7.62x39 v. 7.62x51 short range wounding differences

[C-grunt]

The question is not the numbers. I agree they are all better with 308. The question is, will it make a difference.

A nuke is better than 500 pounds of TNT. Drop either on me and I am dead.

It might make a difference. I've seen guys take solid 5.56 and 7.62x39 COM hits and still be up and about for a bit. They were really jacked up from the shots and most quickly went down and died, but they were ambulatory fit a bit.

The only time I've ever seen someone take a solid 7.62x51 COM hit and stay up was a 350ish meter sniper shot that hit the guy in the low chest/upper abdomin area. He was out of the fight but ran about 150 yards before he keeled over and died.

The Youtuber Garand Thumb recently did a video with two foreign fighters (a US guy and a Brit) working in Ukraine. They talk about using the SCAR H and that the 7.62 Nato is noticeably more effective than 5.56 and 5.45.

 

[C-grunt]

Just to clarify, the incidents above were not the norm. I'm still picking 5.56 over 7.62x51 as my main fighting cartridge every day of the week.

 

[Gun-Reck]

For a stabilized rifle bullet < .35 cal. - the Permanent Stretch Cavity degrades from impact velocities of 2600 -> 2400 fps.

Then they are just poking holes.

For the M2/M80 ball, that's ~ 75 -> 150 yards.

 

[Beck]

Yeah, no meaningful difference even out to 200 yards. If a whitetail, hog, or a two legged varmint is DRT after being hit with a good bullet in x39, it can't be any more incapacitated than dead. And 7.62x39 is not inherently inaccurate, or less accurate than 7.62x51. It depends on the brand and type of bullet used in both.

I shot my first ever sub MOA groups about two years ago with a CZ 527 in 7.62x39 using steel case Golden Tiger x39 made in Vympel Russia. The CZ likes that cartridge. Steel case Barnaul Silver Bear 125 gr JSP performed nearly as well. Silver Bear is good out to roughly 150 yards. The jacket separates a few inches after impact, but the core penetrates deep with a beautiful mushroom. Pretty decent for a bi-metal soft point projectile.

 

[Jim Watson]

There was the Vietnam era Army doctor who said he could not tell what somebody had been shot with by looking at the wound. Of course that was just men who lived long enough to get to the hospital.

 

[Balrog]

It might make a difference. I've seen guys take solid 5.56 and 7.62x39 COM hits and still be up and about for a bit. They were really jacked up from the shots and most quickly went down and died, but they were ambulatory fit a bit.

The only time I've ever seen someone take a solid 7.62x51 COM hit and stay up was a 350ish meter sniper shot that hit the guy in the low chest/upper abdomin area. He was out of the fight but ran about 150 yards before he keeled over and died.

The Youtuber Garand Thumb recently did a video with two foreign fighters (a US guy and a Brit) working in Ukraine. They talk about using the SCAR H and that the 7.62 Nato is noticeably more effective than 5.56 and 5.45.

I dont doubt you are right, but my question was really about close range... 150 yds or less.

 

[C-grunt]

I dont doubt you are right, but my question was really about close range... 150 yds or less.

What I'm saying is Ive never seen a guy take a 7.62 Nato COM and stay up except for a guy shot at 350 meters. Everyone closer, and longer too, has been down hard pretty much immediately.

I can't say the same about 5.56 or 7.62x39. I shot a guy at 50 yards with a modern defensive round 223 and it took two shots. First one was definitely fatal, but he was still in the fight for a short time after.

 

[Ignition Override]

Didn’t famed sniper Carlos Hatchcock recently die?

His comparison might have been interesting as he might have been very familiar with the AKM’s lethality - not just injuries caused by his M-14.

 

[C-grunt]

Didn’t famed sniper Carlos Hatchcock recently die?

His comparison might have been interesting as he might have been very familiar with the AKM’s lethality - not just injuries caused by his M-14.

Hathcock died in 99. Mawhiney recently passed though. I think that's who you're thinking of with the M14.

 

[lysanderxiii]

There was the Vietnam era Army doctor who said he could not tell what somebody had been shot with by looking at the wound. Of course that was just men who lived long enough to get to the hospital.

That's because your skin is very elastic, and tends to close up, but that does not mean the internal damage was the same.

 

[d2wing]

Didn’t famed sniper Carlos Hatchcock recently die?

His comparison might have been interesting as he might have been very familiar with the AKM’s lethality - not just injuries caused by his M-14.

If I recall, Hatchcock used a Bolt action 30-06. On the other hand, one of my best friends was a sniper that did use a specialized M-14. You can read about the superiority of the 7.62 Nato over the 7.62x39 in the book Black Horse Riders. I was a gunner in Nam. No question that the 7.62 NATO is vastly superior. Misquotes and false references don't help.

 

[Balrog]

If I recall, Hatchcock used a Bolt action 30-06. On the other hand, one of my best friends was a sniper that did use a specialized M-14. You can read about the superiority of the 7.62 Nato over the 7.62x39 in the book Black Horse Riders. I was a gunner in Nam. No question that the 7.62 NATO is vastly superior. Misquotes and false references don't help.

No doubt 7.62 NATO is superior to x39. That is not what I was asking. The question is, how much difference will it make at 100 or 150 yds. I was trying to be very specific with the question so the thread wouldnt go off on a tangent.

To phrase a little more clearly, if you knew that you would never have to shoot longer than 150 yds, is the ballistic superiority of the 7.62x51 over x39 worth the increased recoil, increased weight of the rifle, and higher price of the ammo?

 

[Gun-Reck]

No doubt 7.62 NATO is superior to x39. That is not what I was asking. The question is, how much difference will it make at 100 or 150 yds. I was trying to be very specific with the question so the thread wouldnt go off on a tangent.

To phrase a little more clearly, if you knew that you would never have to shoot longer than 150 yds, is the ballistic superiority of the 7.62x51 over x39 worth the increased recoil, increased weight of the rifle, and higher price of the ammo?

Consider it the .30-06 v. .30-30 argument.

One is a battle rifle round, while the other is an assault rifle/intermediate carbine round.

Recoil - is also a function of rifle weight. (had a .30-06 sporter and .30-30 lever carbine, and didn't like the recoil of either.)

So, again, what is the intended use, what is the intended target, and what is your firearm category, given your range limitations?

Property defense with a carbine? Ungulate hunting? Marksmanship/Plinking?

 

[MarshallDodge]

Evaluation of engagement data shows that it doesn't. This largely describes why the US adopted the 5.56x45 and dumped the 7.62x63 and x51 to begin with.

Yeah, shot placement is still a thing...

 

[Balrog]

Consider it the .30-06 v. .30-30 argument.

One is a battle rifle round, while the other is an assault rifle/intermediate carbine round.

Recoil - is also a function of rifle weight. (had a .30-06 sporter and .30-30 lever carbine, and didn't like the recoil of either.)

So, again, what is the intended use, what is the intended target, and what is your firearm category, given your range limitations?

Property defense with a carbine? Ungulate hunting? Marksmanship/Plinking?

Property defense.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Property defense.

With an assault rifle/carbine like an AK/Mini-30?

What it was designed for.

 

[C-grunt]

To phrase a little more clearly, if you knew that you would never have to shoot longer than 150 yds, is the ballistic superiority of the 7.62x51 over x39 worth the increased recoil, increased weight of the rifle, and higher price of the ammo?

Even if I new I had engagements out to 500 yards I'd still choose 5.56 over 7.62x51 because of recoil, weight, etc...

To put it simply.

Will it make a difference under 150 yards? Yes.

Will that difference matter? Probably not.

Is the increase in performance worth the other tradeoffs? To me, no. To others, yes. It's all a game of pros v cons.

 

[Beck]

I think at this point, accidentally or on purpose, several of us have thoroughly answered the OP's question in terms most people can understand.

 

[Ignition Override]

My brother-in-law has a former buddy who owns a horse farm on or very near the Arizona border.

The guy has seen a truck(s) belonging to drug gangs parked on his land, quite far from his house.

He’s certainly not stupid enough to approach or confront them.
We have no idea which guns the landowner keeps with him.

 

[Random 8]

I'm not a belligerent nation and/or a signatory of the Hague convention, so I'm shooting optimal bullets, not FMJs.

With a light bullet, less than 130 grains, the 7.62x51 will push it a lot faster. That equates to more soft tissue damage given a similar expanding or frangible bullet. As we get heavier, the 7.62x51 can combine still superior soft tissue damage with superior penetration as in a hunting scenario. They really are not in the same category.

When specified to the limitation of non-expanding bullets, I suspect the differences will be significantly less.

Edit to add. Just cleared my brain in the sauna, and noticed the "vs human adversaries" in the OP.

In that case, given the use of expanding bullets, I would say very little practical difference with a center mass, spinal, or pelvic hit. I think a sub optimal hit such as thigh, shoulder, or bicep, jaw or grazing skull is far more likely to be immediately incapacitating and eventually lethal with the higher velocity impact. With the typical FMjs used in both cartridges, it get's more interesting as stability is more easily upset with the shorter bullet used in X39. Given the same bullet weights and construction, I think the velocity of the X51 will still generate greater tissue damage.

 

[d2wing]

The reason for the 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO over more powerful rounds was rate of fire. In semi auto there is no advantage to less powerful cartridge except less recoil. Plenty of people think pistol carbines are just as good too. I know the difference from actual combat and I value my life. But thankfully it will almost never matter to you and in good hands any centerfire is probably good enough in the very rare event you need it.

 

[Pudge]

No doubt 7.62 NATO is superior to x39. That is not what I was asking. The question is, how much difference will it make at 100 or 150 yds. I was trying to be very specific with the question so the thread wouldnt go off on a tangent.

To phrase a little more clearly, if you knew that you would never have to shoot longer than 150 yds, is the ballistic superiority of the 7.62x51 over x39 worth the increased recoil, increased weight of the rifle, and higher price of the ammo?

I guess it depends. When the chips are down, how many shots will you get, in what circumstances?

If one shot needs to be effective, would you be more confident in the performance of 7.62x39 or 7.62x51?

 

[JohnMc]

While not much cavalry, of the 264 combat divisions in the German Army (1944), 222 of them relied on horses, or mules for all transport of supplies or movement of equipment, mainly artillery. The Soviets did maintain one cavalry corps in each Tank Army.

I used to play a lot of board wargames as a teenager back in the late '70s. This is why WWII German (and Russian, Italian, etc) infantry units typically have smaller movement factors in those games than comparable US or British ones. I've been well aware of this since then; the explanations for the various units were usually in the rule books, not to mention the various wargamer magazines of the day, such as "The General". My post was for generality's sake, I didn't want to get into TLDR territory.

 

[eastbank]

having humped both, i liked the m-14. for me easier Maintenace, better sights and dead now with good body hits. but then again i was not in the pray and spray crowd.

 

[jmorris]

You could make either good or bad by bullet choice.