.223 Remington or 7.62x39..Which is more effective

E.Williams

I am having a hard time understanding how a 50 grain bullet can be so devastating compared to a 120+ grain 7.62x39 bullet.Why is the .223 such a harsh personell round?Is it just how fast its moving or what?I just had another post about the .30 Carbine and the .223 seems more what Im after but compared against each other which is the nastier round for vested perps and just immediate devastating wounds?It is to help the desicion between a Mini-14 and a Mini-30

Eric S. Williams

Edited by - E.Williams on 08/19/2002 02:06:40

sundowner

I am no expert in this area, but the 7.62x39 is reportedly similiar to the 30-30 in ballistics. I think penetration should be somewhat better, though. The .223 travels faster, and I reckon that might be of some benefit to vested perps, depending on the class of vest they are wearing. I also understand that the .223 "tumbles" on impact, creating a larger wound channel. If you are worried about vests and don't want to do a head shot, I understand that you might want to look at a crossbow or compound bow. Just my .02, I may very well be wrong . . . .

Shootist3006

Eric, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking but if your question concerns penetration, look at velocity as the key. Higher velocity generaly means more penetration. However, the odds of a perp having a vest that will defeat either round are pretty slim. If you are truely worried about being able to penetrate a perp's vest - go to the .30-06 black tip. Then you can defeat 1/2 inch of steel or 6 inches of concrete or 24 inches of earth or almost any vest you can walk around with.

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

E.Williams

I am basically asking what it is sabout the .223 that makes it as effective as it is reported to be.Im tring to understand why it is more effective than the heavier 7.62x39 round.Especially if 7.62x39 is similar to the 30-30.Is it like the .357 Magnum theory of light and fast with greater energy transfer?

Eric S. Williams

E.Williams

Im not all that concerned with defeating vests but it is a plus.Just helps the rounded desicion.Is either round known for being more accurate than the other?And which is the cheaper round to shoot?

Eric S. Williams

Edited by - E.Williams on 08/19/2002 02:32:12

sundowner

Again, not being an expert in this area, I find the 7.62x39 cheaper to shoot than the .223, but the .223 is much more accurate.

I will use my commie 7.62x39 guns out to 200 yards, grouping 5 rounds at 3.5". I will use my .223 out to 500, grouping 5 rounds at 2.5". YMMV.

You could always get the best of both worlds -- get an AR-15 and a spare upper in 7.62x39.

Guns & Glass

Some other factors to evaluate overall performance. Impact is just one.

>Recoil energy vs steadiness of firing,
>Weight of firearm vs upward movement,
>Cyclic firing rates,
>Target reaqirement-how long is takes for BOTH a sight picture, and alignment after first shot(s),
>'Walking shots' efficiency in short bursts or full auto mode.



Happy Bullet Holes!

Josey1

What G&G said,also the trajectory of the .223 round is M"UCH flatter than that of the 7.62.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Big Sky Redneck

The big thing with the .223 is bullet selection. A FMJ will penetrate bone, vests and light armor, but does not produce shock like a larger cal will. For total devastation I use a 55 grain bal tip loaded at well over 3500fps, on a deer it will blow a shoulder apart just as good as a larger gun, it has penetration and shock. It will not penetrate like the FMJ but on an unprotected target like a human with no vest or deer it goes in about 5-6"s and comes unglued. Shot placement is the big thing with it, make a bad shot and it will fail, make a good shot with proper ammo and it is very very deadly. You cannot just pull up and blast away with it like you can the 7.62 or any other heavy round, you need to choose your shot. The .223 got a bad rap because of this, if you just fire away not worrying about where you hit, the .223 will fail no matter what you have it loaded with. And also to agree with Guns and Glass, recoil is virtualy nonexistant making it a great weapon for multiple targets. I do not own an AK but I do have an SKS in 7.62x39, when trying to do rapid fire on a target at 100 yds, it is nearly impossible for me to place more than three or four shots out of 20 on paper, but with my Bushy I can bring that total up to twelve to thirteen out of 20 on paper.

JustC

The 223 is faster, therefore more accurate and flat at distance, and will also create more tissue damage as a result of changing direction when contacting a bone etc. the relatively anemic velocity of the 7.62x39 was desinged for close quarters battle at limited range.

A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.

Josey1

The Rushkies didn't go to 5.45 for nothing.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Edited by - josey1 on 08/19/2002 09:39:25

offeror

The secret to the .223's devastation despite its light weight and relatively small diameter is velocity, velocity, and velocity. That is why using it in a barrel under 16" reduces round effectiveness. The manufacturers' engineers know that there is a minimum velocity at which the .223 must go in order to work propery -- I think it's around 2550 fps. Below that, it becomes a fast .22 with a point on it. The 7.62x39 isn't nearly that picky about speed, but this is why the two rounds are comparably formidable in firefights.

You may disagree with me, but you would be wrong...

- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

snarlgard

Also it doesn't hurt that after impact the .223 tries to swap ends

and is known to break up into 2 or more pieces with different wound tracks

SMILE...MAKE EM WONDER WHAT YOUR UP TO

Txs

This site can answer your question, along with a bunch more that you'll eventually get around to asking if you keep dealing with 5.56/.223 ammo.

www.ammo-oracle.com

Bullzeye

quote:
The Rushkies didn't go to 5.45 for nothing.


They didnt "go to it" at all, in the sense of replacing something. It was a specific round designed for a specific purpose.

The AK-74 and the AKSU-74 "Krinkov" were both designed for special and specific applications, including close-quarters combat, for issue to mechanized troops where size was an issue, and room clearing (in place of a submachine gun). This is why almost all of them were equipped with folding stocks (or no stock at all) and some even with forward pistol grips.

They were used by Spetznaz, KGB, and many mechanized units, but it wasnt designed with the intent of bumping or phasing out the 7.62x39R and it certainly never came to pass as such.

Bullzeye

PS- The "meat axe" theory about the .223 only holds true to a point, and even then only with the right rifling and bullet type.

The .223, when induced to tumble on entry, can and does do damage vastly disproportionate to it's small size. Also, when used with modern ballistic tips, it can also do damge much larger than it's size would suggest. As 7mm said, with ballistic tips and good shot placement it can be used on good-sized deer with excellent results.

I'm saying that because I want to point out that I'm not bad mouthing the round just out of spite.

However, a lot of people have this idea that the round is just a total buzzsaw no matter how or what form it's used. And that simply just isnt the truth.

First off: The tumbling effect is only effective with the right type of rifling. When the XM-16E1 came out, Armalite touted the tumbling effect and also claimed it had an effective range of AT LEAST 500 yards.

Well, the sad fact is that with the original 1:14 twist, it DID tumble, altogether too well it turned out. The bullet wobbled even before it reached the target, and this reduced the accuracy to the point where it was totally unacceptable for military use.

So they tightened the twist to 1:12 in 1963, and it's accuracy became excellent. The problem? The only thing that eclipsed the bullet's puny knockdown power, the "meat axe" effect, now no longer worked! It was very fast, very flat shooting, and very accurate. Except it was just like poking holes in the guy with an knitting needle.

The other issue: bullet selection. The best example of this came in Mogadishu when the US Army Rangers and Delta Force fought the bloody Battle of the Black Sea. The 5.56mm round they were using was the Army's brand-new "green-tip" round, with a tungsten-carbine penetrator tip. Problem was, the armor-piercing effect cancelled out any of the knockdown power the round had, and made a small clean hole in and out. Unless it hit the guy in the head or the spine, it often took several minutes after being shot for the bleeding to bring the guy down.

Delta Lieutenent Paul Howe: "I felt like I needed 2 or 3 shots just to let the guy know I was there, then 2 or 3 more after that to finally take him down. It was a mess."

223believer

When it comes to spraying rounds into the air and
screaming "Death to Israel! Death to America!" you
just can't beat the 7.62X39.

Bullzeye

Way to be ignorant. I make a strong argument that you simply cant intelligently defend against, so you play the patriot card.

And just so you know, the M-16 is used by plenty of terrorist groups. The Muslim Abu Sayyaf guerillas in the Phillipines, the ones who took the two Americans hostage and eventually killed one of them, use M-16s and M249s almost totally exclusively.

223believer

Bullzeye, do you really take yourself that seriously?

offeror

The way I understand it, the Krinkov was first chambered in the 7.62x39, but it was found to be simply too hard to control in that size gun. The 5.45 replaced it because it is easier and more accurate to shoot in that weapon, and that's what the later examples were therefore chambered for. While there was some concern that the U.S. was somehow one-upping the Russians with the .223, and that's why the Russians produced some AK-types in 5.45 as well, the majority of the world was content to continue making the AK in 7.62x39. Whether the Russians consider the 5.45 a "successor" or not, I don't know, but I do know that in the Kalashnikov documentary he complains about the guns like the AK-74 that chambered the smaller round, saying that the 7.62x39 is superior.

- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

bk0331

Nine out of ten dead VC say the 5.56 is the way to go.
I wouldn't want to be hit by either one of them!!!