low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

[Evil Monkey]

Recently, I've been thinking about these 2 rounds in low intensity combat, which is often times in urban terrain. Most of the time, it appears that low intensity combat is almost primarily an infantry vs infantry type of situation with combat support being held back significantly, or that the units involved are guerrilla in nature and don't have access to artillery, aircraft, and armored vehicles. So, they have to make due with arms that soldiers can carry out into the field. It is in this type of warfare that the small arms chosen become very important.

Pro 5.56mm arguments:
Some arguments that can be made is that the SALVO concept still applies, especially in an urban environment because of the close range battles. More rounds downrange means higher chance of connecting. You can say that barrier penetration is overrated because the goal is to suppress and use available explosive weaponry like 40mm GL's and rocket launchers to destroy a trapped enemy. You may even have mortar teams at the ready.

Pro 7.62mm soviet arguments:
Arguments for the 7.62mm are that the 5.56mm was designed to face an extremely large military in the open fields of Europe, which was exactly what the US was expecting in the Cold War. So, of course you want a 5.56mm so soldiers can shoot low recoil bursts into advancing enemy troops and attain much higher hit percentages than usual. That's not the case in urban low intensity combat. With the 7.62x39mm you can do the exact same thing as with the 5.56mm by creating suppressive and then destroying the enemy with explosive ordnance. However, if the 5.56mm can't penetrate the majority of barriers in urban terrain and 7.62mm can, then you can argue that 7.62mm is better because during suppressive fire from rifle and LMG's, there's a higher chance of striking the enemy behind their "cover". This is similar to the SALVO concept in that the 7.62 soviet, because of its better penetrative abilities, can attain higher enemy casualty rates than the 5.56mm during suppressive fire.

Other factors?:
5.56mm means you can have more ammo available? Not quite, small guerrilla units may have simplified or "localized" logistics and may have a much better time supplying troops than huge armies. 5.56mm does have a flatter trajectory but this is urban combat and neither round will make a huge difference in accuracy. A 16"-20" barrel 308 multipurpose/marksman rifle is better suited for engaging an enemy at extended distances, but that just my opinion.

So what do you think of all this? Given the type of conflict and type of forces doing the battling, do you favor the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm?

 

[SpeedAKL]

A lot of this argument will boil down to the stopping power of the rounds at 0-200 meters. I haven't been here long, but that one always gets plenty of replies.

An important thing to factor in here also is weaponry. Even if the 7.62x39 were a superior cartridge for this type of environment, there's no way in hell I would take an AK over an AR.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Each has its strong/weak points.

My buddy and I bought rifles the same day at the same place. I got the commie round in a Mini 30 and he got the .223 in a Kel Tec.

We're both happy as clams with our choices.

I've accurized my Mini with simple low cost tweaks (gas block and reloads) and shoot a 3" group at 100 yards. My pal's rifle shoots similarly W/O mods.

Thing is, both will work on zombies, but his can reach out further than mine but you can't hunt with it like you can with the .30 cal. Depends on what you want to do with them.

I have always preferred the commie round for its power and low recoil over the .223, but for the purpose you propose, the .223 might have the edge. Getting hit with ball .223 is more devastating than getting hit with ball 7.62 X 39.

You change the dynamics when you reload for these cartridges and use proper bullets. I believe the .30 has the edge in this case, but IMO with ball ammo, the .223 wins in the urban jungle.

 

[SpeedAKL]

Lower recoil? The .223 definitely has less recoil than the 7.62x39.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Now that I read that, I said it wrong - my bad.

The .223 has less recoil, no question.

I meant to say that for the power, the 7.62 X 39 has low recoil for what it is, and more punch than a .223 and therefore I prefer it.

 

[TheGunGuru]

I have a bushmaster xm15 in 5.56x45 and an ak-47m in 7.62x39. Overall, both guns will rapidly kill ANYONE. I have done some testing, shooting through different obstacles such as layer of cinder blocks...a common cover used in urban environments. I have also shot at steel plate of various thicknesses and have come up with the following conclusions:

1) Both rifles, using mil surplus steel jackets will punch holes in cinder blocks with relative ease. This leads me to believe both guns would be fine in 95% of urban areas where a wooden wall or single stack, brick/cinder block walls were used as cover. Sheet steel was damaged more by the 7.62, however both rounds made it through a 1984 Chevy suburban. This again, seems to support that common cover positions, cars in this case, are not very safe from either bullet.

2) rate of fire. The Bushmaster is defiantly more controllable in fast firing. This, in my humble opinion, is the only decided difference between the rounds. When dealing with covered positions, 1 or 2 rounds may not penetrate well, but this is true of both rounds. It may take a clip of ammo to beat the cover into submission and therefore having a high rate of fire seems to be more desirable. Also, when trying to fight a gorilla fighters, there is no "front line", so to enemy may be shooting from multiple directions and distances. The .223 offers a faster rate of fire with more accuracy to engage more targets effectively with much less recoil recovery time.

I doubt this discussion will ever end...this is a classic Remington 870 vs Mossberg 500, ford vs Chevy thing. Everyone loves to add their thoughts and therefor the postings will go on forever...God bless free speech

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The .223 is also more effective at distances, as you can still hit targets reliably.

I am not saying it is ideal for long range (like past 400 yards), but it could still be effective in many cases.

I like the 5.56 better, although I have weapons chambered in both calibers. I don't really care for the 7.62x39 all that much, but it is relatively cheap and plentiful, and just fine for short ranges.

I probably have 4-5x more 5.56 stocked up than 7.62x39.

Either should do the job with good shot placement.

 

[Lucky]

Also, when trying to fight a gorilla fighters, there is no "front line", so to enemy may be shooting from multiple directions and distances. The .223 offers a faster rate of fire with more accuracy to engage more targets effectively with much less recoil recovery time.

Damned dirty gorilla fighters.


Forget recoil, ogives, bullet construction, trajectories, terminal ballistics. Let's get down to the main point - 7.62x39 smells MUCH better than 5.56, period. Let's face it, you're in a bad situation, might as well shoot the gun that gives the most pleasure. Actually .44Rem smells better than either, but that's sort-of the benchmark, imo.

 

[grimjaw]

Lucky,

Thanks for bringing some laughing tears to my eyes.

jm

 

[marlin1888]

low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

The problem has already been solved, it's called the 6.8mm round. An M-16 is 7.62x39 would probably also be a decent compromise solution. After years of never wanting to own one (an only owning an AR-15), I decided to buy a Norinko SKS-M Paratroop Model (Detachable AK Mag model) for the heck of it. It's bee alot of fun, and is very reliable. Although it consistantly shoots 10-inch groups at 200-yards with "Wolf Military" (fatal torso woound area), I still wouldn't want to use it in a firefight! On the other hand, I've never been very confident in the stopping power of my .556 round (unless I could use some "not allowed" bullets in my military brass cases.

PS: I'm retired military.

 

[Geronimo45]

7.62x39's got more recoil than 5.56, sure... but it's not a .416 Rigby. It's a 7.62x51 junior. The 5.56 might fragment better at closer ranges, and thus do more damage. Or, on a skinny guy, might just punch a .22 caliber hole and no more. The 7.62 might do nothing more than punch a .30 caliber hole through somebody, doing no more damage than a Nagant Revolver (which, BTW, is much more interesting).

Both have proved pretty effective in the last few decades. I think the 7.62x39's a better 'everything' round than the 5.56 - IOW, it's a jack-of-all-trades caliber I'd feel comfortable with pretty much anywhere but Alaska and Africa (where there be monsters still). The 5.56 may be a better Anti-Personnel round, but the 7.62x39 just strikes me as a great GP civvie round for use against all sorts of critters I'd be liable to meet, at ranges I'd be shooting. Barrier penetration? The edge might go to 7.62 - but when firing through concealment you don't necessarily know if you're going to hit anything or not.

I don't think the US is doing house-to-house so much at the moment. If it was a situation where you had no support of any kind - namely, no .50 cal, the 7.62 would probably be nice. The classic British method of house storming (circa 1870s or so) - fire a few volleys of a heavy caliber through the place, then rush in and deal with anybody left - would be easier to do with 7.62x39, since it seems to penetrate barriers a little better.

As a matter of fact, that may be the whole point and purpose of that caliber, and why it's still used so much today in poorer nations. When you can have a humvee with an M2 .50 available, you don't really need the 7.62x39 for extra penetration. Might be useful, but not to a great extent. If you're doing without grenades, without heavy MGs or even medium MGs, the 7.62 could come in handy for house clearing. If not, probably not a really major advantage.

Is the additional weight and recoil of 7.62x39 worth it? Does the possibly superior stopping power of 5.56 versus humans make it a better choice, in spite of (some) iffy barrier penetration?

Since the US, Russia, China, and Europe in general has all switched to something in the .22 caliber area, I expect that it's got a lot going for it, and I'd probably prefer a 5.56 in combat. If the army I was with was woefully unequipped in the area of heavier-caliber weapons (.308 and larger), 7.62x39.

But these are just random thoughts from a Mall Ninja in training.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Thanks for the laugh Lucky!

 

[Soybomb]

The problem has already been solved, it's called the 6.8mm round.

Agreed!

One thing to take into consideration too is the effectiveness of the ammo you're using. If I looked in everyone's 5.56 and 7.62x39 stashes I bet I'd find a lot of cheap fmj 5.56 stuff, much of it military surplus that will probably fragment and a bunch of steel cased russian 7.62x39. I expect better wounds from the 5.56 ammo, plus I get to carry more of it for the same space/weight.

 

[Browning]

If you're shooting at distances across the street and/or through some cover then I'd vote for the 7.62X39.

If it's a little farther out (more than 100 yards) and your not really shooting through bricks and auto body metal and glass then I'd pick the 5.56X45 as at least you'll hit what you aim at with some accuracy. Maybe some of the guys on here are better shots than I am with their AK's, but I've never been able to put in groups that were actually good past 200 yards (I've been able to walk rounds in at two hundred yards and past that, but not right off the bat).

 

[HorseSoldier]

Arguments for the 7.62mm are that the 5.56mm was designed to face an extremely large military in the open fields of Europe, which was exactly what the US was expecting in the Cold War.

The adoption of 5.56mm was partly driven by the Vietnam War, and its battlefield utility was tested and evaluated in the early days of that conflict. I'd say it is hard to claim that 5.56x45 was specifically adopted for any sort of high intensity conflict, nor that its use in LIC is some new and unexpected application of the ammunition.

7.62x39 on the other hand, was adopted to fight large, conventional battles where volume of fire was the primary consideration. It probably bears noting that 7.62x39 was not, however, the Soviet's ideal caliber for an assault type weapon (they favored something in the .25 caliber range) before WW2 kicked off, but just like the StG-44 and it's ammo, logistical considerations relating to wartime production of barrels dictated a common bullet diameter.

Both rounds are, ultimately, more or less equally effective, though the 7.62x39 is being used in an obsolescent weapon by our current enemies (whose AKs are not set up to accomodate the real revolution in small arms in the form of optics and other modular accessories, unlike, say, modern Russian military issue weapons). The 5.56mm/M4 combination simply works better on a modern battlefield as part of an integrated system including all the force multipliers we carry on or with the weapon.

However, if the 5.56mm can't penetrate the majority of barriers in urban terrain and 7.62mm can, then you can argue that 7.62mm is better because during suppressive fire from rifle and LMG's, there's a higher chance of striking the enemy behind their "cover".

Neither round has any real effectiveness to speak of at all in terms of barrier penetration in the current conflict where local construction techniques favor reinforced concrete or several foot thick mud brick walls. Anything short of a high caliber (AT-4, ATGM, tank main gun) shaped charge tends to have problems with both Iraqi and Afghan buildings. If a .50 cal or KPV won't get the job done -- and they won't -- you're just wasting bullets with any assault rifle.

5.56mm means you can have more ammo available? Not quite, small guerrilla units may have simplified or "localized" logistics and may have a much better time supplying troops than huge armies.

This isn't really a valid point, and does not have anything to do with the basic load an infantryman or other combatant carries. 7.62x39 weighs more per round than 5.56mm, and for the same mass you can carry more of the latter. Guerilla logistics are highly vulnerable to interdiction if the COIN force has good intelligence, whereas US ammunition supplies are apparently quite beyond the reach of the guerillas and can be delivered to anywhere on the battlefield at the best speed truck convoys or helicopters can manage.

I know of no cases whatsoever from Iraq or Afghanistan where US troops quit the fight or broke contact because they'd shot out all their ammo but the bad guys were still shooting. Even in Mogadishu they got ammunition resupply to the troops via helicopters.

 

[Wolfgang2000]

I think that a lot depends on what a individual has confidence in, for what ever the reason is. Both the 223 and x39 have killed a bunch of people. So obviously they both work.

If YOU have confidence in the 223 and believe it will protect your life, and that of your love ones, go for it. Personally I don't have confidence in the 223 round or the AR package. Therefore I use the x39 in both the AK and SKS package. They work for me. I have confidence in both, (delivery system and round) for defense and hunting. If you have the same confidence in the AR / 223, great power to you.

A couple things to think about. When has the "government" dropped supplies at you house? Just because the government adapts something doesn't mean it's the best. If you have ever been involved with any form of government, (fed., state, local), you should know there is a "$" attached to everything, including the lives of our solders, and LEO's. If you lived through McNamara forcing the 223 down the militaries throat then on NATO, just 10 years after they forced the 7.62 NATO (308) round on NATO, let's just say it was interesting times. We have and keep the 223 because of "$", not because it's the best.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Wolfgang2000- Money, the root of all evil that it is, definitely is a consideration in our sticking with the 5.56 round, but so is the fact that nothing else is a quantum leap forward compared to the 5.56 round in concert with all the other ordnance we have... Digging an entrenched enemy out with rifle fire(read as: any rifle that doesn't pack explosive rounds) is about as bad of an idea as bayonnet charging said entrenched enemy when you have m203's, m240's, 50's, and a plethora of other explosive options at your disposal...

Still 2 Many Choices!?

 

[W.E.G.]

I don't think the .223 is a very good sniper round.

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my mind.

 

[Jeff White]

There hasn't been an improvement in small arms that has changed doctrine, be it low intensity, mid intensity or high intensity war since 1945.

Even then, the move from bolt action rifles to semi-automatics and assault rifles hasn't had much of an effect on the way wars are fought.

Caliber has nothing to do with it. Long range volley fire disappeared from use in 1918. There has been no doctrinal requirement for anything but a mid range rifle round since then.

Either 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 will do the job equally well. All you are looking at is two different ideas on what a mid range rifle round should be.

Given that there have been plenty of firefights won by troops carrying both of those rounds, a serious student might start looking for other factors in why engagements are won and lost instead of concentrating on an issue that has no bearing on why battles are won and lost.

Jeff

 

[roscoe]

What? Are you saying that rifle caliber does not determine the fates of empires! What rubbish! We need another .556 vs. 7.62x39 thread RIGHT NOW! The fate of humanity is at stake!

 

[Navy87Guy]

If I was fighting in the streets of the US, then I might consider the .223 round. Anywhere else in the world, though, give me 7.62x39. The platform that fires it (the AK) is more reliable and dependable than the M-16 and the likelihood that I'll be able to pick up extra ammo and mags on the battlefield is much higher. If it's truly an urban environment, then the 400m head shot probably won't be an issue. The AK is plenty accurate enough for the close fight and it is easily configurable with the latest optics and gizmos. Granted, your average Somali using a shovel handle for a buttstock isn't going to have an Aimpoint on his gun, but I can have any EOTech on mine in about 3 minutes.

Jim

 

[revjen45]

It was mentioned that the govt. won't be dropping ammo off at your house. Big 5 won't he advertising its sale prices in the Sunday paper either. With economy of fire a salient concern practical accuracy will be the paramount factor. Dumping a 30-rd magazine of ammo you can't replace to scare them into keeping their heads down won't be practical. A partisan "squad" would likely want to have a couple of 5.56 and/or 7.62X39 semi autos, a 12 ga or 2, and a scoped ctr fire in a hunting caliber. Handguns for all, of course. .45 vs 9mm won't mean much- any gun beats none. The very thought is scary. Americans have become used to watching the tube and spending money. When that becomes impossible ther will be a LOT of very angry people. A small tight knit group will be the survival unit. How many rolls of toilet paper will 5 rds of .22lr be worth?

 

[ftierson]

Originally posted by W.E.G.
I don't think the .223 is a very good sniper round.

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my mind.

I thought that this was pretty good, even if no one else did, Gary.

Forrest

 

[rbernie]

Given that there have been plenty of firefights won by troops carrying both of those rounds, a serious student might start looking for other factors in why engagements are won and lost instead of concentrating on an issue that has no bearing on why battles are won and lost.

And while I believe this is largely true (and appropriate to point out) it dodges the basic question - if you had the OPTION OF CHOICE for you and those around you, which would you choose?

I don't see this debate as exclusionary of any other debates (even if it does seem to induce target fixation by its very existence).

 

[esmith]

I would prefer to have the 762 soviet for the greater stopping power and urban penetration. Supposedly the 545 x39 was developed because the Russians saw how the .223 acted when shot at people and the other ballistics of the round.