Maximum Effective Range 5.56 vs 7.62x39

[ColdDayInHell]

The 5.56 is a proven long distance round. The bullet stabilizes better than the 7.62x39. The AR-15 is also more accurate than MOST AK's. The 5.45x39 is another nasty round capable of serious wounds. The 5.56 wins hands down over 300 yards.

 

[JShirley]

Hi John, no that outlook that a wounded soldier takes three soldiers out of combat to look after him goes back at least to 1870 and possibly much earlier.

Winfried, as a historian, I do like to offer evidence to back up my assertions. I am still looking for the source I referenced (I wrote about it here, but it turns out it's hard to find a single post using "carry", "wound", or "5.56x45mm" out of 15K here. ). I am very interested to see your source.

John

 

[jason41987]

just looked at the ballistics charts to compare military loads between the 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm, and after a couple hundred yards the 7.62 drops like a rock while the 5.56mm keeps going, delivering superior accuracy with more power due to the better ballistics coefficiency.. was pretty interesting to find and i honestly expected the 7.62mm would have a clearer advantage much further out... and also compared 5.45x39mm and found the same result as with the 5.56... kind of makes you realize why no ones really using the 7.62x39mm and most militaries have switched to 5.56 or 5.45 by now

as for ballistics.. if you want my honest opinion about them... a handgun relies on expansion to deliver more damage to a target... bullets that mushroom out reliably tend to be the more damaging to a target.... as for high powered rifle cartridges (.308 class), hydrostatic shock delivers devastating wound cavities that tear up the insides of a target...
but with these mid-range cartridges the bullet isnt big and fat enough to rely on expansion, really isnt powerful enough to rely on hydrostatic shock either... so for these its all going to come down to superior placement

all of that being said... id rather go for the more accurate round thats going to have the flatter trajectory, and sufficient penetration downrange because if you want to stop someone or something with either of these rounds youre going to have to rely on placement which is aquired through skills obtained with practice

----

on the note of the 5.45x39mm rounds, the russians understood exactly what i said... that it wasnt going to be able to expand like a pistol round, and didnt have the energy for hydrostatic shock that full size rifle cartridges offered.. so they designed a bullet that was hollow in the nose, heavier in the rear so that upon impact the nose would crush and slow down the tip of the bullet, and when the nose is slower than the base itll de-stabilize and start flipping end over end and if i had to rely on any of these cartridges to "do the job", id rely on the 5.45 over either of the others not because of its trajectory, or its kinetic energy, but because the bullet itself is designed to make up for the short-comings in mid-range calibers

----

but on topic... id trust the 5.56mm over the 7.62x39mm at just about any range

 

[JShirley]

It has often been suggested that a decision was made to equip US troops with a weapon that tended to wound rather than kill, and that this led to the adoption of the M16. The history does not bear this out.

From the 1968 Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel.

Following the procurement of the initial quantity of weapons, the Air Force included 19,000 new AR15 rifles in its FY 1963 budget. Before the request reached Congress, the final report from the Advanced Research Project Agency test of 1,000 ARI5 rifles in Vietnam was published. It reported the AR15 rifle to be an out-standing weapon with phenomenal lethality. (pg C-14)

Frankford Arsenal conducted an investigaticn of bullet configuration in 1963 in order to determine the best design for achieving aerodynamic stability with maximum lethality (pg D-20)

At the beginning of 1968, a survey was conducted of service members armed with the M16. Reliability issues were noted, but Particularly desirable qualities were its high rate of lethal fire and light weight (D-83)

Most men armed with the M16 in Vietnam rated this rifle's performance high; however, many men entertained some misgivings about the M16's reliability. (E-16)

I have seen a suggestion that the M16 produced wounds rather than death against the enemy, but the first instance I'd seen of this was years after it was used. There was never a deliberate strategic decision to field a "less lethal" rifle. The big question was reliability and range.

John

 

[WardenWolf]

The 5.56 obviously wins for maximum effective range. Of course, if you're instead going for short to mid-range knockdown power, the 7.62x39 wins when used with a good bullet.

 

[ccsniper]

I have never had the chance of shooting any of my x39 rifles real far, but I have seen accurate rounds out to 500 yards from a friend shooting his Chinese SKS. Here is a vid of a mini 30 being shot to 420 yards getting hit after hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4SVwSGPLOc&feature=plcp

and an SKS he seems to "kentucky windage" up to the target
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pkhhDyvYp4&feature=plcp

I honestly believe that if the shooter does his part, the rifle, any rifle is most likely up to the task.

 

[henschman]

It is interesting to note that the standard issue 55 or 62 grain 5.56 has a nearly identical trajectory to the standard issue 147 grain 7.62x51 round out to around 600 yards. The 7.62x39 drops off a lot faster.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Either 5.45 and 5.56 aren't worth a hill of beans if penetration is a concern. I've used all three, and the 7.62 flat out punches, but drops like a rock at distance.

 

[lemaymiami]

As usual I enjoyed the back and forth on this issue (even if some of the technical stuff got past me...). When I qualified with M16 all those years ago the course did include silhouettes at 500 meters (and you had to hit them if you wanted that "expert rating"). If I remember correctly one of the original requirements that Mr. Stoner way trying to meet included that whatever caliber was used - the round had to penetrate both sides of a standard G.I. helmet (the tin pot style - this was years before kevlar helmets) at 500 meters. The original Stoner rifle met those standards just fine (and the original M16 was a heck of a lot easier to shoot expert with than the M-14 I had in basic, 1968...).

 

[winfried]

The 5.56 obviously wins for maximum effective range. Of course, if you're instead going for short to mid-range knockdown power, the 7.62x39 wins when used with a good bullet.

Hi Warden wolf, there is no such things as knockdown power. Nerver ever.

WAH

 

[winfried]

Winfried, as a historian, I do like to offer evidence to back up my assertions. I am still looking for the source I referenced (I wrote about it here, but it turns out it's hard to find a single post using "carry", "wound", or "5.56x45mm" out of 15K here. ). I am very interested to see your source.

John

Hi John, glad to meet a historian jhere, but I am only an amateur.

As far as quoting a source, my knowledge does not come from recent internet search. An example to find my original source of knowledge that thearth is round (more or less) I could say nothing else but that I learned that in school.

I am actually german speaking and can read such books as Thierbach GESCHICHTER DER FEUERWAFFEN (1886), Boeheim Waffenkunde, und Hans Delbrueck GESCHICHTE DER KRIEGSKUNST (3 Volumes published between 1905 and 1922)
As a result of changed tactics of the 1870/71 war between France and Germany, the development of smokeless powder and magazine rilfles, around the time of the Thompson LeGarde tests, european nations did investigations into the required kinetic energy to disable an enemy soldier and arrived at values of only 4mkg (the russions as the lowest) the germans and the english as 8 and as 20mkg, but I am speaking from memory only and may have the figures reversed. Never mind that for the present discussian.
The fact is, that all were interested in three things, high penetration (at close range obviously) accuracy over a distance the avarage soldier could see a target and have a chance to score with open sights and finally maximum range a wound could be inflicted. The latter was the reason why all better known military rifles had sight to a 2000m or 2000 yard range.

An excellent source is also THE TEXT BOOK OF THE BRITISH ARMY 1929, but my own book has been lost.

Nearly forgot WOUND BALLISTICS by Beyer Published by the surgeon General of the US Army which can find on the internet, or you could come and vist me and read my personal copy of this book with my name in gold embossed on it. (actuially with my nickname on it) Oh well.

I am going to start a thread "who invented the revolver?" like to see you "put your foot in it" as a historian. )

Regards

WAH

 

[winfried]

Either 5.45 and 5.56 aren't worth a hill of beans if penetration is a concern. I've used all three, and the 7.62 flat out punches, but drops like a rock at distance.

The 5.56 has a higher penetration against solid mild steel with about 10mm at close and the 7.62x39 of only 8mm would prove you wrong, but it all depends on the test setup and actual cases observed.

Regards

WAH

 

[JShirley]

Winfried,

Thanks fof the reply. If you do find the source material, my fiance or sister in law could translate it for me.

John

 

[jason41987]

i think the whole idea of 5.56 being to wound people is just another myth circulating around the M16 to try to hurt its credibility, usually from the .308 fanboys saying the 5.56 is to wound, the M16 is unreliable, theres a list.. in reality the 5.56 has killed as many as any other military round and is probably the most widely distributed round around the world... and i know people will claim the 7.62x39mm is, but outside of small terrorist groups, very, very few major militaries still use it as most have switched to 5.45 or 5.56 for good reasons

 

[winfried]

Jason you are right all the way. If you ga back to when the AR16/M16 were introduced, people ingnorant on ballistics such as Cooper who promoted "the heavy go slow high know down power" issue could not and still dont admit the potential of the .223.

Few people can hold a .308 full auto to a point, most people can do this with a .223. Shot to t recovery at 100m is about 1 sec scoring body hots, more than twice that with a .308.

A .308 cartridge is exactly twice the weight of a .223 and a soldier can carry twice as much ammo.

Withe use of silencers a .223 is ideal and due to the higher velocity the location of the shooter is near impossible.

Regards

WAH

 

[winfried]

Hi John, I do really do not have the time, I am presently working on the second edition of a book (probably 800 pages), planing of extracting parts of a book out of copy right, designing some electronic circuits, getting my life together (after I nearly lost all in a messy divorce) and making tools and starting silencer manufacture again. And the odd research as problem crop up or when my assistance is required by a shooting incident.

I am sorry I do not have the time. The reason I am actually here is that I am trying to find misconceptions I have to address in my book. One of them is that jnow people start to wory avout recoil energy which is next to the f- facoor the most useless value in ballistics.

Regards

WAH

 

[meanmrmustard]

The 5.56 has a higher penetration against solid mild steel with about 10mm at close and the 7.62x39 of only 8mm would prove you wrong, but it all depends on the test setup and actual cases observed.

Regards

WAH

Not talking close. I should've specified. I haven't notice better penetration PERIOD on steel with 556, mostly just craters.

Solid copper bores a pretty hole through whitetails past 150 yards though.