5.56 AR stopping power (and the x39 and 5.45 competition)

[JShirley]

remember. wars are decided by a round that drops 6 inches less at 600 yds then the other guys round does

I'll take any reasonable evidence this is true. All modern wars have seen many more people killed with crew-served weapons than individual rifles.

There is something called "the myth of the American rifleman" which is a mistaken idea that US wars have been won by superior individual marksmanship. It's just that...a myth. While better shooting rarely hurts, again, logistics (as cap said), superior leadership, and crew served weapons win wars.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The early ARs and possibly the 16s had a 1-14 twist. The bullet was barely stable in flight and it instantly tumbled and fragmented upon impact. This may have been the reason for the gruesome wounds.

If it was barely stable in flight it'd be wildly inaccurate.

1:14, 1:12, 1:7 rifling makes no difference. Human soft tissue is 800 times more dense than air. When the bullet strikes flesh the spin stabilization imparted by rifling is insufficient to keep the bullet traveling point forward. The bullet seeks to achieve a state of stabilization in flesh by yawing 180 degrees to travel base forward. As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees (sideways) the stresses on the bullet cause it to fracture at the cannelure and fragment. (The cannelure weakens the jacket.) This is the mechanism behind "gruesome wounds".

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Neat video from Garand Thumb.

Testing 5.45 7N6 ammo in synthetic gel.

What the video shows is Garand Thumb doesn't have the knowledge to properly interpret wounding effects.

 

[C-grunt]

What the video shows is Garand Thumb doesn't have the knowledge to properly interpret wounding effects.

You're taking GT way too serious. The style of the video should make it pretty obvious this isn't meant to be viewed as an authority on such things.

 

[DustyGmt]

I haven't read through every page, so forgive me if it's already been brought up but I was reading a while back about 5.56 and military testing and data collection on 5.56 effectiveness and they found that 7.62x51 wasn't appreciably more deadly. I can't recall for 100% but I believe it was also brought up and discussed a fair bit by Eugene Stoner in the series of very thorough and exhaustive interviews done by Eugene Stoner.

Not making a blanket statement like 5.56 is equal to 7.62×51 across the board, but I believe it was in the context of being equal in that same number of hits on an enemy with either cartridge were either killed, taken out of the fight or otherwise incapacitated with the same degree of efficacy (even at longer ranges were you would assume 7.62 would have a great advantage) and was found that there were virtually no gains to be had by having a larger cartridge (7.62x51) over the the 5.56, in terms of stopping a person in a military context. Hunting is a whole different story.

I'll see if I can dig that out and post a link, or maybe @CapnMac has it handy. Seems like something he would know.....

 

[someguy2800]

remember. wars are decided by a round that drops 6 inches less at 600 yds then the other guys round does

Never in the history of firearms has that every been true

 

[robin banks]

Never in the history of firearms has that every been true

I said that as a joke being so much importance is put on what rifle and round is used by opposing soldiers especially on gun sites

 

[robin banks]

I'll take any reasonable evidence this is true. All modern wars have seen many more people killed with crew-served weapons than individual rifles.

There is something called "the myth of the American rifleman" which is a mistaken idea that US wars have been won by superior individual marksmanship. It's just that...a myth. While better shooting rarely hurts, again, logistics (as cap said), superior leadership, and crew served weapons win wars.

it was sarcasm. a joke

 

[robin banks]

???

it was sarcasm a joke. just look at all the pages here on which round is better while rifles play a tiny part in modern warfare

 

[robin banks]

Actually, wars are decided by whose supply train can bring up enough artillery rounds before the other guy can.
While occupying the better ground, more often than not.

Which often required having secure enough sealanes to lift the logistics tonnage the supply lines, themselves, require.

This is not new. The French had between 5,000 and 8,000 more crossbows than the English had at Agincourt. But, the French only had about 50 bolts per crossbow, and the English had entire wagon-loads of clothyard shafts, some accounts setting the number as several hundred arrows per archer.
The crossbows had much flatter trajectories, fired far heavier projectiles, and at greater velocity than the longbows.
The English archers were able to get about 5 rounds off before 2 crossbow bolts could be launched. Longbows of the age were in the 125-175# pull versus 750# & 900# pull crossbows.

Forced into a column, and having to attack down one hill and up another crossing through a muddy swale minced the French. Agincourt was in 1415, and can still teach us valuable lessons 607 years later.

you are right. what I said is sarcasm a joke. but look at all the pages here arguing over which rifle/round is better when it dont matter

 

[JShirley]

you are right. what I said is sarcasm a joke. but look at all the pages here arguing over which rifle/round is better when it dont matter

I made that point in my first post in this thread.

 

[robin banks]

Please explain from your experience why a flatter shooting round is bad in combat?

please explain where in modern warfare with drones missiles soon robots arty attack copters tanks etc where a rifle /round would decide the outcome. now if you want to shoot a goatherder tending his flock from 1100 yds then a flatter round would be good. ask the ukranians if having better ballistics for their rifles would help them win

 

[Hartkopf]

Click where the yellow arrow is pointing and numerous smiley faces appear (red arrows). These can be used to indicate sarcasm/jokes.


This has been an informative thread with first hand accounts of effectiveness.

 

[Airborne77]

waste

ammo

So I didn't have time to watch each video completely but did notice they said ball rounds (regular fmj) not steel core which is a big difference and at least to first 2 videos were very close to the target...so my tests were at 100yds +. I also used cut firewood not kiln dried boards. I know the one video he used a tree but not steel core.i have shot trees with 3006 ball ammo and no penetration then used the old m2 black-tip ww2 steel core in 3006 and couldn't stop them not even with 3/8" steel plate at 200 yards. The logs I used for green tip (red elm) 5" u were wounded a little, 6" u lived to fight another day. Would I recommend hiding behind a 6" diameter tree...lol....he'll no more like 2-1/2 foot....same on ar500 steel xm193 and green tip suck old 7.62x39 steel core and m2 ball right on thru...I'd like to see what some 556 steel core would be capable of.

 

[C-grunt]

please explain where in modern warfare with drones missiles soon robots arty attack copters tanks etc where a rifle /round would decide the outcome. now if you want to shoot a goatherder tending his flock from 1100 yds then a flatter round would be good. ask the ukranians if having better ballistics for their rifles would help them win

1. You're the only one who keeps bringing up this idiotic topic that the flatter shooting round will decide wars. No one has made that argument. So your dumb snarky comments just make you look bad.

2. Every war in the last 60 years has shown that no matter how much technology you have, boots on the ground are still needed to hold territory. Ukraine has actually been a great example of this. Also, kinda funny, both sides have dropped the 7.62x39 and gone to the flatter shooting 5.45x39 and 5.56x45.

 

[robin banks]

1. You're the only one who keeps bringing up this idiotic topic that the flatter shooting round will decide wars. No one has made that argument. So your dumb snarky comments just make you look bad.

2. Every war in the last 60 years has shown that no matter how much technology you have, boots on the ground are still needed to hold territory. Ukraine has actually been a great example of this. Also, kinda funny, both sides have dropped the 7.62x39 and gone to the flatter shooting 5.45x39 and 5.56x45.

there are 6 pages arguing over what round is better which proves my point. you look bad when you cant see a comment as sarcasm. Russian special op guys still want and use the 39 rd

 

[robin banks]

I made that point in my first post in this thread.

I will have to look that up. I just read it. remember the effectiveness of the 5.56 in vietnam was the 20 barrel like you said but more the slow twist rate

 

[12Bravo20]

Russian special op guys still want and use the 39 rd

Would that be 5.45x39 or 7.62x39 or the 9x39? And yes all three are used by Russian troops.

 

[JShirley]

I will have to look that up. I just read it. remember the effectiveness of the 5.56 in vietnam was the 20 barrel like you said but more the slow twist rate

Some people believe that. Research since then shows that the velocity is the important thing- yawing is destructive, but fragmentation is much more so. But, again, punching holes in your enemy is more important than the specifics about the holes you're punching.

 

[d2wing]

I am not sure about validity of the backyard penetration tests but I do know that my sniper buddy was picking off NVA in bunkers in the book Black Horse Riders at range with his scoped accurized M14. When they figured out what was happening the NVA spotted him and concentrated fire on his position. He thought he was a dead man but the 7.62x39 rounds did not penetrate the log he was hiding behind. That part was not in the TV show "Rescue at Dogshead". Both rounds are comparatively low power rounds designed for full auto fire.

 

[d2wing]

This is a little like needs arguing about which is faster, a Yugo or Yaris. I am fully convinced based on experience both in combar and hunting of what I think. Everyone has their own load of bs. I think it is funny some things that are posted. You know that there are real ballistic engineers.

 

[robin banks]

Would that be 5.45x39 or 7.62x39 or the 9x39? And yes all three are used by Russian troops.

I meant the 7.62. the 9x32 is mostly suppressed

 

[robin banks]

I am not sure about validity of the backyard penetration tests but I do know that my sniper buddy was picking off NVA in bunkers in the book Black Horse Riders at range with his scoped accurized M14. When they figured out what was happening the NVA spotted him and concentrated fire on his position. He thought he was a dead man but the 7.62x39 rounds did not penetrate the log he was hiding behind. That part was not in the TV show "Rescue at Dogshead". Both rounds are comparatively low power rounds designed for full auto fire.

how far away was he cause the steel core 7.62 gets wicked penetration and I doubt the lead core 308 round would have penetrated the log

 

[Airborne77]

Ok so I'll sum up my thoughts per the rounds in question.
Hunting large game hands down 7.62x39
Hunting smaller game 556 all the way
Military use 556 : lighter flatter shooting more accurate lots of back up(crew served weapons, cas, artillery)
Civilian shtf 100% 7.62x39 for 200 and in
500 to 200.5 ----556x45mm
My personal choice expecting a fight my m14 covers me to 800yds
Working around the house trying to survive in shtf senario glock 17 with mp5 or ak with stock folded close by or on my back.
Patrolling and planning on stealth and suppressive fire to break contact my m4 in 556....
Out

 

[Robert]

6 pages seems like more than enough for this round of X vs Y.