5.56 vs 7.62

[dieselpower]

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]

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]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...lh_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]

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]

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]

(shrug) I thought everyone knew that the correct youtube ballistic medium was milk jugs full of water?





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

-- Michael

[leoffensive]

bump 4 da lulz

[dieselpower]

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... 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]

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]

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.

[Richard Erichsen]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.