7.62x39mm vs....38 Special?

[Art Eatman]

Re Tam's water cans: Good example of comparative energy release. I'd bet the AK bullet stayed in one piece, but the 5.45 bullet didn't just tumble; it came apart. The can rips, in either case, because in water the forces go up, down and sideways as well as towards the rear. The higher energy--due to velocity--of the 5.45 means greater forces and thus greater destruction.

I remember being a bit startled, the first time I shot a water-filled beer can with a .223, at how it flattened out to a piece of ragged sheet metal.

A 12-gauge shotgun is 0.729 inches in idameter. It's not uncommon for an expanding 30-caliber bullet of the .308/.30'06 class to attain 0.6 to 0.7 inches. This size of "push", at common 100-yard/200-yard velocities, means a larger wound channel than that of a tumbling solid--particularly the slower AK.

Nothing's absolute in an animal's body, of course. Hitting bone, or the difference between an abdominal hit and a muscle hit, means different types and amounts of damage...

Purely a guess, but the reported difference between the AK and a .38 special would derive from the differences in diameter and in shape. The latter might be an SWC or possibly have had a larger meplat, in modern ammo. I note that many complaints have been made about the way a round-nosed, 158-grain .38 special bullet over-penetrates without unduly incapacitating the recipient thereof.

There ain't no "always", other than it's no fun to get shot.

, Art

 

[Turk]

As many of you may know from my posts I'm not a big fan of SKS/AK's (7.62x39) but If I'm know I'm going to a gun fight I'll take an SKS over a 38 Spec. any day.

I've seen numerous hits for the AK/SKS and they make a hole I don't want in me. I can't believe I'm defending the AK/SKS rifles.

Turk

 

[Dave R]

Yes, I can see where a 7.62 X 39 FMJ may not injure any worse than a .38.

I tried an experiment to see what kind of difference bullet construction makes. Lined up 2 rows of 5 x 1gal plastic milk jugs filled with water. Shot the first row with a .308 milsurp FMJ from 25 yards. Thought I missed, till I saw the water dribbling out of the .308 hole. Exit holes in each milk jug looked about the same.

Shot the 2nd line of jugs with a Remington 150gr Core Lokt. Holy cow. Water exploded everywhere. First jug became one sheet of plastic and landed several feet away. Other jugs shredded to a lesser degree.

Bullet design makes a BIG difference.

 

[DMK]

I have to wonder whether Peter G. Kokalis was comparing FMJ 7.62x39 to FMJ .38 special in his SG News article, or was he comparing 7,62x39 FNJ to JHP .38 Special?

In his article, he was describing how the M43 cartridge would not reliably yaw until after a depth deeper than the human body, therefore drilling a .311 hole. Clearly an expanding .38 special round would make a considerable larger wound (assuming it would penetrate as deeply and that may be a big assumption depending on the gear and clothing of the enemy soldier). So he was using a little sensationalism to prove his point.

 

[SteelyDan]

Figures and statistics can be very useful, but they can also be very misleading. At some point you just have to rely on your common sense. I don't pretend to have any definitive knowledge or answers, but if I had to choose between getting shot with a .38 or a 7.62x39, it would be an easy choice.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I don't think the military uses FMJ just because of the Hague convention.

For one, it feeds more reliably. For another, it's cheaper, and when you're buying millions of rounds of ammunition, that can mean something.

But more importantly, it penetrates. The military switched to SS109 from they "mythically fragmenting super-lethal non-over-penetrating" 55 grain because you don't want your bullets fragmenting and stopping in the tree the bad guy is hiding behind, or his body armor, or whatever.

Being able to punch through light cover and concealment (sandbags, logs, helmets, etc.) is very important on the battlefield, especially on support weapons like machine guns and such.