Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 119
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Northampton County, Pennsylvania
    (Northampton County)
    Posts
    17,641
    Rep Power
    21474870

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by 7998 View Post
    Besides weren't some our troops having trouble penetrating heavy clothing in Afghanistan?
    I agree with the above about both being a compromise of .308
    5.56 will penetrate more steel than .308 (AKA 7.62X51 NATO) at about 600 meters.

    And it will penetrate all clothing within its 550 meter effective range

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South of Heaven
    Posts
    4,549
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodeous7998 View Post
    Beat me to it

    6.8 SPC 115 gr 2,575 ft/s 1,694 ft·lbft
    6.5 Grendel 123 gr 2,650 ft/s 1,917 ft·lbft
    .300 Black Out 125 gr 2,215 ft/s 1,360 ft·lbf
    7.62x39 123 gr (2,400 ft/s) 1,529 ft·lt

    Besides weren't some our troops having trouble penetrating heavy clothing in Afghanistan?
    I agree with the above about both being a compromise of .308
    5.56mm penetrates most things better than 7.62mm, including clothes. Less frontal area and more velocity.

    Mk262 Mod1 does just as much damage as any of the rounds listed here, and has other advantages that no .30 cal is going to match, Most specifically how much you can carry, and recoil level.

    The only people that still think 7.62x39mm is superior to good fragmenting 5.56mm in an all around comparison dwell on gun forums.

    By the way, this statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodeous
    Plain ol' 7.62x39mm FMJ - without witch craft bullets, or modern metallurgy has killed more people on earth than any other bullet/weapon in existence. Including nuclear weapons, missiles, tanks, and bombs.
    Is completely inaccurate.

    85% of all battlefield casualties are caused by fragments. Historically, less than 5% of battlefield casualties are caused by small arms OF ALL TYPES COMBINED. The overwhelming majority of casualties are caused by artillery fire, hence it's nickname, "King of the battlefield."
    Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 03:13 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    My Castle/ Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,664
    Rep Power
    21360040

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by ungawa View Post
    Which one of those four is not normally superior to 5.56?

    The thread title compares a 65 year old chambering with a 55 year old chambering.
    Let me clarify. I am in no way saying 7.62x39 is ahead of its time. I'm saying the replacements for the 5.56 seem to closely resemble the x39 more than the 5.56
    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South of Heaven
    Posts
    4,549
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by 7998 View Post
    Let me clarify. I am in no way saying 7.62x39 is ahead of its time. I'm saying the replacements for the 5.56 seem to closely resemble the x39 more than the 5.56
    Notice that NO military force is replacing 5.56mm with .30 cal anything in their primary infantry rifles.

    As in: No one on the entire planet. Including US SOCOM. What .30 blackout is awesome for is suppressed mission requirements. That is definitely not a strength of the small bore calibers because the velocity limit of about 1100fps gives a huge advantage to projectiles with more mass.
    Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 03:15 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Northampton County, Pennsylvania
    (Northampton County)
    Posts
    17,641
    Rep Power
    21474870

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by 7998 View Post
    Let me clarify. I am in no way saying 7.62x39 is ahead of its time. I'm saying the replacements for the 5.56 seem to closely resemble the x39 more than the 5.56
    .300 blackout is not a 5.56 replacement.
    6.5 isn't either. Although I love it and wish it was mainstream.
    6.8? I don't think that is either, but I think it has been looked at.

    .458 SOCOM is a 5.56 replacement.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South of Heaven
    Posts
    4,549
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf is great if you want a 10rd rifle, you only want to be able to carry about 71rds, and you don't want the ability to penetrate any sort of modern infantry armor.

    Given the choice between a P90 or a M4, i'd pick a P90...and that bullet is even smaller than 5.56mm. (5.7x28mm vs 5.56x45mm).
    Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 03:23 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Cumberland County)
    Posts
    2,133
    Rep Power
    21474855

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Come on guys....

    Before the mods bust out the infraction/ban hammer, can we please get this thread back on track without the pi$$ing contest?

    Please?
    Soap Box - Worn out : Ballot Box - Broken : Jury Box - Pending : Ammunition Box - Unknown

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,935
    Rep Power
    339929

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by Valorius View Post
    By the way, this statement:



    Is completely inaccurate.

    85% of all battlefield casualties are caused by fragments. Historically, less than 5% of battlefield casualties are caused by small arms OF ALL TYPES COMBINED. The overwhelming majority of casualties are caused by artillery fire, hence it's nickname, "King of the battlefield."
    I never said battlefield. I said killed. Add up all the people killed all over the planet not being counted in "battlefield statistics" and see how many of them were killed with an AK over the last 65 years.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    My Castle/ Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,664
    Rep Power
    21360040

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Look out I'm quoting Wikipedia now. I'm still looking into the 600meter .308 vs 5.56 thing.


    There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[19] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[19] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

    Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.

    This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants.

    Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11–28, Winter 2001) also describes this problem.
    —[19]

    Despite complaints that the 5.56 round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56 mm round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues.[20] The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.[2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO
    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    My Castle/ Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,664
    Rep Power
    21360040

    Default Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39

    Quote Originally Posted by daschnoz View Post
    Come on guys....

    Before the mods bust out the infraction/ban hammer, can we please get this thread back on track without the pi$$ing contest?

    Please?
    I didn't think we were having a pissing match, just a disagreement from two different philosophys. I respect both Val's and Ungawa's opinion.
    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 7.62x39 for .380 ACP
    By zachomega in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 08:39 PM
  2. Well, i did it 7.62x39
    By Guns4Fun in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 10:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •