Why 7.62x39 (versus .223)?

[evi1joe 1]

I'm thinking about getting a 7.62x39 EVEN THOUGH I have 1000rds of .223 for my AR that I could use in the Saiga 223. I'm leaning away from the .308 because I feel (a) that the recoil would be too harsh since I'm used to the AR, and ( in neighborhood/city environments, ranges rarely exceed 200yards. That said, the .223 has a tame recoil and can reach out easily to 400+ yards, well beyond the 7.62x39 (I believe).

 

My questions-->

1. Will the 7.62x39 have any more "knock-down power" than the .223 at close in ranges (25-100 yards)? I know it'll be a heavier bullet, I'm just wondering if the speed of the .223 will make up for--if not exceed--the lack of weight (though there is perhaps a problem of .223 over-penetration in the 25-100 yard range--and over-penetration+long range in cities/neighborhood defensive situations could be bad for your neighbors).

2. What was your tactical justification for choosing it over the .223 (assuming you didn't just have a lot of AK ammo lying around)?

 

Thanks,

evi1joe

 

ps--is there ANY way to change my name on this site from my email to my sign in name (evi1joe)?!! i'd rather not have my email be my "name".

Edited June 13, 2009 by jflow25@gmail.com

[Bizzarolibe 5]

I'm thinking about getting a 7.62x39 EVEN THOUGH I have 1000rds of .223 for my AR that I could use in the Saiga 223. I'm leaning away from the .308 because I feel (a) that the recoil would be too harsh since I'm used to the AR, and ( in neighborhood/city environments, ranges rarely exceed 200yards. That said, the .223 has a tame recoil and can reach out easily to 400+ yards, well beyond the 7.62x39 (I believe).

 

My questions-->

1. Will the 7.62x39 have any more "knock-down power" than the .223 at close in ranges (25-100 yards)? I know it'll be a heavier bullet, I'm just wondering if the speed of the .223 will make up for--if not exceed--the lack of weight (though there is perhaps a problem of .223 over-penetration in the 25-100 yard range--and over-penetration+long range in cities/neighborhood defensive situations could be bad for your neighbors).

2. What was your tactical justification for choosing it over the .223 (assuming you didn't just have a lot of AK ammo lying around)?

 

Thanks,

evi1joe

 

ps--is there ANY way to change my name on this site from my email to my sign in name (evi1joe)?!! i'd rather not have my email be my "name".

 

Well, within about 200 yards the 7.62x39 round will hit "harder" than the .223, i.e., it will transfer more energy to the target. After than, due to the heavy weight of the bullet and the comparably lower velocity, the 7.62 will actually transfer LESS energy than the .223. So basically, within 200 yards the 7.62 transfers more energy than the .223, however past the range the .223 retains more energy.

 

That said, the FBI has largely rejected the theory of energy transference in regards to what actually contitutes "knock-down power" in favor of the "bigger hole" theory, i.e., whatever makes a bigger hole is going to stop an enemy faster. A bullet from pretty much any gun does not have the force necessary to physically knock someone back. They may stumble backwards due to a psychological response to being shot (or even shot at in many cases), but it's not like in the movies where you can get thrown back 10 feet by a 9mm handgun. What actually "stops" someone, apart from a hit to the central nervous system (i.e., the brain, spinal chord, etc) or a psychological response, is a sudden loss of blood pressure, which leads to unconciousness. Obviously, the larger the wound channel the faster the blood loss and the quicker the drop in blood pressure.

 

Think about it like this: if you jam a knife into a coolant hose in your car, what happens? Well, obviously it will lose pressure and your coolant will not circulate. Same idea. So basically, a bigger bullet = a faster negative physiological response.

 

Now personally, while I largely agree with the FBI's finding on this issue, I definitely think there's something to be said for energy transference. In the famous Miami shootout back in the 80's, an FBI agent was shot through the neck with a .223 round. The bullet completely missed his spinal chord, but the energy transference was so violent that it literally knocked a couple of his vertebrae out of place, causing temporary paralysis. So my personal belief is that "knockdown" force is something of a combination between the two factors.

 

And also, what separates a .223 from a .22 is a 3x increas in velocity, as well as a different bullet size and shape. Now this means that 1) within about 150 yards the .223 will usually fragment, causing massive damage and 2) past that range, it has the tendency to yaw in a water based mediums (i.e., humans). So while the bullet diameters are nearly identical, the terminal ballistics are night and day.

 

Having said all that, if you want an AK get the 7.62. One of the appeals of an AK is the increased "stopping power" within 200 yards, and keep in mind that 90% of military combat situations occur within 100 yards or less. Sure, the recoil is going to be heavier with the 7.62, but unlike the .223, you will NOT need a follow-up shot if your first shot connected with the target ;-)

 

And one other thing to think about: the 7.62 round, in most urban combat scenarios, turns cover...into concealment

Edited June 13, 2009 by Bizzarolibe

[Bizzarolibe 5]

Oh, and I also own an AR-15, so don't think I'm biased in the matter. I believe that each gun certainly has its place.

[evi1joe 1]

Yeah, I'm aware of the main ballistic differences--though I do think the speed of the .223 might create a wound channel just as large and devastating at 100 yards as the 7.62x39.

That said, with my glock 19, I still prefer the slower 147gr 9mm rounds to the hot 124+p just because my pistol defense range is 2-25 yards. I guess I'm thinking that inside of 200 yards, the 7.62x39 is a nice compromise between the fast little .223 and the huge, heavy .308. I'm thinking of the 7.62x39 as an autoloading 30-30 with more rounds...if I can justify not sharing ammo between the AR and Saiga, I may go with it (for $349!!!).

 

How much more kick does the Saiga 7.62 have than an AR (what I'm used to)?

[imarangemaster 315]

I personally favor the 7.62x39, especially when using the 123 HPs from Silver bear (they fragment like M193 5.56 ball, but have almost 3 times the mass) or the flat based Yugo style (non-boat tail) m76 rounds that start to yaw within the 1st 4 inches. 7.62x39 does turn some COVER into mere concealment. Wolf 154 grain soft point is great stuff with three time the mass, opens up to about 60 caliber. I was shooting and my 7.62x39s were passing completely through a live 12-14 inch diameter Locus tree. Very dense wood and hard on chain saws.

 

That why I sold my M4 and traded my 223 Saiga for a 7.62x39 Saiga. In fact, I just traded my stripped DPMS lower and all my M16 mags off for a really nice GP WASR 10/63 with Rommie fore grip as a back up weapon to my 7.62x39 Siaga I converted to AK103. Folks across the line in MO use 7.62x39 to take nice 200 lb deer all the time. Not many try it with 223. Not saying a 223 can't kill deer (though not legal for it in some states) as I even killed a 175 deer with a 30 M1 carbine and a WW 110 HP bullet at 75 yards. Shot placement counts.

 

Besides, in my 20 years LE, we had numerous occasions where a 7.62x39 was used in drive by on cars and other hard targets. If they didn't hit the engine block, the usually passed all the way through the car!

[JonTheSavage 0]

I don't own an AR, but I have shot one a few times. I own a 7.62 Saiga. But I will tell you this. I have a friend that has one, and if you want urban combat statistics? Well, I'd say pot holes in the road may be a good explanation. Where his Bushmaster .223 with FMJ's were bouncing off the street with little dents, and my Saiga was blowing chunks of concrete out of it.... thats explanation enough. But if you want to go deeper, we were actually aiming at a small pile of sand. When we hit the sand, which was the target we were aiming at at say, some 120 yards, the AR would pop the sand up, while the 7.62 was blowing big gaps in it.

 

If you want something that will blow away zombies in a SHTF situation, the AK is your gun. Its durable enough to take being run over by a ford Ranger and still fire.

Edited June 14, 2009 by JonTheSavage

[Vultite 57]

fast foward to about 3:00 in this video, the beginning of it is horrible with people who obivously can't shoot an AK but about 3 mins into it, it shows penetration comparison between .223 and 7.62 on block and wood targets

 

Edited June 14, 2009 by Vultite

[JonTheSavage 0]

fast foward to about 3:00 in this video, the beginning of it is horrible with people who obivously can't shoot an AK but about 3 mins into it, it shows penetration comparison between .223 and 7.62 on block and wood targets

 

 

No kidding. At 50 yards, when I was testing my new mount, it would blow a 4 inch block of 2x4 wood 10 or 12 feet into the air, at least... what was left of the wood block... splinters. hehe.

 

At 100-200 yards, its comparable to my BAR 7mm Magnum.

Edited June 14, 2009 by JonTheSavage

[JK-47 33]

You'renevergonnabelievethis....but..... years ago 7.62x39mm used to be dirt cheap. When I first choose to buy a rifle I picked an SKS because the 7.62x39mm ammo could be bought for 10 cents per round. Much more economical than steel cased .223 going for as much as 15 cents/ per round at the time!

[Vultite 57]

You'renevergonnabelievethis....but..... years ago 7.62x39mm used to be dirt cheap. When I first choose to buy a rifle I picked an SKS because the 7.62x39mm ammo could be bought for 10 cents per round. Much more economical than steel cased .223 going for as much as 15 cents/ per round at the time!

yep, thats why I bought my X39 gun, but as the world would have it, nothing can be cheap anymore

 

The last time I bought ammo X39 was .18 per round, and only because I wanted the spam can which was a little extra, now you just can't find it anywhere, unless you want to give up your first born and a house

Edited June 14, 2009 by Vultite

[VladTepes 160]

i have both... 7.62 for power... 223 for when ridiculous anti ammunition imports take effect..

[imarangemaster 315]

i have both... 7.62 for power... 223 for when ridiculous anti ammunition imports take effect..

 

That's why I have brass, dies, and a mold to cast LEE 7.62x39 160 grain hardcast linotype to reload! As long as I get wheel weights, powder, and primers, I am good to go. That's another eason I got the WASR as a back up, it won't bulge the case mouths like my saiga

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

fast foward to about 3:00 in this video, the beginning of it is horrible with people who obivously can't shoot an AK...

 

Yeah you ain't kiddin about the serious lack of marksmanship on the part of the joker with the AK. He looks like he sure does love the gun, (he has a huge grin on his face when looking at/sighting down his AK), but he really should learn how to use it, more especially if he's going to appear in tv shows as some kind of "expert" operator of the AK.

 

Watch the video starting at ~3:33, and you'll see that goofy grin followed by a close-up of this "expert"'s trigger finger as he fires. Considering he just jerks his finger back in one crude motion when he fires the rifle, no one should be suprised that he can't hit shit at ~200 yards. He probably can't hit shit at ~100 yards either.

Edited June 15, 2009 by post-apocalyptic

[stix213 3]

I'm thinking about getting a 7.62x39 EVEN THOUGH I have 1000rds of .223 for my AR that I could use in the Saiga 223. I'm leaning away from the .308 because I feel (a) that the recoil would be too harsh since I'm used to the AR, and ( in neighborhood/city environments, ranges rarely exceed 200yards. That said, the .223 has a tame recoil and can reach out easily to 400+ yards, well beyond the 7.62x39 (I believe).

 

My questions-->

1. Will the 7.62x39 have any more "knock-down power" than the .223 at close in ranges (25-100 yards)? I know it'll be a heavier bullet, I'm just wondering if the speed of the .223 will make up for--if not exceed--the lack of weight (though there is perhaps a problem of .223 over-penetration in the 25-100 yard range--and over-penetration+long range in cities/neighborhood defensive situations could be bad for your neighbors).

2. What was your tactical justification for choosing it over the .223 (assuming you didn't just have a lot of AK ammo lying around)?

 

First of all 1000rds is just a few weekend's worth, so I wouldn't base a gun purchase on that stash. The Saiga 7.62x39's kick is more than your AR, but it isn't that bad. I dumped 10 rounds out of mine one handed just yesterday as fast as I could pull the trigger (just for fun) with no problems keeping control.

 

1) Yes the 7.62x39 will have more "knock-down power" than the .223 at close range

 

2) Justification? I'll answer this with another question... What is the likely range where you'd actually need your rifle for a tactical situation? For me it will be about the length of my house in the suburbs, for others it may be a longer distance, but for most it will be in the 100 or less yard range. I see it highly unlikely even on a large amount of property anyone would need to fire on a person at 200+ yards and be able to justify a self defense claim. So if you agree with me that any realistic tactical situation you will ever end up in will be up close, then you might as well use the ammo that will end the threat the first time you pull the trigger instead of the 2nd or 3rd.

Edited June 15, 2009 by stix213

[jasecloud4 2]

Meh, go with .50BMG in a Barrett M82A1. Ten round mags, semi-automatic, and you'll never need more than 100 rounds; lol.

 

.50BMG: 800gr, 2895ft/sec, 14,895ft/lbs of energy

 

7.62x39: 154gr, 2,104ft/sec, 1,519ft/lbs of energy

 

.223 Remington: 69gr, 2,950ft/sec, 1,333ft/lbs of energy

 

One thing to note, this is muzzle velocity. Without going into to too many technical details...

 

I WIN!

 

Yes, yes completely off topic. On-topic: go with a 7.62x39 for the following reasons: cost (unless you work in a gun store like me), energy upon impact, and ease of attainment (again, unless you work in a gun store which focuses on ar's)

 

Source: I own weapons chambered in both.

[lakedweller 10]

Why not get BOTH .....

 

Problem solved.......

 

You are Welcome !!!!!!

[Darth AkSarBen 20]

I've got a new 7.62 x 39, but it's only 24 hours old and the gun dealer said I can bring it back and trade it off. Which, is likely tonight. I've scouted around and there is little in the way of factory ammo, and that which I find is steel case, and I want to reload. One intersting aspect of this is that the reloading would take Large Rifle primers, which I can get, but Small Rifle primers are nowhere right now. So sort of stuck between the rock and hard place. .223 for using for wood chucks, racoon, possums and coyotes, and other vermin, or.... the 7.62 for wood chucks, racoon, possum and other vermin. I know what .223 will do to things like prairie dogs as I have owned both the mini-14 and the Mini-30 in Ruger in the past. But, the selection, like I say of what's available out here in SW Michigan for ammo leans toward .223.

 

Only thing is this 7.62 x 39 I have is imported by Russian American Armory company, which as I understand, is newer, or should be a newer dated firearm than the EAA of which Dave has one in .223. Personally, I like the feel of the way the magazine would go in better in this rifle than the .223.

I have until tonight to decide......

[evi1joe 1]

stix213 et al:

that's my thinking as well (regarding the range). if the kick isn't too much for fairly fast follow-up shots, i think the 7.62 is a better home/neighborhood/truck gun. i shoot mostly .22 out of the AR, so 1000rds would last me a year or two. i am worried about long-term ammo supply and quality if russian/chinese decide to charge more or cut us off or whatever (i think this is more likely than any law change despite what people might say to stir up some fear and get a vote), but hopefully more US makers will jump aboard if that happens. i do look forward to that Hornady 7.62x39 VMAX.

 

i think i've decided on the 7.62 since i have a 223 AR and i've always wanted a .308 or 30-30--the 762 will be a bit lighter and slower, but still have some wallop. plus, the 762s are usually $20-$30 cheaper, which is more money towards the conversion.

[Twinsen 86]

The 7.62x39 hits harder. The bullet is heavier, and it is larger in diameter. The speed difference is not enough. The .223 will not do as much damage. Stop thinking that it will. Even out of a 12" barrel, it will do more damage than the .223 out of a 20" barrel. .223 out of anything short of 20" is a bad idea.

[stix213 3]

stix213 et al:

that's my thinking as well (regarding the range). if the kick isn't too much for fairly fast follow-up shots, i think the 7.62 is a better home/neighborhood/truck gun. i shoot mostly .22 out of the AR, so 1000rds would last me a year or two. i am worried about long-term ammo supply and quality if russian/chinese decide to charge more or cut us off or whatever (i think this is more likely than any law change despite what people might say to stir up some fear and get a vote), but hopefully more US makers will jump aboard if that happens. i do look forward to that Hornady 7.62x39 VMAX.

 

i think i've decided on the 7.62 since i have a 223 AR and i've always wanted a .308 or 30-30--the 762 will be a bit lighter and slower, but still have some wallop. plus, the 762s are usually $20-$30 cheaper, which is more money towards the conversion.

 

I doubt there would be any external cutoff of russian/chinese ammo coming into the USA. The USA is a huge money making market for them.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The guy in the video is jerking the trigger badly so I agree the video makers wanted the 223 to come out ahead. AK sights are horrid true so change the damn things like anyone interested in shooting accurately. At times I think what the US should have done was marry the 308 round with the AK a bit better than Saiga is able. Much better idea than that blasted M16.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

I've got a new 7.62 x 39, but it's only 24 hours old and the gun dealer said I can bring it back and trade it off. Which, is likely tonight. I've scouted around and there is little in the way of factory ammo, and that which I find is steel case, and I want to reload. One intersting aspect of this is that the reloading would take Large Rifle primers, which I can get, but Small Rifle primers are nowhere right now. So sort of stuck between the rock and hard place. .223 for using for wood chucks, racoon, possums and coyotes, and other vermin, or.... the 7.62 for wood chucks, racoon, possum and other vermin. I know what .223 will do to things like prairie dogs as I have owned both the mini-14 and the Mini-30 in Ruger in the past. But, the selection, like I say of what's available out here in SW Michigan for ammo leans toward .223.

 

Only thing is this 7.62 x 39 I have is imported by Russian American Armory company, which as I understand, is newer, or should be a newer dated firearm than the EAA of which Dave has one in .223. Personally, I like the feel of the way the magazine would go in better in this rifle than the .223.

I have until tonight to decide......

 

My advice is to keep the 7.62x39 Saiga you have. Imo it's a better caliber overall, (unless you're "sniping" at >500 yards, and if that's the case get a .308), and the AK design was meant for it. The ammo situation is not that bad and appears to have stabilized. Brass-cased 7.62x39 can be had, and although it's expensive compared to Russian steel-cased, it's comparable to what you'll pay for .223, (a grossly overpriced caliber imo.. but then again what isn't these days?! ). I recommend ordering your ammo in 500 or 1000 round cases online. It's a lot cheaper that way.

Edited June 19, 2009 by post-apocalyptic

[Paladin_Hammer 8]

Trust me, you should jump back on the .308 bandwagon. Once you feel a .308 kick, your hooked.

[Bizzarolibe 5]

Honestly, I wouldn't want to get shot by any of the above!

Edited June 19, 2009 by Bizzarolibe

[Krom 36]

7.62x39 is a better overall BATTLEFIELD round, it's the single most copied (6.8spc anyone?) and all around most effective round ever mass produced. SHTF this is caliber you want as long as there is ammo available.

 

However:

 

.223/5.56 is a better TACTICAL round in my opinion. Mainly due to it's accuracy and it's tendency not to over penetrate. But in order for the .223 to be as lethal and effective stopping wise the correct ammunition MUST be used. With good ammo .223 is a frequent one shot stop.

[dobravery 49]

Your wallet says that x39 steel production ammo is slightly cheaper than 223 of the same brand. (2) Quality 39 mags are so much cheaper than quality 223 mags (with BG conversion).

Edited June 19, 2009 by dobravery

[TedG954 0]

7.62x39 is a better overall BATTLEFIELD round, it's the single most copied (6.8spc anyone?) and all around most effective round ever mass produced. SHTF this is caliber you want as long as there is ammo available.

 

However:

 

.223/5.56 is a better TACTICAL round in my opinion. Mainly due to it's accuracy and it's tendency not to over penetrate. But in order for the .223 to be as lethal and effective stopping wise the correct ammunition MUST be used. With good ammo .223 is a frequent one shot stop.

 

 

My rifle is a 7.62 and I had the choice between it and .223. Why did I choose the 7.62? There are lots of reasons, but the most prevailing was the availability and price of ammunition. The second factor is tradition.

 

Will I ever use it in battle? If I believed those odds, I'd buy lottery tickets. But, I was also a Boy Scout and I believe in "being prepared". With all that said, the two major military powers in this world believe that a .22 is a better tactical round. Accuracy, weight of ammunition, penetration, lack of penetration, ease in manufacture, and utilization, are all factors that determined the choices made by the USA and Russia.

 

So, in the long run, I believe the 5.56 is probably better for soldiers in war. For homeland security, it's "run what you brung". For me it will be 7.62. If, and when it would ever become necessary to reason between 5.56 and 7.62, it will be too late, and most run-what-you-brungers will have hunting and sporting rifles of every make and caliber. The discussion is interesting, but the bottom line is pick one, practice with it, and enjoy your choice.

[imarangemaster 315]

I've got a new 7.62 x 39, but it's only 24 hours old and the gun dealer said I can bring it back and trade it off. Which, is likely tonight. I've scouted around and there is little in the way of factory ammo, and that which I find is steel case, and I want to reload. One intersting aspect of this is that the reloading would take Large Rifle primers, which I can get, but Small Rifle primers are nowhere right now. So sort of stuck between the rock and hard place. .223 for using for wood chucks, racoon, possums and coyotes, and other vermin, or.... the 7.62 for wood chucks, racoon, possum and other vermin. I know what .223 will do to things like prairie dogs as I have owned both the mini-14 and the Mini-30 in Ruger in the past. But, the selection, like I say of what's available out here in SW Michigan for ammo leans toward .223.

 

Only thing is this 7.62 x 39 I have is imported by Russian American Armory company, which as I understand, is newer, or should be a newer dated firearm than the EAA of which Dave has one in .223. Personally, I like the feel of the way the magazine would go in better in this rifle than the .223.

I have until tonight to decide......

 

Read my post in the other thread! 7.62x39 + 123 JHP Silver Bear = Deader than Hogan's Goat!

[Darth AkSarBen 20]

Well, it's done now. Took the 7.62 in for the .223. Dinzzag told me that the EAA (which is this is .223) were heavier barrels and more accurate than the later RAAC ones. His recommendation is to "snap it up right away". Cleaned it and shot 2 water jugs last night. I'm happy to announce that both gallon jugs died a quick death. LOL I've shot both calibers in the past, from my Ruger Mini-14 to the Mini-30. Picked up some PMC ammo yesterday afternoon for 9.28 a box for the .223. Also found some hollow point Winchester for 29.00 for 40 rounds. Should be great on wood chucks as it did not do the jug any favors.

 

The coment about the .308 is noted and would have been an excellent choice as well. I used to have a Ruger M77 in .338 Magnum, so recoil was not an issue. In fact, this rifle has little recoil to it. My Mini-30 did not have much either.

 

Also Dinzzag said the EAA has a pinned on front sight block rather than swagged like the latter ones. There is only "one" more .223 imported by EAA that Dave has over there, BTW.

 

Thanks for all the great suggestions and info. Scope mount WOULD be great for this 56 year old shooter. Bifocals and sights are a funny mix.

I've shot thousands of rounds of .223 and a few thosands of 7.62 x 39 when I lived in Nebrasa. Even had the Mini-30 in my trunk of my patrol car when I was a Deputy.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Darth AkSarBen

[loki0629 55]

I've been on the giving end of the .223 using the M16A4 and I've been on the receiving end of an AK.

 

I'll take 7.62x39 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.