PDA

View Full Version : Am I Alone?


dfletcher
09-28-2009, 9:07 PM
In liking the AR in 7.62X39 better than the 5.56 version? I used both over the weekend, basically the same set up - 16" or so barrel and just paper punching for fun. The X39 functioned perfectly and it seems to have just a crisper, snappier feel in the larger caliber. My X39 has a DNTC brake on it that makes the gun have a good kick, not much though.

I have some C Product 10 round and 30 round mags (in OR) and each works great.

I do think the 5.56 is better out of a target type AR, but for general shooting I'm kind of liking the X39 better. Anyone else?

reidnez
09-28-2009, 9:14 PM
It's personal preference, really. For paper-punching duties at moderate range, caliber is not that critical.

I'm just a fuddy-duddy who likes his guns in the caliber they were designed for.

swerv512
09-28-2009, 9:34 PM
AK round is just about better no matter what category you're comparing the two in... 5.56 is just plain ol' retro-cool. ask the troops what round they'd rather have...

Mr.Poopypants
09-28-2009, 9:38 PM
AK round is just about better no matter what category you're comparing the two in... 5.56 is just plain ol' retro-cool. ask the troops what round they'd rather have...

I'm a "troop" and I like 5.56 better than 7.62. Iraqis were using 7.62 and it didn't seem to help them a whole lot.

Of course, I've never seen combat, but it appears as though the 5.56 is doing rather well on the battlefield. Bigger is better when it comes to engine displacement, but not always when it comes to round choice.

Just my opinion, though. I'll let combat vets chime in with their preferences.

CRTguns
09-28-2009, 9:40 PM
You're not alone... except that you may be higher thinking and more practical and reasonable than most AR guys. I try and sell them all the time- they have so much power- cheaper than 223- same relative distance, acceptable accuracy and offer more uses than a 223 version. So yeah- go '39.

sevensix2x51
09-28-2009, 9:41 PM
i like the ar in 5.56. but thats only because i like 308, and feel like the sks round is kind of a cop-out... if i wanted sks ballistics, id probably buy a lever action in 30-30... personal opinion only...

1988
09-28-2009, 9:45 PM
I do think the 5.56 is better out of a target type AR, but for general shooting I'm kind of liking the X39 better. Anyone else?

x39 is fun for plinking. It's more lively. However, when it comes to target, I'd prefer the 5.56, specially with OTM ammo.

Major Pal
09-28-2009, 10:50 PM
The .556 is a really accurat round that is good for target shooting. If you want a 7.62 to have a little more pop for plinking get a AK they are cheaper and are made to beat the hell out of. Thats the only reason I built one was to keep my AR nice and take out the AK as a slut gun when camping or just plinking on blm land. But this is just my opinon.

SuperSet
09-28-2009, 10:56 PM
The problem with an AR chambered in 762x39 has always been reliable magazines. I had one a few years ago and it was a Model 1 POS.

KAVEMAN762
09-28-2009, 11:12 PM
I like the 7.62x39 for closer than 100yds. Down range Id rather have a 5.56x45 rifle, preferably for anything past a hundred yards. I would love to have heavier than 55gr though and a different barrel twist

dfletcher
09-28-2009, 11:14 PM
The problem with an AR chambered in 762x39 has always been reliable magazines. I had one a few years ago and it was a Model 1 POS.

I've got no idea which brand my X39 upper is and I've bought a few truly crappy mags, but the CProducts mags seem to be the best and don't cost all that much. The only down side I noticed is the Lula loader for the 5.56 doesn't work with the tapered X39 case & 30 round X39 mags are a pain to load.

If there's such a thing as inherently accurate maybe the 5.56 has it & the X39may not, might be worth picking up a T/C Encore barrel to test it out.

I guess each round has its benefits, I used the 5.56 in the military. But I just feel more comfortable with a heavier 30 caliber bullet and all in all, enjoy shooting it more out of the AR platform.

Jpach
09-29-2009, 11:35 AM
You know what, I used to think that the 5.56 sucked and the whole fragmenting thing was just BS because of all the crap that has been going around about it sucking in the middle east.

If 5.56 ball and 7.62x39 wolf HP perform on humans even relatively close to how they perform on rabbits, I would choose the 5.56. I shot one with regular FMJ and the rabbit basically exploded. I shot another with 7.62x39 hollow points and it didnt result in a crazy rabbit blood-intestine-liver explosion like the .223. X39 definitely has its place though.

JTROKS
09-29-2009, 11:47 AM
I'd rather use the heavy 5.56 rounds if given the choice I'd rather have a 20" upper than a 14.5" M4 upper. I thought the Marines had the right idea when I saw most of them toting M16A2s during the staging process in Kuwait prior to OIF. Better lallistics so they can reach out further... Turns out hey just didn't have the money to upgrade to the M4s.

mls343
09-29-2009, 12:00 PM
Just my $0.02, but I'll take an AR in the 5.56/.223 as that is the round it is designed for (Yes, I know, the original Stoner design was .308...). It shoots good and works well.

As for the 7.62x39, I'll shoot that all day in my SKS.

For me, I'll just shoot both of the rifles with the rounds they were designed around and not worry about messing with things that already work great!

Have fun with yours, though!

Bizcuits
09-29-2009, 1:30 PM
.223/5.56 weighs less, which means more ammo. nuff said

swerv512
09-29-2009, 1:54 PM
the only time i'd take the 5.56/.223 is for long range accuarcy.... otherwise, i'll take the AK round (out of an AK-not an AR of course...)

AlliedArmory
09-29-2009, 2:40 PM
I would rather use the rounds the rifles were designed for.

I have an AK and AR and base my decision on shooting both

Seesm
09-29-2009, 6:12 PM
The 5.56 was a well thought out bullet in the AR I think...

Lighter to be able to carry more ammo and the pinball effect...

For pure power the 39 is better, but I choose the .223/5.56 for all my needs.

Flying Bones
09-29-2009, 6:20 PM
556 is the best caliber EVAH!

At least, that's what I answered on my mall ninja survey...I was only an 86 or something.

Seriously though, my friend at work (history buff) swears the 556 was designed to wound, not kill the enemy, because it takes more resources to care for the wounded. Any of you history buffs have something to say about that?

Jpach
09-30-2009, 11:48 PM
Flying bones, personally I do not believe that the whole 5.56 wounding story to be true. It just doesnt make sense. Why would we give our soldiers weapons that are designed to simply wound when we are being shot at by bullets that kill? Actually, all bullets will kill-that solves that one I guess.

Yes, wounding someone would eventually create a need for that person to be treated, but I dont think the other ***hole countries that we fight against give their wounded serious priority like the US does.

Wounded people can also still fight. Adrenaline is a powerful thing, and so are other drugs that our opponents have been known to use in battle.

Thats just what I think. I could be completely wrong though.

Sleep time!

PS
Did you see that photo of the guy in the phillipines (sp?) that got shot in the leg with m193? It royally ****ed his **** up. Let me know if you havent, Ill give you the link. Its crazy. Ill show you what I did to a rabbit with .223 FMJ as well. Serious devistation

aplinker
09-30-2009, 11:58 PM
Most of the guys who can choose what to use still choose 5.56.

There's a huge difference between the latest 5.56 Mk262-style OTM ammo and just about anything else in the category. Shot from anything from short barreled blasters to snipers, it's good stuff.

556 is the best caliber EVAH!

At least, that's what I answered on my mall ninja survey...I was only an 86 or something.

Seriously though, my friend at work (history buff) swears the 556 was designed to wound, not kill the enemy, because it takes more resources to care for the wounded. Any of you history buffs have something to say about that?

Urban legend.

Josh3239
10-01-2009, 12:16 AM
7.62 kind of defeats the purpose of the AR15, but if you liked it you liked it. It is more expensive but have you any interest in an AR10?

PaintItBlack
10-01-2009, 12:45 AM
I'm a "troop" and I like 5.56 better than 7.62. Iraqis were using 7.62 and it didn't seem to help them a whole lot.



Perhaps its the training the US troops go though, not the caliber. Your talking about US soldiers vs a bunch of people with ak's...that's a big difference. I bet if the US trained with a M16/M4 in 7.62 x39 the conversation would be something like, ".223?... .223 on a battle field are you joking?!"

But if I had to choose a caliber and not a specific rifle that shoots it, 7.62 x39 hands down for me.

And thats my 0.02$

m98
10-01-2009, 1:32 AM
Perhaps its the training the US troops go though, not the caliber. Your talking about US soldiers vs a bunch of people with ak's...that's a big difference. I bet if the US trained with a M16/M4 in 7.62 x39 the conversation would be something like, ".223?... .223 on a battle field are you joking?!"

But if I had to choose a caliber and not a specific rifle that shoots it, 7.62 x39 hands down for me.

And thats my 0.02$

poor long range ballistics and poor accuracy......I'd rather be totin' the m249 atleast I'll be able to cover my guys out to 500. 762 is only really effective up close and like what was said above, I'd rather pull out a 30-30 lever for long range work.

m98
10-01-2009, 1:37 AM
.223/5.56 weighs less, which means more ammo. nuff said

Yes. I'd rather carry 1000rds of 556 mk262/OTM's than 500rds of 762-39. and the OTM's performs WAY better for short or long range work besides the 762-short range.

rrr70
10-01-2009, 5:23 AM
Flying bones, personally I do not believe that the whole 5.56 wounding story to be true. It just doesnt make sense. Why would we give our soldiers weapons that are designed to simply wound when we are being shot at by bullets that kill? Actually, all bullets will kill-that solves that one I guess.

Yes, wounding someone would eventually create a need for that person to be treated, but I dont think the other ***hole countries that we fight against give their wounded serious priority like the US does.

Wounded people can also still fight. Adrenaline is a powerful thing, and so are other drugs that our opponents have been known to use in battle.

Thats just what I think. I could be completely wrong though.

Sleep time!

PS
Did you see that photo of the guy in the phillipines (sp?) that got shot in the leg with m193? It royally ****ed his **** up. Let me know if you havent, Ill give you the link. Its crazy. Ill show you what I did to a rabbit with .223 FMJ as well. Serious devistation


When you kill the guy that's a ONE guy off the battlefield. When you wound the guy it takes one or two guys to get him out of there. That's a TWO or THREE guys out of firefight.