.223 vs 7.62x39

[stinkin' Lincoln]

I know this has been gone over...
I am of the opinion that the .223 is a superior round. even Kalishinkov liked it enough to design a gun around the 5.45 round. I like the utter reliability of the AK... no fear of jamming... EVER!!!
is there a .223 conversion for the AK?
just wondering...
I was thinking... in a combat situation, the .223 has greater potential (IMHO) to KILL, where the 7.62 has greater potential to INJURE. In the case of a single battle, the .223 might be the superior round, but in the case of a war, the 7.62x39 might do better in that an injured man has to be cared for... time, money, and resources that could be put towards fighting must be spent on medical supplies, personell, and recoup/recovery time...
just thinking out loud,
sl

[Tomac]

Kalashnikov did not want a smaller caliber for the AK, the 5.45x39 was implemented at the insistence of the Kremlin over his objections. He still thinks a modernized 7.62rd would be best for the AK. In regards to killing power of the .223 v 7.62x39 you may be right as long as you have a clear shot at your target. The 7.62 will penetrate obstacles and brush much better than the .223 will. Both rounds have their strengths and weaknesses but the 7.62 suits my particular needs better.
Tomac

[xebec]

I agree that .223 has its advantages, but "killing power" simply is not one of them. Just a quick glance at the ballistic tables will show you that 7.62x39 has more energy at the muzzle and the gap only widens as range increases. The little 55g .223 bullet does not retain its velocity like the 123g 7.62x39. Higher energy coupled with larger frontal area (5.56mm vs. 7.62mm) means more energy is delivered to the target. I know others have made much of such voodoo as .223 "breaking at the cannelure" and tumbling in flesh -- in my mind this is simply gun range mythology or, at best, a very poor substitute for a true expanding bullet design (I'm sure CEZ or someone else will be all over that statement http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif). If I had to stop someone I would want to be able to deliver energy-- not rely on some sort of magical bullet characteristics. I have hunted whitetail with handloaded 7.62x39 in a custom rifle for five years now and have seen firsthand the capability of this round to cause MASSIVE internal injury (admittedly with high quality hunting bullets). The vast majority of EXPERIENCED hunters will tell you that, even with handloads, the .223 is a marginal deer gun at best.
The .223 does have two major advantages as an intermediate military cartridge-- More rounds can be carried in a smaller space, and it shoots MUCH flatter than the 7.62x39, making it easier to hit targets at extended ranges.

[Chris C]

I have one rifle in 7.62x39,
but as soon as I can afford it I am gonna
get a .223 just in case the "MYTHs" are
true. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif

That's atleast one definite advantage of
the .223 over the AK. If they are accurate
over our Soviet Arms, we are screwed royally
gentlemen.

Chris

"He who has range over you, is King"

[Sir Hacksalot]

Their is a GREAT myth being perpetuated here about "bullet" deflection in bushes, brush, sticks, etc.

I've got NEWS for you die hard "the AK is better" blah blah blah. ANY round up to and INCLUDING the massive 16" naval shells is going to be deflected when it hits something. A year or two ago, Mike Venturino of Guns and Ammo did a test about bullet deflection and used everything from a mouse gus (.223), .270, .30-06, and a .45-70, and EVERYTHING was deflected. I believe that the .30-06 was deflected the least if I remember correctly. I hunt in North Louisiana using a Marlin Lever action .45-70, and have missed shots at game under 100 yards, when I KNOW that I had the critter centered. Even a 310 grain slug from my thumper will be deflected. All bullets will alter their flight path when the strike something. The 7.62 simply does it less than the 5.56.

IN terms of what I would prefer in a bad scenario. Give me my Rem 870 with Federal 00 tactical buckshot, and some Breneke slugs on my side saddle ammo carrier, with my .45 loaded with 185 gr. Cor-bons in reach. I shoot a turd with that, and odds are the grand jury is going to applaud me. I shoot one with a black rifle or AK, and odds are the grand jury will HANG me.

Sir Hacksalot

[Jaeger]

Have any of you actually seen, first hand,someone shot with any type of bullet? It is an ugly,stinking sight. It is not glorious or wonderous. It sucks, even when it's a bad guy who got what was coming to him.
There are so many factors involved in the terminal performace of bullets that this arguement is rendered moot.
The dead do not care what they have been shot with. They only care that they are dead.

[xebec]

Interesting Jaeger. If this discussion is "moot" as you say, why did you bother to read the thread? I always find it interesting that cops always seem to think that they have some special insight into terminal ballistics. Maybe you have seen a few gunshot victims loaded into the ambulance- so what? I have hunted for nearly 25 years and have taken hundreds of game animals ranging from whitetail, to feral hogs, to elk, to bighorn. In virtually every case I have personally gutted, dressed, and processed the carcass. I KNOW FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE the effects of high powered rifles on bodies similar in size and composition to a human body. Your post implies that terminal ballistics is so complex it can not be quantified in some meaningful way-- HOGWASH. Many volumes have been written on terminal ballistics by people more knowledgable than any here, so it certainly can be quantified. stinkin'Lincoln's post does have a place on this board and his opinions and queries are valid, not "moot." I did not read a post here "glorifying" shooting anyone-- this IS a board for military rifles, however, and terminal ballistic performance is a natural subject for conversation.If you don't want to (or can't) contribute to the thread, other than dubious "experience" gained as a cop, just pass on it. Your condesending tone is irritating.

[stinkin' Lincoln]

thanks xebec...

you see Jaeger, some of us "civilians" like to uphold the constitution and protect ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.
I pray that I'll never have to shoot ANYONE... I'm in no way shape or form glorifying it, but if someone's gonna be shooting at me, I want to know more about shooting at them!!

sl

------------------
if triangles had a god, it'd have three sides...

[Packrat]

It is true that any round is deflected to some extent, however WHAT that extent is makes all the difference. Years ago Chuck Taylor (I believe) did tests using 1/4" dowls to simulate brush and fired through them at targets. The .223 deflected badly with any kind of hit, from minimum contact to full occlusion (entire diameter of the bullet is within the diameter of the deflector). I believe he also found that most of the time a .223 would deflect from the front windshield of an auto. The 7.62 had much less deflection.
I'll try some grazing shots into an automobile this weekend with the AK, and with the .223 also if I get a chance. I don't have a full auto with front glass to try the deflection off that. Can't have everything, I guess.

------------------
Packrat

[Necron99]

My main concern is terminal ballistics after the round has encountered say a typical house wall, door or glass window, car frame/door, a hedge or bush, tree, etc.. at short ranges. This is the typical scenario one encounters in infantry battles. Infantry often times don't even see their opponent (because he's firing from cover) but have a really good idea where he is. If the round can't penetrate the cover to hit the target what good is it. This is why intermediate rifle rounds were developed in the first place. WWII infantry loved their smgs but the cartridge didn't have enough oomph to hit enemies under even light cover. The 5.56 even in its ss109 form (which was designed to improve tactical penetration of the m193) doesn't even come close to the performance of the 7.62x39 under typical firefight conditions. Better yet is a full powered rifle round like the 30-06 or 7.62N but then you are dealing with the loss of rapid followup shots and controlability in full auto.

[Johan762]

xebec:

It is NOT merely a range MYTHOLOGY that a .223 projectile would yaw and break at the cannelure after entering flesh. It is an established fact that has been proven over and over again both in the scientific world and the battle field. A fmj 7.62 projectile would cause much less tissue disruption than its .223 counterpart. In fact, the 7.62 fmj projectile is not anymore effective than a .38 special slug in term of incapacitating capability.

KE of a projectile is merely an indication of how well a soft or hollow point projectile would expand. It is not an indication of the incapacitating capability of that projectile.

7.62 x 39 projectile would yaw if it has a flat base instead of a boat tailed one.

Johannes

[xebec]

Johan, I have read some of the written material from different sources on the .223 tumble phenomenon. I have no doubt that this occurs. In time in the US Infantry I observed "keyholed" targets at the M16 range frequently. To clarify-- I was not saying that the phenomenon is a myth, but rather that the flesh damage associated with this bullet is GREATLY EXAGERATED by popular shooting "mythology." As I stated earlier real experience with wound ballistics is a much more accurate yardstick for terminal performance than 1000s of pages of "scientific" analysis. The entire basis for that research often has political elements unseen by the final reader.
A fmj 7.62 projectile would cause much less tissue disruption than its .223 counterpart. In fact,
the 7.62 fmj projectile is not anymore effective than a .38 special slug in term of incapacitating capability.
Where the heck did you get THAT from? The tissue shock associated with a high velocity round is much greater than with a slow moving slug like .38. Again it sounds like you spend too much time reading and not enough out in the field seeing what rifle rounds can really do. KE of a projectile is merely an indication of how well a soft or hollow point projectile would expand. It is not an
indication of the incapacitating capability of that projectile.
If Kenetic Energy is what you are talking about here then let me set you straight. I have said it here before -ENERGY DOES KILL- let me give you a little Gedanken expirament. Imagine you take an already expanded projectile and throw it at a person. Nicely expanded bullet hits said person with ~40 foot pounds of energy-- OW. Take an unexpanded projectile and fire it from your AK-- impacts said target with ~ 1700 foot pounds of energy penetrating the upper torso and destroying (gelatinizing actually-- I have seen this repeatedly as I said) multiple organs before creating a large exit hole faciliatating rapid blood loss. Both bullets were expanded Johan-- so what was fatal in one case and not the other? KINETIC ENERGY. IT DOES KILL. 7.62 x 39 projectile would yaw if it has a flat base instead of a boat tailed one. Why is that Johan?- you are telling us that no matter what the rifle twist rate that a boatail bullet will tumble?-- wrong again my friend. As I previously stated I have handloaded EXTENSIVELY for this cartridge and currently use two different boattail designs both of which are very stable. Both also exibit excellent stability during termianl stage-- no signs of tumbling or yawing- both expand in a "textbook" fashion. I have tested these bullets in my own concotion of tallow/parafin/wood as well as compressed wet cardboard, as well as many deer, whitetail, cous, and axis. As a side note (although, as I said I don't put much stock in range tests) Some friends at the range shot the @#^&%$ out of one of my tallow blocks with a Mini14- while it was difficult to distinguish individual "wound channels" I saw nothing indicating extraordinary damage-- in fact I was singularly unimpressed. Maybe the .223 only does the magical massive damage trick when fired from an M16? HHMMMMM... the myth continues.

[xebec]

You are right brianwins, thanks for helping put a fine point on this debate. (BTW- after re-reading my previous post it sounds somewhat petulant- it was not my intent to denigrate Johan's contribution to this thread). The FMJ 7.62x39 vs. 5.56 Nato is largely academic from anything other than a military history standpoint. I understand that many believe that the .223 has terminal ballistic capabilities beyond the pale of "normal" FMJ projectiles. I remain sceptical of such "voodoo", reguardless of the (politicized) data that many cite to support these claims. In my many years of experience with rifles I have yet to see anything that convinces me that the .223 FMJ can inflict wounds beyond those expected from a 55-62 grain FMJ projectile travelling at 3000fPS and slower. I respect other's rights to hold the opposite view. That being said my ORIGINAL point was that the 7.62X39 cartridge is capable of delivering more energy at all effective ranges and is also capable of creating a larger wound cavity than the .223 (greater mass and larger frontal area dictates this). We live in the here and now gentlemen-- if we were ever in a situation where we needed to use these cartridges against a human target (God forbid) then we are not constrained by the Geneva protocols.

[brianwins]

It sounds like xebec and Johan762 are talking about 2 different things. Johan762 was refering to FMJ projectiles only, and I think that he has some valid points, as 5.56 NATO rounds are known to fragment in tissue, at short range. It also depends which series of NATO standard ammo and rifles you are talking about. THe old light weight would often tumble, causing massive damage, while the new heavier SS109 type, when spun faster, tends to fragment more. FMJ 7.62x39 has been known to do the 'small hole in, small hole out' wounding pattern. This isn't to say that being shot with 7.62x39 is a lot of fun, I know people who have been hit with this round, and they did suffer long term disability from it.
I think that xebec was refering more to soft point and hollow point 7.62x39 ammo. Being hit by that round would do major, probably fatal injury. People do not survive hits from rifles firing expansive rounds very well. Even if a limb is hit, lots of tissue are lost, and amputation is likly.
If you were limited to FMJ only, I think that the 5.56 NATO is superior to the 7.62x39. BUT, we are not limited in the ammo we feed our rifles. You are allowed to shoot whatever you please or can afford.
Given this, I save the FMJ for target practice, and keep the rifle loaded with hollow points.
Just my long winded $.02 BW



[This message has been edited by brianwins (edited 01-11-2000).]

[Jaeger]

Relax people. My post was not made with any condecending intentions. I am mearly sharing my observation based on experience. I have seen a kid shot once with a 25ACP who died before medics could even get close to him. Noone would argue that the 25 is a very effective round yet here is this boy. A one shot stop, DOA.
Recently I held the hand of a young boy who's step father deliberatly shot him in the head (along with his brother, sister and mother) with a 45ACP. He did not die until some time later at the hospital. Is the 25ACP a better round than the 45ACP? Of course not! I too am a hunter. I have shot many animals in the field and I almost always butcher my own game. Shooting a deer is not the same as shooting a man. While the flesh may react similarly the brains do not. It has been my experience that this makes a drastic difference on the effects of gunshot wounds. While my statement that this arguement was entirely moot may have been a bit much I will stand by my opinion that it is not as big an issue as it is made out to be.
Also, I was not implying that anyone here was glorifying the shooting of people.(although some have) I am merely injecting some reality to a popular topic on this board. If that Is too strong for you perhaps you should take up knitting.
'Lincoln, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take that oath very seriously. I am vehemently pro Second ammendment and I conduct myself accordingly and regularly encourage others to do the same. (much to the chagrin of my administration!)
Enough said.

[stinkin' Lincoln]

Jaeger,

sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were one of the bad guys... I think I knee-jerked my response.
no hard feelings,

sl

------------------
if triangles had a god, it'd have three sides...

[xebec]

Jaeger, I misunderstood the intent of your post and apologize for my waspish response. I agree with you that a Human tends to "give up" a LOT easier than any animal, and this does make a difference in how a gunshot wound affects a Human vs. animal target. My point was simply the physical damage involved-- not the (admittedly) complex pshycological elements that follow the physical effects. Your point that these pshycological elements play an extremely important and often unquantifiable role in the ugly bussiness of "real world" shootings is well taken.
These "this vs. that" threads tend to get hot in a hurry-- if I get involved in many more I MAY take up knitting.

[Jaeger]

LOL

[Sir Hacksalot]

It is fun to debate the virtues of the 5.56, 7.62X39, and others, but the fact is, a hit center mass will generally take all the fight out of anything that is looking to give it to you.

Say I hit a guy with an AK in the chest 5 times with a .22LR, and he MISSES me 5 times with his AK. Who do you think is going to have the longer day? Only hits count.

Shooting is like golf. You carry and use what you've got confidence in. Some like the 5.56, some like the 7.62X39, while others like something a little more, well, SUBSTANTIAL.

Sir Hacksalot

[Edmund Rowe]

IIRC Dr. Martin Fackler's wound ballistic paper on 7.62x39 military ammo, this round in the MILITARY configuration does indeed make wounds resembling .38 Special in soft tissue. Note there are a lot of ifs here. Hit a key organ or some bones and things get much messier.

Before I forget, no, I don't want to be shot with 7.62x39 in any form.

As reloaders and civilians, we have the ability to use all sorts of bullet types in 7.62x39 so the ".38 Special" wound profile isn't universal.

The non-tumbling, non-tissue disrupting nature of 7.62 is not a blanket ALL 7.62mm military bullets, either. 7.62x51 NATO does a lot more tissue damage due to some sort of hypersonic phenomena that isn't seen with the slower velocity 7.62x39 in its military configuration. This tissue-bursting phenomena (my terminology only) with the full power rifle bullets seems to disappear with longer range and lower velocity.

I myself figure I can use either 7.62x39 or .223 or 7.62 NATO or .30-06, so long as I remember
-get good hits
-there are no miracle bullets
-not everyone will cooperate and stop fighting after I shoot them, so be ready to pop them again

One last word: I have a Galil and I have had malfs with it. VERY FEW but I have still had a couple. I don't believe in flawlessly reliable rifles but maybe it's just me. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif Also, malfs can be ammunition, user, rifle, or something else related. If I don't line up the mag right and it doesn't go in CLICK and I can't shoot, then I'm SOL and I have a malf. So what if it was my fault. If I can't shoot I can't shoot, no matter how reliable the rifle is when everything is peachy.

OK, now that I put everyone to sleep....

Edmund

[Edmund Rowe]

One other note:

At one time there were semi-auto .223 AKs imported from China. They seemed to work well but like my .223 Galil, the Klatch will really throw brass high and right. I mean HIGH.

Edmund

[raven]

I'll tell you what, I've got an Ak-74 in 5.45mm. I like it fine, but I'd be much, much happier if it was in .223 and had mags to go with it. The .223 is a more powerful (bigger bullet, higher velocity = more force), and more available round than the 5.45mm.

Nonetheless, I don't think the cost of converting an AK-74 to .223 is worth it. Like someone said before, a rifle round will mess you up no matter what. The cost of converting would get me several cases of 5.45mm ammo. So screw it.

On the other hand, after reading "Blackhawk Down", I wanted a .308 real bad and got a FAL. Why? Army Rangers had problems putting down Somali warriors in 1993 with their .223 rifles....even after pumping an entire MAGAZINE into their skinny targets! However, a Delta Force soldier packing an M-14 in the same combat mission was putting Somalis down with single rounds. That made me a believer in the .308!

[xebec]

Hey BW-- better re-check your ballistic charts. After reading you post I re-checked three different trajectory and energy tables and not one projected a higher energy for .223 at ANY range. As I stated before the tables clearly show that the 7.62x39 has more energy at the muzzle and the gap widens as range increases. That particular curve is to be expected- all else being equal a heavier projectile tends to retain velocity better than a lighter projectile- simple Newtonian physics.

[brianwins]

Two points that I would like to make:
1)Bigger bullet doesn't mean more force, velocity is very important. For example, by 200 yards, 5.56 nato has more kinetic energy than the 7.62x39. 5.56x45 has a higher velocity for longer distance than 7.62x39, so keeps it energy longer.
2)Using FMJ 7.62 nato vs FMJ(SS109)on humans, I would expect that the larger bullet would be more effective. One problem that western arms makers have always seemed to have was one of wounding vs killing. It seems that western troops, when wounded, seek medical attention, taking them out of the fight. This is not always the case when fighting people who are pissed off and want to kill YOU, not just trying to kill you because it's their job. The US Army had to relearn this early in the 20th century, when the found that the issue .38 revolver didn't incapacitate Moro tribesmen before they killed the shooter. The Army adopted the .45ACP in part from that experiance.
I would also note that people who fight angry, pissed off people everyday, ie cops, almost always use frangible bullets of some type, because they work.
My point being if you really want to stop someone's actions who is threating you, I would rather shoot them once with a hollow point than 2 or 3 times with FMJ. You might need the ammo, and you might not have the time needed.
Before I get flak for talking about shooting humans, I would like to say that this is a serious discussion, about a serious topic. Not something to be lightly thought about, but something that does need to be thought about, before circumstances place you in harms way.
Just my long-winded thoughts. BW

[General Ourumov]

Well, one thing about the .223 is that it DOES fragment and cause severe injury when it hits. One big downside though; after the bullet drops to a certain velocity (I think its 2700 fps), it no longer tumbles and fragments. So if you're using an M4 with the 11.5" barrel, the bullet drops below this velocity below 200 yards.

[Eric 0]

Commando not M4

[Heavy Metal]

An M-4 has a 14.5 inch barrel.

H.M.

[brianwins]

Xebec, I was using the data tables from Duncan Long's 'Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns', 1991 edition, from pages 131, 132. Mr. Long lists 5.56 nato (55grain) with an energy of 605 fpe at a range of 200 yards. 7.62x39 (110grain) is given an energy of 550 fpe, although the 150 grain bullet is listed as having an energy of 1051 fpe. I do believe that the 150 grain loading is much more common than the 110, so I do stand corrected on that count.
I do think that most of my other points are still valid. BW

[SniperSVD]

Hey

The 7.62X39mm is gonna fuck you up if you get hit by it. because it is a big bullet and if it hits your bone it is going to shatter it and cause serious damage but it can also go completly through your body if it misses your bones. if is hits you in the head it is probly going to take your head off.

The 5.54X39 (.223) if this little peice hits you it is going to bounce around in your insides. this unlike most Ak-47's can cut a flat cookie while in the air which can cause a 7 inch exit wound. if it hits our bone on the inside it is going to bounce around and tear your insides and cause mortal damage. this unlike the 7.62X39 is made of Bismuth which has a much greater muzzle velosity at greater distances (it weighs less and is powered by more because it is a smaller projectile). however if you get hit in the head it is most likly this it will bounce off and cause minimal damage to our skull and flesh but it can cause your brain to get jarred around and reneder you retarded.

Either way i don't want to be hit by one so I do the sniping from half mile away from their reach.

[Destroyer]

The debate of the 5.56mm vs. the 7.62x39mm is a moot point (IMO). I have waited to enter this debate until I had more first-hand information, and now I do. Both rounds will go through an old (steel) truck door at a variety of angles (from obtuse to acute). However, neither the 5.56mm in its 62gr. form, nor the 7.62x39mm in its steel-core guise, will go through both sides of a (sand filled) steel bucket. This bucket was not abnormally large, about 12 inches in diameter, and was merely used (prior to its use as a target) to store asphalt-based roofing material. Since both loads penetrated completely through the sand but did not exit the back of the bucket it seems that their penetration is about the same. One of the steel-core rounds did exit sideways but was put through the smallest portion of the sand/bucket; none of the lead-core rounds exited at all. It also seemed to point to the fact that if either round had possessed a little more "oomph" they would have blown through the back of the bucket. To me, one who feels that penetration is of the utmost importance for those of us who cannot call in air/artillery strikes, neither of the "intermediate" cartridges will do. They're better than handgun rounds but to not perform well enough to make me comfortable. Sure, the .308 (and the like) rounds weigh more but I'm willing to put up with that for an increase in performance… That Vepr in 7.62 NATO is looking better every day (gotta love the AK design)! Now, if only I could sell my SA-93 so I could afford to buy one. :P

On an unrelated note, I talked to a Vietnam veteran who was shot through the arm with a 7.62x39mm and he said he didn't even know he'd been hit until he was in the showers and saw the blood running… http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/frown.gif

[SniperSVD]

I think she USA should adopt the Krinkinov and ditch the M-16. The M-16 is a nice rifle but too damagable and the metal can warp in hot and cold conditions. I hate the new rifle the military is trying to adopt the HK G-11. It may be a nice rifle and all but the damn thing is huge! http://www.securityarms.com/galleryfiles/309.htm

Happy Debating

[SniperSVD]

Actually i think the Military should go after the G-3 rifle. it is very robust and can withstand a large variety of climates.
You can throw the G-3 at a wall and kick it into water and it will still be better than the M-16. Although the M-4 has been modified to withstand alot more the the m-16.

The G-3 is probly one of the best battle rifles on the market. You can snipe with it charge with it run and shoot and it can be fitted with a colapsable stock. I like it cause it is .308 and can go through all the stuff an Ak-47 can. It also has a full length scope rail. The rail runs up and down the reciver and you can still use the iron sights.

[LAgunman2K-3]

how does the AR15/M-16 warp in hot and cold situations ??

i have a feeling that the Ar/M-16 will be around for a great many years, and if there is a switch to a different gun then it will go to the special forces and similar units
i have heard that the marines, im guessing recon force-- maybe some other unit, switched from HK MP5 to the M-4

------------------
and on the 8th day GOD made the AK-47 and saw that this was good

[Packrat]

Destroyer stole my thunder -- we were shooting together on the penetration tests. However, after thinking about it, I know why the round didn't exit -- it tumbled, as it should have, and the exit hole would have been made with the side of the bullet. That is also why the bullet was bent into a cresent shape and why the bullet had much worse abrasion on one side -- not because it was sliding along the steel of the bucket, as I first thought.

I was surprised that the .223 would penetrate and not be significantly deflected even when shooting as such an acute angle that a shot through the front door would not strike a passenger in the rear seat. Based on this, I would say that when engaging targets in a US passenger automobile, the sheet metal can be discounted and the shooter can aim for any point he wishes with little fear that the bullet will be stopped or deflected. Only the engine block would stop the round. Hopefully, this is purely interesting / eductional information.

------------------
Packrat

[Destroyer]

Ooops, sorry, Packrat. I thought you might have wanted to post a more detailed examination (barrel lengths used, etc.) in the Ammunition section... I was very moved by the results and posted my interpretations in this section because of the relivence it had on rifle selection... Next time I'll let you post your full evaluation before I post mine.

[colonel kalashnikov]

I think it probably boils down to this:

The AK is better for close in fighting for its penetration (of all objects) like in thick brush or the city, and the M16/AR is a better battle rifle for more wide open battlefield type of tactics.

The AK is a better rifle for me, because if I were to ever engage in any sort of squabbles, I predict it will be a short range situation. I also like it for home protection, because I know I can shoot through a couple of walls or through a car, when the M16 probably won't be able to.

My .02

[This message has been edited by colonel kalashnikov (edited 01-27-2000).]

[Lisl Auman]

Xebec,
the 7.62 causing less tissue disruption compared w/the .223 is due to the construction of the bullet. The 7.62 doesn't fragment and tumbles quite late, 8-9 inches if I recall. So, unless it hits bone, it will go through leaving a .30 caliber hole.

Kinetic energy is great, but that energy needs to be transferred into something, like the destruction of the projectile having KE (fragmentation/deformation[mushrooming]). The least desireable is just tumbling.
An analogy would be to throw a chopstick through someone. Lots of KE, but just a small hole.

I think what Johan was saying is that the flat based bullet will tumble earlier than the BT. Both will tumble. The twist rate of the rifle does have an impact on stability.

(I'm a fan of a 1:14 twist on an AR, 55gr.)

One question:
I saw in Midway's catalog many SP bullets for 7.62 x 39. However, some were .311, some .310. Isn't that round .311? And if so, can a person use .310?

What I'm thinking of is getting a bullet puller and replacing the FMJ/fake HP russian bullets w/SPs. Could I do this if the original cartridge has metal cases?




------------------
Proverbs 27:7
He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet.

[Packrat]

Colonel, while I am not a big .223 champion, I gan guarantee you that 62 gr FMJ bullets (not SS109, Wolf) will penetrate one side of an automobile even at such a slight angle that a bullet fired into the front door would miss a passenger in the back seat, when fired from 50 yds. Of course, at a lesser angle, the penetration would be greater. I did not believe this until I tried it. It doesn't deflect as easily as I had believed.

------------------
Packrat

[Reds]

Hey Packrat. In a situation like the North Hollywood shootout, where cars were used as cover, it looked like the ability to punch through both sides of a car would have been important. Have you compared the .223 and 7.62 in this respect?

[Sir Hacksalot]

Col Kalishnikov,

You might want to think twice about using an AK in a home defense type situation.

First off, whacking a home intruder with a weapon as MENACING as an AK/AR/sks/military type rifle would make it difficult for your attorney in front of the Grand Jury. If I were a prosecuting DA or some ambitious pinko attorney, I would CRUCIFY you for shooting this innocent person that stumbled into your house by accident.

Second off, in a home situation, you probably do NOT want the rounds zipping through walls. You had better be ready to account for ALL rounds fired, especially when they zip on through to your neighbors house. Not to mention, the fact that some states have a law that if you can retreat or escape (EVEN OUT OF YOUR HOUSE) you have an obligation to do so.

There is a major difference between urban combat and a home invader. Give me my 12 gauge with 2 3/4" BBB or T shot or my .45 loaded with Glasers over a 5.56 or 7.62 ANY day. I don't have to worry about where errant rounds go, and no matter what ANYONE says, shooting with an adrenaline dump is a LOT different than your local IDPA or range type situation.

Sometimes we talk so flippantly about using deadly force, but let me tell you, be ready for a RUINED life, lots of attorney's fees, and the STIGMA of what it can bring. I STRONGLY believe in the utilization of firearms for home/personal defense, just be READY for what that responsiblity entails.

Sir Hacksalot

[Packrat]

Friends, don't hide behind a car to save yourself from either 7.62x39 or .223. At anything close to 90 degrees, you might as well hide behind a sheet of newspaper. My concern is what happens if you try to stop an automobile coming almost toward you. I have decided that (especially with 7.62) you can disregard the automobile and go for the driver. Pretend the sheetmetal isn't there, estimate the kill zone, and fire.

For any of you LEOs out there, the position with the vehicle door open and you taking cover behind it -- don't do it against an AK (or an AR, for that matter). If the bad guy is less than 100 yds away, you have no protection. If anyone has access to junker cars and would like to verify this, or refine the testing I've done, I would like to hear from you. And if you get different results, I really want to hear from you.

------------------
Packrat

[colonel kalashnikov]

You're right Hacksalot,

I was flappin' my gums.....i shouldn't have said i prefer the AK for 'home protection.' I keep a .45 out of the safe for that. I guess what I was trying to express is that IMO the AK is a much better battle rifle for the urban arena.

YOU WROTE......"If I were a prosecuting DA or some ambitious pinko attorney, I would CRUCIFY you for shooting this innocent person that stumbled into your house by accident"............."but let me tell you, be ready for a RUINED life, lots of attorney's fees, and the STIGMA of what it can bring. " http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/frown.gif .......Where did you get the notion that I would shoot an innocent person? I would hope no one on this msg. board thinks that anyone one of us on the board is simply going to blow away the first innocent person that stumbles into their house by accident. Come on now!

BUT, in my home state of Colorado there is a 'make my day' law, and if some nut were to enter my house with a shotgun and a pistol with cruel intentions, NO jury in this state (and a majority of the other states) is gonna have a problem with me putting 6-8 rounds of 7.62x39 into the chap in the name of self defense.

Also, I don't practice shooting the AK at gun ranges as you assume, except to zero in. They (ranges) aren't practical IMO and suck for practicing with the AK. One will be able to deploy an AK better if he has practiced in the field, and not under the controlled conditions of a range. I practice in heavily wooded areas, the desert, grasslands, snow covered mountains. In many types of shooting positions......even with snow shoes on if needed!!!!

------------------
Chicks dig the longball and the AK!!!



[This message has been edited by colonel kalashnikov (edited 02-02-2000).]

[Reds]

I think what Hacksalot meant was that someone that wants you locked up in the name of anti-gun politics or sued for taking a life is going to portrait ANY intruder as an innocent if it suits their purposes.

[This message has been edited by Reds (edited 02-03-2000).]

[Sir Hacksalot]

Col. K.,

I was indeed being sarchastic about the "innocent" that invaded a home.

Good for you about the range. So many gun owners practice punching holes in paper that if they had to shoot kneeling, prone, offhand, they would be dangerous to EVERYONE but the person they are shooting at.

My rule is, "If I can get closer, GET CLOSER, and if I can get steadier, GET STEADIER", and CLOSER and STEADIER is best of all.

Only hits count,
Sir Hacksalot

[colonel kalashnikov]

Amen Hacksalot!!!

------------------
Chicks dig the longball and the AK!!!

[ALAL ENKI]

AT speeds above 2700 fps a 5.56 round will flip after 3-4 inches at 180 degrees it breaks at the canalure. The rear fragments and scatters, while the front exits backwards.
from then on, (below 2700) it will flip, break at the canalure. the rear goes in a random direction, and the front exits backwards.
At extreme long range, the round just flips and exits backwards.
M193 Fragments more, SS109 penetrates more AT LONG RANGE.
M193 will start to flip sooner then SS109.
M193 is also faster (3260 to 3100) and stays above 2700fps longer (thats why special forces with M4s use M193).
SS109 was the round giving trouble in samalia.
Just like I prefer hollow points for AKs, I prefer M193 for ARs..

------------------
The key to immortality, is first living a life worth remembering...
ENKI
GET PAID ALOT WATCHING ADS ONLINE (http://www.bepaid.com/users.rhtml?REFID=10447730)
ADD ON TO THAT! Make money just for SURFING! (http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=lfy949)
BOTH are totally LEGIT! and can be used together!!

[Packrat]

The "2700 fps" figure gets quoted a lot (I've quoted it myself) but if you look at martin Fackler's data, it actually still breaks up (more, larger pieces) down to below 2500 fps. But no matter what the actual number is, the longer the barrel the faster the bullet moves (to a certain point, of course) and the more effective it is. The M4s are not all that good beyond 100 yds according to tables I've seen. I have no experience with it, though.

------------------
Packrat

[Belthar]

This debate on 22cal vs 30cal interests me. My feeling on the issue is that the 30cal. bullets have more down range energy, they are heavier and they maintain their velocity better then 22cal. bullets. It's simple physics. Does down range energy translate to more killing power? Based on stories I've heard from men actually in combat I believe the answer is yes with out a doubt. Several articles on Culver's Shooting Page address this issue. I have also known quite a few Vietnam era Combat vets who were experienced with the AK,M14 and M16 who said the same thing. In addition, the book Black Hawk down is pretty scathing about the stopping power of the M16, where as a Navy Seal armed with an M14 had no suck problems. I also read a post on a message board from a Guatemalan, who said their troops were throwing their Galil's away in favor of M1 rifles they had previously been issued, during one of their Communist insurgencies, because the 30-06 round had greater stopping power. In terms of Millitary firearms your life may depend on them someday. Myself, in matters of which is the best type, I'm going to ask a ground combat soldier who has experience as opposed to an ivory tower egghead.

Belthar.

[Belthar]

This debate on 22cal vs 30cal interests me. My feeling on the issue is that the 30cal. bullets have more down range energy, they are heavier and they maintain their velocity better then 22cal. bullets. It's simple physics. Does down range energy translate to more killing power? Based on stories I've heard from men actually in combat I believe the answer is yes with out a doubt. Several articles on Culver's Shooting Page address this issue. I have also known quite a few Vietnam era Combat vets who were experienced with the AK,M14 and M16 who said the same thing. In addition, the book Black Hawk down is pretty scathing about the stopping power of the M16, where as a Navy Seal armed with an M14 had no suck problems. I also read a post on a message board from a Guatemalan, who said their troops were throwing their Galil's away in favor of M1 rifles they had previously been issued, during one of their Communist insurgencies, because the 30-06 round had greater stopping power. In terms of Millitary firearms your life may depend on them someday. Myself, in matters of which is the best type, I'm going to ask a ground combat soldier who has experience as opposed to an ivory tower egghead.

Belthar.

[Section-8]

Are you referring to Dr.Fackler? I read his article about 7.62x39 and alot of other people did too and were misled. He is talking about Russian and Chinese steel-core.
Yugo ammo is much more effective in flesh because it's lead-core flat-based where the other lesser effective ammo (steel-core) has a boat tail, thus making it much more stable and causing it to leave the classic .30cal in .30cal out. The Yugo lead-core flat-based has this nasty little habbit of yawing in flesh like 5.56 (BTW is all Wolf ammo boat-tail?). As far as piercing armor and cover they are about the same with a small (not much) advantage to steel-core.
if you want something with alittle more killing power (im just a hunter don't worry http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif) get you some hollow points, some people say these dont expand but that hollow point in the end will make it yaw in flesh even sooner than Yugo FMJ thus making Russian lead-core hollowpoint the most effective AK ammo with the perfect combination of penetration (it'll go through a tree nearly a foot thick) and terminal leathality.

I havn't had much experience with .223/5.56 but if it does all the shit that everybody says it does (it probably does yaw and break at channelure but I don't believe for a second thats it's more deadly than a .308/7.62nato even if it is FMJ, that's bullshit
-------------------------------------------
www.terrorsquad.com (http://www.terrorsquad.com) go there!

[This message has been edited by Section-8 (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Freedom-Fighter]

I spent several months in a U.S. government school with a foreign soldier student. He spent several years in continuous combat. I asked him questions constantly about his experiences. One question that I asked him was about the effectiveness of the 5.56 nato round vs. the 7.62x39. He was straight foward about his preference for the 7.62x39. Early on, he got rid of his M-16 and picked up an AK-47. Most of the fighting was done at close range in an urban environment. He told me stories of guys being shot by the 5.56 round and not knowing that they were shot. They would keep coming. Torso hits sometimes made .22 caliber holes if bone was not struck. Once he changed weapons, he never experienced that situation again. Many times, enemy soldiers would be thrown backwards after being hit by 7.62x39 FMJ. Soldiers from SOCOM, that were also in attendance, agreed and told of similar experiences with the 5.56 round. There seems to be a window in the trajectory that the 5.56 will shine, but in extremely short ranges it has proven to be ineffective. I would definite choose the 7.62x39 in a military application since most combat occurs within 250m and in MOUT much closer.

[Don S]

Originally posted by xebec:
I agree that .223 has its advantages, but "killing power" simply is not one of them. Just a quick glance at the ballistic tables will show you that 7.62x39 has more energy at the muzzle and the gap only widens as range increases. The little 55g .223 bullet does not retain its velocity like the 123g 7.62x39. Higher energy coupled with larger frontal area (5.56mm vs. 7.62mm) means more energy is delivered to the target. I know others have made much of such voodoo as .223 "breaking at the cannelure" and tumbling in flesh -- in my mind this is simply gun range mythology or, at best, a very poor substitute for a true expanding bullet design (I'm sure CEZ or someone else will be all over that statement http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif). If I had to stop someone I would want to be able to deliver energy-- not rely on some sort of magical bullet characteristics. I have hunted whitetail with handloaded 7.62x39 in a custom rifle for five years now and have seen firsthand the capability of this round to cause MASSIVE internal injury (admittedly with high quality hunting bullets). The vast majority of EXPERIENCED hunters will tell you that, even with handloads, the .223 is a marginal deer gun at best.
The .223 does have two major advantages as an intermediate military cartridge-- More rounds can be carried in a smaller space, and it shoots MUCH flatter than the 7.62x39, making it easier to hit targets at extended ranges.

"killing power"?

Energy is a poor way of predidicting bullet effectiveness.

The .223 bullet simply does more damage than the 7.62x39, at least when ball ammo is used. The .223 does indeed tumble and break apart, and causes considerably more tissue damage.

The 7.62x39 penetrates considerably deeper in soft tissue, light building materials, etc. The .223 has better penetration in body armour and steel plate.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs1.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm

[Don S]

Originally posted by Johan762:
xebec:

It is NOT merely a range MYTHOLOGY that a .223 projectile would yaw and break at the cannelure after entering flesh. It is an established fact that has been proven over and over again both in the scientific world and the battle field. A fmj 7.62 projectile would cause much less tissue disruption than its .223 counterpart. In fact, the 7.62 fmj projectile is not anymore effective than a .38 special slug in term of incapacitating capability.

KE of a projectile is merely an indication of how well a soft or hollow point projectile would expand. It is not an indication of the incapacitating capability of that projectile.

7.62 x 39 projectile would yaw if it has a flat base instead of a boat tailed one.

Johannes


Some 7.62 bullets cause considerable damage. For example, West German 7.62mm NATO ball produces the same effect as 5.56 mm, but on a larger scale! US M-80 ball doesn't do this, but it is still quite effective. 7.62x39 ball, on the other hand, has VERY impressive penetration in soft tissue, but that is about all that is impressive about it (well, except for the low price . . .)

[xebec]

The .223 bullet simply does more damage than the 7.62x39, at least when
ball ammo is used. The .223 does indeed tumble and break apart, and
causes considerably more tissue damage.
You state this as if you knew it for a fact. Ah, you must be quoting Fackler, the guy who essentially works for the US Gov (LAIR), producing studies for the US Gov, studying US Gov ammunition-- sounds impartial to me.
It never ceases to amaze me that you people gaze on this work with such an uncritical eye. Fackler used ballistic gelatin in his tests-- reguarded by everyone except Fackler as a poor simulant of varied-density tissue. He gives only impressionistic renderings of his "wound profiles" providing no measurement other than logitudinal, then postulates, based on this ballistic gelatin performance, that fragmentation works in synergy with the temporary wound cavity to cause tissue disruption. Pretty big leap of faith. If you measure his .223 "wound profile" based on the logitudinal scale, you find that the .223 permanent wound cavity is a mere 2.5" at its largest diameter, only .9" larger than his rendering of the 7.62x39 round. Hardly fits the "massive damage" myth perpetrated by the .223 crowd. Hmmm... maybe Fackler meant to draw it bigger...
Fackler also fails to implement any real--life modifiers to his tests--clothing comes to mind, and more interestingly the prospect of a an oblique impact on a human body. By his own results the .223 penetrates only 14.5" while the 7.62x39 penetrates more than twice that depth. Lastly, (not really-- I could go on) Fackler admits that his "marvelous magical .223" only performs this stunt inside a small envelope-- 100--200 meters! In all I would rate the Fackler "study" "Much Ado About Nothing."

[xebec]

BTW Don S-- I always love it when the "mousegun" guys say "energy is a poor indicator blah, blah, blah. Read my lips energy does kill. I can load 30x39 rounds that will deliver all of their energy into a man--sized body. What does a living organism do with 1800 foot pounds of excess kinetic energy delivered in 1/10th of a second? It dies. You can deliver all of the energy your arm can deliver with a tennis ball, but can't kill a man with it. Why-- not enough energy-- real simple.

[Don S]

Originally posted by xebec:

You state this as if you knew it for a fact.

Yes. It is well established.

Originally posted by xebec:
Ah, you must be quoting Fackler, the guy who essentially works for the US Gov (LAIR), producing studies for the US Gov, studying US Gov ammunition-- sounds impartial to me.

Fackler is THE leading expert, armchair opinion aside.

Originally posted by xebec:
It never ceases to amaze me that you people gaze on this work with such an uncritical eye. Fackler used ballistic gelatin in his tests-- reguarded by everyone except Fackler as a poor simulant of varied-density tissue.

Ballistic gelatin is a good medium for ballistic testing. I don't know of anyone with scientific standing in the field of terminal balistics who disagrees.

Originally posted by xebec:
He gives only impressionistic renderings of his "wound profiles" providing no measurement other than logitudinal,

Indeed, he measures the entire volume of destroyed tissue.

Originally posted by xebec:
then postulates, based on this ballistic gelatin performance, that fragmentation works in synergy with the temporary wound cavity to cause tissue disruption. Pretty big leap of faith. If you measure his .223 "wound profile" based on the logitudinal scale, you find that the .223 permanent wound cavity is a mere 2.5" at its largest diameter, only .9" larger than his rendering of the 7.62x39 round. Hardly fits the "massive damage" myth perpetrated by the .223 crowd. Hmmm... maybe Fackler meant to draw it bigger...
Fackler also fails to implement any real--life modifiers to his tests--clothing comes to mind, and more interestingly the prospect of a an oblique impact on a human body. By his own results the .223 penetrates only 14.5" while the 7.62x39 penetrates more than twice that depth.

Fackler indeed tests performance with clothing and other things a bullet may strike before hitting it's intended target . . .

14.5" of penetration is more than enough for human sized targets from most any angle. The 7.62x39 has way more penetration (in soft tissue) than needed.

Originally posted by xebec:
Lastly, (not really-- I could go on) Fackler admits that his "marvelous magical .223" only performs this stunt inside a small envelope-- 100--200 meters! In all I would rate the Fackler "study" "Much Ado About Nothing."

There is nothing magical about it--you just refuse to admit that .223 has better terminal performance than 7.62x39.

100--200 meters is hardly a small envelope.

[Don S]

Originally posted by xebec:
BTW Don S-- I always love it when the "mousegun" guys say "energy is a poor indicator blah, blah, blah. Read my lips energy does kill. I can load 30x39 rounds that will deliver all of their energy into a man--sized body. What does a living organism do with 1800 foot pounds of excess kinetic energy delivered in 1/10th of a second? It dies. You can deliver all of the energy your arm can deliver with a tennis ball, but can't kill a man with it. Why-- not enough energy-- real simple.

Of course, if you load your 30 shorts to deliver all of their energy into a man sized target, you have to give up that penetration you were bragging about. And what man sized body? At what angle? At what distance? Too many variables, bad plan.

Let's consider bullet energy. For simplicity, let's consider bullet energy transmitted to a target (not the energy wasted getting there, or that wasted beyond the target). Some energy is expended in such a way as to do little damage. For example, some of the energy transmitted to muscle does no damage to the target. Muscle is elastic, and it can be displaced and return to its original position with little damage. On the other hand, some tissues suffer damage in (almost) direct proportion to the amount of energy transfered. Like brain tissue, or bone. The bottom line is that there isn't a linear relationship between the amount of damage done and the amount of energy transferred. Further, the energy must be transferred deep into the target, to vital organs. If the energy is trasnferred too soon (even if there is a lot of it), it can't be counted on to end the affair.

Now, the latter isn't the 30 short's problem. Its problem is the exact oppisite: it takes too long to transfer its energy. Of course I'm talking about ball ammo here. 30 short HP or soft points may work well. Or not. I don't know. But 30 short ball doesn't do the damage you would like, at the typical depths we want the damage at.

Consider the .45-70, with a 400 grain bullet at 1,200 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,280 ft-lbs. And consider the .220 Swift, with a 40 grain bullet at 4,000 fps and 1,420 ft-lb. Would you choose the .220 for Grizz over the .45-70? It has the energy advantage, and it will dump it all into the target!

[PRK prisoner #3243299]

Great thing about the AR is that I can throw a 7.62x39 upper on it in about a minute. Best of both worlds. For real firepower I use my FAL.

[xebec]

Yes. It is well established.
Your use of passive voice here is telling. Established by whom? Fackler. I submit that Fackler's studies are flawed and you reply by saying that they are "well established." (Presumably by Fackler-- very ah.. Circular of you).
Fackler is THE leading expert, armchair opinion aside.
Many other studies exist-- Fackler's is just one of them. Many other theories of the physical mechanics of wound ballistics exist-- Fackler's is just one of them. Reserach this a little deeper before making unsupported statements like "Fackler is the leading expert"-- your armchair opinion lacks support.
Ballistic gelatin is a good medium for ballistic testing. I don't know
of anyone with scientific standing in the field of terminal balistics
who disagrees. Another unsupported, sweeping generalization. The point in question was not whether it is a "good medium for testing ballistics", whatever that means, but whether it is a good simulant of varied--density tissue (animal internal tissue). And if, as you imply, "all the experts" believe gelatin to be even an acceptable simulant of flesh, why do the most experienced ballistics testing labs (commercial bullet manufacturers) go to such lengths to create simulants out of tallow, parafin, bone, wood, hair, cloth, newspaper etc, etc? Maybe since most of these labs have been doing this sort of thing since Fackler was in diapers we should pay attention?
Indeed, he measures the entire volume of destroyed tissue. Indeed? Perhaps I missed one of his many, many (oft conflicting) articles in which this information was divulged. It seems to me such measurements should have been included in the "wound profile" charts everyone seems to be so enamored of.
14.5" of penetration is more than enough for human sized targets from
most any angle. The 7.62x39 has way more penetration (in soft tissue)
than needed. Is this your expert opinion, presumably based on your knowledge of Fackler's (flawed) studies? What about a prone soldier who takes a sharply oblique hit; what about a "shoot-through", what about a soldier that takes a hit through his heavy webbing or parka? All of these are very likely scenarios on the battlefield.
There is nothing magical about it--you just refuse to admit that .223
has better terminal performance than 7.62x39. Perhaps you just refuse to admit that you base that opinion purely on an uncritical acceptance of the work of a single researcher, one who has ties to FedGov which point to possible bias in his study.
100--200 Meters is hardly a small envelope A mere 16 percent of what the could generally be regaurded as the average small-arms battlefield-- 600 meters.
Of course, if you load your 30 shorts to deliver all of their energy
into a man sized target, you have to give up that penetration you were
bragging about. And what man sized body? At what angle? At what
distance? Too many variables, bad plan. Wrong--good plan. It's what people who have real, hands--on experience using high--powered ammo to kill large game have been doing for generations. Good bullet terminal performance, maximum energy while retaining accuracy, and the proper shot placement-- good plan every time. In my quarter--century plus of hunting everything from whitetail to elk, antelope to nilgai I have shot and dissected (called dressing in hunters parlance) many man--–sized and larger game animals. Its not at all like ballistic gelatin in there-- I know first-hand how good bullets perform, and its not a 2.5" wound channel.
Consider the .45-70, with a 400 grain bullet at 1,200 fps and a muzzle
energy of 1,280 ft-lbs. And consider the .220 Swift, with a 40 grain
bullet at 4,000 fps and 1,420 ft-lb. Would you choose the .220 for Grizz
over the .45-70? It has the energy advantage, and it will dump it all
into the target! You are trying to make your point by using extremes, failing to address the fact that the difference in the permanent wound channel (by Fackler's own measurements) was less than an inch-- .4" on the radius., hardly "massive, extraordinary, devastating" and all of the other choice adjectives applied to the .223's wound cavity. Is the superior penetrative ability of 7.62x39 worth giving up, even if you believe Fackler's assertion that you will gain a slighty larger permanent wound channel? In your above example-- I would only take a modern 45-70 to hunt Grizzly, and I would load it up to its potential with a 400--1900fps plus-- leave the Swift at home. Thanks for pointing out what I already knew-- a larger diameter, heavier bullet tends to be more lethal with superior penetration. I'll leave Fackler's ballistic gelatin studies where they belong-- in a FedGov lab.


[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 06-13-2000).]

[xebec]

PRK-- my condolences on your incarceration-- "Move East young man!"
Great thing about the AK is I can buy one in .223 or 5.45 (maybe even both) for the price of your new upper. And I don't have to worry whether my "kit gun" is going to function properly http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif.

[xebec]

Since you believe in some other "studies", please site them.
Are you denying that other work (besides the infallible Fackler's) has been done? How about Marshall & Sanow, MacPherson, the so-called "Strasbourg Tests," and Di Maio?
Read the work of K. G. Sellier, B. P. Kneubuehl for a particularly telling analysis of why a dense medium (like ballistic gelatin) is not a good simulant of varied density tissue. You ask me to cite sources I never quoted and then put words into my mouth, saying that I "believe in" these sources (which I never cited). Are you trying to confuse me?
The 5.56 M193 began to cause significant damage at a depth of about 6
inches; the 7.62x39 began to cause significant damage at a depth of 10
inches. Basically, the 7.62x39 starts to do significant damage about the
time it is likely to leave the target. Yes, Fackler's ballistic gelatin targets. I will concede that the 5.56 will prove marginally more lethal to any naked man who is made of ballistic gelatin, and is struck directly (non-obliquely) in the thoracic or ocular cavity. My point was, and remains, that even if you accept that bullets perform the same way in ballistic gelatin as they do in flesh (which they do not) then you still have poor terminal performance from both 7.62x39 and 5.56-- the difference in permanent wound cavities is insignificant when compared to a bullet that expands properly in varied-- density tissue. If you wish to rebut my fundamental argument, then there it is. Rebut it.
7.62x39 penetraites more than needed in soft tissue, although it has
relatively poor penetraition in steel. It also causes less tissue damage
than 5.56, .308, and .30-06. This is not just based on Fackler's
studies, but also on its documented performance in war and in civilian
shootings. People shot with 7.62x39 have a high survival rate compared
to those shot by 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. I noticed that you cited no source following a statement that, I presume, is to be accepted as fact. Anecdotes? Got a hundred of ‘em.
Would you choose a 400 gr/ 1,200 fps .45-70 or a 40 gr / 4,000 fps .220
Swift? That's the question. A 400 gr / 1,200 fps bullet has the required
penetration to take Grizz. The .220 Swift doesn't. This doesn't mean
that bigger, slower bullets are always better. It means that energy
isn't a good determination of bullet performance. You are absolutely right and at no point did I state that energy was the only, or even primary, factor in the terminal performance of a bullet, which is primarily a function of construction and velocity. Kinetic energy is required by bullets, however, to be lethal-- no energy, no lethality. The ability to deliver a high level of kinetic energy with good terminal performance will be more lethal, on the average, than a lower level of kinetic energy delivered with similar terminal performance on the part of the projectile itself. If you are trying to draw an analogy between the huge differences in the terminal performance of a 400g solid slug and a 40 g frangible varmint bullet, and the minor difference between Fackler's "wound profiles" for 5.56 and 7.62x39-- it's a flawed analogy. If you are simply trying to make the point that energy can be improperly applied by poor cartridge/bullet selection, I totally agree with you. That in no way alters the fact that it is the energy that is lethal, the bullet being simply the agent of energy transfer.

Answer a question. We are not talking about shooting gelatin blocks here, were talking about using our military caliber weapons in a scenario for which they were designed. Do you really have confidence that if, God forbid, you were to shoot an agressor with your 5.56-- an agressor who is very likely clothed, wearing gear, moving or prone (certainly he would be trying to offer you the path of most resistance into his vitals), at indeterminate range-- that your round will perform the same as it did in Fackler's ballistic gelatin block! Maybe you buy that-- I don't.
The thing that bothers me about this whole flap is that there are people out there that are buying into "massive, extraordinary, devastating, significant yadayada" damage thing. They expect that their military ball 5.56 ammo is going to perform better than military ball ammo has always performed. Hell, there's probably some yo-yos going out hunting with the stuff after reading some of the posts written about this 5.56 magic. My view is this-- expect typical intermediate cartidge, ball-ammo performance out of your typical intermediate cartidge, ball-ammo ammunition (7.62x39 or 5.56)-- you will be right everytime.




[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 06-13-2000).]

[Section-8]

Damn right exebec, the charachteristics of the 5.56 in flesh are 99.9% hype and myth. And furthmore people only take their info from Fackler. Bad idea? Hell yes. When the 5.56 people talk about 7.62x39 they're going soly on that shit off of Fackler not real life experience. In ballistic gel the 5.56 is a kick ass weapon, but in real life things change somewhat. 7.62x39 lead core IS more effective than Russian or Chinese steel core, which is nothing but armor piercing, and that's what the 5.56 people are talking about.

And in truth, if you want to know what a bullet will do get some real life experience. Go deer hunting with mil ammo, not special hunting ammo, and you'll find out for yourself. And when you've killed the deer and you're cutting it up look at the wound channel that way then you will know the truth.

A real wound channel is much larger than the bullet, yet another reason why the 7.62's greater mass is so important, and the area around it, normaly about 3 inches in diameter with .30 cal bullets, looks like hambuger meat. I shit you not, I've seen it with my own two eyes.

I AM NOT saying the 5.56 is ineffective, in truth it's much more effective than any pitol round, but doesn't have nearly the leathality of a full powered rifle round, that's why they call it an enermediate (sp?) cartridge.

BTW, the reason you don't know alot of people that have been hit by 7.62x39 several times and lived but not 5.56 IS BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!

The 7.62x39 steel core will just leave a hole in you about 3/4 an inch in diameter, but the lead core, which yaws much sooner and acts just like Yugo 7.62x39, will leave a hole in you much larger than 5.56.

5.56 breaks at the channelure and leaves it's rear half inside you and the front half exits, IT IS NOT A GOD DAMN GRENADE GOING OFF INSIDE YOU!

People that do nothing but quote what other people say really piss me off, because they have no real life experience.




[This message has been edited by Section-8 (edited 06-13-2000).]

[STLRN]

Section-8:
Well, I have never seen anyone shot with a 7.62 x 39, but have seen a few that have been hit by 5.56 X 45. I wouldn't want to get hit by either. The 5.56 is more than adequate to kill someone. Several years ago while a student at TBS, they showed all the Lt. a video interview with a Lt. Pulmbo. He was a Platoon Commander and was involved in a fire fight in Cape Haitian. He loved the SAW, because the gunners could literally cut cars in half to get the Haitian policemen on the other side. But for vehicles, bunkers, etc. I would say the 5.56 not really up to the task most of the time. That is what you have your radio, M203s, M240s, M2, Mk19. AT-4, SMAWs, etc. for.

[Section-8]

yes, of coure 5.56 is deadly but if you line up two lines of 100 people (HCI supporters http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif) and shoot one of the 100 all with 7.62x39 lead core and the other 100 with 5.56 you'll have more dead bodies from 7.62x39 lead core.

[This message has been edited by Section-8 (edited 06-13-2000).]

[STLRN]

That all depends on the operator of the weapon if you have an idiot behind the 7.62 and a skilled man willing to kill behind the 5.56. The skilled man would have more dead with the 5.56. If the situation was reversed the result would also be reversed.

[Section-8]

110% true.

[Don S]

Originally posted by xebec:

Are you denying that other work (besides the infallible Fackler's) has been done? How about Marshall & Sanow, MacPherson, the so-called "Strasbourg Tests," and Di Maio?
Read the work of K. G. Sellier, B. P. Kneubuehl for a particularly telling analysis of why a dense medium (like ballistic gelatin) is not a good simulant of varied density tissue.

MacPherson agrees with Fackler. Marshall & Sanow's work is junk science. I haven't read anything by Sellier and Kneubuehl.


Originally posted by xebec:
You ask me to cite sources I never quoted and then put words into my mouth, saying that I "believe in" these sources (which I never cited). Are you trying to confuse me?


You brought up the point that soruces conflict with Fackler. I still haven't seen any that have any scientific credibility.

As stated above, I haven't read Sellier and Kneubuehl.

Originally posted by xebec:
[B]Yes, Fackler's ballistic gelatin targets. I will concede that the 5.56 will prove marginally more lethal to any naked man who is made of ballistic gelatin, and is struck directly (non-obliquely) in the thoracic or ocular cavity. My point was, and remains, that even if you accept that bullets perform the same way in ballistic gelatin as they do in flesh (which they [b]do not) then you still have poor terminal performance from both 7.62x39 and 5.56-- the difference in permanent wound cavities is insignificant when compared to a bullet that expands properly in varied-- density tissue. If you wish to rebut my fundamental argument, then there it is. Rebut it.

5.56 ball cause a significantly larger diameter permanent wound cavity than 7.62x39 at about 6 to 9 inches, and still manages to penetrait over 12 inches. The 7.62x39 doesn't come close to causing the same damage until it reaches 10 inches. Most of the time, it is ready to go to work about the time it leaves the target . . .

The difference between the two rounds is not as insignificant as you suggest, however, I agree that they are both marginal. The 7.62x39 has great penetration but isn't great otherwise. The 5.56 does more damage *where we want it most* (ie, between 6 and 10 inches), although I would like my primary longarm to have more penetration.

Originally posted by xebec:
I noticed that you cited no source following a statement that, I presume, is to be accepted as fact. Anecdotes? Got a hundred of ‘em.

"SHOTGUN -- 33% survived
RIFLE (AK-47) -- 76% survived"

Here is an article written by Fackler which discusses the Stockton shooting in detail (Purdy used lead core ammo made in the US):
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt

Originally posted by xebec:
[B]You are absolutely right and at no point did I state that energy was the only, or even primary, factor in the terminal performance of a bullet, which is primarily a function of construction and velocity. Kinetic energy is required by bullets, however, to be lethal-- no energy, no lethality. The ability to deliver a [b]high level of kinetic energy with good terminal performance will be more lethal, on the average, than a lower level of kinetic energy delivered with similar terminal performance on the part of the projectile itself. If you are trying to draw an analogy between the huge differences in the terminal performance of a 400g solid slug and a 40 g frangible varmint bullet, and the minor difference between Fackler's "wound profiles" for 5.56 and 7.62x39-- it's a flawed analogy. If you are simply trying to make the point that energy can be improperly applied by poor cartridge/bullet selection, I totally agree with you. That in no way alters the fact that it is the energy that is lethal, the bullet being simply the agent of energy transfer.

My .45-70 / .220 swift analogy was simply drawn to show that energy does not directly equate to bullet effectiveness. Keep in mind, it isn't the enregy transfer that is important. It's the amount of damage done to critical organs.

Originally posted by xebec:
Answer a question. We are not talking about shooting gelatin blocks here, were talking about using our military caliber weapons in a scenario for which they were designed. Do you really have confidence that if, God forbid, you were to shoot an agressor with your 5.56-- an agressor who is very likely clothed, wearing gear, moving or prone (certainly he would be trying to offer you the path of most resistance into his vitals), at indeterminate range-- that your round will perform the same as it did in Fackler's ballistic gelatin block! Maybe you buy that-- I don't.
The thing that bothers me about this whole flap is that there are people out there that are buying into "massive, extraordinary, devastating, significant yadayada" damage thing. They expect that their military ball 5.56 ammo is going to perform better than military ball ammo has always performed. Hell, there's probably some yo-yos going out hunting with the stuff after reading some of the posts written about this 5.56 magic. My view is this-- expect typical intermediate cartidge, ball-ammo performance out of your typical intermediate cartidge, ball-ammo ammunition (7.62x39 or 5.56)-- you will be right everytime.

Quoted from the article with the 5.56 ball wound cross sections:

"Exaggerated descriptions of the wounding effects of the M16 rifle bullet flourish as great works of urban lore."

and:

" (M193 and M855 are) . . .an adequate choice for use against violent criminal offenders."

Fackler does not seem to believe that 5.56 is perfect, only that it is "adequate". I tend to agree. When used outside of the its performance parameters, it will fail, as will any cartridge. I feel that 7.62x39 and 5.56 are both compromises, butI'd use either one in war.

My preference in cartridges leans towards .308/.30-06, but I like the package the 5.56 comes in (ie, M-16A2), and I'm impressed by its performance. 5.56 does a good job for such a small thing . . .

I am in fact impressed with 7.62x39 penetration in soft tissue, which at close range exceeds .308 and .30-06.

[Section-8]

Don S:
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, but not everybody has real life experience.

[Don S]

Originally posted by Section-8:
7.62x39 lead core IS more effective than Russian or Chinese steel core, which is nothing but armor piercing, and that's what the 5.56 people are talking about.

5.56 breaks at the channelure and leaves it's rear half inside you and the front half exits, IT IS NOT A GOD DAMN GRENADE GOING OFF INSIDE YOU!

People that do nothing but quote what other people say really piss me off, because they have no real life experience.


If we only relied on "real life experience", we would still be chasing horses in Europe with sticks with sharp rocks on the end.

[Edmund Rowe]

Forumites:

The following is just my opinion.

If we are interested in winning life-threatening encounters, I think the debate between 7.62x39 and 5.56mm is marginal in usefulness.

In the 6 man team armament discussion, I posted that as long as I have a team of good men with me, I am content with whatever they each prefer for the situation. I would expect each man to know the limitations of his rifle. EVERY rifle/caliber combo has limitations.

Or put another way, if I have a good practical grasp of mind-set, tactics, and firearm fundamentals, then I can use a 7.62x39 AK, 5.56 AK, 5.45 AK, M1A, M1 Garand, SKS, Mauser 98k, Galil, Daewoo, AR-15, AR-10, Lee-Enfield #1 or #4, or any other decent firearm.

In other words, I think the best training is of what we have between our ears.

The discussion here seems to have taken a turn for the worse. I think new, constructive subjects should be raised as this one seems to be only creating ill will.

Edmund

[Section-8]

Originally posted by Don S:
If we only relied on "real life experience", we would still be chasing horses in Europe with sticks with sharp rocks on the end.




Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

[Don S]

Originally posted by xebec:
You are trying to make your point by using extremes, failing to address the fact that the difference in the permanent wound channel (by Fackler's own measurements) was less than an inch-- .4" on the radius., hardly "massive, extraordinary, devastating" and all of the other choice adjectives applied to the .223's wound cavity.

The 5.56 M193 began to cause significant damage at a depth of about 6 inches; the 7.62x39 began to cause significant damage at a depth of 10 inches. Basically, the 7.62x39 starts to do significant damage about the time it is likely to leave the target.

Since you believe in some other "studies", please site them.

Originally posted by xebec:
Is the superior penetrative ability of 7.62x39 worth giving up, even if you believe Fackler's assertion that you will gain a slighty larger permanent wound channel?

7.62x39 penetraites more than needed in soft tissue, although it has relatively poor penetraition in steel. It also causes less tissue damage than 5.56, .308, and .30-06. This is not just based on Fackler's studies, but also on its documented performance in war and in civilian shootings. People shot with 7.62x39 have a high survival rate compared to those shot by 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

Originally posted by xebec:
[BIn your above example-- I would only take a modern 45-70 to hunt Grizzly, and I would load it up to its potential with a 400--1900fps plus-- leave the Swift at home. Thanks for pointing out what I already knew-- a larger diameter, heavier bullet tends to be more lethal with superior penetration. I'll leave Fackler's ballistic gelatin studies where they belong-- in a FedGov lab. [/B]

Would you choose a 400 gr/ 1,200 fps .45-70 or a 40 gr / 4,000 fps .220 Swift? That's the question. A 400 gr / 1,200 fps bullet has the required penetration to take Grizz. The .220 Swift doesn't. This doesn't mean that bigger, slower bullets are always better. It means that energy isn't a good determination of bullet performance.

[Don S]

Originally posted by Section-8:

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

We are where were today because we (well, some of us) are able to learn from the experience of others.

[Spetsnaz777]

Ho- hum ho-hum
the long and tired debate of .223 vs 7.62x39mm continues.. .

What tastes better- an watermelon or a pear?
Everyone has their preferences- live with it!

Personally- I wouldn't want a 7.62x39mm OR a 5.56x45mm. Thats right! I'd go to war packing my H&K G-3 in 7.62x51mm.

[xebec]

"SHOTGUN -- 33% survived
RIFLE (AK-47) -- 76% survived"

Here is an article written by Fackler which discusses the Stockton
shooting in detail (Purdy used lead core ammo made in the US)
AH- here we strike at the heart of the matter. How many of Purdy's victims were struck by a 7.62x39 round-- 30. Compare that to an estimate of how many times a 7.62x39 round has been fired into human tissue (who knows in reality?) 100,000 times, at least? That comes out to 3 one-thousandths of one percent. Ask any statistician if this comprises a "scientific sampling"-- not even close! Thanks for once again helping me to make my point. This is typical Fackler and company-- smear other studies as "junk science" while foisting your own "junk science" off as a scientific study. And while wea re on the topic of Fackler's Stockton analysis two statments stand out:
Eight shots were fired from a distance of 3 meters into 25X25X50 cm blocks
of 10% ordnance gelatin placed end to end at 4 degrees C gelatin temperature.
This gelatin has been shown to reproduce the projectile deformation and penetration depth seen in living animal muscle Fackler states here that the gelatin simulates muscle tissue well. Why do people then attempt to use Fackler's "wound profile" charts to attempt to predict bullet performance in the thoracic cavity, which is most certainly not as dense as muscle?
Trunk wounds [from ball 7.62x39] are lethal when they hit vital structures, as supported by the
autopsy findings from Stockton.
That's the key! Miss a vital structure with 5.56 or 7.62x39-- no kill. Hit a vital structure with 5.56 or 7.62x39--kill.
Further: That 86% of those children recovered from their wounds comes
as no surprise to those who understand this particular bullet's wounding
potential Fackler's statement infers that the thesis of this analysis will be that the 7.62x39 ball round, by virtue of its inherently poor terminal performance in the human body, is only 14% lethal. Fine-- surely then all of the variables will be examined, right? Wrong: the children shot were small (18-26 kg), obviously increasing the chances for a bullet to pass through the body before yawing to a significant degree, and undoubtedly contributing to the high survival rate Why is this important point disreguarded in the rest of his essay?
Summary of autopsy findings:

1. In each child the bullet path passed through a vital structure. The obvious question arises; where were the surviving victims struck? Isn't this important? Does it not strike Fackler that those struck in the thoracic or occular/cranial cavities tended to be fatal cases? How does this support his thesis (that the inherent traits of this round caused the high survival rate rather than shot placement)?
See what I mean about conflicting information from Fackler?
5.56 ball cause a significantly larger diameter permanent wound cavity
than 7.62x39...The difference between the two rounds is not as insignificant as you
suggest...Fackler does not seem to believe that 5.56 is perfect, only that it is
"adequate". I tend to agree.
Well, let's carry this out to its logical conclusion.The 5.56 does significantly more tissue damage than the 7.62x39, but is requarded as nothing more than "adequate" against a human target. A composite reading of Fackler's conclusions would indicate that, since the 5.56 does considerably more tissue damage than 7.62x39, but is only an adequate "manstopper" the 7.62x39 must, logically, be less than adequate as a military cartrifge intended for use against a human target. Even Fackler stopped short of putting this "obvious conclusion" into words. Why? Because the history of the late 20th Century proves this to be an utterly ridiculous statement. The m16 is "adequate" and the AK47 is "inadequate?" Where has history (always a good teacher when studied and quoted competently and fairly, unlike some "scientific" studies) borne out this "conclusion?" History and common sense tell us that either both, or neither, depending upon how you look at it, are inadequate.
The obvious conclusion-- there is an insignificant difference in the wounding capability of the 5.56 and 7.62x39 in terms of "permanent wound cavity." The soft-tissue penetrative capabilities of the two are not in dispute, however. Thus my argument is sound-- why trade an illusion (wound profile) for reality (substantially greater soft-tissue penetration)?



[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 06-15-2000).]

[xebec]

Spetznaz777 --must of been interesting enough for you to click on the thread (content clearly labeled) and then read through two pages of postings. You did read the postings before criticizing their contents, right?
I think that it is time that someone pointed out that Fackler's oft-quoted "scientific studies" have holes in them that should ilicit questions from anyone really interested in terminal ballistics. AR/5.56 fans quote this stuff as if it were gospel.
If it is truly uninteresting to you then just move along-- no need for pointless criticism.

[Section-8]

The 5.56 FMJ goes about half way through you and breaks leaving it's rear half inside you while the front half exits. I don't see what is so impresive about that. 7.62x39 Russian HP either begins to expand upond inpact or it goes about 1/4 through you then begins to yaw leaving a very large wound channel, even larger than 5.56 FMJ. As far as both being FMJ and the 7.62x39 being lead core, acting just like Yugo in flesh, you have a wound channel about the same. The only time 5.56 comes out ahead is when the 7.62x39 is steel core , which all foriegn militaries use. So if i had my pick of a weapon for military use I would take the M-14 in 7.62 NATO, no exeptions. But since I'm not in the military and I don't have to obey the ignorant UN laws I use HPs in my AK, they are very effective.

BTW, this discusion is a healthy thing, it gets you to think, and hopefuly get every kind of gun you can http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif.

[Don S]

AH- here we strike at the heart of the matter. How many of Purdy's victims were struck by a 7.62x39 round-- 30. Compare that to an estimate of how many times a 7.62x39 round has been fired into human tissue (who knows in reality?) 100,000 times, at least? That comes out to 3 one-thousandths of one percent. Ask any statistician if this comprises a "scientific sampling"-- not even close!

Fakler also figures in victims of other shootings, so the number is grater than 30.

However, the effectiveness of the 7.62x39 is easy to analyze in these shootings, since they have been so well documented with detailed forensics. That is the value of the analysis, not its statistical relevence.

Of course, there is also the data from Vietnam . . .

Fackler states here that the gelatin simulates muscle tissue well. Why do people then attempt to use Fackler's "wound profile" charts to attempt to predict bullet performance in the thoracic cavity, which is most certainly not as dense as muscle?

What will be the primary result of this lesser density? Increased penetration. Possibly increased distance before tumbling, however I doubt this. In any case, Fackler's method seems to favor 7.62x39.



That's the key! Miss a vital structure with 5.56 or 7.62x39-- no kill. Hit a vital structure with 5.56 or 7.62x39--kill.

Yes but! What is a hit? If the 5.56 is tumbling and causing more tissue damage, it could achieve a hit that would be a miss with 7.62x39.

Fackler's statement infers that the thesis of this analysis will be that the 7.62x39 ball round, by virtue of its inherently poor terminal performance in the human body, is only 14% lethal. Fine-- surely then all of the variables will be examined, right? Wrong: "the children shot were small (18-26 kg), obviously increasing the chances for a bullet to pass through the body before yawing to a significant degree, and undoubtedly contributing to the high survival rate" Why is this important point disreguarded in the rest of his essay?

It may explain the performance of the lead core civilian ammo Purdy used, which begins to tumble sooner than the steel core stuff, and should have been more deadly then it was. In other words, this information was specific to ONE type of ammo used.

In each child the bullet path passed through a vital structure. The obvious question arises; where were the surviving victims struck? Isn't this important? Does it not strike Fackler that those struck in the thoracic or occular/cranial cavities tended to be fatal cases? How does this support his thesis (that the inherent traits of this round caused the high survival rate rather than shot placement)?

Obviously, shot placement is key. Along with sufficient penetration. But a larger wound channel results in more "hits" on critical organs that a smaller wound channel.

See what I mean about conflicting information from Fackler?

No.


Well, let's carry this out to its logical conclusion.The 5.56 does significantly more tissue damage than the 7.62x39, but is requarded as nothing more than "adequate" against a human target. A composite reading of Fackler's conclusions would indicate that, since the 5.56 does considerably more tissue damage than 7.62x39, but is only an adequate "manstopper" the 7.62x39 must, logically, be less than adequate as a military cartrifge intended for use against a human target.

False. I suspect he considers 5.56 marginal due to penetration. I think he also considers 7.62x39 marginal, but for that other reason . . .

Even Fackler stopped short of putting this "obvious conclusion" into words. Why? Because the history of the late 20th Century proves this to be an utterly ridiculous statement. . . .

Nothing I know of history suggests that 7.62x39 has impressive terminal ballistics.

In 'nam, we had a low fatality rate for bullet wounds. In part, improved medical techniques (like those that Fackler came up with) were responsible, but the terminal ballistics of the 7.62x39 seem to have helped.

In Afganistan, the rebels reported greatly increased effect from the new Soviet 5.45 round. They were used to the effect of the 7.62x39. What does this suggest?

I know that 7.62x39 has killed many around the world. This is because of its widespread use, not superior "killing power".

The nature of modern warfare is that, most often, you will NOT see the results of your shooting, and only VERY rarely will you depend upon "rapid incapacitation". In other words, experience in modern warfare does not lend well to the evaluation of terminal ballistics.

It would be interesting to look at data from hospitals in war zones--the rate of 7.62x39 wounds and fatalities.

[Heavy Metal]

xebec,
On the previous page, you mentioned "keyholed" rounds in targets you observed in the Army. This was not caused by "Tumbling" in air but by tumbling after ricocheting in the ground in front of the target.

Proof positive that it is better to aim a litte low as a ricochet beats a high miss anyday.

------------------
The one with a cap H, a cap M and a *space* in between

[Comrade Andrei]

If I need a gun and it needs to be shot at an attacker, it better damn well go "bang"! You can kill a man w/ a BB gun or a .22 BB cap so the arguement betweed 5.56 and 7.62 is kinda hard to end. I'll take my AK and it's 7.62x39 round any day over ANY gun chambered for .223. The Soviets have built up a well established reputation for extremely reliable guns and that is all that matters! The AK is the only gun I'll trust my life to, I don't care about ballistics tests and how a round will do in ballistic gelatin!

------------------
"Liberal institutions straight way cease from being liberal the moment they are
soundly established: once this is attained no more grevious and more
thourough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." Friedrich Nietzsche
SIT NOMEN DOMINI BENEDICTUM

[xebec]

However, the effectiveness of the 7.62x39 is easy to analyze in these
shootings, since they have been so well documented with detailed
forensics. That is the value of the analysis, not its statistical
relevence.
Yeah, they were studied in detail alright-- the victims that took hits in critical structures died. You "poo-poo" the "statistical relevance" of the study but the fact remains-- a tiny sampling of data like this constitutes nothing more than anectdotal evidence, like it or not. Here's an example: Perpetrator takes a 12 guage slug through the upper thoracic cavity that the cops can see daylight through, but this guy doesn't quit fighting till several minutes later. Well, this obviously means that the 12 is a poor manstopper because (statistical evidence aside) this story proves it.
What will be the primary result of this lesser density? Increased
penetration. Possibly increased distance before tumbling, however I
doubt this. In any case, Fackler's method seems to favor 7.62x39.
C'mon Don S-- are you really buying into your own line of BS? I thought you were a Fackler fan! Fackler himself states that the reason that the 5.56 tumbles is increases resistance created by the ballistic gelatin. Ask yourself this-- why does the 5.56 not tumble in the air yet begin to tumble in ballistic gelatin? What's the difference? Increased resistance perhaps? You and I both know that it undoubtedly is a factor in terminal performance-- a factor which Fackler the alleged "scientist" ignores! Is that science. No. The difference between you and me Don S is that I recognize this and question why. You recognize this and refuse to question it. In my estimation this is because it is convienient to your current beliefs, reguarding our shared hobby, to ignore it.
Yes but! What is a hit? If the 5.56 is tumbling and causing more tissue
damage, it could achieve a hit that would be a miss with 7.62x39...Obviously, shot placement is key. Along with sufficient penetration. But a larger wound channel results in more "hits" on critical organs that a smaller wound channel. You base the significance of this statement on two false premises that I have pointed out here repeatedly: First that, even if you buy into Fackler's "studies" that .4" on the permanent wound cavity constitutes any real advantage. Secondly, and most importantly (made obvious by your repeated attempts to sidestep this direct challenge) ballistic gelatin does not acurately simulate varied--density tissue! Even Fackler says that it simulates only muscle tissue well.
It may explain the performance of the lead core civilian ammo Purdy
used, which begins to tumble sooner than the steel core stuff, and
should have been more deadly then it was. In other words, this
information was specific to ONE type of ammo used. That really smacks of desperation Don S. You yourself referenced this material in support of your arguments, now you say that it is not relevant to military ball ammo. Which is it--relevant or not. BTW-- why would this be a factor in ammo that Fackler claims may tumble earlier than military ball yet not be a factor in military ball. Your logic escapes me.
False. I suspect he considers 5.56 marginal due to penetration. I think
he also considers 7.62x39 marginal, but for that other reason . . . False? That's it? Be so kind as to point out the fallacy in reasoning that led you to asess my statements in this way. "I suspect... I think"? That's all you have...? Another thing-- didn't you just get through telling everyone here that the 5.56's "14.5" of penetration is more than enough for human sized targets from
most any angle"(quoted)? If so why is it this particular quality that renders it "marginal?" Sounds like another artful dodge of logic Don S.
Nothing I know of history suggests that 7.62x39 has impressive terminal
ballistics. If you go back and read my posts here you will find that my point was that neither 5.56 nor 7.62x39 had " impressive terminal ballistics." I stand by the statement that I originally posted-- history has certainly reserved a place for the AK47 as an extremely effective rifle, your knowledge of history nonwithstanding.
In Afganistan, the rebels reported greatly increased effect from the new
Soviet 5.45 round. They were used to the effect of the 7.62x39. What
does this suggest? It would suggest that Fackler is full of crap Don. Look at your favorite scientist's "wound profile" for this round and ask yourself that question.
It would be interesting to look at data from hospitals in war zones--the
rate of 7.62x39 wounds and fatalities. Yes that would be interesting for 5.56 as well, and I suspect it would uphold my thesis.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what I mean about conflicting information from Fackler?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[answer]No. Of course you don't Don S (it was really a rhetorical question)-- No flame intended but since you seem like an intelligent guy, the only conclusion that I can reach is that you are exibiting some intellectual dishonesty here. You can choose to critically examine information or not-- your personal choice. But my posts are to alert others who may read this to view this stuff with some healthy skepticism.

This will (to the relief of many I'm sure) be my last post on this subject. My intent was to demonstrate that Fackler's "scientific studies" are full of holes-- false presumptions, inconsitencies, and conflicting information. In my opinion it is far from the "definative" scientific study that many claim. Everyone should examine the articles for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 06-17-2000).]

[0302]

Read Dick Culver's excellent article "The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam" at WWW.jouster.com (http://WWW.jouster.com) if there are any questions about 5.56mm/7.62x39 performance. I read Mr. Culver's article and was very impressed with his knowledge, considering he has seen combat with the USMC and has first hand experience with the performance of both rounds and the M16. He does a great job of reducing M16 myths to reality. Also read David Hackworth's "About Face". His opinions of the M16 and 5.56 are not very favorable. In short, reading first hand experiences of combat vets is much better than the opinions of ignorant arm chair commandos. Learn from the mistakes of others, or repeat them.

[maelcum]

Basically what this all comes down to is an argument between a bunch of guys who have gone to war and shot other people, and a bunch of guys in lab coats shooting at bricks of inanimate material.

Don S, you keep shooting your own arguments in the foot. You yell about how we can't just rely on "real life experience" and then turn around and talk about how we should learn from the experience of others.

That's what these guys are doing. They are talking to people who have actually fired these weapons at other human beings, and basing their opinions on the experiences of those people. You, on the other hand, seem to think that Mr. Fackler's simulated "experience" and the results of those simulations are more accurate than the real thing. That's pretty odd, dude.

[This message has been edited by Maelcum (edited 06-20-2000).]

[Section-8]

http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

You 5.56 guys are all talking about steel core and I'm talking about lead core so read up on Yugo ammo. You couldn't force me to use that steel core shit. ALL 7.62x39 lead core acts just like Yugoslav ammo, which is very effective. So I'm sorry if I've misunderstood anybody here because they were talking about steel core ammo, which is shit.
http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/images/wund1.jpg

On the far left we have the 7.62x39 Russian steel core notice that there is some lead in the jacket but a lot of lead in the nose. Since lead is much heavier than steel this is why it is such a stable bullet in flesh.


The long path through tissue before marked yaw begins (about 25 cm) explains the clinical experience that many wounds from this weapon resemble those caused by much lower velocity handguns.

See what I'm saying now? Steel core leaves a strait path with no yawing. That is why it acts like a pistol. Only thing is there is so much more velocity and energy it leaves a wound "sililar" to a pistol round, but much more effective.

http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/images/wund2.gif

Yugoslav 7.62x39mm - The Yugoslav copper-jacketed, lead-core, flat-base bullet, even when fired from the same Kalashnikov assault rifle, acts very differently in tissue. It typically travels point-forward for only about 9cm before yawing. Due to the lead core, this bullet flattens somewhat as it yaws, squeezing a few small lead fragments out at its open base, but this does not add significantly to its wounding potential. Referring to the wound profile of the Soviet AK-47 bullet (Fig. 2) and blotting out the first 17cm of the projectile path will leave a good approximation of what one might expect from this bullet.

Since this bullet would be travelling sideways through most of its path in an abdominal wound, it would be expected to cut a swath over three times the dimension made by the bullet travelling point forward. In addition to the larger hole in organs from the sideways-travelling bullet, the tissue surrounding the bullet path will be stretched considerably from temporary cavitation. Actual damage from the stretch of cavitation can vary from an almost explosive effect, widely splitting a solid organ such as the liver, or a hollow one such as the bladder if it is full at the time it is hit, to almost no observable effect if the hollow organs (such as intestines) when hit contain little liquid and/or air. The exit wound may be punctate or oblong, depending on the bullet's orientation as it struck the abdominal wall at the exit point. The exit wound could be stellate if sufficient wounding potential remains at this point on the bullet path. The thigh entrance wound will be small and punctate but the exit wound will probably be stellate, measuring up to 11 cm from the tips of opposing splits. The stellate exit wound results from the temporary cavity simply stretching the skin beyond its breaking point. These stellate wounds generally bleed very little. Small-to medium-sized vessels are certainly cut or torn, but the temporary cavity tearing action generally stimulates the tiny muscles in the vessel walls to constrict and clots will form in their open ends, limiting blood loss. Being wide open, these wounds tend to drain and heal amazingly well even in situations of limited surgical resources. This increased tissue disruption of the leg will, of course, temporarily limit the mobility of the person hit to a greater extent than wounds causing less tissue disruption.

Lead core starts yawing very quickly when it enters flesh. I ONLY use lead core. My question in regard to 5.56 is what good is a bullet the dumps all of it's energy than compared to one that dumps as much energy as, if not more because of the 7.62x39's mass, than the 5.56 AND leaves a large exit wound? I don't worry about calateral damage so this is a good thing.




DISCUSSION

All of the full-metal-jacketed bullet
s followed the basic pattern described

previously (2) and shown in the wound profile (Fig. 3). The Federal full-

metal-jacketed bullets used by Purdy are of flat base design and shorter in

length than the military rounds (compare Figs 1 and 2). Their mean penetration

distance before significant yaw (13.7 cm) is considerably shorter than that of

the Ak-47 military round as shown on the wound profile (25 cm) and that seen in

shot number 7 (20 cm).


The maximum temporary cavity diameters estimated from the radial cracks in

the gelatin (1) were all between 14 and 16 cm in diameter, and their location

was at a penetration depth 6 - 12 cm deep to the location where the bullet yaw

began

This is a VERY serious wound, and quite massive by the way.


Summary of autopsy findings:

1. In each child the bullet path passed through a vital structure. In one


case it was the head, another the heart, another the liver, another the lungs,

and the last, the aorta and spinal cord.

That's right, you can take a 7mm mag and miss a vital organ and it won't kill if the target doesn't bleed to death.
And ALL lead core flat based 7.62x39 acts EXACTLY like Yugo ammunition in flesh.

I got all of this from God (Fackler), here's the link http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt



[This message has been edited by Section-8 (edited 06-21-2000).]

[TN.Frank Dodge]

5.45X39.

------------------
Liberty or Death!!!

[krept]

I was thinking that if the Russians switched from the 7.62, it was because of the poor performance of the bullet. I talked to someone today that said they went to the 5.45 because they wanted a higher cyclic rate. It sounds interesting, because the guy is a big .223 fan and I thought he was going to say light/fast was better.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to penetrate a car door, tree, or whatever, you can always use steel cored .223, right? If you want a devastating wound channel with an AK, use hollow point/frangibles. I mean, I'm kind of new to the rifle thing, but as far as pistols go, bullet choice is far more important than caliber. A good 9mm +P+ HP would do far more damage than a .45 Ball, but the ball might penetrate better? I stagger my magazine with HPs and FMJs just for that reason.

When it comes down to my preferences for the calibers discussed... .223 over 7.62 x 39 because it's a flater shooter with less recoil. Good for long range singles or CQC bursts. If I want big and messy, I'll go for my USP .45. I personally prefer .308 NATO above them all. Just my opinion. I wouldn't want to be shot with a .22LR.

[Sutro]

Debate over .223 vs .30 in terms of deflection & terminal ballistics has been going on for about 40 years now and is unlikely to be resolved here. But to answer question about .223 conversion...
Be a lot easier and probably cheaper to buy a .223 SAR-3, although price is likely to go up with importation now banned. Just make sure you get a -2000 series; this gun went through a lot of growing pains.

[Gonzo]

A 55 grain .223 shot from a 20" barrel at a 1-14 or a 1-12 twist does ugly magic things. It isn't very stable and will try to swap ends and fragment. Much bad JuJu, very unpredictable. A 62 grain AP round shot from a 20" barrel with a 1-7 twist is going to poke a little .22 hole and keep on going and going. It is a penetrator, and a very accurate one. The rate of a barrel's twist is more than a little detail when it comes to the two-two-three. It's hard to compare the 5.56 with the 7.62x39 because of the split personality of the .223
Personally, I think that a 1-7 twist for the .223 is a mistake and I am entitled to my stinky opinion.

[This message has been edited by Gonzo (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Azalin]

[In addition, the book Black Hawk down is pretty scathing about the stopping power of the M16,

This has been discussed many times on the Ar-15 message boards. Velocity is a must for all .223 cal rifles. The rifles the soldiers used in Black Hawk down had 11.5 inch barrels which will cut the kill range to around 10 menters if useing the 62 gr steel cores rounds like they did.

Wayne

[sloth]

okay, i want to soliciate some opinions (i figure considering this discussion thread--they aren't in any short supply). at ranges out to 250-300 yards, are there any advantages to the .308 versus the .223. i know that the .308 has power to spare and the .223 is lighter and allows for more ammo to be carried; but asside from that, does the .308 provide any clear cut advantage over the .223. also, in what specific situations would the .308 shine over the .223 (at ranges of 250-300 yards MAX.)

[wkinma]

Unscientific jump-in----

I'd take the .308 at the stated range because it would have less deviation and be more consistent, therefore be more likely to hit the target. I'm viewing this as an "under any circumstance" situation.

For example, wind and rain will cause deviation. I would look for the (.308) to perform better. this is in manufacture weight for military use, not civilian hunting ammunition.

I would carry this a bit further, and add in the 7.62x54r (nominal .310 - .311) used quite successfully in the Nagant during winter 1939-1940 in Finland has certainly proven itself, in capable hands, acceptable when going out beyond 100 - 150 metres.

At longer range, the .223 falls off the board. It is a close-quarter round. 7.62 calibre has widespread use in long-range encounters. i.e. the us army & usmc use the .30 calibre for their long-range weapons.

[wkinma]

As a further note, the power-to-spare factor is certainly something to consider.

Not being able to recall exact distance off the top of my head, the .308 is rising @ 50 metres, still rising @ 100 metres and not reaching the top until after the range you are inquiring about. Lots to spare at that range.

[BP Miami]

Folks,

Some points to ponder in this discussion.
You must remember that the military rounds are designed to comply with the Geneva Convention. The 223's used by rangers in Somalia were green tip armor peirceing, thus the over penetration problems. Those folks were killed dead, just not stopped immediately. The M-4 with copper jacketed hollow points is a manstopper, it is what is issued to domestic law enforcement.
I own AK's in 762x39 and 223 and use the M-4 at work. The M-4 is more accurate and with 30 years of improvements reliable if kept clean. My comparision is based on my personal experiance, and biased in that I own semi versions of the AK.
The US 308 is a fantastic round in its own right, we used them in a sniper role through the rem 700. We used to carry M-14's great gun but too heavy for my narrow butt to be carry all day in the sun. By the way the full auto m-4 only costs $160 on the DOD contract.
Just my .02 but I love the M-4 and trust it with my life every day. its light, accurate, easy to keep on target in full auto and with copper jacketted hollow points kills badguys dead.