PDA

View Full Version : 5.56 vs 7.62


leoffensive
10-12-2011, 9:16 PM
i posted this video earlier but was pulled off for language so i asked my friend to edit out the vulgar language and re upload it because it shows some interesting results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7zzPkzVbM&feature=feedu

five.five-six
10-12-2011, 9:18 PM
ch7zzPkzVbM

five.five-six
10-12-2011, 9:20 PM
just one question, since when have phone books been made of human flesh :confused:

leoffensive
10-12-2011, 9:24 PM
just one question, since when have phone books been made of human flesh :confused:

cmon now some of us are poor folk and cant afford ballistics jel. nah its actually pretty comparable to flash as far as consistency. btw thanks for embedding the video sir.

bob7122
10-12-2011, 9:30 PM
7.62x39 FTW, because shooting twice is just silly...

bigbob76
10-12-2011, 9:54 PM
Even better, turn cover into concealment with 7.62x51.

mlevans66
10-12-2011, 10:44 PM
Interesting, thanks for the quick info. :thumbsup:

Richard Erichsen
10-13-2011, 9:20 AM
just one question, since when have phone books been made of human flesh :confused:

That was as unscientific a test as I've seen, though it's been replicated all over the net for years.

The condemnation of their "ballistic medium" notwithstanding, there is also a lack of specificity on such things as ammunition type being tested. Why is "7.62x39" sufficient but he felt compelled to refer to the 5.56x45 mm as "193" (M193 I presume?).

For an objective test identical weapons should be used chambered in each caliber and tested at various distances from a few meters to several hundred. Similarly constructed ammunition in each caliber should be utilized for the testing. Target angle is also a significant issue, rarely do targets present a full frontal silhouette and as some real-world trauma studies have shown, this can make a significant difference due to the structures and dimensions encountered by a bullet upon impact.

Bullets of a specific weight, velocity and construction behave differently from one another even in the same caliber. Averages across several tests should be used to smooth out anomalous results (manufacturing or testing inconsistencies).

Ballistic gelatin, albeit a "better" substitute than wet newspaper, doesn't behave identically to animal tissues because unlike a block of 10% gelatin, real animals have bones, cartilage, sinews and differing densities and thicknesses of muscle, fat, organs (the liver is fairly stiff while the lungs are quite soft) and in the case of a person, clothing. Bullets do strange things in real tissue, passing through protective gear, clothing and so on that they do not seem to manifest in homogenous anatomically incorrect substitutes.

Take this type of testing with a big grain of salt. Even if the unscientific 7 yard test were repeated at a distance of 100 yards and then 250 yards, the results would differ substantially but I doubt the fearless tester involved would necessarily understand why.

R

pacifico23
10-13-2011, 9:30 AM
I had a carpenter do some work on my place a few months back. He was ex navy. He started talking and he said he had a medical discharge and he was wounded in Iraq. I was very curious but didnt pry, but he told me about it after a bit more of talking.

He was hit in the shoulder with a 7.62x39 ak round. It completely shattered his shoulder, collar bone, and severed the bone almost in half at the arm coming to the shoulder. And yes, I asked if it hurt. He said no cause it was complete and udder shock when it happened. He cannot raise his arm above neck height anymore, and like 5 or 6 years later still goes to rehab for it. I would say that is pretty devastating tot he human body. Video is fud, bunch of wet newspapers....

bloodhawke83
10-13-2011, 9:32 AM
stupid, he should have used more wet phone books to see how far the penetration is.

ChrisO
10-13-2011, 9:50 AM
I think it's funny how the guy says "I'm sick of you're modern warfare 2 never shot anybody s***" Whats this guys guys credentials other than looking like a tactical hipster version of wheres waldo? When has he ever had to use a firearm in a defensive matter?

Take this for what it's worth as I am no doctor but working as a EMT I have seen quite a few wounds from 5.56 (99% of of these shots coming from a patrol rifle) and 7.62x39 (pretty popular round around here seems to most often come from a gang bangers sks)
I have not been able to notice much of a difference in wound profile besides the fact that I have seen more through and throughs with 7.62. What I have noticed is sometimes the rounds act differently. I have seen shots go through and through and patient be fine and I have seen shots with 5.56 blow a exit wound through someones back like no ones business. Also a lot of shots with 5.56 resulted in uncontrollable hemorrhage and shock and eventually death, If they were not already dead from immediate organ disruption like a shot to the heart or such. I usually give this to better shot placement but 5.56 is no slouch and a nasty little round. I would definitely trust my life to it any day.

NorCalK9.com
10-13-2011, 11:56 AM
Now use 545x39 and compare that too! Btw ak is super tacticool!

Richard Erichsen
10-13-2011, 12:00 PM
I had a carpenter do some work on my place a few months back. He was ex navy. He started talking and he said he had a medical discharge and he was wounded in Iraq. I was very curious but didnt pry, but he told me about it after a bit more of talking.

He was hit in the shoulder with a 7.62x39 ak round. It completely shattered his shoulder, collar bone, and severed the bone almost in half at the arm coming to the shoulder. And yes, I asked if it hurt. He said no cause it was complete and udder shock when it happened. He cannot raise his arm above neck height anymore, and like 5 or 6 years later still goes to rehab for it. I would say that is pretty devastating tot he human body. Video is fud, bunch of wet newspapers....

That's terrible. Way too many wounded vets from that particular campaign and they are going to need help (our help, collectively) for years, if not the rest of their lives.

Any hit that strikes bone can be a real mess - even FMJ can cause significant wounds when a shoulder blade is struck as the above injury seem to support. The connective tissue and nerves are often damaged with these kinds of hits against shoulder blade/collar bone/shoulder socket as it sounds like was the case with this poor fellow. Truly awful.

The majority of the standard issue ballistic armor stops just short of this area or provides limited protection here. I suppose there is always a weight/cost/probability argument to be made about giving our troops better and more complete protection, but it still sickens me to hear these stories.

R

ns3v3n
10-13-2011, 12:56 PM
I'm sure that camel bag helped his tests with the two different rounds.:facepalm:

Richard Erichsen
10-13-2011, 6:35 PM
I'm sure that camel bag helped his tests with the two different rounds.:facepalm:

That was the clincher for me - a big gulp on a shooting bench would have been more appropriate. The greatest strength of the I-net in general and Youtube specifically is that anyone can record and upload anything (that doesn't violate the terms of service anyway) even if its complete nonsense. The gems among the swine crap is what makes it great.

R

Code7inOaktown
10-13-2011, 7:23 PM
i posted this video earlier but was pulled off for language so i asked my friend to edit out the vulgar language and re upload it because it shows some interesting results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7zzPkzVbM&feature=feedu

I sometimes wonder what the point is. People will simply belive what they want even if it is disproven right in their face.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

captbilly
10-13-2011, 7:35 PM
I am a scientist, so I am in a position to judge, and all kidding included, the test was completely scientific. Obviously though the statistical significance of one shot of each cartridge is extremely low. In addition, even with enough shots, the only conclusion a scientist could make when shooting at a particular medium is what will happen when shooting that medium. If someone else did some tests that compared wet newspaper with a medium that you were more interested in, like deer or an engine block, then you might be able to make some predictions based on wet newspaper. The problem with trying to make comparisons from a homogeneous material, like wet newspaper, to an non-homogeneous material, like deer, or an engine block, is that the damage done in the non-homogeneous material is going to be highly dependent on exactly where the shot hits, while the homogeneous material will not be placement dependent (unless you get near an edge). Even when comparing two cartridges in the same homogeneous material there will be differences in damage depending on velocity. For example, the 5.56 might do more damage at close range, where it is traveling much faster, while the 7.62x39 may do more relative damage at long range.

I do know that I once shot a 5.56 though the engine block of a tractor (didn't think it would do it, and another time I accidentally (sort of) shot a crow at several hundred yards with an iron sighted mini-14 5.56, and the crow exploded into a 5 foot ball of crow dust. I say the shot was accidental, not because I didn't realize the gun was loaded, but because I thought there was no way I would make the shot. I am almost certain that I could never do it again (I didn't know the range, the mini-14 isn't capable of the level of accuracy needed, the iron sights on the Mini-14 weren't very good, I knew next to nothing about the external ballistics of the 5.56 out of a mini-14, I made no compensation for wind) without a rangefinder, scope, much better ammo then I used originally, a ballistics chart, and a good rest.

ZombieTactics
10-13-2011, 7:37 PM
Well, that's 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

ZombieTactics
10-13-2011, 9:26 PM
I am a scientist, so I am in a position to judge, and all kidding included, the test was completely scientific. ...
The test was not even close to scientific in multiple ways.

To even approach any kind of scientific validity, in the initial conditions need to be identical for both shots. You can't shoot the medium (thereby altering the condition) and then shoot the same medium. You'd need to prep two identical phone books and shoot each one separately.

Further, without a device to guarantee identical trajectories, that's an unaccounted for variable between the two shots. Since yaw is affected by trajectory and angle of insertion this renders the test meaningless.

The fact that he only did the "test" once avoids any attempt at demonstrating a basic principle of scientific experimentation: repeat-ability.

This "test" violates even the most rudimentary standards of scientific metrology.

motorwerks
10-13-2011, 10:32 PM
I found waldo....

ns3v3n
10-14-2011, 1:39 PM
I do know that I once shot a 5.56 though the engine block of a tractor (didn't think it would do it, and another time I accidentally (sort of) shot a crow at several hundred yards with an iron sighted mini-14 5.56, and the crow exploded into a 5 foot ball of crow dust. I say the shot was accidental, not because I didn't realize the gun was loaded, but because I thought there was no way I would make the shot. I am almost certain that I could never do it again (I didn't know the range, the mini-14 isn't capable of the level of accuracy needed, the iron sights on the Mini-14 weren't very good, I knew next to nothing about the external ballistics of the 5.56 out of a mini-14, I made no compensation for wind) without a rangefinder, scope, much better ammo then I used originally, a ballistics chart, and a good rest.

Now you know why they say to treat all firearms like they are loaded??? hehehe Just yanking your chain there.

Kingpin.SC
10-14-2011, 1:50 PM
The test was not even close to scientific in multiple ways.

To even approach any kind of scientific validity, in the initial conditions need to be identical for both shots. You can't shoot the medium (thereby altering the condition) and then shoot the same medium. You'd need to prep two identical phone books and shoot each one separately.

Further, without a device to guarantee identical trajectories, that's an unaccounted for variable between the two shots. Since yaw is affected by trajectory and angle of insertion this renders the test meaningless.

The fact that he only did the "test" once avoids any attempt at demonstrating a basic principle of scientific experimentation: repeat-ability.

This "test" violates even the most rudimentary standards of scientific metrology.

:iagree:

However, that guy had me cracking up. If nothing else, the video was mildly entertaining. :D

starsnuffer
10-14-2011, 2:30 PM
The US has been using 5.56 for decades, and despite the fact that the US has not actually won any wars since adopting the round, it seems to serve pretty well.

FWIW, while the Soviet Union also never won a war utilizing 7.62x39, there were many civil wars fought using the cartridge (usually against spearchuckers and bows and arrows, but still) and won.

-W

Cali-Shooter
10-14-2011, 2:34 PM
Can't decide on whether you should have 5.56 or 7.62x39? Be like me and have both...

I also got 5.45 and .30 carbine in the mix, to make things interesting.

Munny$hot
10-14-2011, 2:42 PM
5.56 is devastating if it's with in its fragmentation range. Both the M193 and M855 have a different nominal range while the 7.62 x 39 is more consistent with it's cavitation through it's effective distance. In a multi role rig I think the 7.62 x 39 is a better choice while the M193 is excellent for more of an urban environment 0-150 yards and the M855 is suited for longer distance shots 100-300 yards. Best thing is to set up for your specific scenario. Back to old debate which is better 5.56 or 7.62 ? is all up to you. Are you willing to carry less ammo, but have a harder punching round, or max out on ammo and fight within your max effectiveness.

ns3v3n
10-14-2011, 3:21 PM
I was bored at work so here, found these on youtube,

7.62x39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGrq1oP37LI&feature=related

556
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBqjAyhs56M

and lastly

http://www.youtube.com/user/14oct2011?x=2&v=TKS1LPQ6D2Y&feature=pyv&ad=9459291422&kw=5566

Dark Mod
10-14-2011, 3:27 PM
So what i gathered from watching this video is a 5.56 will kill you, and so will a 7.62 but with a larger hole.

I dont know about you guys but for me dead is dead, i dont care how gory the body looks

zcktomcat
10-14-2011, 5:10 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fammo.ar15.com%2Fproject%2FFackler _Articles%2Fwounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf&ei=Rc6YTuSWFYLliAKs8dSqDQ&usg=AFQjCNEZDIUtuT4JDJqf2zQvxUimo5ATww&sig2=0wMzN_Vllh_n-HTSL3cHZg

that's a pdf for a research paper that more or less agrees with his conclusions. Though the fragmentation is velocity dependent. At longer ranges for it to be less of a factor the 7.62x39 is also dropping like a rock

captbilly
10-14-2011, 5:27 PM
The test was not even close to scientific in multiple ways.

To even approach any kind of scientific validity, in the initial conditions need to be identical for both shots. You can't shoot the medium (thereby altering the condition) and then shoot the same medium. You'd need to prep two identical phone books and shoot each one separately.

Further, without a device to guarantee identical trajectories, that's an unaccounted for variable between the two shots. Since yaw is affected by trajectory and angle of insertion this renders the test meaningless.

The fact that he only did the "test" once avoids any attempt at demonstrating a basic principle of scientific experimentation: repeat-ability.

This "test" violates even the most rudimentary standards of scientific metrology.

I am actually a scientist, but the rest of the post was meant to be sarcastic.

Mamluke
10-14-2011, 5:43 PM
:beatdeadhorse5:

Dead is dead, better with less lead!

dieselpower
10-14-2011, 5:46 PM
I have done this test with a dead deer... specifically the rib cage area... with organs still in. @ 50 yards 5.56 wins hands down.

Go buy a pig and test it yourself. Dress it up in taci-cool gear and blast it from varying distances. You will see for yourself.

I love when the AK guys point at shattering brick as a demonstration of the superiority of the 7.62X39, yet cry foul at wet phonebooks... LOL

1lostinspace
10-14-2011, 5:55 PM
Oh man this again! M193 at point black with yaw and frag. As long as it's going over 2800 fps it will not hold together. 7.62x39 will go in and out and not have enough time to yaw so is less lethal up close but further out past 100-150 yards the 7.62 is more lethal then 5.56mm so point of the story is up close 5.56 is nasty but if you want to really make a mess use 7.62x39 SP or better yet BT. So they both have benefits and draw backs. 5.56 is lite and very nasty up close 7.62 weighs more and penetrates better.

Richard Erichsen
10-14-2011, 8:25 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fammo.ar15.com%2Fproject%2FFackler _Articles%2Fwounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf&ei=Rc6YTuSWFYLliAKs8dSqDQ&usg=AFQjCNEZDIUtuT4JDJqf2zQvxUimo5ATww&sig2=0wMzN_Vllh_n-HTSL3cHZg

that's a pdf for a research paper that more or less agrees with his conclusions. Though the fragmentation is velocity dependent. At longer ranges for it to be less of a factor the 7.62x39 is also dropping like a rock

Dr. M.L. Fackler's work was THE authoritative treatise on Soviet and NATO standardized ammunition and it's effects on tissue using anesthetized pigs and goats, studies of injuries caused by wounds suffered during the Vietnam War by the common small arms calibers, all this in addition to the more typical gelatin testing. It's getting a bit dated though and new studies have been conducted since, particularly by the FBI and various military branches which include much more modern loadings. At the time of Fackler's study, the second generation 7.62x39 mm round (Yugo M67/8M2 lead core/flat base), second generation 5.56x45 mm round (M855/SS109 light armor piercing "green tip") and second generation 5.45x39 mm was current issue (7N6).

In later studies, including those from Dr. Roberts (Gary K Roberts), included such rounds as the 7.62x39 mm 8M3 (Uly Sapsan "effect" bullet), domestic and Eastern European HP and JSP and the unique polymer tipped SST and Vmax were evaluated. The 8M3, a standardized late Soviet era loading, was shown to be prone to early yaw and fragmentation within fewer than 3 inches of penetration when sufficient impact velocity was present but behaved similarly to 8M2/M67 otherwise (both are more disruptive to tissues than the original, obsolete M43 boat-tailed steel core round).

Commercial ammo like the Hornady VMAX (effectively no longer produced, but available from Grafs and Sons) and the somewhat heavier built Hornady SST (more commonly available) have been shown to be particularly prone to early upset and fragmentation within as few as 2" where sufficient impact velocity is present, typical of fragile "varmint" bullets. Hornady SST and VMAX are not standard ammunition used by any military or police units and are obviously a lot more costly than the surplus M43 and M67 most folks are familiar with. Sapsan 8M3 ammunition is also not nearly as common as the various M67 and clone M67 loadings, though can be had from Russian ammunition manufacturers under any of several names (Ulyanovsk is often rebadged 124 grain HP sold as "Wolf Military Classic" or as "Silver Bear" with "8M3 effect" or similar if vague indicators on the package).

Even "hunting rounds" (mostly jacketed soft points) tend to outperform the FMJ M43 and M67 rounds in terminal performance. For example, the Winchester 123 gr JSP and the Lapua 125 gr JSP. See link below.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#7.62x39

When anecdotal comparisons are made between 5.56x45 mm and 7.62x39 mm projectiles are made, the more modern loadings for the 7.62x39 mm are often omitted entirely, though 8M3, or domestic frangible rounds like Hornady's SST can create wound profiles that can closely resemble those of M193 and many LE OTM/HP loadings at similar ranges.

What 7.62x39 mm provides is that even when velocities are insufficient for reliable fragmentation, the larger, heavier projectile still yaws similarly to that of the M67/8M2 and leaves a larger wound track. It is less dependent on velocity to perform adequately and generally more suitable to shorter barreled weapons. This is much of the same logic behind SOCOMs motivation for the 6.8mm SPC/Remington 110 grain loadings that fairly consistently outperforms 5.56x45 M855/M855A1. Review the following works:

"Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer", A Monograph By Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, United States Army

For stickies of Dr Roberts terminal ballistic studies, see the link below.
http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

If there is anything to be learned, it is that shot placement is the only guarantee of quickly disabling an opponent. No bullet, no matter how well designed always does what it is supposed to do even when velocity, angle and other variables would seem to promote optimal behavior. It also doesn't help if you miss your objective completely (read up on the 25 yard "battle zero" and problems found with that procedure).

R

plumbum
10-14-2011, 11:32 PM
Being a civilian, I load my guns with expanding ammunition; Geneva never asked me to do otherwise.



YouTube is always better with a beer or two.

schneiderguy
10-14-2011, 11:48 PM
The US has been using 5.56 for decades, and despite the fact that the US has not actually won any wars since adopting the round, it seems to serve pretty well.



We didn't win the Gulf War?

We've kicked the crap out of every conventional army we've faced off since the M16 was adopted. Decisions made for political reasons and insurgencies are to blame for any "losing" we've done in the last 40 years.

elSquid
10-15-2011, 3:04 AM
(shrug) I thought everyone knew that the correct youtube ballistic medium was milk jugs full of water?

SCZbElMWIpQ

D-kTlnhsa2Q

Oh, it's just as scientific, and it has the added bonus of making me grin. :D

-- Michael

leoffensive
11-07-2011, 10:45 AM
bump 4 da lulz

dieselpower
11-07-2011, 10:58 AM
We didn't win the Gulf War?

We've kicked the crap out of every conventional army we've faced off since the M16 was adopted. Decisions made for political reasons and insurgencies are to blame for any "losing" we've done in the last 40 years.

if you think we won the Gulf war then The 13 colonies lost to Britain...:facepalm: Britain pulled out for political reasons and figured it would come back in a few years to clean up the "insurgency" from France. It never did due to other political reasons.

NorCalK9.com
11-07-2011, 11:27 AM
Cmon who brought this thread back? 556 has its plus's, 762x39 has its plus's, and so does every other military round. From top to bottom i'd take
545x39 from AK
762x39 from ak
556x45 from ar or ak.

pacifico23
11-07-2011, 11:34 AM
Lets say you had to choose one based off living in a complete urban area? Which would you choose? .556 a lil more deadly closer quarters.. but 7.62 goes through walls easier... Me getting a 7.62 saiga has really made me start to rethink the 7.62 vs .556 debate in regards to where I live and my surroundings.



:shrug:

Richard Erichsen
11-07-2011, 12:07 PM
Lets say you had to choose one based off living in a complete urban area? Which would you choose? .556 a lil more deadly closer quarters.. but 7.62 goes through walls easier... Me getting a 7.62 saiga has really made me start to rethink the 7.62 vs .556 debate in regards to where I live and my surroundings.



:shrug:

There are heavy loadings of 5.56x45 mm with bonded core/jacket that hold together pretty well through barriers and there are light loadings of 7.62x39 mm (108 grain Barnes X Bullet) that open up and break apart after passing through a few wall boards. There is no good generalization unless you have very specific military loads you want to characterize and compare (M193 for 5.56x45 to M67 in 7.62x39 mm).

Even though many AK users buy whatever is the cheapest at the time and most of this tends to be "M67" of one kind or another, a lot of time has passed since that round was considered state of the art and many newer loadings are available from both domestic and Russian sources.

There are already well over a dozen loadings being used by, or under consideration of the military that have been in use for some time by domestic law enforcement in the 5.56x45 mm loads.

The point is with proper bullet selection the 5.56x45 mm platforms can be made to be good penetrators, while the 7.62x39 mm platforms can be made to be good stoppers with reduced propensity to overpenetrate the target.

The 7.62x39 mm is larger and heavier than 5.56x45 mm, which is why even the Soviets researched and later adopted a small bore standard rifle and caliber of their own in the 5.45x39 mm. This includes loadings such as the 5N7, 7N6-7N24, etc which did little to increase wounding or lethality but did increase maximum effective range and significantly reduced the weight of 260 rounds of ammunition. A soldier could carry more ammo for the same weight to tote around which on full automatic could mean the difference between running dry or having a few extra magazines available.

where the 7.62x39 mm weapon will have an advantage is in very short barreled weapons (<10") if using a conventional layout, though you can accomplish the same thing with bullpup configuration on a somewhat longer barrel to achieve the same or slightly shorter OAL in the case of a 5.56x45 mm weapon. 5.45x39 mm is slightly less velocity dependent than 5.56x45 due to higher BC bullets that lose less velocity over distance, but it's a wash for the longer, more streamlined 77 grain OTM rounds.

R

zfields
11-07-2011, 12:39 PM
R

Your giving me more and more justification to SBR my AK, while explaining it to the lady why.

Me
"But honey, its ment to preform better at shorter barrel lengths!"
Her
"I have no idea what your talking about, but no. "

Nathan Krynn
11-07-2011, 12:50 PM
R

Your giving me more and more justification to SBR my AK, while explaining it to the lady why.

Me
"But honey, its ment to preform better at shorter barrel lengths!"
Her
"I have no idea what your talking about, but no. "

I have had this exact talk, except my wife knew exactly what I was talking about and knew it meant another stamp and $200. It was on a 6.8 for hunting.

Same answer, but she gave a longer delivery speech then a simple no.

zfields
11-07-2011, 12:54 PM
I have had this exact talk, except my wife knew exactly what I was talking about and knew it meant another stamp and $200. It was on a 6.8 for hunting.

Same answer, but she gave a longer delivery speech then a simple no.


She doesnt even know about the stamp cost, just the money the smith would charge.