5.56 vs. 7.62x39

[Valorius]

Sufficient, maybe at close range. This is a SHTF type question and unless you have a shit load of 5.7 ammo and enough mags then the 5.7 is an absolute poor choice in regards to the original question.

If you prepared properly, you have stockpiled plenty of ammo and mags.

I personally have 18 mags for my Five Seven. If i get the carbine to match, i'll have 18 mags that fit BOTH of my weapons. What a huge advantage!

So what happens when you run out of ammo? Do you think it will be as easy to come by compared to 5.56 or 7.62x39? No it won't be. I'd take a 9mm over a 5.7 if I didn't have a rifle just for the simple fact that ammo will be available somewhere. Good luck with the 5.7, once your out of ammo your pretty much out of luck.

Well if you shoot up all your 5.7mm ammo (which for me means i took out an entire army, lol!), then you drop the 5.7mm weapon on the ground and pick up an AR or AK off one of your vanquished enemies, and you call it a day.

Not to mention having I'd rather have the ability to engage targets effectively at long ranges than be limited to 200yds.

In anything but all out war engaging someone at 200 yds is going to put you in prison as soon as order is restored.

Just because civilization is temporarily on hold, it does not remove the legal threshold for justifiable homicide. Think about it.

Yes, commonality will greatly favor the AR in the US, but that won't stop a 5.7mm user from arming himself with a discarded AR whenever he wants.

The one true drawback of 5.7mm as your SHTF choice is financial. It is not a cheap route to go, but if you can afford it the caliber and platforms offer huge advantages vs the AR/AK platforms.

The way I see that is instead of hauling around a spare upper that space could be better used for ammo.

I'd go with most popular such as an AR in 5.56 over anything else, followed by an AK in 7.62x39 and then by a G17, but that's just me.

If you lose or disable your rifle, your mags and ammo are all useless. If you use your pistol, the pistol ammo and mags are useless.

With an MPA5700/FsN combo, your mags and ammo fit both guns. So even if your carbine goes out, you have a 30rd "assault pistol" that will blow through body armor and all your ammo and mags will still fit.

If your pistol gets lost disabled, no big deal....all your ammo and mags still fit your carbine. This is a huge, huge advantage. Couple that with the fact that the 5.7mm user is carrying 360rds vs the 210rds of the 5.56mm user, and again, another huge advantage.

Think about it.

[RXM]

The way I see that is instead of hauling around a spare upper that space could be better used for ammo.

I'd go with most popular such as an AR in 5.56 over anything else, followed by an AK in 7.62x39 and then by a G17, but that's just me.

In the scenario that Valorious described (i.e., engagements within 50 yards or less) his choice of consolidating calibers to a 5.7 that can be used on various platforms would make sense. Is it a viable choice for him, sure. Is it for you, probably not so much b/c you don't stock 5.7 rounds. He makes the argument that he can carry a lot more ammo than 5.56 in respect to weight - which I think is a valid argument. Isn't that one of the reasons the military decided to go with the 5.56 instead of the 7.62?

Would I personally carry a 5.7? No b/c I don't want to invest in another caliber. I chose to stick with the 5.56 for heavy duty work and keep a 4.5" .22lr AR upper with a can attached for more discrete work. I carry a m&p 9mm in fullsize and compact b/c the mags are interchangeable (fullsize will fit into a compact but not vice versa).

Each person is going to have to evaluate what is the "best fit" for them and their given scenario.

[northernlights]

Well my original question was, which is the better thing: Tearing a person up on the inside (5.56), or hitting them hard (7.62x39)? Which does more to "stop" a person? That's what I'm trying to find out, lol.

[Valorius]

Each person is going to have to evaluate what is the "best fit" for them and their given scenario.

Yep.

The 5.7mm is not an inexpensive choice, that's for sure. Between the pistol, accessories, mags and ammo i have $5000 into my Five Seven pistol. If i pick up and accessorize the carbine (which i'm probably going to do), add in another $1000 bucks for the gun and an optic.

But again...once you get set up with 5.7mm, you really do have some quantifiable advantages vs the person who is not.

Of course the AR also has it's advantages. Longer range, less expensive ammo, parts commonality with the US military and police, etc.

Well my original question was, which is the better thing: Tearing a person up on the inside (5.56), or hitting them hard (7.62x39)? Which does more to "stop" a person? That's what I'm trying to find out, lol.

I think 5.56mm is equal to or superior to 7.62x39mm for a civilian in virtually all measurable ways...including terminal damage.

The one scenario that would make me seriously consider a 7.62x39mm over a 5.56mm would be if i was in dangerous game territory, and for some reason i didn't have a shotgun with good Brenneke or sabot slugs. If you're going to have to shoot big angry 4 legged animals i would want the .30 caliber for it's enhanced penetration in tissue.

[RXM]

Well my original question was, which is the better thing: Tearing a person up on the inside (5.56), or hitting them hard (7.62x39)? Which does more to "stop" a person? That's what I'm trying to find out, lol.

Quiet, we're having a friendly mud-fest

(Yes, that is oversimplification, and this thread will probably not last 4 pages before it becomes an all-out mudfest).

I'll say that any engagement that is within reasonable, justifiable distance (e.g., 25 yards), a few hits from a 5.56 or a 7.62 shouldn't matter.

[arjohnson]

I'll have about 2-3x the ammo of the 5.56mm user to start out with.

When i run out of 5.7mm- if i ever run out- i'll just pick up an AR-15 or AK-47 off a dead person.

Consider this SHTF scenario:

SHTF and on your way out the door you have time to grab your tac vest, your carbine/sidearm, and 2 US .30 cal cans of ammo.

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.

With 5.56mm and using the M16's standard loadout of 7x30rd magazines, you'd have about 800rds in ammo cans and 211rds in mags and in the weapon. Your pistol mags would be obviously incompatible. So you have about 1011rds on your person.

With 5.7mm and using the loadout i listed above, you'd have 2400rds in ammo cans, and 361rds on your person. YOUR MAGS ARE UNIVERSAL and fit both your pistol and carbine. You'd have a total of 2761rds on your person and you could use it in either your carbine or your sidearm.

2761rds is about 250% more than the 5.56mm user, and about 425% more than the 7.62mm user.

So in many ways, the 5.7mm holds huge advantages over 5.56mm. And it should....it is the state of the art.

So your basing this universal mag thing on a gun that's probably not even available and ammo that's only made by one manufacturer, correct?

I see no advantage at all only lots of disadvantages. It's common sense to choose the one with the most current availabilty over a new "state of the art" super round, which IMO it's far from that.

[arjohnson]

Well my original question was, which is the better thing: Tearing a person up on the inside (5.56), or hitting them hard (7.62x39)? Which does more to "stop" a person? That's what I'm trying to find out, lol.

I'm trying to help ya out but them 5.7 fanboys keep showing up.

Get a 5.56 as it is a proven round, many options compared to the 7.62x39.

[Valorius]

So your basing this universal mag thing on a gun that's probably not even available and ammo that's only made by one manufacturer, correct?

The MPA5700SST is on the market now. Bud's has them for $579.00

The ammo is made by Fiocchi (SS197SR), FN (SS195, SS190, SS198), Federal (American Eagle 40gr TMJ), Elite (various loads), Clark Custom ammo (various loads), DAS (various loads), and a few other small specialty companies.

I see no advantage at all only lots of disadvantages.

You are trying very, very hard not to see the obvious advantages of the 5.7mm.



The ONLY quantifiable disadvantage i can see is that 5.7mm is expensive.

[RXM]

I'm trying to help ya out but them 5.7 fanboys keep showing up.

Get a 5.56 as it is a proven round, many options compared to the 7.62x39.

I think you have to own a 5.7 to be considered a fanboy. I just try and keep an open mind and not assume that my way is the only way. I didn't care much about the 5.7 until I read a few of Valorious' posts. If the information is valid, why wouldn't you listen to it?

Case in point, folks were initially resistant to change from the M14 to the M16. Who the hell wants a plastic gun and smaller caliber when they can get a rugged, all wood and metal rifle like the M14 chambered in the larger .30 cal? I don't think they could've predicted the how widely popular the AR platform would become.

[arjohnson]

The MPA5700SST is on the market now. Bud's has them for $579.00

The ammo is made by Fiocchi (SS197SR), FN (SS195, SS190, SS198), Federal (American Eagle 40gr TMJ), Elite (various loads), Clark Custom ammo (various loads), DAS (various loads), and a few other small specialty companies.


You are trying very, very hard not to see the obvious advantages of the 5.7mm.



The ONLY quantifiable disadvantage i can see is that 5.7mm is expensive.

Compared to the 2 listed by the op there is no advantage, consider cost of mags, ammo, guns, and availability of all and the clear choice is AR in 5.56 first, AK in 7.62x39 second.