Survivalist Forum banner

Which do you think is the better round?

  • 223

    Votes: 69 22.1%
  • 7.62 X 39

    Votes: 137 43.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 17 5.4%
  • Either round will do

    Votes: 90 28.8%

223 Vs 7.62 X 39

64445 Views 73 Replies 56 Participants Last post by  Blank102
Which one do you think is better?
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
I think bullet weight and penetration of windshields is very important. the 223 has very little of either
For the first time in my life, I think, I marked undecided, on anything.
To me both of these rounds have advantages and and disadvantages, and neither is an ideal round.
IMHO a good rifle round needs to have excellent accuracy, power/penetration, and can do that over extended ranges.
In fairness, the original concept, of these two rounds, was for basically short range. high rate of fire, light weight, carbine type use/weapons. They both do that well..sort of.
So I'd say get a couple of each, just to be sure you have all the bases covered.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Good post Ammo - in fairness I added a "either round will do" option.
I was one of the "either round will do". They both are good for what they will do. A few years ago i would have said that the 223, had the edge just because the military uses it. But with the advent of cheap surplus, there are probably more 7.62x39 rounds in the US then 223 rounds.
If im not mistaken 7.62 is .308 am i wrong? .308 is the largest maximum legal calibre over here in marry old england. unlucky for me.
The 7.62X39 is the SKS or AK-47 round. The 7.62X51 is the NATO round which is a much more powerful round still used in belt fed MG's and sniper rifles, some times this round is reffered to as the 308 Winchester. The 223 is also known as the 5.56 NATO, hope thios helps.

Depends what you're doing with it. For hunting and if you're using long barreled rifle it'd be the 7.62x39, as you'd get better accuracy at a greater range. If you're using an assault rifle/in a CQB situation then you'd be better off with the .223. It's lighter and easier to carry around in greater numbers, and from a military point of view it is more likely to wound as than the 7.62x39, and a severely wounded man is far more difficult for an enemy to cope with than a dead one. They have to evacuate and care for him, which will slow them down.

I'm voting either, although the law in england means you pretty much can't own or use anything larger than a .223.
Both are good at what they are designed to do, short to medium engagement ranges on soft targets or targets behind light material, light weight, high rate of fire while maintaining control of the weapon allowing you to score hits. They were never ment to take out cars, shoot through brick walls etc...but a jack of all trades and a master of none. I found both to work well in 'Stan and Iraq. I will readily admit that the 5.56 in the M4 leaves a bit to be desired after about 200 yards although scoring hits on target beyond that range is still quiet easy. I still perfer the 5.56 to the 7.62 x 39, especially when using the heavier 77gr loads.

I voted 7.62x39 simply for the added bullet weight. Yeah, you can get some long shots out of a .223/5.56 NATO out of a longer barrel, but there's little energy left at the back end of the shot.
I voted 7.62x39 simply for the added bullet weight.
Understandable, and thats a very case to make for the 7.62 x 39. The down side is its rainbow like trajectory much beyond 250 yards. In urban combat such as what one sees in Iraq this aint much of a problem.

Yeah, you can get some long shots out of a .223/5.56 NATO out of a longer barrel, but there's little energy left at the back end of the shot.
You got half a leg to stand on there, especially in the M4 version. But at 600 yards and a bit further I guarentee there is enough energy left to ruin ones day to the point you dont want to be ion the receiving end! Whether your incapcitated instantly or not...a sucking chest wound is still a sucking chest wound anyway you slice it

In combat you aint got a chance if you cant score hits, and there aint no runner up trophys being handed out. Both rounds leave a bit to be desired, just in different catagories...
Had both.762x39 will penetrate what 223 won't.Like trees and block.223 will just shatter to pieces.762x39 started out 123 grain,and if it ain't broke,don't fix it.223 started out around 50-55 grain,was bumped up to 62 gr.,still not happy,they bump it up again to 77 gr.Why not just build it right the first time?you will typically have less stoppages and case failures with 762x39,also.
Well, I know the Little Black Lego Rifle has its fans, but the AR-15 is too high maintenance for me to trust in a SHTF situation. I'll stick to the simplicity of Kalashnikov action or a bolt.
Both rounds are effective in thier own way as pointed out by several already.
For some reason this thread reminds me of one that would have had Melvin aka GunKid calling us all foul names and pronouncing himself winner.
Besides the round and the load in that round, one must take into account the rifle as well. Neither platform is perfect and they are both long in the tooth by modern standards. A new round is called for perhaps a 6mm or 6.5mm, of course this would take another decade to accomplish.
I own guns that shoot both rounds. That can be a good thing in some cases. My upgraded SAR-1 will drop a deer or wild hog if I need it to and my ARs/M-4s will give me accuracy when needed. Eventually, I plan to have a 7.62 NATO AR-10 or M1A rifle added to the armory for other options.
223 is better because its more common
....Not really. I don't know where you live, but it is definitely not more common in the current market anywhere that I've lived in the last 3 years.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Have to go with the 7.62. I don't imagine having to take a shot at more than a few hundred yards 'round here. I like the "knock down" punch too. I remember hearing stories from 'Nam vets unloading their M-16s on a guy, then having to pull out their .45 to knock them down! Plus... the rifle has a lot to do with it too. I'll pick up an AK/SKS over any M4/AR any day for reliability under abuse. JMHO! If I needed a longer range, more accurate rifle/round. I may go for the .223. But not in my current environment! As for the .223 being more common... I can got to a local place and buy 10,000-50,000 rounds of 7.62x39 RIGHT NOW! and be on my way home with it. I'd be lucky to get a 1000 rd case of .223. (not that I'd ever buy that much anyway, LOL)

EDIT: in fact I just checked their inventory... NO .223 and thousands of CASES(1000 rds/case) of 7.62. All .223 are listed ZERO quantity on hand.

O wait... they have a few cases of American Eagle (Federal) Tracers! LOL
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.