"Small Caliber Leathality" or Why .223 Doesn't Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
They pantygriped that in supercold weather temps, if the flyboys had to ditch and drop out into survival mode, that the 1/14 ar twist was not accurate enough for them, and what they wanted to accomplish.

?

1-12 twist was ordered by the Army, not the USAF, after cold weather testing. 1-14 failed to yield sufficient accuracy for a general issue service rifle that might theoretically see service in a Russian winter (or at least repelling Russian troops in Norway and Alaska). I don't think any aircrews in the USAF except the rotary wing (enlisted) guys even carry ARs.

I'm not sure how many 5.56mm rounds have actually been fired in anger at temperatures below zero, though . . .
 
One of the major problems which was pointed out in some after action reports was the heavy use of drugs by enemy. Like the street guy on pcp, the enemy was taking shots that the brain wasn't registering. Is that a fault of the bullet design that merits a change in cartridge, or a unique situation for the territory alone where there should be intelligence passed on to the troops regarding this possible situation?
 
If the .223 is so bad, why did the Russians go to the 5.45mm and the Communist Chinese a 5.8mm? The smallbores must have some advantage the armies aren't putting out on the internet.
 
You are much more able to get multiple hits with real assault rifles with auto or burst.

No. You are far less likely to get hits with full auto or burst fire.

In actual combat, full auto or burst fire substitutes for actual aiming. Aimed fire is what gets hits. Without hits, you have nothing.
 
Mr. Vern, you forgot to add the exceptions to said rule:

1. Unless you are at "bad breathe distances",

2. If that auto gun comes standard with two or more of the following features:
a. Fed from linked ammo belts
b. Has bipod attatched as a standard piece of "kit"
c. Is crew served
D. Said auto gun is attatched to a vehicle...

Still 2 Many Choices!?
 
A full auto belt-fed weapon mounted on a bipod, tripod, or vehicle can be highly effective. Hand-held weapons should not be used full auto, regardless of the range.
 
Even the article admits that the only way to instantly drop someone is a hit to the CNS which is why I don't understand why people use ARs as their go-to weapons for home defense. I love my AR, but the odds that I hit a bad guy's spinal column when I am COM are very slim.
 
In actual combat, full auto or burst fire substitutes for actual aiming...
In actual combat automatic fire is used to suppress enemy activity while friendly elements manuever to gain a position of advantage.

The M-14 was an attempt to make every soldier an automatic rifleman - in essence, providing what amounted to an M1 Garand and a Browning BAR in a single package. The 7.62x51mm cartridge is a relic of WWI trench warfare in which the enemy was engaged at great distances across "no man's land." It evolved from the 7.62x63mm (30.06) cartridge. 7.62x51mm has a use, but not for general issue assault rifles used in close-quarters and fast actions.

Cheers!
 
In actual combat automatic fire is used to suppress enemy activity while friendly elements manuever to gain a position of advantage.

Full automatic fire from hand-held weapons is poor suppression.

After all, would you be suppressed merely because the enemy is making a lot of noise?

Suppressive fire is killing fire. You suppress the enemy by killing the guy next to him, thereby convincing him you'll do the same to him if he sticks his head up. If you don't kill the guy next to him, you don't convince him.
 
After all, would you be suppressed merely because the enemy is making a lot of noise?
If the enemy is behind good cover and you have to maneuver to kill him, you pour automatic fire at him. If he's smart, and you should expect him to be, he'll hunker down to keep from being hit by any of the bullets that are landing around him. By keeping him preoccupied with not getting shot then it allows others to maneuver against him and kill him.
 
Vern, again, specifically in my soldiers' situation, they will have a very difficult time getting hits at all with an M-14. I train my soldiers with semi-auto fire only. The only time they will ever FEEL burst fire is in combat when I tell them to switch it to burst. (If at all.)
 
I agree with Shawn. In 'Nam one of charlies tactics was to hit very fast and close in heavy cover then run like hell when we returned fire. The faster you could return fire the sooner he ran, which was a good thing because then he wasn't aiming at you. Suppressive fire is very important, because if you stand around waiting for a good target someone will put a bullet in you unless he is ducking for cover himself. Another reason why the M16 is a good choice. Unfortunately they were not considerate enough to to stand there so we could shoot them when we got ready. In my opinion when you need an M14, you need a M60 more. Which was my weapon of choice in convoys.
 
"I know for sure our troops have taken multi hits from 7.62x39mm and survived."


Of course, 7.62x39 has horrible terminal ballistics. It makes a good hole, but no explosion or expansion, providing it's FMJ.

Yeah but . . .

122 gr bullet running about 2,300 fps, and developing 1480 fpe is going to ruin most of your day.

It's highly effective at the ranges for which it's intended -- 300 yds. And it penetrates what needs to be penetrated, like car bodies, windshields, and structural walls.

100 Million AK-47's have been produced. There must be something to it.

Caliber Wars -- we can go back and forth on this forever. AND, I can strenuously argue either side.

:D

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 210,000 for 7.62x39. (0.05 seconds)

2.
7.62x39mm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7.62x39mm. Yugoslavian version of the 7.62x39mm cartridge, designated M67. It has a flat based lead core projectile. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
3.
We compare the 7.62x39 and .223
Uses a minimalistic 30 caliber cartridge (7.62x39) and is meant to be easy to manufacture. ... 7.62x39 vs. .223 Shootout results & more pictures on Page Two ...
www.ak-47.us/223_vs_762x39.php - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
4.
.223NATO or 7.62X39 which is better? in Mail Call in History Channel
9 posts - 8 authors - Last post: Jun 21, 2003
223NATO or 7.62X39 which is better?: I personally own an SKS and love it, but when I was in the service I used the .223.
boards.historychannel.com/topic/Mail-Call/223nato-Or-762x39/5796 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
5.
Video results for 7.62x39
Step 5 - Saiga 7.62x39 Conversion
9 min
www.youtube.com

SKS reloading and rapid fire 7.62X39
56 sec
www.youtube.com
6.
The Armory: 7.62x39 Ammunition,ammo, Silver Bear, Winchester ...
The Armory's page to Buy 7.62X39 ammunition! We carry AK47 rifles, 7.62X39 rifles and M16 rifles and 7.62X39 HP ammunition, 7.62X39 FMJ ammunition, 7.62X39 ...
www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/762x39_ammo.html - 86k - Cached - Similar pages
7.
Rifle Ammunition - 7.62x39 at Sportsman's Guide
Rifle Ammunition - 7.62x39. ... Remington® UMC® Rifle 7.62x39 mm 123 Gr. FMJ 1000 rds. ... Federal® Power - Shok® 7.62x39 mm Soviet 123 Gr. SP 20 rds. ...
www.sportsmansguide.com/net/browse/browse.aspx?c=96&s=953 - 237k - Cached - Similar pages
8.
Mail-Order Ammunition Distributors
7.62x39 Brown Bear FMJ - $150/1000 7.62x39 Wolf FMJ - $190/1000 ... .308 Barnaul Nickel-plated steelcase - $82/200 7.62x39 Silver Bear - $90/500 ...
billstclair.com/ammo.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
9.
Hunting: 7.62x39 vs 30:30, whitetail deer, personal preference
whitetail deer, personal preference, hunting rifle: Hello, Davy. I just now found your question in my inbox from nearly two months ago.
en.allexperts.com/q/Hunting-1633/7-62x39-vs-30.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
10.
AK-47.net: 7.62x39 Ammunition Headstamps
Home | Ammunition | 7.62x39 Headstamps. AK-47.net: 7.62x39 Headstamps. By Code( 10). It is not intended here to exhaustively illustrate Communist head stamps ...
www.ak-47.net/ammo/headstamps.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
 
100 Million AK-47's have been produced. There must be something to it.

The Russians also coined the phrase about good enough being the enemy of better (or is it best?) -- and they (and several of their fellow fraternal socialist workers' paradises back in the bad old days) gave AKs away by the literal ship load.

I'm not sure which nations that ended up adopting the AK or its offspring for military use selected it after any sort of open competitive testing. The Sig 550 series and the Galil (at least in Israel and some of the other nations using it) were. I'm drawing a blank as far as a more standard pattern AK, though there may be some nation that picked it as the best available from an open field of competitors.
 
The truth is this. In modern combat, in a Western Developed Nation's Armed Froces, you don't just have guys with rifles, and pistols. You have guys with crew served weapons, heavy machineguns, grenades (both rocket propelled, and hand thrown), armour (often), and the ability to call in air strikes. You also have all manner of intermediate explosive ordnance. You have many options that are far more powerfull than any rifle with which to kill your enemy.

That being said, here is THE list:

7.62x39mm, 8x33 Kurz: These rounds didn't have very good ballistics, and there were better rounds in terms of ballistic coefficient, velocity, penetration, and stopping power. But, these were first generation rounds mated to first generation Assault Rifles. Over time, there have been alterations to these rounds (well, 7.62x39 moreso) to make them more anti-personnel lethal, especially the Yugoslavians, who ripped off the Brit .303 concept of a lighter weight tip. But, though the lethality can be increased by changing bullet construction to promote yaw, not much can be done to increase range, penetration, or ballistic coefficient. That being said, with the 7.62x39mm, you atleast do have a 120-130gr bullet flying at you, which within 200 yards works roughly as well as a .30-30.

7.62NATO, 7.62x54R,8mm Mauser, 7.7Jap, 6.5Swede,7.5Swiss (there are so many here): All of these cartridges are the old guard. They were great at penetration, range, a few had ballistic coefficients that still are hard to match. But, they were as has been pointed out, designed for a battlefield where your closest contact to the enemy might be watching a small figure fall out of view after a shot meant to go 700 yards. In the mechanized warfare world prevelant since WWII (really since the Spanish Civil War), these cartridges are antiquated simply because of the fact there can't be an easily controlled "switch," and it makes more since for a soldier to load up 300-400 rounds on him, than 50-100 when he is moving around, as opposed to the static conditions of WWI trenches. The fact that intermediate cartridges took as long as they did can be largely stacked up to military bureacracy and fuddy duddy-ism.

.223 Remington, 5.45Combloc, 5.8 Chinese: These "New Guard": cartridges are simply the result of refinements of the concepts learned in WWII, and the early 50s. .223 is a bad ass cartridge, as are 5.45 and 5.8 in terms of inparting yaw, and fragmentation. They are capable of inparting damage way out of proportion to their size... provided they expand properly. Provided they yaw when they are supposed to. A lot of that is dependent on bbl length, bullet weight, twist ratios. But, it comes down to mating the right cartridge to the right rifle. Sometimes, this has been done properly, other times, it has been done poorly.

Ultimately though there are only 3 truths on this subject:

#1.) You can't put rifles into a vacuum. In a vacuum, I am going to say a 6.5 to 8mm full power cartridge in a full blown semi-auto battlerifle is the best thing everrytime. But, that isn't the case. You have many factors. Basically, the other weapons available to the infantry.

#2.) There is comparison all day long between rifle cartridges, but the main thing is rifle vs. pistol. All rifles impart far more power than a pistol cartridge. All are rediculously deadly compared to pistol cartridges, and from that standpoint it is virtually impossible to go wrong with a rifle cartridge.

#3.) Never forget that it isn't just a round. It's the launching platform as well. A cartridge might be great, but not used in the right weapon. And vice-versa.
 
Terminal ballistics aren't half as mysterious as some would have us believe. Generally, kinetic energy, frontal area, bullet construction and momentum will determine what kind of damage a bullet will do and if you've got more kinetic energy, frontal area and momentum, then you've always got the potential to do more damage with the right bullet construction.

The 7.62x39 has more of all three than the 5.56. If it doesn't do more damage, it's purely the result of a poorly designed or inappropriate bullet. Likewise the 7.62 NATO has more potential than the 7.62x39 and a .50 BMG with a frangible bullet would leave you looking like you were put through a blender.
 
....and then you end up in Afghanistan,and you're back to shooting at that tiny figure who is sniping at you with a sixty year old Enfield,from six hundred yards away,and you're trying to reply with your 5.56 rifle.This is why every squad should have a designated marksman,armed with an M-14,who can reply in kind.
 
The main problem with the Ak in my experience is that you can't hit anything with it. You can debate all day about terminal ballistics. The 7.62x39 is a good round up too a couple hundred yards if you could hit anything with it. It has great penetration compared to the 5.56. The M16 is, in my experience with both, far superior in accuracy. Besides my combat experience I have hunted deer with both too. The 7.62x39 has enough killing power for deer in reasonable range with soft points, but the accuracy in both SKS and AK's has been very poor. Scopes are of little use on them because they group so poorly. I will take my hands off the keyboard and back away before I type something you won't like.
 
Hand-held weapons should not be used full auto, regardless of the range.

That isn't true, pistol caliber SMGs are quite effective at short ranges in FA. Furthermore if I was clearing a house/very close range with no chance of potential "innocent" casualites I would rather have FA than not. A burst of three at close range is substantially better than one. I'm talking under 7 yard range, by the way, not 25 yards, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top