Results 31 to 40 of 119
Thread: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
-
August 31st, 2012, 03:35 PM #31
-
August 31st, 2012, 04:03 PM #32
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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.Last edited by 7998; August 31st, 2012 at 04:08 PM.
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin
-
August 31st, 2012, 04:07 PM #33Banned
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
-
South of Heaven
- Posts
- 4,549
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
Actually, what you said was:
Originally Posted by Asmodeous
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.Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 04:16 PM.
-
August 31st, 2012, 04:16 PM #34
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin
-
August 31st, 2012, 04:20 PM #35
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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.
-
August 31st, 2012, 04:23 PM #36Banned
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
-
South of Heaven
- Posts
- 4,549
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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.Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 04:31 PM.
-
August 31st, 2012, 06:16 PM #37
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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.Last edited by animalmother85; August 31st, 2012 at 06:18 PM.
-
August 31st, 2012, 07:56 PM #38Super Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
-
West End,
Pennsylvania
(Monroe County) - Posts
- 606
- Rep Power
- 25945
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
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'.
-
August 31st, 2012, 10:03 PM #39Banned
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
-
South of Heaven
- Posts
- 4,549
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
So what, it's irrelevant to what he said.
What he said:
Originally Posted by Asmodeous
That is not even close to true. Artillery and bomb fragments have killed many times more people than any other weapons systems ever devised.
Originally Posted by Arrdy
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.Last edited by Valorius; August 31st, 2012 at 10:11 PM.
-
August 31st, 2012, 10:52 PM #40Active Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
-
Dingmans Ferry,
Pennsylvania
(Pike County) - Posts
- 137
- Rep Power
- 4007
Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62x39
Me, personally: AR-15 vs. AK-47 for SHTF. That's what I'm debating internally.
Similar Threads
-
7.62x39 for .380 ACP
By zachomega in forum GeneralReplies: 0Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 08:39 PM -
Well, i did it 7.62x39
By Guns4Fun in forum GeneralReplies: 9Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Bookmarks