5.56 vs. 7.62x39

[ungawa]

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.

I don't have a differing philosophy. I think I have been pretty straightforward and factual in answering the original question.

[7998]

I don't have a differing philosophy. I think I have been pretty straightforward and factual in answering the original question.

I meant the "light & fast" vs the "slow and heavy" arguement.
There is endless charts, videos and what have you that bolster both philosophies.

So to answer the OP's question get a .308.
The reason so many modern armies use small rounds is for numerous reasons. Load out being tops, politics perhaps. That does carry weight(pun intended). My grandfather was in the 101st 327th Gliders, he absolutely hated the Garand because it was a heavy tank, that also carries weight.

But can you really say with a straight face 5.56 has more stopping power than .30 M2 Ball?
Combat or stopping power? That can be argued also as to which is better 5.56 or 7.62x39.
Stopping power, give me a 7.62 in either x39 x51 or x63.

[Valorius]

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.

Actually, what you said was:

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.

WWII saw 26 million Russian dead alone. Not a single one was killed by an AK-47.
There were up to 70 million dead in WWII...not a single one by an AK.
WWI: Almost 23 million dead. Not a single one by an AK.

I think you are way, way, way off in your estimation my friend.

Maybe in the modern era, but even then i think that artillery would far, far, far outpace the killing done by all small arms combined. The truth is that very few people are killed by small arms in wars. Fragments, those are your real killers.

And most people that are executed by their state are executed with pistols.

[7998]

WWII saw 26 million Russian dead alone. Not a single one was killed by an AK-47.
There were up to 70 million dead in WWII...not a single one by an AK.
WWI: Almost 23 million dead. Not a single one by an AK.

I think you are way, way, way off in your estimation my friend.

Maybe in the modern era, but even then i think that artillery would far, far, far outpace the killing done by all small arms combined. The truth is that very few people are killed by small arms in wars. Fragments, those are your real killers.

And most people that are executed by their state are executed with pistols.

But only if the round successfully fragments which means one must use special match grade brass cased ammo, shot through 24" barrels with correct twist rates in perfectly clean weapons, with the target being between 162 yards and 189 yards, and no heavy winds. Did I miss anything

[ungawa]

But can you really say with a straight face 5.56 has more stopping power than .30 M2 Ball?
Combat or stopping power? That can be argued also as to which is better 5.56 or 7.62x39.
Stopping power, give me a 7.62 in either x39 x51 or x63.

All testing ever performed indicates 5.56 ball causes far more serious wounds than 7.62x39 ball under 200 meters. That would be more "stopping power." So...not sure of your point on that one.

It sounds like the people here have their minds made up to not only prefer some things over others (which is fine) but also ignore some facts (which is a little less advisable) and I think I have contributed all I can without getting into the latter part.

[Valorius]

But only if the round successfully fragments which means one must use special match grade brass cased ammo, shot through 24" barrels with correct twist rates in perfectly clean weapons, with the target being between 162 yards and 189 yards, and no heavy winds. Did I miss anything

I believe you've got it covered!

One area where i would give a clear edge to the 7.62x39mm over 5.56 or 5.45mm is hunting large critters. And again, in suppressed situations.

Beyond that, i think it can be clearly and factually established that both 5.45mm and 5.56mm are superior vs 7.62x39mm in almost all categories that matter for a military cartridge. These things are quantifiable, and there really is a reason why 5.56mm and 5.45mm dominate today's military forces. The reason is because they are clearly superior all around cartridges for military needs.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not saying the 7.62x39mm is bad per se. Just that as a military (or SHTF/survivalist) cartridge, 5.45mm and 5.56mm are better in almost every measurable category.

[animalmother85]

You won't find a 7.62x39 like this;


I was issued Mk262 in South West Asia. It was nice. They are hollow pointed. Spoiler Alert; They are 77gr Sierra Match Kings with a cannelure. However; I'd take the round I have showed above over Mk262, even though it doesn't have the weight of the Mk262.

I have never experience the issue of 5.56 not penetrating clothing in Afghanistan, nor have I been informed of the issue by any colleagues.

[Arrdy]

Actually, what you said was:
WWII saw 26 million Russian dead alone. Not a single one was killed by an AK-47.
There were up to 70 million dead in WWII...not a single one by an AK.
WWI: Almost 23 million dead. Not a single one by an AK.

Did you actually THINK before posting that?

The 47 in AK47 refers to the year of acceptance .... 1947. I believe the fighting in Europe was done a bit before then. Also wasn't it the Germans that were killing all the Russians?

Now with that said.

During the cold war Russia wasn't going to let the west get ahead of them for any reason. They "found" many rounds of 5.56 NATO laying in the jungles of SE Asia so you bet they were going to build a rifle to compare against their own, the AK74. Russia didn't 'abandon' the AK47, they joined NATO and had to adopt the NATO round.

There's one point I think many people are missing or just ignoring. When a man is dead, he's dead. Tag and bag him. But when you seriously wound someone, it takes 3 more men to support him until evac. So 1 round effectively takes 4 people out of the fight. Then there's the support needed to keep the man alive, rehab .... all that good stuff. THAT'S what the Russians wanted to do. Cost their enemies so much, public outcry would win the war for them.

Russia had a way to 'persuade' their people not to complain about 'state matters'.

[Valorius]

Did you actually THINK before posting that?

The 47 in AK47 refers to the year of acceptance .... 1947. I believe the fighting in Europe was done a bit before then. Also wasn't it the Germans that were killing all the Russians?

So what, it's irrelevant to what he said.

What he said:

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.

It is my belief that this is a wildy innacurate statement...and one that does not specify any time frame. Asmo specifically says that "plain ol' 7.62 FMJ....has killed more people on earth than any other weapon in existence."

That is not even close to true. Artillery and bomb fragments have killed many times more people than any other weapons systems ever devised.

During the cold war Russia wasn't going to let the west get ahead of them for any reason. They "found" many rounds of 5.56 NATO laying in the jungles of SE Asia so you bet they were going to build a rifle to compare against their own, the AK74. Russia didn't 'abandon' the AK47, they joined NATO and had to adopt the NATO round.

LOL, What?

Russia is not in NATO. The Soviet Union adopted the AK74 in the 1970s during the height of the Cold War. The Soviet Union changing to 5.45x39mm had absolutely nothing to do with NATO acceptance in any way.

[northernlights]

Me, personally: AR-15 vs. AK-47 for SHTF. That's what I'm debating internally.