ProCharger
Member
I have not witnessed in person a .223 or a 7.62x39 caliber....wondering if anyone knows where there is a side by side comparison of size or ballistics.
comparison 7.62x39, 30-06, .223
- Thread starter ProCharger
- Start date
- Status
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
For baseline ballistics...
I usually hit http://www.federalcartridge.com/, which will give you a ballpark idea.
To summarize your 3:
.223: Bottom End of Moderate Oomph, well above pistols (flat, long distance shooter)
7.62x39 Commie: High End of Moderate Oomph (not flat, medium distance shooter)
30-06: Your Basic Big Oomph. See also .308
I usually hit http://www.federalcartridge.com/, which will give you a ballpark idea.
To summarize your 3:
.223: Bottom End of Moderate Oomph, well above pistols (flat, long distance shooter)
7.62x39 Commie: High End of Moderate Oomph (not flat, medium distance shooter)
30-06: Your Basic Big Oomph. See also .308
SodaPop
member
A 62gr .223 bullet travelling 3100fps has about the same trajectory as a 147gr .308 at 2700fps. I'm pretty sure a 150gr 30/06 would be about the same, also.
I zero my Mini 14 and my FAL at 200yds and they both have similiar trajectories out to 500yds.
The 7.62x39 is a entirely different.
I zero my Mini 14 and my FAL at 200yds and they both have similiar trajectories out to 500yds.
The 7.62x39 is a entirely different.
Sunray
Member
This what you want? http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm
The site lets you compare ballistics between two rounds they load.
There really is no comparison between the three. The .223 is the smallest, lightest, bullet, followed by the 7.62 x 39 then the .30-06. In bullet diameter, it's the 7.62x39(European loads use a .311 bullet), .30-06 and .223 largest to smallest.
Except for interest's sake, this is a waste of your time. Each round has its place and use. You looking at buying something you need help deciding upon? The guys here love spending other people's money.
The site lets you compare ballistics between two rounds they load.
There really is no comparison between the three. The .223 is the smallest, lightest, bullet, followed by the 7.62 x 39 then the .30-06. In bullet diameter, it's the 7.62x39(European loads use a .311 bullet), .30-06 and .223 largest to smallest.
Except for interest's sake, this is a waste of your time. Each round has its place and use. You looking at buying something you need help deciding upon? The guys here love spending other people's money.
ProCharger
Member
I was more wanting to see the size/trajectory differences between the 2 military cartridges compared to a modern day 30-06. The gun im in the market for has been chosen as the romanian SAR-1 7.62x39. I own a 30-06 already and would some day love to be the owner of an ar or m-series rifle. I assume the recoil on the .223 is very light but how is the recoil on the 7.62x39 in comparison to the 30-06?
Brett
Brett
ny32182
Member
There is no comparison on recoil. I can shoot an AK or AR all day with no fatigue, but after 30-40 rds of 30/06, my shoulder is finished and aching the next day.
procharger writes:
The '06 will likely always be greater, but it really depends on WHAT you're shooting it IN.
20 rounds of '06 in my Sav. bolt gun and I'm done (and VERY sore). 50 rounds out of my Garand, and I haven't felt a thing, even if it is from prone.
I've shot as many as 100 7.62x39 from my SKS in one sitting with NO discomfort, and that number would be considerably higher if I wasn't a cheapskate (and didn't have 2 teen-agers
)
The '06 will likely always be greater, but it really depends on WHAT you're shooting it IN.
20 rounds of '06 in my Sav. bolt gun and I'm done (and VERY sore). 50 rounds out of my Garand, and I haven't felt a thing, even if it is from prone.
I've shot as many as 100 7.62x39 from my SKS in one sitting with NO discomfort, and that number would be considerably higher if I wasn't a cheapskate (and didn't have 2 teen-agers
)starfuryzeta
Member
Here's a picture:
.223 on left, 7.62x39 in middle, 30.06 on right
I'll be procuring my AR very soon, but I have shot the other two.
The 7.62x39 out of an AK or SKS is very mild in recoil. Its no problem to put hundreds of rounds downrange in one session.
The 30.06 out of my garand is also mild in comparison to out of a bolt gun. Out of a bolt gun, maybe 40 to 50 before shoulder starts to ache. Out of the Garand, shoot all day.
.223 on left, 7.62x39 in middle, 30.06 on right
I'll be procuring my AR very soon, but I have shot the other two.
The 7.62x39 out of an AK or SKS is very mild in recoil. Its no problem to put hundreds of rounds downrange in one session.
The 30.06 out of my garand is also mild in comparison to out of a bolt gun. Out of a bolt gun, maybe 40 to 50 before shoulder starts to ache. Out of the Garand, shoot all day.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
I had a weird experience New Year's Eve. I hadn't shot dad's Garand for a couple of years (and that was the first time.) When I shot it before, I was with my wife. She complained of terrible recoil; in fact, at one point, she managed to pull it up off her shoulder (she claimed the recoil made it "jump off" her shoulder.) Obviously, it was hard on her, and she stopped shooting it pretty quickly.
As I recalled it, I too was impressed by the recoil and even had a sore shoulder. It seemed like it pounded me pretty well. I shot it well, but there was no mistake that something was thumping on me.
Then, New Year's Eve, I went shooting with dad and he brought the Garand. I was surprised to find it was a pure pussycat! There was no possible difference--the ammunition was even out of the same case of surplus. I'm thinking the only difference is the fuzz in my brain.
Now that I think of it, I can't remember which I shot first--the Garand or the MkIV SMLE in .303. That thing did pound on me, and I wonder if it could have tenderized my shoulder a bit?
As I recalled it, I too was impressed by the recoil and even had a sore shoulder. It seemed like it pounded me pretty well. I shot it well, but there was no mistake that something was thumping on me.
Then, New Year's Eve, I went shooting with dad and he brought the Garand. I was surprised to find it was a pure pussycat! There was no possible difference--the ammunition was even out of the same case of surplus. I'm thinking the only difference is the fuzz in my brain.
Now that I think of it, I can't remember which I shot first--the Garand or the MkIV SMLE in .303. That thing did pound on me, and I wonder if it could have tenderized my shoulder a bit?
Feanaro
Member
Compared to the recoil of a full rifle round, 7.62x39mm is a baby tap(at least out of an SKS/AK). It's there alright but after a while, you kinda forget that it has any recoil. Now, out of a semi like the Garand, 30-06 ain't hard on you. Out of some of the lighter bolts, it starts to becoming less fun a lot faster.
mrapathy2000
member
what no 5.45x39?
its a ok cartridge though most stores seem to sell out of it online. its as cheap as 7.62x39 though has a flatter flight path like 223rem.
its a ok cartridge though most stores seem to sell out of it online. its as cheap as 7.62x39 though has a flatter flight path like 223rem.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Having spent quality time with an AR and an AK, I'd say they're comparable in terms of recoil, the AK being a little bit rougher on you, but you could shoot either of them all day long.
I've not shot a 30-06, but if you accept .308 as being a near equivalent, all I can say is that it's a completely different class than the other two rounds. In a semi-auto, I can go through 100, 120 rounds before I start thinking that the fun factor is fading.
It shoves you, but it's not uncomfortable by any means, until you've let it shove you a lot.
I've not shot a 30-06, but if you accept .308 as being a near equivalent, all I can say is that it's a completely different class than the other two rounds. In a semi-auto, I can go through 100, 120 rounds before I start thinking that the fun factor is fading.
It shoves you, but it's not uncomfortable by any means, until you've let it shove you a lot.
Pro,
In energy terms, the 7.62x39mm is just a little more powerful than a .223 (5.56x45mm). The former is more a short-range thumper- much heavier, fatter, and slower- while the .223 is a zippy little poodle shooter, good for longer shots at smaller game.
'06 is a different story, as you've heard.
John
In energy terms, the 7.62x39mm is just a little more powerful than a .223 (5.56x45mm). The former is more a short-range thumper- much heavier, fatter, and slower- while the .223 is a zippy little poodle shooter, good for longer shots at smaller game.
'06 is a different story, as you've heard.
John
ProCharger
Member
Those pics are exactly what I was looking for. As far as the .308 being a match for the 30-06 in terms of recoil the 30-06 is a mule in comparions in my opinion. I was wanting to know on the 7.62's recoil cause I would like to put a ton of rounds through it at the range and my 06 gets a little rough after 30 or so shells. Sounds like the 7.62x39 is an ideal rifle for a range as well as a .223........only the .223 doesnt quite yet fall into my price range as a new SAR-1. Thanks for the replies.
Brett
Brett
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
