Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Infraction Collector
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Interesting comparison,..when you see it on paper,....it really shows how the 7.62 lacks,.......I put a 30-06 in too for comparison.

I have both,..an Ak,..and an AR,.....as well as a 25-06,and the 30-06,.......so i was doing some comparisons.........

I was surprised by the 223 velocities,........


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I like the 762x39 though,, I know what the numbers say but it seem to do alot of damage ... it goes through 20'' trees , block,, and auto body ,, better than the 223 , some times the 223 dont even make it through a car,, now the 30-06,, 308 ,, are rounds that can reach thru and knock down a target ...
 

·
Here's my safety Sir
Joined
·
14,679 Posts
For special occasion use I hand load my 223 with 62gr JHP . My 06/308's with 168gr jhp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,886 Posts
Make sure your doing apples and apples. Does your typical 16" or 14.5" AR really get 3200 fps? I don't know AR's that much, but think that velocity is high for the typical AR. I think that number may be your typical 22" bolt action hunting rifle. No reduction in power from a cycling action too. Saw this online.....

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=213

The 55gr AR's in 16" are seeing roughly 2950-3000 on average. The 7.62x39 seems to keep to 2300 or so. SKS is seeing 2500. My SKS's have been running 2400-2550, depending on factory loads or handloads. I don't use wolf much, but have been getting 2350's out of them. Mainly use golden tiger for tactical practice and handloads for 200-300 yard practice.

Is a 16" or 14.5" AR the popular choice? I think they're all good. On a defensive mentality in my area, I have little need for 400 yards. I am more concerned about multiple targets quickly at short range, which any military caliber is capable of doing sufficiently. Even a stouter pistol carbine can do very well.

Nothing wrong with beating a dead horse. Sure everyone here has smashed up some rusted out junker with a bat when they were a kid too. Smash away capita'an.
 

·
Super Gassy Moderator
Joined
·
66,241 Posts
Interesting comparison,..when you see it on paper,....it really shows how the 7.62 lacks
So far, the only lacking I see is the 5.56 when it comes to energy, diameter and weight. Either will do the job just fine if put in the right spot. That part has been proven again and again. Velocity in and of itself is pretty meaningless. So is energy for that matter. Neither tell how much damage the bullet will do in the target. This is especially apparent in pistol calibers where light/fast makes a poor showing in effectiveness unless there was also adequate penetration.
 

·
Bad Guy
Joined
·
802 Posts
Try comparing the two using Pondoro Taylors knock out value.

Bullet weight x velocity x diameter in inches divided by 7000. The higher the number, the more effective the cartridge. This is a measure of a cartridges ability to kill, not pound feet of energy. Energy is a sham, it relies on velocity for high numbers, and as we all know, velocitcy is never a constant unless you're shooting at 100 yards with nothing between you and your target but atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
If you would have done a wind drift chart, you would see that the 223 is about twice that of 30.06/308. Again, the 7.62x39 is twice that of the 223.

Combine this fact with the inherent inaccuracy (relative) of the AK/SKS variants compared to the ARs or most quality 30.06/308 rifles and you have two factors which contribute to making it difficult to make hits at ranges beyond 200 yards with the 7.62x39.

The consideration of velocity reduction out of the 16 or 14" AR barrels is quite considerable. While 3200 for a 55 gr bullet out of a 20" barrel may be close, the equally common 62 gr out of a 16" barrel will be closer to 2700-2800. The bullet performance at ranges beyond 150 yards has really caused our soldiers some issues in Iraq. They are simply inflicting 22 cal holes, no fragmentation to aid in their effort.

Different tools for different jobs and having an idea of the limitations of each tool is always helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,431 Posts
The simplest comparison and general-isms are thus.

They both are 300 yard cartridges.

The .223 looses effectiveness beyond 300Y. You may hit the scumbag but most likely won't kill them past 300Y.

The x39 looses accuracy beyond 300Y. You most likely won't hit the scumbag past 300Y.

The .223 is more accurate, locally made and not legal for hunting everywhere.
The x39 is mostly foreign made, only reasonably accurate and not made for hunting.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
15,591 Posts
Your data plot show there is no substitute for cubic inches.

The 223 started as a medium power varmint cartridge. It was further saddled by short barrels and fmj bullets. It can be improved a lot by installing a 24 inch fast twist barrel and hand loading heavy soft point hunting bullets.

The international agreement to use crappy bullets (known as the Hauge Convention) is the root cause of most performance problems. Dumping tens of billions and 50 years into a medium power varmint cartridge does not make it a long range hunting round.

The 7.62 x 39 was developed as a short range CQ weapon. It can also be improved by loading Win-Olin 123g PSP (.310 dia) bullets. At close range it is devestating, but nothing is going to extend it range very much. It can be loaded to be very accurate, but it's trajectory limmits it to modest ranges.

Neither of them hold a candle to a full power cartridge like the 30-06. Not enough powder and not enough bullet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,431 Posts
lets discuss the effectiveness of each in depth
In what way?

Having used both .22 and .30 calibers on game for decades now, it's a pretty easy comparison for effectiveness in the field. And with so many Fish and Game departments not allowing the .22 calibers for deer which is a fair equivalent of a human both in size and construction, that tells me that in reality it's also a poor choice for anything the same size as a deer.

Having used the .223 and .308 in the LE field, I can say that I've had failures of the .223 that left me wanting. In fact it's why I went back to my FAL for work.

Comparing each for accuracy is another easy way to look at them. Most (if not all) factory ammo for the x39 isn't up to the same standards as the .223. I've handloaded x39 for a bolt-gun and in that capacity it was a decent round but in a military or "field" gun, the accuracy isn't up to the same levels as the .223.

As for most x39 being not made for hunting, there's few "good" hunting loads with the appropriate bullets out there. Yes, you can find HP's and even some fair soft points but most are not up to snuff for proper hunting performance.

So what would you like to discuss?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Here's my whack at the dead horse - I chose ARs as my go-to PAW carry because they're light, accurate enough, easily worked on, flexible form (easy swap uppers and buttstocks)...and there will be ammo and parts available for them from now on...(I hope...)
 

·
Not To Reason Why...
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
This thread has been done to death but I'll play....again....again...and...again. Beating the dead horse here.

Apples and Oranges, the weapons made for 7.62x39 primarily the AK-47 has more in common with a "machine gun" then it does a rifle. Where as the weapons made for .223 have more in common with a rifle than a "machine gun".

The .223 has an effective range of 600M or thereabouts, you could theoretically hit a target and bring it down out to 800M, as the velocity at 800-1,000 meters of the SS109 or M855 is around 1,000 - 900 FPS at the 800-900M mark.

Ballistics show the M193 Ball at 500M, out of an M4 Carbine, having a velocity of 1,516FPS and Ft. lbs at same distace being 216ftlbs.

The 7.62X39 couldn't dream of retaining that kind of velocity at that distance. Ballistic tests have shown that the 123gr 7.62x39 (American Eagle) has significant drop off at the 200M mark. At the 350M mark you have a bullet drop of -35! The M193 doesn't reach that -35 drop till about 800M and still retains 15-20% FPS and 5-10% Ft. lbs.


Again, apples and oranges.....I suppose if both were competing withing 150M they would both come out the same in terms of effectiveness. The 7.62x39 has shown better wound cavities and more than likely were fired withing that 200M mark. Both would be ideal for an urban enviroment with no more than 150M between targets. However, I digress, I'd go with the clearly better cartridge, the 5.56.


However, in the end....you still don't know if that golden bullet will get ya, whether it be a musket ball or .50bmg, no matter the ballistics or rifle firing it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,705 Posts
Interesting comparison,..when you see it on paper,....it really shows how the 7.62 lacks,.......I put a 30-06 in too for comparison.

I have both,..an Ak,..and an AR,.....as well as a 25-06,and the 30-06,.......so i was doing some comparisons.........

I was surprised by the 223 velocities,........




What were your test barrel lengths?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top