7.62x39 vs. .223

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Arguably two of the most popular ammo sies on the market today have to be the 7.62x39mm and the .223 (5.56). But is there a difinative winner in comparing the ammunition?

The .223 and the 7.62x39mm are both consitered small arms ammunition, but differ widely in the grain size of the cartriges. For instance, the following numbers:


.223

A 77 grain, blunt tip bullet has a velocity of 840 meters a second with an energy rating of 1,293 foot pounds of force.

7.62x39mm

A 123 grain, full metal jacket bullet has the velocity of 720 meter a second and an energy rating of 1,516.6 foot pound of force.

Granted, we cannot compare apples to apples completely as I do not have the velocity and energy rating of a bullet the same grain for each caliber. However, something suprising occurs in these numbers: The higher grain weight of the 7.62x39mm bullet actually travels slower than the less grain in the .223 bullet, however the force excerted by the bullets show that the larger grain does indeed impact the hardest.

These two cartridges are favored more than likely for the weapons they represent most often, the AK-47 and the M-156/AR-15.

While collaborating as to the winner of this cartridge battle, we cannot forget about price and availability. The 7.62x39mm seeing to be present everywhere and having design times in World War II, obviously is readily available. the .223 however, being favored by our mitary and others, seems to fluctuate with more regularity in price and availability.

The last aspect I'd like to bring forward, is the kick experianced when firing the seprate cartidges. The .223, having the same diameter bullet as a .22 LR, obviously kicks a lot less and regains muzzle level quicker than that of the bucking 7.62x39mm.

I have been told by someone much heavier into weapons than I (with 60 plus years of smithing knowledge) that the .223 was indeed employed by the US to give anyone the ability to use it, to get away from the heavy and bucking M1 Grands so that more soldiers would be comfortable when firing the weapon. This seems to be true, remembering back to the first time I fired both the .223 and the 7.62x39mm respectivly. Ease of usage might not be a bad aspet to add to the comparison.

Unknown to me, and some information that I hope to gain in this post, is the splay or tumbling effect that each cartridge possesses.

So there you have it folks... Let see what cartridge wins the battle of what could be the best military small arms cartridge. And please, do not vote in favor of the weapon firing it (saying the AK looks so much cooler than the M4).

Thank you for your input, posting and of course... Your time!
edit on 21-12-2010 by Jkd Up because: My English teacher would be ashamed...




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I think it's an issue of range. Within 300 yards or so 5.56 would be better for more people. Less recoil and more accuracy. Beyond that range the 7.62x39 would be more effective in the right hands with the right weapon because a lot of those 7.62x39 weapons are lousy shooters unless you get a nice 7.62x39 AR upper or something. But if you're shooting that far you may as well be doing it with a 7.62 NATO and know you'll have the accuracy to hit at that range effectively.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I go for the .223 cause that's the lighter one so you can carry more rounds.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The problem with comparing these rounds is that you usually end up comparing guns. The m16 has greater accuracy mostly due to its superior sights for example. Ideally to compare these bullets you need to have 2 guns identical except for the bullets and test those.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

.223 Rem. (45 SpHP) 3550 2430 1259 590
.223 Rem. (50 SpHP) 3300 2450 1210 670
.223 Rem. (55 Sp) 3240 2304 1282 648
.223 Rem. (64 Sp) 3090 2312 1357 760



7.62x39 (125 Sp) 2365 1783 1552 882


source: www.chuckhawks.com...

Also this link: www.chuckhawks.com...
has a good table on ballistics of all ammo at 100 yrd, 200yrd's and so on.

It has been wide speculation that the 7.62x39 round is very similar in the 30-30. Though the 7.62 has no need for " snub " nose tips, the pointed tips on the 7.62 will allow for longer shots down range.


It actually comes down to personal preference. In most cases the 7.62 will have more stopping power, and longer range. And since the seemingly flat trajectory allows its use to be " well rounded". Not to mention afford ability.

The 223 on the other hand, has a flat trajectory, limited recoil, and decent distances. But the round will begin to " tumble " relatively quickly. Once its distance has been reached, the velocity falls off making it difficult to really reach out and touch someone. But then again, what type of ammo doesn't " tumble".

So once again your back to preference. I for one am a believer of the 7.62. I have a Romanian Ak-47 slightly modified for CQB, and can change out the barrel for longer range. Some will argue till their blue in face that 223 is better. But it depends on the trigger man.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Here are some ballistics on each:

.223: www.rifleshootermag.com...

7.62x39: www.rifleshootermag.com...

Keep in mind you're comparing a .22 caliber round to a .30 caliber round. If I'm going to use a .30 caliber round, my preference is the .308.

.308: www.rifleshootermag.com...

If you reload ammo, the 7.62x39 is substantially more difficult since most of the ammo is berdan primed in steel cases from Russia. You'd have to get brass cased ammo which I personally have never seen...not that I've really looked.

Both .223 and .308 are easily reloaded with multiple bullet weights/types available. While they use a different primer, they can use the same powder which helps in cost savings when reloading. I use IMR 3031.

I'm not knocking the 7.62x39 for what it can do but look at it from a longer term perspective of availability as well as my ability to reload it should that become necessary rather than something I do as a hobby.
edit on 21-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
good debate since the inception of both rounds. AK round is a good round, so is 5.56. The common concensus seems to be that a 7.62 round has less long distance range than 5.56. Ive have reguarly shot out to 400m with the 5.56 and you would be hard pressed to do that with the 7.62x39- not to say you cant, but the round becomes unstable at those ranges. The 77gr 5.56 has been reported to be just what the black rifle needed as far as takedown power goes. they are both good tools and one should just use the right tool for the job



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The problem with comparing these rounds is that you usually end up comparing guns. The m16 has greater accuracy mostly due to its superior sights for example. Ideally to compare these bullets you need to have 2 guns identical except for the bullets and test those.


The 7.62x39mm is available in an AR format, so this is a posability.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by inbound
 


Gat post! Thank you! Why is it the higher grained 7.62 round does not fly as far? Is it due to the weight of the bullet?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   


The 7.62x39mm is available in an AR format, so this is a posability.


IMO, that would defeat the purpose of using 7.62x39. A high quality AK will shoot accurately to 300+m and is a more reliable weapon than the AR.

I have two AR-15s and an AR-10. The ARs will reach out and touch but can be pretty finicky about the quality of the ammo you run through them.

Saiga makes some very nice rifles based on the AK platform that have been shown to be very accurate at very reasonable prices.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Some like to argue stating that the Ak-47 7.62x39 isnt accurate after 100 yards. Where they come up with this nonsense is beyond me? I have accurately shot up to 400 yards, 5 rounds with 2 inch spread? So I think this is more of a debate about personal preference.
Theres alot of people I know that are AR fans, and can't stand AK's, knowing full well that the AK is a more reliable, and structurally sound weapon. Trying throwing your AR into a mud pit and firing thereafter.
Not gonna happen, where as the AK can take a beating and keep on firing!



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Another area to look at is penetration properties, such as say a car door. Everything I have heard so far says the 7.62 chews through most unarmored car doors with little effort and still has enough energy to be fatal to occupants inside the passenger area. How a bullet performs in brush is also important as from a hunting perspective some rounds can push through brush and keep going or get decimated at first non-target contact and be useless.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Remember the 5.56 military round is different to the regular .223
Hey Bozzchem im a SOL fan and Iced Earth. keep the Faith Brother
edit on 21-12-2010 by KingArthur because: added to comment



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


I as well am unsure as to why they have an AR platform in a 7.62x39mm... However, it is readily available...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


Because there are those who prefer the 7.62 round over the 223. They just want it on their AR platform. Which would further suggest my previous comments on the dependability of the 7.62 round. The only reason the AK doesn't reach the ranges like an M16 would, or a AR platform using the 7.62, has to do with the rifling within the AK barrel. It doesn't create enough spin to reach the distances that a AR would using the same load.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up
reply to post by bozzchem
 


I as well am unsure as to why they have an AR platform in a 7.62x39mm... However, it is readily available...


It's just a matter of swapping out the upper.

I could go through a list of upper calibers that can be swapped onto an AR15 lower.

If I'm going to shoot 7.62x39, I'm going to get a high quality AK that I have no doubt will perform admirably for any purpose I would use it for. I don't worry about shooting out to 400m since if I were defending my property, I don't have an unwooded line of sight in that range.

My bug in rifle is my AR-10 for the .30 cal knockdown power. My bug out rifle is my AR-15 since I can carry 1000 rounds while still having decent knockdown power with proper shot placement and the range should it be required.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


environment plays a huge role in choice.

in an indoor, moisture, sand, dirt free atmosphere choose the .223

any environment outdoors where debris moisture or dirt contact the weapon go with 7.62x39

murphy's law HAS kicked in MANY times causing death to the soul with the jammed m-16/ar-15...

anyone who relies on these garbage guns is palying russian roulette.

an sks will never let you down, ice, mud or sand..



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Actually, I must admit, one of the reasons for the post was I was looking into building an AR for the missus and, myself having a few 7.62 cartridge weapons, wanted to not have to purchase another size and keep her AR with the Russian size. Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I'd like to have everyone here distinguish between the .223 Remington and the 5.56x45 military round.

A 62gr 5.56mm M855 steel core round will hit harder and fly faster than the 62gr .223 FMJ.

The 5.56 NATO round produces higher chamber pressures and the casing itself has thicker walls to deal with it. Putting 5.56 mm military ammo into a rifle chambered only for .223 could be very dangerous to you and may wear your gun down faster, or destroy it altogether. Be sure your weapons can fire both types, or that you have the proper ammo required by your weapon..

For the sake of this debate I'll assume everyone here means 5.56mm.

The debate over the 7.62x39 vs. 5.56x45 is a long standing debate. Personally, I prefer to use the ammo and equipment of the US Armed Forces. That typically means using weapons chambered in 5.56x45. From personal experience, in the right rifle, the 7.62x39 is a superior round..But not out of the AK 47 based rifles. I don't believe that rifle was ever meant to really hit anything, I think it was meant to scare the hell out of the enemy though, which it does quite well. Yes, the AK kills, but the AR kills more accurately and your hits tend to count higher than the AK platform.

If you really feel like 7.62x39 is the way for you to go, buy an AR lower receiver and a 7.62x39 upper..You will be surprised at what kind of accuracy you can get with an AR platform 7.62 weapon.
edit on 21-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


My girlfriend and I both use 5.56 AR weapons. I have a 20" and she has an m4 type carbine.
The point is to use the same ammo. Makes things easier in a hairy situation.





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join