reconsidering 5.56mm

[justin22885]

What are you shooting at? That makes quite a bit of difference.

You say you want to shoot at 18" targets at a middling range. For target shooting the flatter, faster 5.56 is undeniably a better load.

You say you don't hunt, but you are worried about bullet effectiveness in tissue and barrier penetration. At 600yds.

That sounds a lot like you are trying to build up a combat against people setup. Which lots of people do. I'm not trying to call you out but it colors differently what you are weighing. Frankly, against people behind barriers, or moving, or in combat both your rounds are 300-400ish yd rounds max. That's what 60 or so years of intermediate caliber combat have taught us. For the use you describe (Barrier penetration, terminal effectiveness in flesh, 18" target accuracy and 600yd effective range) you want a rifle caliber. I use .308 for that role, but there are plenty out there.

For non fleshy targets at 600yds, the 5.56 load you describe is superior to the 7.62x39.

For fleshy targets with the calibers you mentioned you need to dial the range in a bit.

just for a stockpile for any situation, defense, civil war, natural disaster, whatever

also im not saying the 5.56 is bad or that my handloads came up short, im mostly impressed with how close the inexpensive golden tiger ammo was able to get to the performance i was getting from the 5.56 and doing so at a much lower cost with zero labor involved

ive been looking into some of the more heavy hitting calibers, i have some 8mm mauser rifles, but ive also been considering magnums for other reasons, so the .308 basically just covers a middle ground already covered by one thing or another for my needs

 

[joem1945]

Each AR is different. One only likes 55 gr it's a 1/12. Another will only shoot Nosler 69 gr 1/9 twist. A heavy barrel 1/8 shoots 77 gr under 1". Another 1/9 only likes 62 SS109. Every time I think I'm getting a handle on ballistics something comes along and blows it out of the water. Is that fun or what.

 

[justin22885]

the ammunition was accurate (1 MOA on a mil spec rifle with zero match parts) and energetic, at 2700fps at the muzzle, so the ammo performed pretty much exactly as expected

 

[dogmush]

just for a stockpile for any situation, defense, civil war, natural disaster, whatever
....
ive been looking into some of the more heavy hitting calibers, i have some 8mm mauser rifles, but ive also been considering magnums for other reasons, so the .308 basically just covers a middle ground already covered by one thing or another for my needs

I would argue you don't have it covered, but that is what caliber wars are, in the end: Endless arguments on the margins.

So I will simply repeat my earlier assertion: For your stated purpose (Barrier penetration, terminal effectiveness in flesh, 18" target accuracy and 600yd effective range), both the calibers you are messing with are too light. We have a lot of experience from actual combat in the last half century confirming this.

As evidence I would point out that every major military that uses 5.56 or 7.62x39 limits them to ~300M of actual effective range (the USMC's KD range notwithstanding) and fields something in 7.62x51 (M14 EBR, FAL, G3, or AR-10 variant) or 7.62X54R (PSL, SVD, M91, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few) or equivalent round for that role.

 

[Casefull]

As evidence I would point out that every major military that uses 5.56 or 7.62x39 limits them to ~300M of actual effective range (the USMC's KD range notwithstanding) and fields something in 7.62x51 (M14 EBR, FAL, G3, or AR-10 variant) or 7.62X54R (PSL, SVD, M91

I completely agree. I would like to see post from big game hunters who killed game at 600 yds with 5.56 or x39. Take a look at bullet energy of a 123g x39 at 600yds, a 150g 308, and a 180g 300wm at 600 yds. Most of the long range talk is target shooting.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Take a look at this. http://tacmedaustralia.com.au/why-id-rather-be-shot-with-an-ak47-than-an-m4/ It's from a combat medic with extensive, actual, real world experience with real people, not ballistic gelatin and/or a chronograph. See if you can find anyone with real world experience with both calibers, either treating wounds from them or causing wounds/death with them that recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56x45. It's going to be a tough search, I promise you that.

The link shows no evidence of the 762 striking bone, only bruises from temporary wound channel. All things being being equal, neither gent was having a good day.

I'm a firm believer in that those who would"rather be shot by caliber X over caliber Y" do not possess an adequate amount of intelligence.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Maybe you missed my question. Can you cite any professional person who has used both calibers in combat (or at least been shot at with one while using the other) or worked on wounds caused by both, who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56?

Operation Gothic Serpent.

 

[bearcreek]

The link shows no evidence of the 762 striking bone, only bruises from temporary wound channel. All things being being equal, neither gent was having a good day.

I'm a firm believer in that those who would"rather be shot by caliber X over caliber Y" do not possess an adequate amount of intelligence.

And I'm a firm believer in listening to those with real world experience. I've repeatedly asked justin to provide an example of someone with real world experience who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56. He's ignored my question repeatedly. A significant part of the discussions on forums like this involve theoretical questions like "which caliber would you rather be shot by?" This is just another way of asking "which caliber is more effective?" and certainly does not automatically mean the person possesses sub par intelligence.

 

[meanmrmustard]

And I'm a firm believer in listening to those with real world experience. I've repeatedly asked justin to provide an example of someone with real world experience who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56. He's ignored my question repeatedly. A significant part of the discussions on forums like this involve theoretical questions like "which caliber would you rather be shot by?" This is just another way of asking "which caliber is more effective?" and certainly does not automatically mean the person possesses sub par intelligence.

The correct answer to that question is neither cartridge given. Both have been ending lives for decades, and will continue to do so for I assume many more.

One thing I will add: There is something to be said for emulation, and it being a sincere flattery. The adoption of the 545x39 speaks volumes when a cartridge comparison arises, and its subtle mimicry of the 556. There's a reason that its there, and the fact that its a weight savings (albeit small), and it is somewhat similar in wounding effect to the 556. Similar, not same for those who read alot into terminal cavitation, permanent channels, etc etc. But, the 762 remains ever popular, and the marriage of heavier bullets in an AR friendly platform brings us the Whisper/Blackout cartridge, one I'm particularly fond of. There is no perfect caliber, and they all have short comings. But I am a firm believer that the 556 and 762x39 have been doing a pretty decent job for quite some time. Yet, we all want to reinvent the wheel; enter 545x39 and 300 BLK for instance. Both testaments to effective cartridges.

 

[bearcreek]

The correct answer to that question is neither cartridge given. Both have been ending lives for decades, and will continue to do so for I assume many more.

No, thats not the correct answer since that was not the question. I did not ask which cartridge had ended more lives. I asked if he could give an example of a professional person with real world experience who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56. There are lots that recommend 5.56. Very few, (none that I know of) that recommend 7.62x39.

 

[W.E.G.]

So this is another 5.56 vs 7.62 thread?

I wonder if that's ever been done before?

 

[Casefull]

So this is another 5.56 vs 7.62 thread?

Or is it a AK fanboy because I do not like AR's thread? haha

 

[meanmrmustard]

No, thats not the correct answer since that was not the question. I did not ask which cartridge had ended more lives. I asked if he could give an example of a professional person with real world experience who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56. There are lots that recommend 5.56. Very few, (none that I know of) that recommend 7.62x39.

I never said you did. You're reaching apparently.

If you reread my post, I suggested that the "caliber x vs caliber y" debate has been done to death, and that the question was quoted in your statement regarding various threads where it had been posed. Pertaining to these two in question, I simply said that neither is a correct answer. If its hypothetical, then in a hypothetical work, I dont fall victim to either bullet, as they do their jobs well.

As for requests, what requests? What constitutes a "professional". I'm assuming the "operator" in question told you they preferred one to the other? Fact is, in whatever iteration the bullet design, your day ends bad if hit with either. Or it just ends.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Or is it a AK fanboy because I do not like AR's thread? haha

Only when this question gets asked.

Mods usually close them when the "fan boy" name calling gets thrown around. So, thanks for that.

Bear creek is hopefully going to show us data pertaining to the preferred use of one cartridge over another due to wounding superiority. I'd like to see this myself, so please refrain from "fan boy" titles till I can assess this supposed data.

 

[justin22885]

I would argue you don't have it covered, but that is what caliber wars are, in the end: Endless arguments on the margins.

So I will simply repeat my earlier assertion: For your stated purpose (Barrier penetration, terminal effectiveness in flesh, 18" target accuracy and 600yd effective range), both the calibers you are messing with are too light. We have a lot of experience from actual combat in the last half century confirming this.

As evidence I would point out that every major military that uses 5.56 or 7.62x39 limits them to ~300M of actual effective range (the USMC's KD range notwithstanding) and fields something in 7.62x51 (M14 EBR, FAL, G3, or AR-10 variant) or 7.62X54R (PSL, SVD, M91, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few) or equivalent round for that role.

the 600 yards is just the limit where i cut off the ballistics charts, i dont plan to go beyond 400 with any of it

 

[justin22885]

also, not a 7.62x39 or AK fanboy thread, i was stating my results giving 5.56 the best chance possible to achieve better long range performance using higher BC bullets and comparing it to other common 5.56 ammo (M855) and 7.62x39 and finding it wasnt enough of a performance at distance over 7.62x39 to justify not only the costs in these particular hand loads but also the labor in loading them

one could easily take away from this that 75+ grain 5.56 ammunition isnt enough of an improvement over common, less expensive 62 grain ammo.. but i still hold firm to the belief that the 55 grain stuff loses velocity and energy way too quickly to be effective much further than 300 yards just by how much energy is lost

 

[Newtosavage]

I have shot 100's of human-sized "fleshy subjects" (feral pigs) and have used both rounds. There really is no comparison in real world, live critter tests. The 7.62x39 wins every time which is why my dedicated pig rifle is that caliber.

 

[justin22885]

a 77 grain TMK would blow a hole in that pig as big as anything else could, this isnt about damage because those 77 grain TMK rounds do carry more energy with a better wound cavity at greater distances.. the attention alone 223 gets from the aftermarket and bullet manufacturers allows it to be in my opinion, better at more than 7.62x39.. just not at a price point i feel comfortable with for what i get out of it

if one of these manufacturers were making decent quality 5.56 ammo with decent wounding characteristics at around $0.25/rd, id probably stick with that.. and yeah, $0.05/rd difference does matter to me when i buy ammo by the thousands

what i should do is take more time to test out some of the low cost steel case 5.56 ammo, see if anything can come close to my hand loads with lower costs and no labor involved

 

[Mosin Bubba]

if one of these manufacturers were making decent quality 5.56 ammo with decent wounding characteristics at around $0.25/rd, id probably stick with that.. and yeah, $0.05/rd difference does matter to me when i buy ammo by the thousands

Paper and milk jugs don't care if they got shot by some gourmet expanding bullet or bulk-blaster FMJ, and if you're hunting, you shoot little enough that you can afford the good stuff. The only reason I could think for needing thousands of rounds with "decent wounding characteristics" is if you're creating some kind of TEOTWAWKI fantasy - and frankly, if that ever did go down, I'd be a lot more worried about where I could find food and fresh water than what kind of tips my bullets have.

 

[bearcreek]

I never said you did. You're reaching apparently.

If you reread my post, I suggested that the "caliber x vs caliber y" debate has been done to death, and that the question was quoted in your statement regarding various threads where it had been posed. Pertaining to these two in question, I simply said that neither is a correct answer. If its hypothetical, then in a hypothetical work, I dont fall victim to either bullet, as they do their jobs well.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to my question that you quoted. No reaching involved.

What constitutes a "professional". I'm assuming the "operator" in question told you they preferred one to the other? Fact is, in whatever iteration the bullet design, your day ends bad if hit with either. Or it just ends.

There is no "the operator in question". My question was simply, can you find somebody with real world experience with both calibers who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56? That seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. See what people with experience say.

Bear creek is hopefully going to show us data pertaining to the preferred use of one cartridge over another due to wounding superiority. I'd like to see this myself, so please refrain from "fan boy" titles till I can assess this supposed data.

No such concrete data exists that I know of. Never said it did. I've never shot anybody or seen anybody shot in person with either of the calibers in question. So I thought, "best go with what the people with experience recommend". So far I've trained under two Special Forces guys, one Ranger, one British Paratrooper, and one Force Recon Marine. All of them have the experience that I don't. They've all seen first hand the effects of both calibers and used at least one of them and in several cases both, in combat. They all use and recommend 5.56. I'll take their experience over someones ballistic gel tests any day.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

This has deviated far beyond the original post but in answer to the question of what does an operator use, I can report from my nephew's experience of 10 years as a member of D-force that it depends. He carried both, when it was necessary to shoot through something (vehicles, fences, etc) he used the AK but for use against humans he used his M-4, but rarely did he shoot at anything beyond 50 yards with either as they liked to work "up close and personal."

 

[meanmrmustard]

a 77 grain TMK would blow a hole in that pig as big as anything else could, this isnt about damage because those 77 grain TMK rounds do carry more energy with a better wound cavity at greater distances.. the attention alone 223 gets from the aftermarket and bullet manufacturers allows it to be in my opinion, better at more than 7.62x39.. just not at a price point i feel comfortable with for what i get out of it

if one of these manufacturers were making decent quality 5.56 ammo with decent wounding characteristics at around $0.25/rd, id probably stick with that.. and yeah, $0.05/rd difference does matter to me when i buy ammo by the thousands

what i should do is take more time to test out some of the low cost steel case 5.56 ammo, see if anything can come close to my hand loads with lower costs and no labor involved

Probably wouldn't hurt to try out both cartridges made by same manufacturers. Like, Tula hollow points for both where the real substantial difference is bullet weight and diameter. Obviously they have many more, but its a little more academic than say a Mk262Mod1 vs random Walmart steel cased fmj in 762.

Take pictures too please.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to my question that you quoted. No reaching involved.



There is no "the operator in question". My question was simply, can you find somebody with real world experience with both calibers who recommends 7.62x39 over 5.56? That seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. See what people with experience say.



No such concrete data exists that I know of. Never said it did. I've never shot anybody or seen anybody shot in person with either of the calibers in question. So I thought, "best go with what the people with experience recommend". So far I've trained under two Special Forces guys, one Ranger, one British Paratrooper, and one Force Recon Marine. All of them have the experience that I don't. They've all seen first hand the effects of both calibers and used at least one of them and in several cases both, in combat. They all use and recommend 5.56. I'll take their experience over someones ballistic gel tests any day.

Ok, fair enough, but I dont think many will chime in on that particular subject. I wont either, as I lost a very dear friend in 2003 in Afghanistan. Shot with a 762x39.

What I CAN chime in about is tissue damage to medium sized game. I have taken many deer with both, and while the deer have thankfully not begun shooting back, it is an apples to apples comparison. Both do tremendous damage to soft tissue with an adequate bullet design, both exited deer quite frequently, and the trauma was adequate in son cases to drop deer immediately. I only ever use behind-shoulder shots, whether broadside or quartering. Since I'm not currently employed by the monarchy in D.C. I get my choice of bullets such as those I've used in the woods to use for social work.

My preferred 556 round for defense is the Hornady 55gr spire/soft point.
Preferred load for 762x39 is the Silver Bear 123 gr. soft point.
Lastly, my go to HD rifle is a home brewed AR15 in 300 Blackout loaded with 110 gr Hornady Vmax.

All three do a number on game, so I just translate that to use for two-legged baddies.

 

[justin22885]

Probably wouldn't hurt to try out both cartridges made by same manufacturers. Like, Tula hollow points for both where the real substantial difference is bullet weight and diameter. Obviously they have many more, but its a little more academic than say a Mk262Mod1 vs random Walmart steel cased fmj in 762.

Take pictures too please.

im not so sure thats all that fair of a test, most 7.62x39 ammo is loaded lighter than the golden tigers, and the 5.56 ammo golden tiger sells is pretty weak compared to other brands.. so while one brand does 7.62x39 well and 5.56 poorly, the opposite may be true for another

i think it would be more fair to pick a price point of say around 25 cents a round for less, try out different brands of each caliber and compare those together since cost is an important factor when you buy in such large quantities

if i had more resources i may even set up a youtube channel testing them at 7 yards, 100, 200, 300, and 400 firing each one through a chrono at those distances into a gel torso to get more in depth data but i dont have that kind of access to a private shooting range.. when i get to building and testing some prototype rifles of my own design i'll probably make videos of that

 

[meanmrmustard]

im not so sure thats all that fair of a test, most 7.62x39 ammo is loaded lighter than the golden tigers, and the 5.56 ammo golden tiger sells is pretty weak compared to other brands.. so while one brand does 7.62x39 well and 5.56 poorly, the opposite may be true for another

i think it would be more fair to pick a price point of say around 25 cents a round for less, try out different brands of each caliber and compare those together since cost is an important factor when you buy in such large quantities

if i had more resources i may even set up a youtube channel testing them at 7 yards, 100, 200, 300, and 400 firing each one through a chrono at those distances into a gel torso to get more in depth data but i dont have that kind of access to a private shooting range.. when i get to building and testing some prototype rifles of my own design i'll probably make videos of that

That sounds reasonable. .25 cents a round, limits the test to more budget friendly testing, although I think that price point more accurately represents what is obtainable in 762x39. Lotta good rounds in 556 that well exceed that price.

Next time I visit my father, ill see about setting up a torso test at 300 yards.

Does that distance represent what you're doing?