It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7.62x39 vs. .223

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


ABNARTY: I never claim to have too much experiance or knowledge. I just love putting forth a discussion and seeing people like you and others take over and fill it all in for me so I can learn something... Most of my posts are started this way... I can't believe I was called out for it... Look at half the threads on ATS




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
knock down power vs. ammo capacity vs. accuracy is what it boils down to. the 5.56 doesn't have the raw knock down and sheer awesome tumbling characteristics the 7.62 has yet the 5.56 allows more ammo to be carried. there are draw backs on accuracy on both of these rounds. hence stated you can hit targets out to 600 yrds w a 5.56 yet it will look like a rainbow and have the effectiveness of a pellet gun at that distance. Yet a 7.62x39 probably wouldn't range that far even if you are milled at the moon. but if you can get the 7.62 to hit at that distance i believe it'll still have more kinetic energy than a 5.56. all of my experience has been in the theater of 7.62x39, 7.63x54, .22lr, 45acp, 50 cal bmg. My longest comfirm kill was 1743 meters w a barrett 50 cal but 98% of all my shots fired were over 600 meters at enemy combatants. I post no hard fact numbers just battle proven opinions.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Agentblue, couple questions if I may. What did you guys have for optics on the .50? Also, what were you using for ammo? I'm assuming the standard machine gun ammo wouldn't have been up to the task of long range shooting.
What kind of elevation and windage did you have to hold for that shot? That's a heck of a long way, I imagine wind drift had to be a considerable factor.
Lastly,what kind of optics did your spotter use? Always wondered what the military uses for optics in the spotter role.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


never understood how you can carry more ammo in 5.56.. wouldn't that be a variable based on numerous variables?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


I was in "the suck" at "margaritaville"...

have you ever fired the 9.3x62? that is a BadAss round. not quite a barry but smokes the -06.

my "click" switched and KAPOW thru almost any armor.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by agentblue
 


I was in "the suck" at "margaritaville"...

have you ever fired the 9.3x62? that is a BadAss round. not quite a barry but smokes the -06.

my "click" switched and KAPOW thru almost any armor.

Don't you mean "Mortaritaville"? Been a while since I've heard anyone reference that. My brother had a front row seat over there. Took a lot incoming he still has some pretty wild videos from his stay.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
This is a very interesting thread, and I agreed that the debate has been going on for a while. Personally, if I was primarily concerned with mobility and tactical movements I'd go with the 5.56 since its easier to carry more ammo and stay in the fight for longer before going empty. Also the lighter recoil is great for full auto and suppressed fire. As for stopping power, penetration, and distance the 7.62 round wins that hands down. keep in mind a vast majority of sniper platforms are chambered for the 7.62 round so its more then accurate at long range. Oh and by the way, there are new rounds being made that give the best of both worlds... 6.8mm is supposed to be very nice indeed though I don't have any of the ballistics on hand to post. Also in reference to rifles... there are Civilian semi-auto, and piston (fixes m16 blow back fouling issue) versions of better platforms for both rounds available now... I like the ACR and Scar L (official designation of scars I forgot) variants for 5.56mm and the Scar H for 7.62 looks like a beast. PS. The new Scar H has inter-changable barrels for CQB, assault rifle, and Marksman situations. ><
edit on 1/10/2011 by XxZenTruthxX because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/10/2011 by XxZenTruthxX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I think a lot of the posts say the same thing. you are pretty much comparing guns. Look how many millions of people employ the use of the AK. cheap and durable and reliable. not to mention ammo is dirt cheap. Who really cares if you fire beyond 300 i would say 99% of firefights are we below that range unless you are a sniper and you wouldn't be using AR anyway. just my input.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxZenTruthxX
keep in mind a vast majority of sniper platforms are chambered for the 7.62 round so its more then accurate at long range.


Actually very few "sniper rifles" use the 7.62x39, most of the Nato forces use the 7.62 Nato a.k.a 7.62x 51 (huge difference) a.k.a .308. Most Warsaw Pact nations use the 7.62x54 for sniper platforms the 7.62x39, 7.62x51, and 7.62x54 may share the same bullet diameter but are all quite different just to clarify.


As far as my preference for highly mobile operation I prefer the extra rounds I can carry with the 5.56 and the availability in a SHTF situation. I am also very accurate with the 5.56 and accurate follow up shots are a breeze. Shot placement is far more important than a marginal difference in energy. Now for a more defensive stationary situation I would prefer to bypass the 7.62x39 and move up to the full power 7.62x51 which is an excellent round and would also be far more common to come across in a SHTF situation in the states.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm not an expert on this, but I figure that if 7.62x39 was *that* great, the Russians wouldn't have largely dropped it in favor of the 5.45x39 round they've been using since the 70s. That's not to say that 7.62x39 isn't an effective, lethal round in it's own right.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pirep
 


If given a choice, most would not prefer the AK, or its round.

oh wait, they dont have a choice. The world is flooded with ak's because they are cheaply and easily made. There are reports that the taliban have built AK's in caves.

A world flooded with ak's leads to a world flooded with its ammo.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


...And we thank you for your battle opinions. It's one thing to have the Lab Rat opinion and perfect world explinations, but combat is where the rubber meets the road... Thanks for your input!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BigDave-AR
 


BigDave: Great post! thanks. I have a 7.62x54R and there is a WORLD of differance between the stopping power and range there. Naturally, more sniping rifles will be chambered in these sized calibers. I too have heard very few sniper rifles chambered in the 7.62x39 due to the fact that it is considered a Small Arms ammunition. Even on it's best day, the 39 has nothing near the flight and accuracy of the 54R. It's like comparing a Ford Focus to a C5R Corvette...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesquid
reply to post by pirep
 


If given a choice, most would not prefer the AK, or its round.

oh wait, they dont have a choice. The world is flooded with ak's because they are cheaply and easily made. There are reports that the taliban have built AK's in caves.

A world flooded with ak's leads to a world flooded with its ammo.



I love the AK platform. Yes, they are abundant and you next have to ask yourself... "Why" They got it right the first time. I have chewed sand with each platform (AR and AK), I fell in love with the AK the first time I fired it. There was no question. Others will argue accuracy and they have a great point, but what good is an accurate weapon that is jamming every other round in the sand? The AK platform far accels in this aspect. However, I do not want this to be an AR/AK debate. Especially considering you can get the AR in a 7.62x39 now...

Abundent rifles, abundent ammo... Cheap. Cheap. Roses... Roses!!!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesquid
 


Oh yeah... And the Taliban was supplied by the CIa during their runs with Russia... They have plenty of M-16s as well...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up
reply to post by BigDave-AR
 


BigDave: Great post! thanks. I have a 7.62x54R and there is a WORLD of differance between the stopping power and range there. Naturally, more sniping rifles will be chambered in these sized calibers. I too have heard very few sniper rifles chambered in the 7.62x39 due to the fact that it is considered a Small Arms ammunition. Even on it's best day, the 39 has nothing near the flight and accuracy of the 54R. It's like comparing a Ford Focus to a C5R Corvette...


Thank you I try to whenever possible distinguish between the "big three (as I call them) 7.62 rounds" as it can be confusing to some people just getting into our great hobby. As far as x39 sniper I believe there is s very good reason it is so rare to see an x39 sniper, it has zero advantages over an x51 or x54 IMO. I completely agree with your analogy it is very relevant and true. Out of the "big three 7.62 rounds" I've had the least experience with the x54 but was very impressed by the little experience I've had with it.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The .223/5.56 results after 200 meters get mixed.

The inherent inaccuracy of the AK after 200 meters gets mixed.

Not to say that neither one will kill after 200 meters, but neither one has a lot of reliability in terms of incapacitating hits.

I've dropped a runner at a tad over 400 meters with the .223, but there was a lot of luck involved.

The problem with these rounds is, "grunt."

Not a lot of "grunt" after 200 meters, and in fact they weren't designed to.

Both are close-in assault-type weapons, and a wise shooter will get a round with more "grunt" with the ability to facilitate kills beyond 200 meters.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BigDave-AR
 


If you don't have one, I'd hve to recomend a Mosin-Nagant. It can be found new for less than a hundred bucks and, if nothing else, is great for dislocating shoulders
I have one scoped to 700 meters and the sheer ferocity of the bullet (even at that range) is incredible. I have shot a bowling pin at 300 meters and darn near ripped it in half. I think that is where you obviosly want a sniping rifle to possess.

I like your "Big Three" description. I have yet to fire a 7.62x51, but given the 54R... It's probobly just as impressive.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Check out the You-Tube video, on 7.62 x 39 vs 5.56 x 45.
It shows that the 7.62 x 39, has a superior capability in destroying cinderblock, than the 5.56 x 45.
I believe, that the elephant poacher's in Africa use AK 47's in 7.62 x 39, Use a 5.56 x 45, on a elephant: and you would probably wind up as ground mincemeat on the jungle floor.


Erno



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
How about 6.8mm rounds(bigger than 5.56mm rounds, but smaller than 7.62mm rounds)?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join