low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like Deniro said in the movie "Ronin" it's a toolbox....you pick the right tool for the right job"
Click to expand...

Yeah but some tools just suck all round.

lol, remember the "light support weapon" :D
rpk74.jpg
 
How about finding the proper ammo during a crisis?

I doubt that any gun store/WalMart in N.O., LA or Gulfport/Biloxi MS had any ammo or guns left the day after Katrina. The same during the nasty LA riots in the 90's.
During that other (bank robber) shoot-out, the out-gunned police in West Hollywood found a gun store and grabbed some large guns in an attempt to counter the psycho-criminal's AK.

What if you are stuck in your neighborhood for a while and want to trade (gasoline...), barter something for a neighbor's extra ammo (if he/she were so willing)? If this scenario is almost impossible, it ends here. No more questions from me about this to waste space on THR.

If it might not be so unlikely, wouldn't .223/5.56 be somewhat easier to find/share/negotiate for than 7.62 x 39? A 'civilian' soldier in the Army/Marine Reserves might have some 5.56 at home (but might not barter any).

"What's his name" who contributes to this website was in N.O. during Katrina and lived through it. Maybe he will see this topic and describe how any of this applied to that very ugly, steamy "Road Warrior" scene. But the bad guys were all over-not just on one highway.
Our civilization rests on thin-ice: electricity and computers (banking) plus food transportation (even with no Al Qaida-induced domino effect).
 
This thread and the ones like them are something I've been trying to sort out for sometime now. Not the conflict part of it but the caliber and platform issues.

I have a AK. It's been totally reliable. But after a few trips to the range, I still don't have it properly sighted. I'm not a fan of the sights or the tools you use to adjust them.

Now I used to admittedly be a little overly concerned about SHTF scenarios but I've come to love punching little holes in pieces of paper and I want to do it accurately.

So I have my AK and I have an AR lower and I'm planning a build. But I'm stuck about caliber\platform. AK\7.62x39 power and reliability VS. AR\.223 accuracy and maybe a little less reliablity. Plus there's the $$$ issue.

I'm also planning on getting a Deer rifle in .308.

I really do want to learn how to shoot well and my ex-Army nephew thinks that AR is the way to go.

I don't know???
 
considering that 7.62 eats through most armor much more consistantly, thats what I'll take. Since most if not all wars so far with 5.56 involved enemies without adequate (if any) body armor, I'd imagine that going against adequately armored enemies could change a few things about how the 5.56 performs
 
considering that 7.62 eats through most armor much more consistantly,
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. There's evidence that shows rounds like the 5.56mm and 5.45mm are more capable at punching through armor than 7.62x39mm at extended ranges. The 7.62x39mm, however, is much better at crushing through structural materials like concrete/brick due to the bullets' weight and energy.
 
Hi!

I am shooting the 7,62x39 often. I shot .223 AR-15 just couple of times. My limit of hiting a man target with my vz.58 is 250meters. I think that good shot can hit man sized target with AR-15 in .223 at 400-500m

7,62x39 pro's>
-more energy
-more penetrating (obstacles, balistic vests)
-better available

5,56x45 pro's>
-more accurate at longer distance
-more devastating on uncovered human body
-less weight - more ammo
-less recoil

AR would be more accurate
AK would be more reliable

My choice would be vz.58 :D
 
That's not entirely true. There's evidence that shows rounds like the 5.56mm and 5.45mm are more capable at punching through armor than 7.62x39mm at extended ranges.
Click to expand...

of course, since both of those have what would qualify as 'extended range'

perhaps you should elaborate on extended range, because you should keep in mind that both of those rounds in their commonplace platforms have ranges upward of 500 meters, while the AK 7.62 is effective only to about 300 meters before it starts to fall or drift into the dirt
 
shot placement is primary requirement, an AR is better than many but not all X39 rifles. 'spray and pray' type firing neither has much advantage. rapid fire through light brush likely the X39 is going to penetrate better if that's an advantage. I know the X39 comes out ahead in barrier penetration from my own observation. but the AR has the range advantage by a notch or 2.
 
Easy answer: fight with whatever your armorer hands you, and kill the enemy with it. If it's a non-military vs. non-military fight, take whatever more common in your chunk of the world, so you will have lots, and lots of ammo, and lots of spare parts. Ideally, the AR platform is probably the way to go.
 
I was on Robinson's site today earlier. Looks like a nice platform but $$$ along with all the other new piston based rifles coming out.

As I mull over my options I think I'm going to stay with the AK platform and check out some of beryl rail options coming out and the Tech-Sights for AK that's supposed to be coming out sometime soon.

If the Tech-Sights works like I'm hoping I'll keep the Saiga 7.62x39 and pick up a camo stocked SKS. Throw Tech-Sights on that as well.

Get the Deer rifle in .308 AND get a Saiga in .308.

I also like the idea of having two rifles in each caliber.

The camo stocked SKS is just because every time I get the Centerfire catalog in the mail the picture of SKS in a camo stock screams 'BUY ME' from the page!!


That should cover short and longer range rather nicely. :)
 
5.56mm wounding is most effective when the bullet fragments and causes a large wond cavity. This relies on high velocity. When this happens, I believe it has more wounding capacity than a 7.62mm M43. If not, then 7.62 M43 will create a larger wound cavity, but not by a large margin.

5.56mm have a capacity advantage, and lower recoil. Also, most platforms with 5.56mm are more accurate compared to AK47.

For these reasons, I prefer 5.56mm.

Only reason I'd go for a larger caliber and deal with lower capacity, or higher weight, and more recoil is when the ammo provides more power or longer range. This is seen in case such as 6.8mm SPC over 5.56mm. 7.62mm M43 does not provide any of such advantages over 5.56mm

Now, speaking of short range urban combat the original post mentioned, 5.56mm's high speed fragmenting would be most effective in those ranges. May be not so much with M855 NATO, but that's not the most effective 5.56mm in my opinion.
Also, delivering sustained well aimed fire will be also easier with 5.56mm compared to 7.62mm M43. This is different from spraying rounds, it means high rate of concentrated fire in a targeted area.

The original post also mentiones armor piercing in favor of 7.62mm M43. But, I don't think there's much of AP capability to be expected from either 5.56mm or 7.62mm M43.
 
the fact that the 5.56 is made to fragment and is light enough that a sneeze can screw up its trajectory makes me think that having it hit a good vest would cause it to hold less power and cause less damage. Since the 7.62 is not easily deflected, I'd assume that it would pass through a vest more adequately and cause much more consistent damage. But of course, physics is a strange science...
 
the fact that the 5.56 is made to fragment and is light enough that a sneeze can screw up its trajectory makes me think that having it hit a good vest would cause it to hold less power and cause less damage. Since the 7.62 is not easily deflected, I'd assume that it would pass through a vest more adequately and cause much more consistent damage. But of course, physics is a strange science...
Click to expand...
I don't think wind correction was ever an issue with a 5.56mm unless you are doing a long range sniping. Then again, 7.62mm M43 from an AK would be worse in that regard.

Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm M43 will penetrate a level 2 body armor, and both will not penetrate level 3. It's not as if there's a whole lot of armor that a 7.62mm M43 will penetrate while a 5.56mm won't.
 
5.56mm wounding is most effective when the bullet fragments and causes a large wond cavity. This relies on high velocity. When this happens, I believe it has more wounding capacity than a 7.62mm M43. If not, then 7.62 M43 will create a larger wound cavity, but not by a large margin.

5.56mm have a capacity advantage, and lower recoil. Also, most platforms with 5.56mm are more accurate compared to AK47.

For these reasons, I prefer 5.56mm.

Only reason I'd go for a larger caliber and deal with lower capacity, or higher weight, and more recoil is when the ammo provides more power or longer range. This is seen in case such as 6.8mm SPC over 5.56mm. 7.62mm M43 does not provide any of such advantages over 5.56mm

Now, speaking of short range urban combat the original post mentioned, 5.56mm's high speed fragmenting would be most effective in those ranges. May be not so much with M855 NATO, but that's not the most effective 5.56mm in my opinion.
Also, delivering sustained well aimed fire will be also easier with 5.56mm compared to 7.62mm M43. This is different from spraying rounds, it means high rate of concentrated fire in a targeted area.

The original post also mentiones armor piercing in favor of 7.62mm M43. But, I don't think there's much of AP capability to be expected from either 5.56mm or 7.62mm M43.
Click to expand...

just want to check your reasoning a little...

why is the 6.8spc in existence? for cqb right? so why is 5.56 "better"

6.8spc does not have longer range... it is heavier... it provides more "power" but we're talkin' about the ever highly debatable ballistics gellatin tests which are also performed on the 5.56 and 7.62 alike... and of which everyone has their own opinion.

just checking the reasoning...
 
why is the 6.8spc in existence? for cqb right? so why is 5.56 "better"

6.8spc does not have longer range... it is heavier... it provides more "power" but we're talkin' about the ever highly debatable ballistics gellatin tests which are also performed on the 5.56 and 7.62 alike... and of which everyone has their own opinion.

just checking the reasoning...
Click to expand...
I did not state 5.56mm is better than 6.8mm SPC. I stated it is better than 7.62mm M43.

If a certain type of ammunition has more power at longer range, it increases lethal range, so 6.8mm does have more range in that regard. 7.62mm NATO has more range than 5.56mm, but it actually has slower muzzle velocity than a 5.56mm. It's about power, stability.

It is true that 6.8mm SPC came to existance because people wanted more from 5.56mm, but that's not because 5.56mm was inferior to 7.62mm M43.
6.8mm SPC is a class above both of them.
 
I am just trying to figure out how you know a low intensity conflict is going to remain low intensity and hense prepare only for low intensity. Heaven forbid you be ready to handle something more heavy duty. You would not want to put forth any extra effort for self protection if you didn't have to do it, right?

Somehow, high, medium, and low all blur together when folks are trying to kill you.

The original post also mentiones armor piercing in favor of 7.62mm M43. But, I don't think there's much of AP capability to be expected from either 5.56mm or 7.62mm M43.
Click to expand...

No, but the 5.56 is a poor penetrator through many typical non-armored barriers you find in urban environments compared to AP 7.62 M43.
 
okay, both can penetrate your average vest. But, which one has more consistency? How often will the 5.56 fail compared to a 7.62?

There is also a rather fair difference between wounds of a 7.62 and a non-fragmenting 5.56. The cavity is only a bit smaller from a 5.56 (2-3mm), but the amount of damaged and/or shock-impacted tissue is notably less.
 
As I have read on other post's concerning the 7.62x39, the Wolf Military Classic 124gr HP uses the "saspan" bullet, a hollowpoint that frag's reliably out to 125 yards or so, with 16-18 inches of penetration. I just bought a case of these rounds for my SKS. I would take this round over any 223.
 
One other thing to take into considersation is cost.. I would certainly rather have an AR in my hands in a shtf situation. It is more accurate and quite a bit lighter (makes a HUGE difference carrying all day). BUT consider this-- You could buy 2 ak's and an sks for the same price as a decent AR. Now, in a shtf situation I would rather have an AK for myself, an AK for the wife, (she practices) and an sks for any friend/neighbor that I trust. (kids if you got em, and they are old enough) If I had the money I'd get 2-3 AR platforms, but I don't. Not to mention ammo, you could stockpile 3X the amount of 7.62 for the same price.
 
I just don't understand all this discussion going on for months.
I had an AR15-A2 HBAR made by Colt pre ban. It was a piece of junk and was very pretty but fired two round bursts between jams.
I have two Saiga rifles, fully converted to AK configuration with G2 triggers, flash hiders, pistol grips, NATO stocks etc. One is in 7.62X51 and the other is in 5.56X45. The 7.62 has bipod, Russian eight power scope and shoots into less than two inches at two hundred yards, on a windless morning I have gotten it down to under an inch and a half at two hundred yards. Why in hell do folks think AKs are not accurate? My 5.56X45 is not quite as accurate but that's probably more the fault of the ****ty ammo as I'm too cheap to reload that round with all the surplus crap I've got on hand.

When I think of combat here stateside, I think of defending my rural property and that means the 7.62X51 at as great a distance as I can identify the enemy.
 
I just don't understand all this discussion going on for months.
Click to expand...
Months? Dude, this discussion has been going on for forty years. It will never be resolved. They're simply different answers to the question.

Mike
 
The topic has been changed by a few fellows.

My original question was whether 7.62x39mm had the edge in small skirmishes in urban combat because of the increased hit potential from a bullet that is capable of going through barriers that 5.56mm could not.

Through the research I've done, I found that the rifle did not benefit or become impaired due to the round being used, whether it was 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. However, I did find that a bigger round with more energy and common barrier defeating capability was desired in many situations for use in a machine gun, rather than a rifle. This was due to the MG providing a much higher volume of fire, which often times was used against area targets that were under cover. The ability for a potent MG to perforate common cover with the MG's native high volume of fire should exponentially increase casualty rates.

So based on what I've learned, it doesn't matter what the rifle uses. It's the squad MG that can really benefit in having a larger and more powerful round.

EDIT-
I should also say that in my opinion.....

Assuming both sides have no heavy support (artillery, CAS, etc)
formations are never larger than a platoon
and everything else being equal

the side armed with 7.62x39mm rifles and MG's should be able to produce more enemy casualties. Again, that's with everything else being equal, training, other equipment, tactics, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Flechette Rifles and Salvo Fire
Replies
6
Views
1K
Commissar Gribb
C
M
  • Locked
5.56mm Stopping power
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
Jeff White
J
O
  • Locked
Theoretical what rifle would you pick in middle eastern conflict happening now ?
Replies
4
Views
570
Walkalong
Walkalong
N
  • Locked
A Proposal (Devil's Advocacy)
Replies
23
Views
2K
Onslaught
O
N
  • Locked
Suppressed Weapons....thoughts....
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
M16
M
Back
Top