Not Again: .223 vs. 7.62 by 39

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm very comfortable with both the AK and AR platforms. With ball ammo (FMJ miltary type ammo wolf for AK and M855/SS109 for .223) either one will do about the same thing...that is put holes in things. The AK makes a bigger hole and penetrates a lot of things more aggressively (like kevlar and steel plates and chews up cinderblock and dirt berms better) Then again a small hole or a larger hole in kevlar are equally bad for the guy wearing it!

AK's are a bit better at chewing things up (if you can hit them)...but they are...well they are AK's clunky nasty triggers and poor ergonomics and (usually) woefully innaccurate but rock solid reliable. AR's (assuming you get a top quallity one: Colt RRA LMT ect) are generally very accurate...have light recoil anyone can manage...have total support gear choices of virtually everything a pro would use (because that is generally what pros and expirienced people run) And when the ball ammo fragments it can be a little nastier in things but that usually doesn't apply to carbines...which is what just about everybody preffers. Not to worry you can use whatever ammo you want including SP and HP! You can hit things pretty decently at 200yards with an AK and walk the rounds in at 300...but you aren't going to be calling any shots. I mean you can hit it generally in 4-5 shots at 300...somewhere. The AR?...well open sights 200 yards is easy and still fairly accurate...300...well you can usually hit the target...somewhere (but every shot nearly). And 400 I can usually scare the heck out of something if not nail the milk jug (I might hit either side of it repeatedly and never hit it in a mag). Open sights standing or leaning over a truck you aint gonna do much better than that with anything anyway without some luck. Past 200 yards the AR is obviously easier to do good work with and past 400 is starts to bite (16" carbine anyway) but then carbines are generally for 0-200yard work anyway.

If you don't shoot at those longer rangers you won't be hitting anything with either platform (it isn't easy I don't care what anyone on the internet says about it!) But it isn't anything you can't get good or at least decent at. Inside 100 yards the AR is simply faster...better sights lighter quicker handling with great ergonomics. It barely jumps when you squeeze rounds off so you can do it fast and still with a decent degree of accuracy.

Now as far as performance of the rounds- with quallity SP, BT or HP ammo that is made to actually expand and or fragment depending on velocity they BOTH get a LOT better. Probably the little .223 sees a much larger increse in effectiness. There are certainly more quallity choices in .223 than the rusky round to choose from. I bgelieve .223 to be just about the PERFECT 0-200M police type carbine round (with apropriate ammo...like 60gr Hornady TAP for instance) Even the federal bulk-pack 50gr HP round does impressive things to milk jugs over SP AK rounds.

Now I was raised up an AK guy...so this is not AR15.com nerd snobbery talking...I've shot countless thousands through em. But as for a surgical fast handling accurate reliable carbine with what you need and want for just about anything from urban to country farmhouse....up-close to 400M "anti-assault" carbines a quallity AR15 is hard to beat. They are just easy to run and easy to outfit and outfit for. Anyone serious about learning to use a tactical carbine should own one or at least borrow one and get familair with it. Then do the same with an AK...who's upsides are it is cheap, readliy available shoots cheap ammo (though not like it used to be...ahhh the good ole days!)

Generally women and kids can all handle an AR with a 4/6 pos stock...the AK...it depends on the shooter...it's pretty mild but more pronounced...it doesn't have a bad "kick" but it bucks and jumps around pretty good. It's much easier to quickly double tap targets on the move or in different positions or different targets or whatever with the AR. That is largely WHY we went to this type of rifle over the big .30 battle rifles. More ammo and faster handling. The " modern battlefield" has become an urban or semi-urban neighborhood more than a beach at Normandy. Carbines like the AR excell for this type of use.

So basically if you want something "evul" and "bad" looking to have a lot of fun with and shoot for fun and have around in case the Chinese start falling from the sky like the Russians in Red Dawn either one will do that...and BOTH are a TON of fun to own. If you have time and money to aquire one or the other you may as well buy the better one of the two.

I've owned AR's as have buds that also have had 500-1000+ rounds between cleanings repeaatedly and they never became "Jam-o-matics" as some claim. I honestly was waiting for that when I bought my first AR. Run good GI and Colt mags that drop free from your lower and have been tested with 6-7 rounds in each a few times (to sort out any with issues) and you'll never have any trouble either. Even a bad mag usually shoots the first 20-25 rounds fine anyway...so save the ammo testing them and just load 6-8 or whatever.

I reccomend anything you like from RRA with a chrome lined BBL and the match trigger option 10 mags a couple cases of ammo and if the piggy bank holds up an eotech sight. I'd just get a flat-top CAR (HB) as above and get a good flip up BUIS with the money you save not buying the carry-handle or fancy model. I like the HB in the 16" carbine...it stays settled better than a pencil bbl to me.

Then again a SAR-1 a couple cases of wolf 10 mags and a 2-3 day carbine class at a decent school would be money well spent as well. Try to shoot both and see what you like...they are both a lot of fun in different ways (so I reccomend both if time allows-LOL) If I had to choose one...well I wouldn't give up a good AR...a plow (AK) I could get over.

Once you go to the AR the AK is just a neat fun toy IMHO...others would dissagree...most people with a lot of training would probably preffer the AR. The people I know that ARE paid proffessionals almost all do. That is what talked me into the first one I bought...after that they tend to multiply on their own ;)

WOW- If that was any longer I'd need a publisher! ;)
 
Last edited:
Magazines are easier to exchange, and the penetrating capabilities are better than the .223.

If you're doing magazine changes faster with an AK than an AR, you need more practice with the AR. With a lot of work you can kind of get an AK to be fast, but I've never seen anyone trained on both who could get a new mag in an AK faster than on an AR.

Penetration with 7.62x39 is kind of a trade off -- you get better penetration with M43 type ammo, and a decidedly underperforming round once you hit someone. You get better terminal effects with M67 type ammo, but penetration (at least on car bodies and body armor materials) is inferior to M855 5.56mm.
 
I'm only referring to ball ammunition. No gimmicks or upgrades.
We've found that the 7.62 does have more penetrating power than the 5.56, it's got a bigger butt on the bullet that helps it puch through.

Now I'm not saying that the AR is a bad rifle. It's great.

And I do agree with the training thing, I'm sure I'd be good with the AR with more practice, but the rocker motion with an AK mag is easier for me yet.
 
I'd also have to disagree on mag changes. M16/AR-15 mag fall free. You can drop a magazine while grabbing the next one on an AR. You only have to get the mag into the funnel to reload, and not hit a groove in the mag well.

RE 5.56x45 v7.62x39, if I can use soft point ammo, I might pick the 7.62. With ball ammo, I'll pick the 5.56.
 
Had the exact same thought on mag chances and of course the safety and general ergonomics are worlds better on the AR...and that was coming from the AK family for me.

But to each there own...use what works for you...always more important than the cool factor or internet gun board aproval. It's pretty rare to hear that about the AK though...one exception I will make is with the ak generally the mag is either properly seated or it falls out (or doesn't click in) There are times with an AR improper handling can cause a failure to seat the mag completely and it usually goes un-noticed until you hear "click" However proper mag changing technique erases that possible issue. I also like that the mag and safety can be utilized with the rifle still up on target. You'd have to be pretty slick with an AK to be as fliud changing to a full mag like that with an AK still up and held on target...and without being a contourtionist you have to take your right hand off the ready position to manipulate the safety/selector. Which to me is the only truly bad part of the AK design...as simple sheetmetal guns go it is a pretty good design.

The 5.45x39 models are generally far more accurate and faster handling. I'm often surprised more AK guys don't cry foul comparing the old .30 7.62x39 versions to the AR -With the AK74 muzzle break they really shoot pretty slick. Not that I'd trade a AR for one. But I'm surprised they are not more popular in general. It's an excellent little round and carbine. And the ammo comes up cheap sometimes...notably cheaper than 7.62x39 occassionally when you catch it on sale or clearance.
 
do you know anywhere to find a bolt action 5.45x39?
I've seen one in my life, and would love to get my hands on one.

There were some brought in back in the 90s, surplus East German rifles (for sharpshooters stationed on the Berlin Wall and other IGB fortifications or something). I've never seen one, but the word of mouth seems to be that quality is so-so, definitely not a true sniper sort of gun. I think they were really, really cheap when imported (before 5.45x39 was plentiful), but kind of hard to find now.
 
Softpoint 7.62

GunTech,

Re: softpoint 7.62 vs ball 5.56, I'm thinking the same way, I may switch my SHTF rifle from my 20" AR to my SKS Sportster (AK mag type) with softpoints. I'm not sure about the whole penetration thing with softpoint, will have to shoot some trees or somthing.

The lady's SHTF rifle is an AR M4gery, so same ammo, spare parts, ergonomics, etc. is very appealing to go with 2 ARs. But the 7.62 softpoint...

I posted a quote re: 7.62 softpoint effectiveness from the NATO War Surgery handbook in another thread but don't have the book here 'cause I'm in Scotland on business.

The gist is that doctors don't see torso shot injuries from softpoint 7.62 in the hospital. They only see them in the morgue.
 
I currently have a few more mags loaded for the AK than the AR so I guess I'd be going with the SA-M7. The AR is lighter, kicks less, has the adjustable stock and Aimpoint so it would be better to give to my girlfriend.
 
To those who think they know.

Yea, the young or old folks. Who's actually been against the 7.62 using the .223?

Wanna chime in?

My father, that's right a Vietnam Force Recon Vet, enlisted, not big mouth officer, knows about TET. Trained by Carlos Hathcock, yea, that's right White Feather, my brother was born in Camp Lejeune, USMC.

Got that? Enemy doped, arms corded, with SKS's. M'16 shot full mag on each one, still coming, .45, one shot dead, each one.

Point? Bigger bullet = bigger hole.

.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light. Glorified, modified, .22

I googled this .223 vs 7.62 just for the boredom. The responses I've read are alarming.
 
Was it really worth resurrecting a thread that hasn't been posted for almost a year to post that? Are you offering anything new which hasn't been discussed before? Or just a re-hash of old points?

.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light
Perhaps, but it is a fact that 5.56 has less wind drift than 7.62x39:
Code:
_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0     100     200     300 | YARDS
7.62x39           0.289 2350 >    0.00    1.44    6.14   14.75 | wind (inches)
556 M16           0.243 3250 >    0.00    1.10    4.68   11.26 | wind (inches)
 
If one can afford to spend some spare bucks . . .

A Nosler .224" diameter 60 Grain Partition bullet will work in any 5.56mm or .223 Remington case with devastating result. Yes, it's a soft-point, but totally more effective than any Full Metal Jacket. If wounding is more important than killing one's enemy, the affore mentioned Nosler fare is decidely not for one's application! Some, few, bullets were meant to kill upon impact: 60 grain Nosler Partitions, for example. 1898 Geneva Convention standards will not necessarily save one's life during a vicious firefight. Do modern day Terrorists require old-fashioned Geneva Convention rules? Rules to die for seem antiquated to me. If protecting my family, I use the best available, so American soldiers should have the same option. An M-16 loaded with Nosler Partitions would level the "Playing Field." Cutting through 3/8" plate steel at 100 yards, yet tearing through tough flesh with ease, makes me a believer in this effective, yet not so simple bullet design. Play fair, but not in wartime. Napalm knows no particular rules, so why should our bullets? Cliffy
 
recondoc, what are you basing this on? It's my understanding that 7.62x39mm hits in Vietnam were usually less severe than 5.56x45mm, unless bone was hit.

Now, I personally think there are a lot of folks with too much time on their hands dithering about combat ammo, and I will use expanding ammunition when I have that option, but 5.56 ball appears to typically be more damaging than 7.62 ball.

Reading through four pages of this topic has been a painful reminder that rumors started are not often stopped. There is a lot of bad information floating around the internet, but there are also good sources of information. Anybody with the proper motivation can do a little research and quickly distinguish the good from the bad. The good information will be the information with sources that don't involve "My dad's friend's dad's uncle said..."

Both of these cartridges have fallacies and various vicious rumors that still plague them. We've all heard, "5.56 over penetrates in the house," "5.56 tumbles through air...going to the faster twist rate was a mistake..." or "5.56 was designed to wound, not to kill..."

Among the worst pieces of misinformation regarding the 7.62x39 is that it lacks effectiveness due to lack of tumbling or fragmentation effect compared to 5.56x45. This was caused by the original Soviet load adopted as the M43. This round was known to penetrate 6 to 8 inches or more in tissue before tumbling, and as Fackler observed, wounds were typically no worse than those inflicted by handguns, although they were often inflicted at much longer ranges.

http://www.rayguncharlie.net/sr/basics/pmrb.html

However, the Yugos designed a round around a flat based projectile with the same mass and velocity as the M43, but with a large air pocket in the forward 1/3 of the nose that halved the distance it took the round to destabilize and tumble in tissue. Fackler observed that this round, known as M67, performs similarly to the Russian 5.45mm round, known for its tendency to tumble. And while the stumpy Russian 7.62 doesn't have the trajectory of the 5.45 or the 5.56mm, it is considerably better at breaking apart many types of cover than the smaller caliber rounds. I don't know about their newer Military Classic, but Wolf's older 122 gr FMJ was designed and performed very similarly to the Yugo M67 round. I shot a small doe with this round, broadside, at about 50 yards, and can assure you that it tumbles not only in ballistic gelatin, but in tissue as well.

Here is one such round pulled and section lengthwise:
WolfFMJoutside.jpg
WolfFMJinside.jpg

For defensive use, neither cartridge is going to be at its best in most situations with ball ammo. There are other choices available for both. While better choices are available commercially for the 5.56 due to its domestic popularity, there are better choices available in 7.62x39 as well. My limited testing indicates that Wolf JHPs do in fact fragment violently in liquid mediums. The 124 gr Wolf Military Classic load is loaded with the Uly 8m3 "Sapsan" projectile, which is known to be a devastating and reliable performer in tissue. I tested the older 122 gr Wolf JHP alongside the above pictured 122 gr Wolf FMJ in water jugs and was suitably impressed by the results:

AKtests1.jpg

Realizing that this may not be exactly applicable to performance in living tissue, it is still an impressive display of its performance relative to other rounds, which, IMO, is rather nicely.

With regard to terminal ballistics, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56 has been rehashed over and over again. Go read the Ammo-Oracle.com if you need a refresher. "Good" 5.56 loads have clearly superior terminal effects to 7.62x39.

I just went through ammo-oracle, again, and while there is lots of good information there, I couldn't find anything showing the effects of good 5.56 to be "clearly" superior to good 7.62x39.

With standard ball ammo, within the velocity threshold it was designed to do so, the 5.56 might have an advantage. But this would be a small advantage limited to a fairly close range--my reading indicated somewhere between 140 and 160 meters depending on barrel length--and even then, the SS-109 projectile is known to be relatively complex and inconsistent in its manufacture and performance. So when it happens, 5.56mm ball ammo might have a slight advantage over 7.62x39 ball ammo due to its fragmentation effect.

The tumbling effect of both Russian rounds, however, is far less dependent on velocity and is more reliable. Though the SS-109 projectile will tumble as well, its design makes it shorter than both Russian projectiles, and thus, less effective when relying solely on tumbling effect.

That leaves only a difference in shooting platforms. As a lefty, the AR is fine for me, the the AK fits better. Ergonomically, the AK puts everything where a southpaw needs it to be. I have a Romanian WASR with a Kobra on it that I would choose any day before any AR on the market.

However, before that, I would take an M14/M1A. Call me old or romantic if you will. I am 26, I've been shooting rifles since I was 4 years old, seriously since I was 11, and though in my "younger" and more way-word years, I tried to believe we had progressed beyond the designs praised by my grandpa, I've come full circle lately. I love my M1A and am far more confident in my ability to hit with it and in its ability to put human sized targets down quickly than I ever was with the M16 or the SAW. To each his own, but if gangbangers show up looking for a fight, I grab one of these:

M1AandAKlillypad2.jpg
 
MTMilitiaman,
Interesting read, thanks for posting. This debate will always exist as far as I'm concerned.

I own both rifles in question (and in their respective calibers) and I wouldn't feel the least bit undergunned with either, and both of mine have been so reliable that I would trust my life to either one.

That said, if gangbangers did invade me I would certainly grab the AK.

To further complicate the question, will the said gang members be firing on foot, or from a vehicle (aka drive-by)? In any case, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO will both be very effective at the short range assumed in the OP's "scenario".
 
oldfatslob:
Nice 1st post. Welcome to the forum.

My father, that's right a Vietnam Force Recon Vet, enlisted, not big mouth officer, knows about TET.

I was enlisted for 4 years, and an officer for 5 years. I was also involved in the TET Offensive at Hue/Phu Bai. I don't think my mouth got any bigger when I became an officer. You might not want to insult several members on here who also served.

I wouldn't feel the least bit undergunned with either, and both of mine have been so reliable that I would trust my life to either one.

I would agree with that statement. It's the person holding the rifle that makes the difference.
 
If you're inside your house, doing your daily Keyboard Kommando thing when the Pagan Hordes assault your domicile, odds are you're gonna begin the festivities at no more than 20 to 30 yards--at most.

Any cartridge that's notably peppier than a .22 Hornet will suffice. I know of no semi-auto that won't hold minute of torso inside of 30 yards.

What's the question?

:D:D:D

Art
 
If you're inside your house, doing your daily Keyboard Kommando thing when the Pagan Hordes assault your domicile, odds are you're gonna begin the festivities at no more than 20 to 30 yards--at most.

Any cartridge that's notably peppier than a .22 Hornet will suffice. I know of no semi-auto that won't hold minute of torso inside of 30 yards.

What's the question?



Art

I love it when a good man shows up and puts these playground discussions in their proper perspective...

Thanks Art
 
I'd take an M4 in most situations, especially for home defense, because I don't want my AK making swiss cheese out of my house. But, I'd take an AK for just about everything else outside of desert/no-man's land type environments. urban, jungle, CQB...

also, the accuracy thing bugs me. Of course an x39 platform is going to fall short to a 5.56 platform, mainly because of range. What should be done is someone should compare the two in one caliber only, and in the same barrel length. Controls, constants, variables, etc. etc. etc. If you don't remember the scientific method, then go read up on it before you say things like 'the AK is woefully inaccurate'.

I also don't see how the 5.56 has anything over the x39 round, even if it fragments. That is a good 'if' right there, too. Perhaps the funniest thing is how people think that the 5.56 hits almost as hard as the x39. I just don't see how a negligible amount of extra velocity and fragmentation makes the bullet hit 600 ft-lbs harder than it really does - even out of an extra four inches of barrel.

If there is one thing that the AK has that I'll take any day over any Mxxx platform, it would be consistency.
 
This thread made my brain hurt. I read the whole thing. I'm fairly certain I regret doing so, but the brain cells responsible for said certainly are out of action for a while due to this thread.
 
Personally I am going with the 7.62x39
The fact of the matter is, it puts more lead in the air.

+1 thats my thought also honestly if they are that close (0-100 yards) you need a 12 gauge with slugs and buckshot but to answer your question I trust the 7.62 more than I trust the .223




.223, wind can push it sideways. It does. Period. Too light

same thing would happen to a 175gr 308 cuz every bullet is affected by the wind
 
If a gang started firing at your house, would you pick up the Mini-14 or the AK?

i would go with the AK (7.62x39) because the gang will do a drive-by shooting maybe stop for a moment, and you want something with more power than a .223 and since almost all urban areas are limited under 50-150 yards from across the street i don't need anything that it's accurate at 300 yards...all i need is a hard hitting gun that is accurated at 150 yards...

on a side note: if a gang start shooting now to my house is because i been doing some bad things and they want payback how knows...but i'll grab the first weapon that i can get my hands on AR, AK, SKS....****.. even my remington....once those bullets start braking your windows...last thing you'll think is about caliber ballistic...
 
I prefer the 5.56 round. Much more bullet variety too, you can pick the bullet that performs the job you want it to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top