at that distance.
The big difference is going to be shot placement. Where that bullet goes. Neither bullet is going to be fatal (presumably) if you shoot someone in the foot (and they get treated at some point). Both bullets are going to be equally fatal if you hit someone in the aorta, or left ventricle.
The AK round will be better suited to penetrating obstacles, but it is also going to be better suited to over-penetration. Do you have neighbors? Kids? Pets?
From a home defense standpoint the AR round is going to be just as good at penetrating those same obstacles, but the bullets DO slow down faster (less mass) when they encounter tough materials. (And no, the walls of your house are not 'tough material' unless they are several inches of brick. A bookcase might be if it's loaded with books.)
As far as terminal effect? Permanent crush cavity? Multiple wound tracts? Things that poke holes in blood vessels to let blood out and cause incapacitation (which is the ultimate goal, right)?
That'll depend more on bullet composition than anything else.
First, you have to hit a major vessel and make it spring a leak.
So, back to shot placement. If you can't get the rounds to land where you need them to land, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.
If you do get the rounds to land where you want them to? Can they penetrate to those vessels?
If yes, then great, your equipment did it's job.
If not, well, you're in trouble, because your round didn't penetrate far enough.
Will 223 and 7.62 penetrate deep enough to hit vital structure like the aorta, even if the shot enters through an arm, goes through ribs, and has to penetrate clear through the abdominal cavity to it?
Yes, both will undoubtedly penetrate far enough*
* (unless you're using light skinned light-weight varmint bullets in 223...).
Which would you choose?
Given that both rounds will do the job, we need to turn to the platform, and look at legality, ergonimics, personal aptitude to handle recoil, overpentration concerns, and a whole host of other issues.
What platform do YOU want to shoot? Figure that out, then (if you have a choice on that platform) figure out caliber, from there.
Therein lies your answer.
The question raised is which rifle round is more lethal at 50-75 yards.
Either round is going to be just as accurate as another at this distance. Either round is going to put a hole through a bad guy at that distance.
The big difference is going to be shot placement. Where that bullet goes. Neither bullet is going to be fatal (presumably) if you shoot someone in the foot (and they get treated at some point). Both bullets are going to be equally fatal if you hit someone in the aorta, or left ventricle.
The AK round will be better suited to penetrating obstacles, but it is also going to be better suited to over-penetration. Do you have neighbors? Kids? Pets?
From a home defense standpoint the AR round is going to be just as good at penetrating those same obstacles, but the bullets DO slow down faster (less mass) when they encounter tough materials. (And no, the walls of your house are not 'tough material' unless they are several inches of brick. A bookcase might be if it's loaded with books.)
As far as terminal effect? Permanent crush cavity? Multiple wound tracts? Things that poke holes in blood vessels to let blood out and cause incapacitation (which is the ultimate goal, right)?
That'll depend more on bullet composition than anything else.
First, you have to hit a major vessel and make it spring a leak.
So, back to shot placement. If you can't get the rounds to land where you need them to land, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.
If you do get the rounds to land where you want them to? Can they penetrate to those vessels?
If yes, then great, your equipment did it's job.
If not, well, you're in trouble, because your round didn't penetrate far enough.
Will 223 and 7.62 penetrate deep enough to hit vital structure like the aorta, even if the shot enters through an arm, goes through ribs, and has to penetrate clear through the abdominal cavity to it?
Yes, both will undoubtedly penetrate far enough*
* (unless you're using light skinned light-weight varmint bullets in 223...).
Which would you choose?
Given that both rounds will do the job, we need to turn to the platform, and look at legality, ergonimics, personal aptitude to handle recoil, overpentration concerns, and a whole host of other issues.
What platform do YOU want to shoot? Figure that out, then (if you have a choice on that platform) figure out caliber, from there.
Therein lies your answer.
It's a fair guess, considering the amount of AKs in circulation. However the death tolls in wars since the 1950s have been relatively small compared to those of the first half of the century. For this reason, I would guess at one of the older military calibres as having the most "lethal history".
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Will y'all please quit repeating that flasehood about why 5.56 NATO was adopted?
Going back to the OP:
Assuming FMJ, 5.56 NATO. Here are links to illustrations by Dr. Marin L Fackler that show the typical wound profiles of 5.56 M193 ball, 5.56 M855 ball, 7.62x39 120 gr ball, and 5.45x39 53 gr ball:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/M193.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/M855.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/AK-47 762x39mm.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/AK-74 545x39.jpg
Which is why 5.56 NATO / .223 Remington with JSP or polymer tip ammo is an excellent choice since it minimizes over penetration after passing through barriers, even drywall, while still providing excellent terminal ballistics on assailants before encountering barriers.
http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/ammunition.html
I take the 5.56x45 because it comes in a better rifle type and has a better selection of higher quality (even just bulk M193 type stuff) ammunition.
Better rifle type defined, by me, for me, as easy to build yourself, easy to buy parts for, easy to modify, no importation restriction crap, more ergonomic, more accurate, easier to find classes catered to, etc.
Better rifle type defined, by me, for me, as easy to build yourself, easy to buy parts for, easy to modify, no importation restriction crap, more ergonomic, more accurate, easier to find classes catered to, etc.
breakingcontact
Member
OP says 25-75 yards...
- Status
