556 vs 7.62x39

[Handshaker]

So if you took the DeLorean time machine back to Viet Nam and had the choice of both an AR and AK chambered in 556 and 7.62x39, which would you choose and why?
I would choose 556 even though i have several guns in both calibers.
To me 556 is an easier to manage caliber, for recoil and i prefer a faster round. 556 would also be much easier to manage in full auto.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Well, using your enemies weapons tends to draw friendly fire thanks to the different audible report they generate.
That, plus ammo resupply.....(shrugs).
I have both and wouldn't feel outgunned with either, but would stick with 5.56 if on the Blue Team.

 

[12Bravo20]

Well, using your enemies weapons tends to draw friendly fire thanks to the different audible report they generate.

And that is usually Murphy and his laws show up. And yes an AK has a very distinctive sound compared to the M16/M4. And it is a sound one will never forget once you have been shot at from enemy troops equipped with an AK.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

30.06 i would be on sniper duty.

 

[MikeInOr]

I believe the 7.62x39 is a better battle round than 5.56 NATO.

.223 and its parent round the .222 are varmit rounds.

In the right weapon the 7.62 is a pussycat to shoot. I have never found the ergonomics of an AK all that suitable for me.

I prefer the Mini 14 and Mini 30 over the AR and the AK. A Mini 30 is a very soft shooter in my opinion.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Yeah a 7.62x39 has a heavier bullet. It would hit harder and do more damage. When i soot the steel with my .223 and 7.62x39. There is a pretty difference in the clank/thud. Depending on what steel target it hit.

 

[Handshaker]

And that is usually Murphy and his laws show up. And yes an AK has a very distinctive sound compared to the M16/M4. And it is a sound one will never forget once you have been shot at from enemy troops equipped with an AK.

I am considering a 556 AK, I have 7.62's now. There is quite a bit more cheek slap with 7.62. I wonder if a 556 Ak would sound the same?

 

[The_Quartermaster]

M16 - Easy to shoot and superior ergonomics.

AK47 - Doesn't live up to it's hype (Afghanistan and Iraq taught me that), horrible ergonomics and a round not as accurate as 5.56.

5.56 in the M16A1 or XM177E2 all day every day.

 

[Slamfire]

Well, using your enemies weapons tends to draw friendly fire thanks to the different audible report they generate.
That, plus ammo resupply.....(shrugs).
I have both and wouldn't feel outgunned with either, but would stick with 5.56 if on the Blue Team.

Firing your enemies weapons and wearing their uniforms will attract unwanted attention!

Vietnam veterans I pulled targets with claimed they did not see VC or NVA, they shot at vegetation where they were pretty sure enemy rounds were coming from. You happen to have an SKS or AK47 you might have an US artillery round land on your position as your forward artillery observer calls them down from heaven.

The early M16's were a disaster and jam a matics. Around 1968 they got most of the problems out, but magazines remained troublesome up to the Iraq invasion. And the M16 needs a lot more maintenance than any AK. A bud of mine claims a VC was turned up by a road grading bull dozer, he estimated Charlie had been in the mud for three months. Bud took the VC's AK47, racked the bolt, and fired the weapon without any attempt to clean. Try doing that with a AR15 or M16. I pulled targets with Iraq veterans who ran experiments with captured AK47's. They took the top cover off and poured sand into the mechanism, and the AK's still ran. Does not take much dirt to bind up a M16.

The AK47 served well the people who used it. Maybe 70 to 100 million made, and they are still out there, being used by ragamuffins and children warriors. It is truly one of the outstanding battle rifles of the second half of the 20th century.



I earned my Distinguished Rifleman Badge with a M1a. I am sure if I were in Vietnam, I would have an M14 in my hands, till they took it away.



It is a great rifle, powerful, accurate, reliable. Combat load is about half that of the M16, that is about the only disadvantage I have heard about it. Truly an under appreciated design.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

Firing your enemies weapons and wearing their uniforms will attract unwanted attention!

Vietnam veterans I pulled targets with claimed they did not see VC or NVA, they shot at vegetation where they were pretty sure enemy rounds were coming from. You happen to have an SKS or AK47 you might have an US artillery round land on your position as your forward artillery observer calls them down from heaven.

The early M16's were a disaster and jam a matics. Around 1968 they got most of the problems out, but magazines remained troublesome up to the Iraq invasion. And the M16 needs a lot more maintenance than any AK. A bud of mine claims a VC was turned up by a road grading bull dozer, he estimated Charlie had been in the mud for three months. Bud took the VC's AK47, racked the bolt, and fired the weapon without any attempt to clean. Try doing that with a AR15 or M16. I pulled targets with Iraq veterans who ran experiments with captured AK47's. They took the top cover off and poured sand into the mechanism, and the AK's still ran. Does not take much dirt to bind up a M16.

The AK47 served well the people who used it. Maybe 70 to 100 million made, and they are still out there, being used by ragamuffins and children warriors. It is truly one of the outstanding battle rifles of the second half of the 20th century.

View attachment 1113139

I earned my Distinguished Rifleman Badge with a M1a. I am sure if I were in Vietnam, I would have an M14 in my hands, till they took it away.

View attachment 1113141

It is a great rifle, powerful, accurate, reliable. Combat load is about half that of the M16, that is about the only disadvantage I have heard about it. Truly an under appreciated design.

View attachment 1113142

Ya, but no.

Seen uncared for AK's shoot themselves to death faster than M-60's at a Brigade density range. Go ask Battlefield Las Vegas which platform needs the most maintenance on. Go ask recent veterans from GWOT what they thought. After the M193 was straightened out and that stupid nO nEeD tO bE cLeAnEd BS was straightened out, the problems went away. The magazines stopped being a problem when they went to the green followers and were only Okay made, which was long before Iraq. The AK's I've seen that were toast, were trashed. You can rebuild an AR easily and still use the same receivers, can't do the same with an AK.

We heard all the stories about burying and using later still operational, ya, still no as that lie was seen up close on the things we found when hunting for caches. Your bud's fishing tale in that part of the globe in a jungle would rust that AK faster than an M16. These were the same guys who told fishing tale lies like the 50 cal where a near miss is a nEaR kIlL, ya, still no and also untrue.

We did a lot of things downrange, but we didn't do that crap to our own rifles not because we didn't trust or any of that other nonsense, we were more afraid of the UCMJ and the wraith of our chain of commands and chains of concerns, plus if our weapons did die from it, we were SOL.

I see you're a fan of the M14. Go have a conversation with Ash Hess about the M14, a veteran of COP Keating. There's a reason they went away when better things became available for the DMR role.

Crap ergonomics, really weird recoil impulse in the stock, 5 MOA maybe on a good day at 100 yards even on a bench, definitely not my pick for a combat rifle if I had a real say in the matter. YMMV, mine will not.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

"Ahem"

- Some of our M4's have well over 200,000 rounds down range. Barrels have been replaced, gas tubes have been replaced, BCG's have been replaced but what sets it apart from the AK47's is that upper and lower receivers continue to function. AK's get to about the 100,000+ round count and rails on the receiver will start to crack. It's an easy fix with tig welding but they crack. We have yet to lose an upper or lower receiver from cracking.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/H...-have-handled-on-our-range/118-677135/?page=1

 

[AK Hunter]

It would depend on what I was going to do with the gun.
You know this comparison has been done many times & it's still like comparing Ferrari to a work truck.
The 5.56 is a custom caliber made to be accurate to the MOA & the 7.62x39 is made to be cheap so an untrained force can put enough lead down range to keep heads down until the force can advance.
If I need to be accurate I would choose the 5.56. If I was trying to keep fire going down range until the rest of my force could surround you I would choose the 7.62x39. Do you notice that most using the 7.62 don't bother aiming??

 

[Robert]

We just did one of these. We certainly don't need another. X vs Y threads start out innocent enough, but they all go down hill quickly.