The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: ericire12 on April 22, 2008, 09:07:26 PM
-
Let the debate begin..... My vote is for the 7.62
There is more kinetic energy in the 7.62 and thus more knockdown power. There are plenty of squad designated marksman rifles in the mix to negate the need for the added range gained by the 5.56, and in the house to house style warfare that is becoming more and more common I think the 7.62 x 39 reigns supreme.
-
I will disagree on the 5.56 as far as a house to house tool, and the 7.62 as a stopping round, in military configuration, the 5.56 is a better man stopper, in my opinion due to cartridge/bullet, velocity combo, but the 7.62 x 39, gets the nod for a lot more penetration, and I do mean a lot more. Accuracy with the 5.56 is easily 1/2 of the 7.62 round, in just about any platform, .5 too 2.5 moa, with a large amount of weapons and ammunition suppliers. 7.62 x39 is a 2.5 to 5.0 moa round in the rifles it is meant for, AK's, sks's, Valmets etc... But the bullet selection for the 7.62x39 is much more limited for defense use, there are premium ammo makers, providing excellent ammo for the 7.62, but it is at a premium price, Hornaday TAP, Winchester hollow points, etc.. would be excellent anti-personnel rounds but the cost would be prohibitive. If it was my main defense rifle, I would make use of this ammo, but buying a case would probably prevent ME from doing it. I own both, and do not discount either caliber, The penetration, of the 7.62, I have witnessed, and in a street fight I would find superior, when firing at vehicles, or windshields, or anyone taking cover, behind what we call hard cover. Don't tell anyone, ( yeah right ) but I shot a dumpster longways, and the fmj, penetrated the very thick wall on one side and goose egged the hell out of the other side. The 5.56 might have barely penetrated the first wall, and only with tungsten core ammo, unless, I had been very close, and still the bullet would not have done any damage after penetration.
I will continue to use the 5.56 as my sort of primary defense round in my own domicile, but the 7.62 is always near and dear. Of course this does not address main battle rifles at all.
Of course, the minute of angle, inside 100 or 200 meters, of 2.5 to 5.0,, is completely acceptable, and I don't feel underarmed with either, caliber.
Let the discussion begin ! >:(
-
I voted 5.56 only because in 'suppressive fire and maneuver' scenarios you can carry a BUNCH of ammo for 5.56 and still move.
I would gladly grab either caliber if I had a chance to own a real 'assault' weapon. (not in this lifetime)
-
Assault rifle means medium range, intermediate caliber, SELECT or semi auto, carbine, in this catagory the .223 sucks.
Range is Ok, .22 caliiber is not intermediate, it's a varmint caliber,Yes you can carry more .223, good thing as you will need it, to light to penatrate cover, deflected by concealment items, and generaly ineffective with singe hits. Don't believe me ? Ask any of the troops from 'Nam to Mogadishu. Intermediate means normal (.30ish cal) with a lighter powder charge, (Therefore shorter case) 8mm Kurz, 7.62 X 39, are "Intermediate" .223, might as well just stick pencils through them, and don't give me that crap about this bullet or that bullet. We are talking military use and military .223 is a menace to our troops.
Before you get mad remember 2 things, I've got 3 years Active duty in the Marines with the M 16 A1 and 3 years as a National Guard unit armorer with the A2 and my rifle now is a 7.62 X 39.
-
I agree with Col. Kalashnikov the USSR should have worked on making the 7.62x39 a better more accurate and more effective round rather than move to the 5.45mm. You will note that the Special Forces in Russia have returned to the 7.62x39 since the massacre at Beslan when repeated hits on he bad-guys failed to keep them from butchering the little kids there. Now the old M-193 55gr M-16 round would put the zap on Charlie, sometimes, but the minimal effectiveness of the 5.56 was decreased in 1979 with the SS-109 round which was less "Inhumane" (i.e. LESS EFFECTIVE!) and thereby less offensive to the sensibilities of our NATO allies in Europe. Sure they handed out a bunch of BS about it being better as Armor-Piercing ammo, but frankly that was just spin to justify the lack of "stopping power". Can smaller caliber rounds work? Certainly. I think the 6.5 Grendel and other rounds have shown that small caliber rounds, properly designed and used can be just as effective as larger rounds. The 5.56mm however has never been an adequate round for combat, and given it's original mission which was to defend airfields without damaging the aircraft (or reducing the damage as much as possible) we should not be too surprised.
-
The 5.56mm gripes seem to end once you get to the 70 plus grain rounds out of a proper length barrel.
M-4 vs. AK-47 is a losing fight, as 14 inches or less just is NOT enough barrel for the 5.56mm to work.
M-16's with proper-weight ammunition allow for better soft-cover penetration and more terminal effectiveness.
'Course, this is just from Farnham, who listens and reports how the Marines are still continuing to score 100 kills with rifles to every one of theirs who kill ours with cowardly IED tactics.
-
From a "shot placement", point of view,meaning center upper mass, are you less DEAD at 50 to 100 yds. with a 5.56 or a 7.62? From a civilian point of view who shoots ALOT, (wife will attest), my Sig 556 punches nice, yet little holes in 1/4" metal plate, and crumbles cinder blocks all day. If a Cat 5 hurricane hits my neighborhood in coastal NC, like Katrina did New Orleans, I can GUARANTEE there will be NO looting on my street, and my 5.56 will be fine, and a few others,... ;)
However, one cannot dispute the the ballistics of the 7.62. having more of a punch. I do not own a 7.62 (yet), but as a reasonably close comparison, I do have a 7.65x53 Mauser (grandads original), and it will go through car doors, walls, pretty much whatever a "neighborhood" scenario can be had,.. the 7.62 is simply bigger so it will do what a bigger round will.
Both are very effective, and 7.62 (for now), is cheaper than 5.56, but if shot placement is on, a .17 round will work.
I will get a 7.62 soon, damn,... There I go spending my tax rebate check again,... ;D
-
Which is better? Well, what situation are you refering too? I think each one does better in certain situations than the other. I do hate the term "assault weapon." Is a 5.56 or a 7.62 anymore assaulting that other weapons? Weapons are weapons. Assault is such an ugly word. :-[ Someone can be assaulted with a .22. Anti-gunners have got that stupid phrase "locked into america's vocabulary." Anyway.. The accuracy of the 5.56 or the sheer power of the 7.62.. tough call. I like them both.
-
My squad would carry both weapons. 5.56 for soft (human) targets at any range and 7.62 (.308) for penetration of walls, concealment and moderate cover. And EVERYONE would carry a .45 as a sidearm for some additional penetration at close range.
-
For me the 5.56 works just great as long as I can use "good SD" bullets like the 60gr partition, the Trophy Bondeds in the Federal Tactical Line or the TSX's. If forced to use FMJ or OTM I could still get by quite nicely with the 77 gr loads.
-
From a "shot placement", point of view,meaning center upper mass, are you less DEAD at 50 to 100 yds. with a 5.56 or a 7.62?
5.56
From a civilian point of view who shoots ALOT, (wife will attest), my Sig 556 punches nice, yet little holes in 1/4" metal plate, and crumbles cinder blocks all day. If a Cat 5 hurricane hits my neighborhood in coastal NC, like Katrina did New Orleans, I can GUARANTEE there will be NO looting on my street, and my 5.56 will be fine, and a few others,... ;)
You are not using an assualt rifle, which is , by definition, select fire, and (if your smart) you are NOT useing military ammo.
However, one cannot dispute the the ballistics of the 7.62. having more of a punch. I do not own a 7.62 (yet), but as a reasonably close comparison, I do have a 7.65x53 Mauser (grandads original), and it will go through car doors, walls, pretty much whatever a "neighborhood" scenario can be had,.. the 7.62 is simply bigger so it will do what a bigger round will.
Both are very effective, and 7.62 (for now), is cheaper than 5.56, but if shot placement is on, a .17 round will work.
I will get a 7.62 soon, damn,... There I go spending my tax rebate check again,... ;D
7.62 is SMALLER diameter than 7.65, Do the math, however, both use the same .311 diameter bullet Check your reloading manual.
-
I like the concept of the 7.62 X 39, but I don't think it was done well. I'd like to see something in the middle of the 7.62 and the 5.56.
-
I like the concept of the 7.62 X 39, but I don't think it was done well. I'd like to see something in the middle of the 7.62 and the 5.56.
6.5 Grendel ;D You said between ;D 7.62 minus 5.56 equals 2.06 divided by 2 equals 1.03 plus 5.56 equals 6.59, exact middle between the two calibers, I took the liberty of dropping the .09 ;D
-
As John Farnham says better to get them what works in what they have right now.
The Marines have what works. The insurgents go right down with one or two hits. The 77-grain stuff goes through car doors quite well.
Things would come out even better with DPX ammunition for the '16 and the 9mm. Guns and magazines won't change, just the ammo.
-
Yeah I was gonna say 6.5 too... It fits that sweetspot.