mstranglr 9 Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) I have debated with a local police instructor for years that the .39 penetrates way better than .223. I used to shoot up some old vehicles and sea-trains up in the hills and was never impressed with .223 penetration. You look at our boys in Iraq trying to use the M4 to shoot up vehicles at checkpoints or neutralize a threat behind cover and it makes you wonder. This video seems to confirm my observations Dont put too much into the accuracy part of the vid. That 50 year old milled AK is pretty shot out (the front sight post being adjusted all the way to the left and his shots being 2 feet off from bench rest are a good indicator of this). The guy with the AK is also NOT an experienced shooter or marksman. Look at his trigger control at about 3:37 of the video; My kids dont mash a trigger that bad! That guy was just throwing lead down range. I can easily put all shots on those targets from bench at 200 yds with all of my AKs (except my WASR). My saigas do it with little effort. Edited June 4, 2008 by desert dog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waltham_41 52 Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 The guy with the AK was jerking the hell out of that trigger wasnt he? I would much rather have to shoot 5 rds and finally one hit where I wanted and have it go through and hit my target than to pepper the target with accurate shots that dont go through and kill anything. Im just not an AR person. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jrance@iacwds.com 716 Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Interesting. I have always been an AR guy. In fact, I have never fired an AK style rifle. That will change at Will's B-day bash and I can decide for myself after about a thousand rounds. 1911 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki0629 55 Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 The 7.62x39 punches through cover better than .223. There are workarounds for that but it involves team tactics or indirect fire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dobravery 49 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 It seems to me that the 7.62x39 will pass through an object and keep truer to its trajectory. I've shot it in the woods and you can just keep walking a straight line and count the trees it passes through. The 223 can pierce hard stuff (especially m855), but I think it tends to break up or deviate afterwards. I'd expect if your wearing body armor, your still in trouble as the round would deviate/frag into your torso. If a zombie was wearing a helmet, green tip penetrator (5.56) may work better than 7.62 39 ball / mild steel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
U.S. Pratorean 1,234 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Penetration is one thing terminal ballistics is another. The standard 7.62x39 is 124gr, 5.56 55gr. physics dictates what our guys in the sandbox already know. That is why there is a resurgence in the 7.62x51 and the 6.8. These all offer better penetration just on the variable of kinetic mass. 5.56 has its place but not in the urban evirons. Better yet, remember that "good ole" norinco steel core copper washed stuff? Would go clean thru a car, providing it didn't hit something really hard, like an engine block. Two years ago I shot a buck with a yugo M-92"krink" with 124gr FMJ. I know, poor choice but I was refilling feeders and it was the last weekend and it was a "snapshot" reflexive shot. Fifty meters, it was over in 2 seconds, good solid aortic-pulmonic juncture hit. He ran over 100meters and the entrance wound was the same size as the exit wound. Went clean through him. Here the 5.56 would have had better terminal ballistics I think. Now he was not wearing body armour..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 well, X39 will give better stopping power and SOME better penetration aspects, but its still lacking vs. a true rifle round ex 7.62 nato or X54R. It is about the same when compared to say trauma plates on standard issue armor...a X39 will be stopped multiple times on the same plate just as .223 will.....but yes, going through cars, concrete block and even steel, X39 FTW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HarvKY 72 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 A while back I saw a comparison between the two on a Military Channel show, probably Weaponology. They were comparing the standard FN machine gun used my miltary etc in .223 with FN's newer model in 7.62 (can't recall the exact model #'s - FN240 and 242 maybe?) From a bench they took 1 shot each at a row of 1" thick acrylic plates clamped together on a platform/table. The .223 penetrated pretty much through the 2nd plate with some cracking outward. The 7.62 penetrated more than 3.5 plates, but the difference was in the kinetic energy it delivered. The first 2-3 plates just shattered and splintered into various pieces, flying through the air and even the plates it did not penetrate were knocked off the platform Cheers, HarvKY Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whatmanual 44 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) ....or as my Russian friend says: Yeah there's 7.62x39, and then 7.62x51......then there's 7.62xR'OH MY GOD~! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (personally, I prefer the 5.45x39) Edited June 12, 2008 by whatmanual Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mstranglr 9 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Ever shoot-up car windshields? The .223 leaves a hole just like any bullet, but doesnt hit anything in the vehicle. No exit holes in the car, no holes in the driver's seat (point of aim), no damage inside at all! Does the bullet disintigrate? does it bounce off the windshield? Does it magically disapear? I dont know, but I do know that it would not stop a car bomber from running a checkpoint. A .40 caliber handgun (FMJ) does better than the .223 in this respect. The 7.62x39 leaves a hole in the windshield too, but also goes through the seat (front and back). Vutite, I agree with you that both are intermediate rounds and not true rifle rounds. But for modern urban warfare and REAL SHTF scenarios, the 7.62x39 in hard to beat. Even though many self proclaimed "experts" seem to think the .223 penetrates better than the x39 (even many police firearm instructors believe this), my experience has shown something different and this video confirms that. Just wish they let the guy who shot the AR shoot the AK, he is obviously a better marksman. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leo.Kermes 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 if you want accuracy and punch I have a 6.8 Spc for sale. http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=26823 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cellsworth 21 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I'm no ballistics expert, but I have seen direct comparisons of the penetration of 7.62X39 and 5.56X45 rounds. If the same basic TYPE of bullet is used, the 7.62X39 is known to penetrate better than the 5.56X45. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SuAside 2 Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 The .223 leaves a hole just like any bullet, but doesnt hit anything in the vehicle. No exit holes in the car, no holes in the driver's seat (point of aim), no damage inside at all! Does the bullet disintigrate? does it bounce off the windshield? Does it magically disapear? I dont know, but I do know that it would not stop a car bomber from running a checkpoint. A .40 caliber handgun (FMJ) does better than the .223 in this respect. one of the reasons why SWAT and other police teams are moving to 5.56mm carbines is (other than being cool ) that 5.56mm will not overpenetrate as badly as their old 9x19mm MP5s. since cops are liable for all the rounds they fire, overpenetration is a big problem (especially since you americans don't seem to like europeanstyle thick / brick walls). this however means that if a perp is behind cover, they either have to do a tactical reload to load an M855 type round, or have to switch to their 9x19mm or .40S&W handgun. yes, that is correct. a 9x19mm FMJ is more likely to penetrate than a vanilla 5.56x45mm. (but remember that this is talking peneration and not terminal ballistics, which are an entirely different subject entirely) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
THE_HUNTER 2 Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 I have 3 .223 semis and still prefer the 7.62X39. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 The .223 leaves a hole just like any bullet, but doesnt hit anything in the vehicle. No exit holes in the car, no holes in the driver's seat (point of aim), no damage inside at all! Does the bullet disintigrate? does it bounce off the windshield? Does it magically disapear? I dont know, but I do know that it would not stop a car bomber from running a checkpoint. A .40 caliber handgun (FMJ) does better than the .223 in this respect. one of the reasons why SWAT and other police teams are moving to 5.56mm carbines is (other than being cool ) that 5.56mm will not overpenetrate as badly as their old 9x19mm MP5s. since cops are liable for all the rounds they fire, overpenetration is a big problem (especially since you americans don't seem to like europeanstyle thick / brick walls). this however means that if a perp is behind cover, they either have to do a tactical reload to load an M855 type round, or have to switch to their 9x19mm or .40S&W handgun. yes, that is correct. a 9x19mm FMJ is more likely to penetrate than a vanilla 5.56x45mm. (but remember that this is talking peneration and not terminal ballistics, which are an entirely different subject entirely) they could always swap out for a S-12 if they are concerned about over penetration Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Yankee 3 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I've read some stuff that seemed to indicate that the reason that 6.8 isn't taking off in the AR world is that the heavier grain 5.56 is performing better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 6.8 is liked by military, but 6.8 i doubt will EVER take off in the civ sector due to prices, and unless 5.56 is thrown out the window, 6.8 will probably always be high =( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waltham_41 52 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Interesting. I have always been an AR guy. In fact, I have never fired an AK style rifle. That will change at Will's B-day bash and I can decide for myself after about a thousand rounds. 1911 I think you will be impressed, considering it is an intermediate "assault rifle" round, not a full main battle rifle round. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waltham_41 52 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Just wish they let the guy who shot the AR shoot the AK, he is obviously a better marksman. I wonder if they made the accuracy of the AK look bad on purpose since its not "our" rifles round, and since the AK round was shown to be a better overall penetrating round, which gave it one "win" out of the two aspects they were looking at. Didn't want to have to admit that the AK can be accurate in the hands of a decent marksman. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
warchildindy 0 Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) I have an AR15 in 7.62x39. There has been good results with accuracy, with all types of ammo in this platform. The buffer, spring, bolt, and hammer spring in some cases, need to be changed for total reliability. There has been ftf's with the hard primered ammo (wolf, etc.). There has also been some bolt breakage. But with some adjustments, the AR15 7.62x39 has merit. Recently C-Products has come out with a reliable (30) round magazine. There are piston kits in R&D, that will work with the 7.62x39 AR15 platform. 7.62x39 ammo is proven, still abundant, and cheaper, than most comparable rounds. The end result, could be another good rifle platform, that could use a good strong, "close in" caliber. Equip soldiers with the AR15 7.62x39 and use the AR10 7.62x51 as the designated marksman rifle. Yes, I like, own, and have owned, the venerable AK47 platform in many forms. Just throwing a curve ball, now and then, to mix things up. Edited June 21, 2008 by warchildindy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HarvKY 72 Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 I have an AR15 in 7.62x39. There has been good results with accuracy, with all types of ammo in this platform. 7.62x39 ammo is proven, still abundant, and cheaper, than most comparable rounds. The end result, could be another good rifle platform, that could use a good strong, "close in" caliber. Equip soldiers with the AR15 7.62x39 and use the AR10 7.62x51 as the designated marksman rifle. Sorry to get off topic here (I did post a good critique of 223 vs 762 above) The military has/or will soon be using a new 308 in AR platform [so as to maintain muscle memory, learning] I apologize for forgetting which company at the moment. Anyway.... its designed with the usual 16" assault length barrel, but the 1 team member(for now) carries an extra matching upper in 20" length that he can swap out quickly for sniper distance shots that the 16 barrel cannot reach. The squads exercise/demonstration was at something like beyond 400 meters??? where the 16"'ers weren't reaching/penetrating the badguys. The guy put the long barrel on and knocked down 2 torso size steel plates "behind" car doors - with 2 shots. I thought it was an impressive demo. Guess I should have posted this in the thread arguing about 308 bbl length huh? Cheers,. HarvKY Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.