← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · confederate_commando
Thread ID: 12943 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2004-03-30
2004-03-30 23:16 | User Profile
What round?
2004-03-31 10:28 | User Profile
I have a slight preference for the 5.56 NATO over the 7.62x39. Both have their plusses and minuses. Here's my understanding of the major differences:
** Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 7.62x39 has better stopping power at shorter ranges.
** The 7.62x39 is better at penetrating heavy brush and many kinds of hard cover (e.g., auto windshield glass)
** The 5.56 NATO is better at penetrating body armor (it's an NIJ Level IV threat -- the same as .30-06 AP!). This is because the 5.56 NATO is relatively narrow and fast, and because it has a steel core. Some 7.62x39 has a steel core as well, but it's MUCH harder to get in the US nowadays than 5.56 NATO, and its penetration is said to be not much better than that of standard lead-core 7.62x39.
** The 5.56 round is smaller and lighter, so you can carry more of it.
** The 5.56 has a slightly longer effective range, and it's much flatter-shooting than the 7.62x39.
2004-03-31 15:19 | User Profile
The 7.62x39 is cheap if you buy in bulk. And the guns are less expensive, too.
I started on the SKS, for the same reason people in the 60s started on the .30 cal Carbine. Inexpensive gun, despite the inferiorities of the round.
2004-03-31 19:56 | User Profile
.308 gives you the best of both worlds, but of course it's heavier.
I give a slight edge to the 7.62x39 due to the greater tendency of the round to bust light obstructions.
If you'll recall the Miami-Dade FBI shootout with a couple of hardcore bank robbers, one of the cons was armed with a Mini-14 and one with an 870 Remington pumpgun. The guy with the Mini-14 did all the damage; killed two FBIs and wounded five. One of the wounded Feds finished off the two robbers with a shotgun and .357 backup after he'd been shot in the forearm with a .223 round as it was over his heart. Tough guy, no doubt, but the .223 slug fragmented as it hit (didn't do his arm any favors, that's for sure) and didn't hit his chest. If it had been a 7.62x39, odds are it would have carried through and hit him in the lung and/or heart, effectively putting him out of the fight. Several other wounded agents were apparently spared death by the .223's propensity to fragment on impact, where a 7.62x39 or .308 would not.
The flip side, of course, is that the wounding potential of the 7.62x39 is less on exposed flesh because it tends to carry straight through and not yaw or fragment, whereas the .223 tends to explosively deposit all it's energy in the target, whether flesh or glass, etc. If you're going with 7.62x39, I would suggest a good soft-point or HP to take advantage of the penetration as well as increase wounding potential. SGN had an interesting article some months back on the various penetrations and terminal ballistics of assault-rifle rounds. I think the Russian 5.45x39 had the greatest wounding potential, being designed from the get-go to yaw and tumble in the shortest possible distance.
The sole reason I would favor the 5.56mm/.223 is that it's standard gov't issue, where the 7.62x39 would get scarce in a hurry in any kind of supply disruption. Of course, some of you pack rats could go ahead and stockpile 50k rounds. ;)
2004-04-08 02:46 | User Profile
if i have to pick between these two - its gonna be 762x39, but my first pref goes to 308win. i still have plenty of 762x39
the whole debate is kinda apples/oranges as either is better than a slingshot or rocks.
2004-04-08 04:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]if i have to pick between these two - its gonna be 762x39, but my first pref goes to 308win. i still have plenty of 762x39
the whole debate is kinda apples/oranges as either is better than a slingshot or rocks.[/QUOTE] Ditto what Josey Wales said. I'll take my .308 over either of those rounds.
2004-05-17 20:18 | User Profile
That's difficult choice, I'm probably bying an semiautomatic rifle at fall, if my economy allows. Probably it'll be an AK variant, probably Bulgarian AKM, because it uses standard AK magazines and has thumb safety. 5.56 is nicer to shoot, I had tried it in Sig551 rifle, and low recoil and accuracy was quite nice experience, I hit with it better from standing position than with my boltaction 7.62x54 Mosin-Nagant M39 from prone position, and better than with Finnish 7.62x39 AK variant Sako M39. Yes Sig is fine a rifle but there is something in the caliber too.
7.62 Ammo is cheap even here, but I'd warn that it is nowadays obsolete, Russians have got smaller bore 5.45, and chinese too. So there would be some difficulties in supply in the future. Military surplus stocks won't last forever. I'd recommend the 5.56 NATO, there are big surpluses of it and many armies use it. Btw, Finnish army uses 7.62x39 as their official small arms caliber. Most small arms are domestic made Sako and Valmet assault rifles, they are little bit improved AK's, in wartime, there are about 200 000 chinese made crap assault rifles, thanks to ex defence minister Elisabeth Rehn, she also so killed finnish military small arms industry.
2004-05-17 21:05 | User Profile
7.62x39 is now commercially produced in Russia. I don't think they mean military surplus when they talk about the cost.
What's the landscape like in Finland? In a situation where there are a lot of obstructions the range advantage of smaller caliber isn't there. Also, its ricochets much more.
2004-05-17 21:54 | User Profile
...has much obstructions, mostly it is forest, and you wouldn't see much more than 300 meters at best. And urban areas are samelike. 7.62x39 is so enough good for our armed forces. At least when it is shoot from good rifle, Norinco rifles from China aren't very good, I'd prefer finnish, or russian rifles before them.
Historically 7.62x39 is due to our custom to use same caliber as traditional enemy, Russia. I personally have nothing againsta russians, but in last 800 years russians have came with weapons here 40 times. That is quite many times. About once in 50 years, and from last time it was 60 years ago. If tihs rule has no expections maybe I will see war in my lifetime. And in time of war I would serve in armed forces. So caliber of army has some personal interest for my too, hopefully I don't need ever to discharge firearm in anger against anybody.
2004-05-17 21:59 | User Profile
You should be more worried about being overrun and outbred by subhumans from outside Europe.
2004-05-17 22:00 | User Profile
I also think that most cheapest ammo is military surplus, reservists here in Finland use it very much, mostly russian ammo btw. Only rich guys buy commercial domestic ammo, Lapua's 7.62x39 costs about 10 euros per 30 rounds, so firing magazine empty from Kalahsnikov would be quite expensive.
2004-05-17 22:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]You should be more worried about being overrun and outbred by subhumans from outside Europe.[/QUOTE]
And I am. Russia is Finlands most harmless worries, and I even prefer russian invaders over negroes and arabs. Sadly our politicians are our greatest enemies.
I think russians are doing great job in Tshecheniya. Only good muslim is dead one.
2004-05-20 23:08 | User Profile
I don't see rifles winning that many battles in Iraq. The US uses tanks, combat helos and the Iraqi resistance uses IEDs and RPG, and suicide bombs. Note that the winner has the popular support of the people, not matter what they use.
But, given the question, I'd say the AK and 7.62x39. An inferior force has zero luxuries, and the Russians are brillant arms manufacturers. They build and use what works, not what some campaign contributor has bribed some politician to sign off on.