5.56 vs. 7.62x39

[ungawa]

I couldn't care less about full-auto fire... too expensive, too wasteful, and too "registered."

After reading this thread, I was really leaning AR-15. My last trip to the gun store, I held both, and I really liked the AR this time (I had been liking the AK before). I held each gun for a while, and I definitely noticed the weight of the AK. Not saying I was collapsing under its weight, but it would definitely be worse to lug around than the AR. Also, the "facts" (if there are such things) seem to be that the 5.56 fragments, so it will hurt the enemy more, but the x39 will go through cover better.

However, I may end up going AK-47, even though I could put a red dot (faster acquisition) and light (big advantage; sneak up on a target and blind them) on an AR, for the following reasons:

1. It's cheaper. There are 3 AKs sitting at my favorite gun store right now for $549.

2. The ammo is cheaper, which means I could get more of it faster.

3. The gun is more rugged. I have no intention of letting my gun go to hell and never cleaning or oiling it, but oil bottles are small, and what happens with your AR when you run out of oil and you can't get into town to snatch a bottle of Pennzoil from the local Autozone?

4. The round will do more in general. Sure, the 5.56 may have nicer terminal ballistics and be more accurate at longer ranges, but the x39 seems to excel in everything else. It will blow apart cover, travel through brush like it isn't there, go through glass, probably it would take out a vehicle's engine block a lot better, and it will definitely still kill.

My only concerns are weight, ergonomics, and lower round count on your person, but I am leaning AK because I feel like the advantages I listed may outweigh the ability to shoot more comfortably, carry more bullets, and have a better sight picture and a light. Anyone, feel free to attempt to persuade me otherwise. Even I will be surprised to find out what gun I end up with.

It sounds to me like you are indeed dealing with the facts. Good for you to see through all the chaff. Good luck with your decision.

[Gun]

From the commentary i've read and the gel tests i've seen, most .223 JHP's don't come near the damage of Mk262.

ASYM uses the same bullet as the Nato Black Hills but in a 223, and $11 cheaper per 50 rds. You sayin' the ASYM won't cause the same damage?

[Valorius]

ASYM uses the same bullet as the Nato Black Hills but in a 223, and $11 cheaper per 50 rds. You sayin' the ASYM won't cause the same damage?

The ballistics report on Mk262 i posted tested .223 pressure and 5.56mm pressure loadings of the 77gr SMK. The .223 still produced very impressive damage, but the 5.56mm was even more potent.

The report is in one of my previous posts in this thread. Read it, it's good stuff.

About the 7.62x39mm....in the north hollywood shootout, when the one shooter was confronted by SWAT cops who pulled up in a patrol car after the shooters had been separated, he opened fire through his own vehicle at the SWAT cops. I can remember seeing an interview by one of the cops stating that none of the 7.62x39mm rounds penetrated the car. I would not count on non AP 5.56mm (even M855), 5.45mm or 7.62x39mm to be capable of defeating an engine block after first punching through the body panels/radiator and whatever else they might hit on the way in. All reports from Iraq seem to confirm once more that 7.62x51mm is much better against vehicles. There are a lot of very well documented actual shootings for us to use as guidelines in these things.

[chauncey]

With 7.62mm, and using the M14s standard loadout of 5x20rd magazines, you'd have about 500rds in ammo cans, and 101rds in your rifle and mags. Your pistol ammo and mags would be obviously incompatible. So you have 601rds, and that's it.

in my case, my pistol and rifle DO take the same magazine and ammunition, using a full size G3 clone and a 51K clone, both of which will feed any commercial .308 or surplus 7.62x51 i can find for them



i am NOT addressing this from a military perspective, unlike some of my previous comments on the topic:

personally, i question the logic of moving unnecessarily in a crisis. in order for most of us to carry the amount of supplies our family would require over the course of our travels, we would need a vehicle, which make the relative weight of 5.56 vs. 7.62 almost irrelevant.

if we did have to move, we couldn't make it very far, dragging family and having to foray for food, water and shelter as we went.

i favor the 7.62x51/.308 and the .40S&W over the 5.56x45 and 9 mm, because i still believe they are more effective over a broad spectrum of available ammunition. i understand your point with some rounds from some platforms behaving more effectively within certain parameters, but until they sell it at WalMart and i feel confident i can get all i need any time i want, i am sticking with what i've got. availability (in the US) is the greatest drawback of the 7.62x39, imo.

whatever your feelings on the topic, everyone who is serious about being prepared should at some point get familiar with the AR, AK, 870 and Glock platforms. odds are good if the going gets tough you are going to end up having to use one of these, just because they are what is most available and most common. i prefer the H&K operating system but i will teach my daughter, and i believe in teaching others, how to use each of the above, from a practicality standpoint.

availability (and to a lesser degree price) is what pried me away from .45ACP and onto .40S&W

everything is a tradeoff

i think this thread has split into 2 arguments:
1. what is the best cartridge, but under what circumstances?
2. what is the situation and what circumstances matter to you?

[chauncey]

Listen boss, I'm not trying to sound like I'm king shit or that I know everything about what's going on within the military, but I do know what SF units are using from first hand experience. The primary weapon is still the M4A1 in SOPMOD II clothing. I know what you're thinking about the Mk17, but not every swinging dick has one, not even half. There was some chatter about implementing a new rifle which in turn became hype, but that's it.
Most of our engagements in South West Asian were beyond the 300 meter mark.

you and i have disagreed several times on the DI operating system and the 5.56 round, but i will agree with you that in spite of all the talk i think US Soldiers and Marines are going to be carrying 5.56-chambered rifles for a long time to come.

there will be some inroads on the DI system with the USMC adopting the IAR but with DOD budgets going the way they are i don't see any wholesale changes in that department either, for a long time to come.

with active combat actions dropping off significantly the topic of a new rifle and cartridge has give way to how quickly we should leave A-Stan, and in what condition.

"like it or not"

[Valorius]

in my case, my pistol and rifle DO take the same magazine and ammunition, using a full size G3 clone and a 51K clone, both of which will feed any commercial .308 or surplus 7.62x51 i can find for them

But your pistol probably weighs as much as a P90 carbine....and the recoil!!!

Still....you get mad points for originality, and yes, the commonality is a wonderful thing.

You also really need to post a picture of that "pistol!"

personally, i question the logic of moving unnecessarily in a crisis. in order for most of us to carry the amount of supplies our family would require over the course of our travels, we would need a vehicle, which make the relative weight of 5.56 vs. 7.62 almost irrelevant.

Moving with a family in any kind of crisis is very, very hard- I agree. After you load down with food and water there would be little free weight left for anything else. I also think that in any kind of a legitimate SHTF, the road ways will probably be impassable. So i do think that ammo weight should still be considered.

For instance, if you can ONLY grab one ammo can on the way out the door, consider: .30-06 or .308, about 250rds per .30 cal ammo can. 5.56mm about 400-500rds per .30 cal ammo can (depending on how you pack it). And then there's 5.7mm......1200rds per .30 cal ammo can.

So if you can only grab limited ammunition, as you said (which i agree with), that is where the 5.7mm shines at it's brightest, and where the 7.62x51mm is at it's weakest.

However, i do agree that bugging in is by far the best option if you can swing it.

i favor the 7.62x51/.308 and the .40S&W over the 5.56x45 and 9 mm, because i still believe they are more effective over a broad spectrum of available ammunition.

While 7.62x51mm definitely holds an edge over 5.56mm in some areas, i do not think that .40 holds any advantage whatsover over 9, in fact i'd say the opposite is true. 9mm is better than .40 in virtually every measurable way. Ammo weight, ammo bulk, weapon capacity, trajectory, soft body armor penetration, and most importantly, recoil...all quantifiably favor 9mm over .40. I can't honestly think of one single advantage that .40 holds over 9mm. The best i can do for .40 is give it a "tie" with 9mm in terminal effectiveness when using the same type of ammunition.

But that's another whole thread.

whatever your feelings on the topic, everyone who is serious about being prepared should at some point get familiar with the AR, AK, 870 and Glock platforms. odds are good if the going gets tough you are going to end up having to use one of these, just because they are what is most available and most common.

Agreed.

availability (and to a lesser degree price) is what pried me away from .45ACP and onto .40S&W

About the only thing i'll say about .40S&W is that it's not as bulky or heavy as the obsolete .45acp.

i think this thread has split into 2 arguments:
1. what is the best cartridge, but under what circumstances?
2. what is the situation and what circumstances matter to you?

2 is probably a far more important question than 1. IMO, of course. I don't think there's any "best", as they all have strengths and weaknesses. But some seem to be much better choices than others when looked at overall.

For ME personally with all things taken into consideration, i would rank them like this:

Rifle

1) 5.7mm
2) 5.56mm
3) 5.45mm
4) 7.62x51mm
5) 7.62x39mm

Pistol

1) 5.7mm
2) 9mm
3) .357 Sig
4) 10mm
5) 7.62x25mm Tok (I'd have this number 2 if they had any modern platforms for it)

If my choices in pistol calibers seem a bit odd, I place very high importance on the ability to defeat at least level II, and preferably level IIIA body armor in a true SHTF scenario....as a lot of the people trying to hurt and take what you have will be wearing armor. So my choices reflect that opinion. Believe it or not, there is at least one civilian legal 9mm+P+ round out there right now that will punch through a very good top end IIIA vest. There is probably no civilian legal .40 S&W round on the market that can even defeat a level II vest, and there is definitely no civvie legal .45acp round that can defeat even obsolete level IIA armor.

BTW, any of the rifle rounds we've been discussing will easily defeat a IIIA vest. But from all the testing i have seen, only 5.56mm will punch through some level III or IV hard SAPI plates.

[chauncey]

i place a low priority on the ability of my pistol round to defeat armor. i would instead rely on the rifle cartridge for that purpose. some 5.56 cartridges may be more effective against armor, but given the 7.62x51's advantages at barrier penetration, i believe it to be a better "overall" performer. i consider the odds better that i will have to shoot through cover, than armor.

i only know one civilian in possession of armor. i know a lot of civilians in possession of cinder blocks!

my choice of 40S&W over 9mm is in no small part based on the FMJ performance of these two rounds. stockpiling hollow points for the long term isn't cost effective. i also like that a 40S&W pistol gives me three caliber options (that i have prepared to use): .40S&W, .357Sig and 9mm. there are a lot of police agencies using .40S&W, these days. locally to me, .357Sig has been adopted.

that 51K clone is heavy, but the recoil is tremendously overestimated. i shoot it with a sling, and the recoil doesn't even come close to a pistol-grip 12-gauge. it's almost as accurate as an AK out to 50 yards. pm me some time and i'll give you a whirl. ;-)

the most size effective 7.62x51 clone length is the 12.5" barrel. granted you lose some velocity but it handles and balances very well. remember that the advantage over the comparable x39 is ammunition commonality and availability.

i didn't think 5.7mm ammunition was commercially available, that was capable of defeating body armor? i am wondering how much longer SS109 will be available to the public, also.

i don't really "stock" 5.56 or pistol ammunition as much, it's a secondary concern imo and i have stuff that can utilize it if/when i find it.

[Valorius]

I would agree that a pistol with barrels for .357 sig, .40 S&W and 9mm is a good idea.

By the way, blue helmeted UN troops wear body armor.

[chauncey]

I would agree that a pistol with barrels for .357 sig, .40 S&W and 9mm is a good idea.

By the way, blue helmeted UN troops wear body armor.

Arent they mostly Paki?
I hear they usually just use the backplate
and will provide me an endless supply of G3 parts and magazines