Effectiveness of quality Soft Point .223 vs 7.62X39

[epijunkie67]

I don't want to turn this into a caliber war since we've done that to death. But most of the information on terminal ballistics we discuss is for the FMJ military rounds. Now, since I'm no longer in the military I'm not restricted to FMJ any more.

So assuming a standard sized weapon how effective are soft point rounds from a .223 and a 7.62X39? How does it compare to the military FMJ rounds?

 

[Crosshair]

Assuming that the .223 round does not fragment, the 7.62x39 would be better simply because the 30 cal round can expand to a larger diamater than any .223 round would.

Against humans without body armor, you would do well using a heavy 22 caliber varmit bullet, mabee 55 grain. You get the explosive effects, yet a reasonable ammount of penitration.

Personaly, In 22 caliber I would go with a SP bullet of light construction just beause I would want the extra penitration compared to a BT bullet.

 

[FRIENDLY]

Round effectiveness

even with hollowpoints I thought the .223/5.56 round was banned for deer sized animals under the various hunting regulations in the USA.So I would stick with the 7.62x39 round with hollowpoints aim low and fire still target stops.

 

[rbernie]

even with hollowpoints I thought the .223/5.56 round was banned for deer sized animals under the various hunting regulations in the USA.

That varies from state to state. In many states, it is legal to hunt deer with 223/5.56NATO.

Controlled-expansion rounds from either a 223/5.56NATO or 7.62x39 chambering will pretty much ruin anyone's day of the shot is placed well. The biggest factors in choosing either chambering would seem to have less to do with the terminal effects as much as logistics, intended use (engagement distances, number of rounds carried, etc.) and so forth.

The AmmoOracle FAQ presents a reasonable rundown of the pros/cons of the fragmentation (military FMJ) vs. controlled expansion (softpoint) debate, at least for 223/5.56NATO.

 

[mr.trooper]

7.62x39 would be better....assuming you can get ammunition that actualy expands like its suposed to.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Better for what? Taking game? Stopping attackers? Something else?

Hunters never use FMJ if they have the choice. If your goal is the same as theirs (i.e. harvesting game) use what they use - expanding bullets.

Against humans, it probably doesn't matter too much what you use. At close ranges, FMJs sometimes fragment on impact, making for devestating wounds. But that only happens reliably at high velocites, which means only at close range. At longer ranges (200 to 300 yards and out) fragmentation won't happen, and the wounding potential of these two rounds may prove unimpressive. An expanding bullet might be a good idea if you need some extra reach. But in that case, there's probably no substitute for an honest-to-God rifle (as opposed to a .223 or 7.62x39 carbine).

FMJ is probably better for penetrating barriers. Hitting attackers behind cover might (or might not) be harder with an expanding bullet.

 

[RyanM]

In practice, 7.62x39mm softpoints do very crappy. Wolff softpoints will typically shed their jacket on impact, at which point a totally un-deformed lead core will penetrate exactly like an FMJ. The only expanding 7.62x39mm rounds I know of that actually perform like they're supposed to are the Winchester 123 gr JSP, and the Saspan 124 gr JHP.

.223 may be a smaller, lighter bullet, but it gives you a much greater selection of working bullets. Personally, I suggest 55 or 62 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.

6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm SPC outperform both .223 and 7.62x39mm by a large amount, though, with good loads.

 

[Crosshair]

The Wolf FMJ and HP bullets are identical except the tip of the bullet has been cut off in the FMJ. Shooting into boxes of sand, most rounds I have recovered have flatened and went sideways very quickly. In flesh, this would have had the same effect as a SP bullet. This is because of the large air pocket in the nose of the bullet.

 

[rbernie]

In practice, 7.62x39mm softpoints do very crappy.

In practice, they do quite well if you use the deer and hog that I've dropped with 'em as a representative sample.

I've used Speer, Hornady, and Sierra SPs, and all worked quite well. The Speer and Hornadys are relatively frangible (made more for bipedal targets than for game use, if I had to guess) while the Sierra is a bit mo' stout and is better suited for use on piggies and such.

 

[Davo]

Guys look at his question...QUALITY SOFT POINTS.
Comparing say federal premium or hornady hunting rounds-the 7.62 has more energy, more momentum, more penetration potential, and makes a bigger hole. The .223 has a slightly flatter trajectory and less recoil.
Sure fmj may penetrate a bit better, but neither is known for penetration. I dont consider Wolf SP to be quality ammo.
Honestly I consider the 7.62 to be a better all around cartridge. FYI in a bolt action, these rounds can be loaded MUCH hotter than the semi auto.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Quality ammo

I handload 125gr ballistic tips in my CZ527 in 7.62x39 to a velocity of 2450 fps. MOA every time. But don't knock the 154gr wolf load it chronies just shy of 2200fps and is even more accurate than my best handloads.

 

[T.R.]

Winchester introduced its 64 grain soft tip about 10 years ago. It is designed and constructed as a big game bullet. 60 grain Nosler Partition is equally well designed and constructed. Either of these bullets fired from a modern .223 rifle will produce impressive groups at 100 yards. Performance on deer is predictably lethal, assuming shot placement through both lungs from a broadside angle. But due to slower twist rate, neither of these bullets produces impressive groups when fired from a 220 Swift. But Barnes 52 grain bullet is quite lethal. I've observed mulies dropped in their tracks with this tiny bullet launched to tremendous velocity by the mighty 220 Swift.

The SKS carbine is great battle weapon but accurasy is often less than impressive. Typical commie surplus will shoot into a 6 inch circle at 100 yards. Winchester SUPER X 123 grain soft tips are more accurate with 3.5 inch grouping common.

A hunter who is patient and waits for the best shot will do well with just about any cartridge featuring a good big game bullet. Deer are not armor-plated.
TR

 

[RyanM]

In practice, they do quite well if you use the deer and hog that I've dropped with 'em as a representative sample.

I've used Speer, Hornady, and Sierra SPs, and all worked quite well. The Speer and Hornadys are relatively frangible (made more for bipedal targets than for game use, if I had to guess) while the Sierra is a bit mo' stout and is better suited for use on piggies and such.

If you reload, 7.62x39mm is a fine cartridge, and nearly a ballistic twin of the .30-30. I was talking about factory loads, though. Pretty much all of the Wolf softpoints will just shed their jacket, then keep on going exactly like an FMJ. According to testing, the Nosler Ballistic Tip loads from Georgia Arms barely expanded at all, and overpenetrated while also producing a temporary cavity smaller than that produced by a handgun JHP. This may be because it only chronographed at 2174 fps out of a 16" AK, as opposed to the advertised 2400 fps.

.223 has a much better variety of factory loadings available.

I'd still prefer a 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC to either, depending on purposes.

 

[Davo]

Even the SKS will often get sub 3 inch groups with premium ammo. Both calibers are less than ideal but adequate. But among between the two the 7.62x39 has 25% more energy, more momentum (very important), and is of a larger caliber. Both are effective, but they are not even comparable in performance. Its obvious that some of us here have a bias against russian calibers, no matter what.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

7.62x39 has 25% more energy, more momentum (very important), and is of a larger caliber.

If those were the prime criteria, then you'd be using a true rifle caliber (.308 / .30-06 / 7.62x54R etc) instead of an intermediate caliber like the 7.62x39.

And if energy, momentum and bullet size were as important as you suggest, why did the Ruskies dump their 7.62x39 weapons for 5.45x39?

Intermediate caliber carbines like the AK, SKS and AR intentionally sacrifice things like energy, momentum and bullet size in exchange for lighter weight weapons and ammunition. This is their big advantage over the full sized rifles.

Judging by the worldwide success of the AR pattern rifle and the 5.56 Nato cartridge, that particular combination seems to perform admirably. It ain't no bias against the commie guns, just a simple observation that the AR and .223 gets the job done.

 

[GTSteve03]

epijunkie67, "effective" at what? Depending on what you want the ammo to do, we can't really clarify the answer.

Punching paper, hunting game, varmint control, urban self defense?