View Full Version : 7.62x39: Improving the Military Standard
Chris17404
12-07-11, 19:37
Hi all,
I've always wondered why a truly well-designed and reliable AR was never created for the 7.62x39mm caliber. Given the following very insightful article discussing the merits of 7.62x39mm, I really have the wonder why it never went mainstream! 6.8 SPC? .300 AAC Blackout? Bah, don't need 'em. Was 7.62 Soviet all we really needed from the start? Were we blinded by the fact it was "commie" ammo? Just build a reliable AR in 7.62x39mm and you can run cheap steel cased ammo for training, and use top-quality for defense. Some company could make a boat load of money selling these if it could be done.
http://demigodllc.com/articles/7.62x39-improving-the-military-standard/
Thoughts on the article? "Good performance in short-barreled rifles (SBR); the use of modern and heavy projectiles which have near ideal terminal performance; and heavy subsonic loads for suppressed use." Sound like an ideal AR caliber?
Chris
A lot of people have reliable x39's. With the right 30 rounders from asc and a model 1 firing pin. There's a lot of 7.62x39 around especially in sbr.
mkmckinley
12-07-11, 20:10
It comes down to magazine design. The high degree of taper of 7.62X39 means it's hard to make it feed though the AR mag well.
It comes down to magazine design. The high degree of taper of 7.62X39 means it's hard to make it feed though the AR mag well.
also the bolt is weaken as well because it was opened with mag design -:suicide2: its a bad idea all over!
Harrison at AR Performance seems to think otherwise.
So does Karl Lewis with his run of x39 bolts.
PWS seems to be misled with their Diablo 7.5 run in full auto.
I'm especially confused as to why I did this, 2430 rounds ago beginning in May2010.
It is a weaker bolt, but the 6.5 Grendel uses basically the same design and I don't hear of those breaking much. I have read of a couple, and they were run with handloaded ammo and the receiver's faces weren't exactly perfect. Correcting the face of the receiver to be perpendicular with the BCG made a huge difference.
I've built 2 x39 ARs, and one upper went to a gentleman in NB. I had 300 rounds through it.
I do run the ASC magazines as much as possible. I also had a Shaw barrel threaded concentric to bore for eventual suppressor use. Shooting through my friend's YHM SS 762 QD has proved extremely fun.
I made it point to consider a 300blk upper someday, as factory subsonic ammo is available now, and it appears the price will only go down.
But considering I run 70s and 80s yugoslav m67 from AIM for $0.20/rd, I have no reason to consider a 300blk upper yet. I will, sometime after I get my suppressor and decide to run some subsonic loads for shits and giggles.
You may have to polish the feedramps on the upper and barrel extension, but the new ASC mags are worthwhile investments. If you have problems with those, consider Wolff extra power AK47 mag springs and run 25rds in the mag rather than 30.
http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn346/gunguyshots/PA300001-1.jpg
mkmckinley
12-08-11, 04:08
I wouldn't mind reading a detailed review of your builds if you're willing to do one. I'd like to know what parts you used and what kind of reliability you achieved. The only experience I have with Soviet ammo in ARs was a buddy's 7.62X39 that wouldn't run and my own 5.45X39 that runs with downloaded mags. The stoppages I remember in the 7.62X39 were all mag related.
Isn't polishing the aluminum receiver section of the feed ramp is generally frowned upon due to the softness of aluminum without anodizing.
ForTehNguyen
12-08-11, 10:00
what is the optimal twist rate for that round? I heard that they didnt put the best twist rate in the AK47 because of the existing machinery they still had for the Mosin Nagant which has the same twist rate.
A lot of people have reliable x39's. With the right 30 rounders from asc and a model 1 firing pin. There's a lot of 7.62x39 around especially in sbr.
u are absolutely correct. mine is a 16" colt and set up exactly the way u speak of.
runs flawlessly and fun to shoot. thinking of making it my edc car gun.
NAHHHHH but i did consider it.
if its stolen i dont loose much
this is the way it works. mine is all colt except for the model-1 f/p
over 600 rds of very old ak ammo. green box norinco copper stuff. why dont all the ney sayers actually shoot 1 before shitting on it. F.N.V. goes a long way here, or anywhere.
good luck
BoringGuy45
12-08-11, 21:03
I remember that Knight's Armament had that SR-47 for awhile. Whatever happened to that?
It is simply not possible to put a curved magazine into a straight magwell. After not having luck with that, I bought a Special Weapons lower that took AK magazines. I still have it, but stripped it down after I broke two bolts. Oh yeah, in order for the mags to fit, you have to mill the bottom of the BCG to clear the mag feed lips.
It is ok for casual shooters, but it is outside of normal engineering practice so you can't make a production run of guns and expect them all to work.
I wouldn't mind reading a detailed review of your builds if you're willing to do one. I'd like to know what parts you used and what kind of reliability you achieved. The only experience I have with Soviet ammo in ARs was a buddy's 7.62X39 that wouldn't run and my own 5.45X39 that runs with downloaded mags. The stoppages I remember in the 7.62X39 were all mag related.
Isn't polishing the aluminum receiver section of the feed ramp is generally frowned upon due to the softness of aluminum without anodizing.
My 10.5" gun uses a LMT upper and lower which were cerakoted in 2009.
The barrel is a 10.5" Shaw 10 twist with a carbine gas port at .094 and it runs on 1970s and 80s vintage Yugoslav M67. I use an H2 buffer and LMT carbine spring in this weapon. Originally the barrel was 16" but a friend of mine who works for a local AR MFG shortened and threaded it for a QD suppressor mount. The times I've shot it suppressed have been enlightening. I hope to have my silencer by Memorial Weekend 2012.
Polishing the aluminum and matching the feedramps has not been a detriment to the upper receiver itself. This was done at approximately 300 rounds and has had over 2100 rounds sent downrange since then. I do not see any noticeable wear whatsoever. Most of the rounds since then have been corrosive with a handful of zinc plated MFS sent through it because someone at the range wanted to try it and they had that available to them after I was done. I wanted to see how it ran with that ammunition also in the event I cannot find more M67. There were no stuck cases or failure to hold open on the last round.
The BCG is LMT, with a Model 1 Sales firing pin. Other shooters of this caliber in ARs have commented it fixes much of the FTFire associated with east european ammunition. This was case for me.
I run ASC and CProducts magazines and have had wonderful success with the ASC magazines. It shows they're willing to produce something good and after running 5 of them I am on the waiting list at AIM to purchase more when my email notifies me they're in stock. Some of the CP magazines I have needed extra power mag springs designed for the AK 47 from Wolff. When a magazines does not perform like I expect it to I order more springs. Retrofitted magazine springs have shown the deficiency of the older springs which, IMHO, were not long enough to support the weight of 25 rounds of 123gr loaded ammunition. When I install a new mag spring I paint the body of the magazine with a number so I know which ones I've done.
One of the biggest things I consider beneficial to running this caliber in the AR platform is that you have ergonomics, choices of stocks, forearms, VFGs, optics, and quality parts. LMT has made some excellent bolts, as has Harrison at AR Performance. His barrels and bolts are quality pieces---there is no denying that---and the .700 profile Scout is something many barrel makers should consider due to the wall thickness being similar to a pencil profile 5.56 barrel. If ARP had x39 carbine barrels and bolts at the time I was building this upper I'd have gone in that direction but they're midlength and I wanted a 10.5" upper. You need a carbine or pistol length gas system to run that length barrel.
I'm extremely happy with mine since building it.
Regarding the 16" carbine upper I built for myself---I used a Shaw barrel and ran a Troy MRF-R. The FSBs on both uppers were shaved and profiled to fit inside forearms. It was a backup gun to my 6.5 Grendel and it gave me no issues either. I only ran 10rd magazines in it and it had a SOPMOD stock TNW lower receiver with a polished trigger and JP reduced power trigger spring kit. The magazines ran very well, and it was a about a 4moa gun using the Leupold 4-12x40 I had for it. The BCG was an auto carrier and bolt from JSE Surplus. I decided to sell it as it saw very little use.
FWIW, that LMT upper has seen several different freefloats on it. Each has had it's own set of strengths and weaknesses but I'd be a willing participant of Daniel Defense's testing if they came out with a specific 10" version of their Modular Float Rail. I machined the 12" model down to work on this gun and it has performed perfectly. It hasn't come loose, and through high volumes of fire and drills I am extremely pleased with it.
I put together an M-4 style civilian legal carbine that shot the 7.62 X 39 round. Basically I used an upper from Model "1", a lower from Rock River Arms and magazines from C-Products. I used it in a police car and tested it on some ranges where I live. I loved the assembly and it shot great. The round had really good penetration that the .223 caliber ammo didn't have. As is common with ARs and M-4s, the worst problem area is almost always the magazines. The sides of the magazines are not as strong as they should be so they bulge outwards about half way down. It is not uncommon for magazines to end up with a double stack jam (2 rounds sitting side-by-side half way down the magazine) that keeps the rifle from working. Because of a series of jams, I ended up retiring the assembly and magazines. I would also like to see a good M-4 type carbine using the 7.62 X 39 ammo come to life with really strong magazines sort of like what most AKs use. Now don't take me wrong. C-Products did make a good product so I don't blame them for the problems I encountered. I tend to believe that the bigger, heavier 7.62 X 39 ammo creates problems associated with its design, weight and diameter characteristics that are not easily overcome. That's probably why the magazines used by the AKs are so heavy and thick and not at all like our magazines.
KAC made what looks to be amazing weapon with the SR-47 back in 2001 or 2002. I wish they would license the design to a commercial entity. An AR that uses AK mags while retaining the AR's manual of arms (other than magazine changes) would be very, very cool. Anyone know if the AR-47 by Michael Machine works?
I'd love to hear more about the SR-47 from III or Kevin B
http://inlinethumb19.webshots.com/46226/2173612270058660536S600x600Q85.jpg
I had an MGI lower with an AK magwell that I could never get to run correctly, I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the feed ramps though.
The issue with 7.62x39mm comes down to the magazine well and how it interacts with magazines. You have a straight magazine well, and a heavily tapered cartridge... while you might be able to get by, it isn't an ideal scenario.
The other issue is that 7.62x39mm is an inferior cartridge compared to 6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 5.56NATO, etc. You are sacrificing having a sound design as far as the magazine goes, and not really gaining anything.
7.62x39mm will never be a winner in the AR15 platform. To do it "right" would require a complete redesign of the lower receiver. In the end, it will be so expensive that it makes more sense to either get something Kalashnikov-based, or just get an AR in 6.8SPC or 6.5Grendel.
just get the 300 blackout, about the same ballistics as 7.62 x 39 from what I can tell.
just get the 300 blackout, about the same ballistics as 7.62 x 39 from what I can tell.
It is, at 3-4x the price.
Reloaded it still won't be as cheap. Comparison of the x39 to 6.5 Grendel is hardly fair as 6.5 is supersonic to 1k yards in the same weight with a 16" barrel. This isn't the purpose of the round. And the cheapest you'll reload it for is still 2x the price. If you want to burn through 6.5 at that rate go on and do it. I don't shoot my 6.5 that heavily. It has a different purpose.
so you either go thru major gyrations and reliability issues plus some serious $$ to get the Russian round to fire in an AR or shoot the 300 for $ more. Looks like a toss up to me.
300 BLK is cheaper than 7.62x39mm if you go by US-made brassed-cased ammo. It is only when you start to talk about surplus or steel imported ammo where AK ammo is cheaper.
AK ammo has special firing pin requirements, and you would want to put in an extra-power hammer spring - and then you may not want to use that lower with 5.56mm anymore. Also you cannot make the magazines work no matter who says otherwise. I mean you can get one to work on a video, but you cannot mass produce working guns because the curve just does not fit the magwell.
I have a Special Weapons dedicated lower that takes AK mags, but I had to mill the bottom of the bolt carrier to clear the magazine feed lips. It is sort of a poor-man's SR-47. It worked ok, but I broke two bolts within 500 rounds, and so gave up. At the time, I was going out of my way to not do anything 300 Whisper(R) related, because I did not believe in wildcats, and expensive ammo ($45 a box) and expensive brass ($1 each). Now that 300 BLK is SAAMI, that is the lowest cost decent solution. $12.99 MSRP ammo and reformed brass for as little as 10 cents a case.
300 BLK is cheaper than 7.62x39mm if you go by US-made brassed-cased ammo. It is only when you start to talk about surplus or steel imported ammo where AK ammo is cheaper.
AK ammo has special firing pin requirements, and you would want to put in an extra-power hammer spring - and then you may not want to use that lower with 5.56mm anymore. Also you cannot make the magazines work no matter who says otherwise. I mean you can get one to work on a video, but you cannot mass produce working guns because the curve just does not fit the magwell.
I have a Special Weapons dedicated lower that takes AK mags, but I had to mill the bottom of the bolt carrier to clear the magazine feed lips. It is sort of a poor-man's SR-47. It worked ok, but I broke two bolts within 500 rounds, and so gave up. At the time, I was going out of my way to not do anything 300 Whisper(R) related, because I did not believe in wildcats, and expensive ammo ($45 a box) and expensive brass ($1 each). Now that 300 BLK is SAAMI, that is the lowest cost decent solution. $12.99 MSRP ammo and reformed brass for as little as 10 cents a case.
Fiocchi is about $10 for reloadable brass x39. I picked some up at Sportsmans Warehouse for less than that last year also.
You are correct on the firing pin requirement, in most cases. AR Performance shooters have noted that a specific firing pin is not required on their guns as they're running a stock firing pin. I have no problems believing that Harrison knows what he is doing with these weapons. And shooters like his products. If he'd make carbine length barrels I'd build another SBR upper immediately. I also do not run an extra power hammer spring. My gun simply does not need it.
Regarding magazines working---I'm not sure why mine are operating or why several other people I've researched are having success here. CPRoducts magazines are not the best in the world and there was a regime change in Connecticut due to it. ASC is producing better magazines now, and none have given me issue. If they were, a full auto run of the Diablo would be impossible. I'm not the only sucess story here with running it. I mean I didn't order specific magazines from ASC through AIM to get lucky. I didn't tell them to give me better springs. I just ordered them and they work.
I'll also consider myself ridiculously lucky that I've run a 10.5" upper for over 2430 rounds now on the original bolt. You may want consider other people's successes before saying that the only 30 caliber AR solution is 300blk. I'm sorry your gun didn't last more than 500 rounds. I will happily consider shooting 300blk when I build my own upper for it. Until then, I'm running a 10.5" weapon with 123gr pills at 2100fps for $0.20/rd, and I have thousands of them.
You don't even have to post, but go read on TOS about how many x39 shooters there are having success. Just look under variants. I'd link all of them for you but I don't have that kind of time right now. Where 300BLK wins, is loaded subsonic ammo, of which I am interested. Speaking of 10c brass cases, I'd still have to load them up with 30c worth of primer, projectile, and powder. As I mentioned once before, when 300blk gets to 30c a round for factory ammo I will throw my x39 barrels out the window. I hope it does, because I like PMags :D
I always thought this outfit made reliable and accurate weapons, so I brought one over 15 years ago. It is still running 100% with quality ammunition, and is a real treat to show around.
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x160/308sako/ColtSporter-1.jpg
Well actually I only purchased the upper "Kit" which I drop on an older Colt lower...
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x160/308sako/colt-762x39.jpg
I do have some issues with reliable magazines, and have 1 25 (?) round CProducts and 2 factory 5 round magazine which are all I need for this rifle, and my applications.
I'd buy Knight's SR-47 as quick as I would their PDW ("Shut up and take my money!"). I would love a reliable AR that took AK mags.
-B
TangoChaser
01-10-12, 04:59
I run a Model 1 Sales upper with an AR Performance enhanced bolt and CProducts and ASC 30rd mags along with a dozen USA 20rd franken mags.
I have about 1000 rounds through it and my middle son shoots it every weekend. Zero failures to feed with the USA or CProduct/ASC mags. I did have to make some minor adjustment to the feed lips on the franken mags but now they are ultra reliable too. No modification have been made to the feed ramps or anywhere else on the gun for that matter.
Absolutely reliable and a host of inexpensive ammo available. Love getting 1000rd for $180.
How many of you guys posting that the AR platform will never run well with 7.62x39 ever actually owned one? Opinions are great but not when they are based off a hand full of negative threads compared to the thousands of AR 7.62x39 shooters out there.
Quality bolts, firing pins and mags now exist that cured the breakage and feeding issues.:rolleyes:
I run a Model 1 Sales upper with an AR Performance enhanced bolt and CProducts and ASC 30rd mags along with a dozen USA 20rd franken mags.
I have about 1000 rounds through it and my middle son shoots it every weekend. Zero failures to feed with the USA or CProduct/ASC mags. I did have to make some minor adjustment to the feed lips on the franken mags but now they are ultra reliable too. No modification have been made to the feed ramps or anywhere else on the gun for that matter.
Absolutely reliable and a host of inexpensive ammo available. Love getting 1000rd for $180.
My new 7.62x39 build ran really well on its maiden voyage to the range.. I'm running a matching ARPerformance barrel and bolt with ASC mags...
constructor
01-18-12, 16:52
Most of the yak comes from guys who tried the 7.62x39 with 5.56 mags 15 years ago. The USA and CP mags work well. I have never heard of anyone that had to modify the carrier to work with the mags. As far as bolts there are a few companies that use 8620 alloy to make all of their bolts, 5.56 and 7.62x39. Most of the cheap civilian ARs out there have 8620 bolts in them, it works fine when the web is thick like on a 5.56 but not when opened up for a x39.
Some guys create their own problems by running pistol length gas systems or even carbine systems that are over-gassed. That will break the extractor, some are MIM but now armalite is making machined extractors that should hold up much better than the DPMS extractors did. I chose to use a mid gas system to allow the case more time to contract before being yanked out of the chamber by the extractor. For guys that like to blast cheap steel case ammo the x39 will work just fine.
KAC made what looks to be amazing weapon with the SR-47 back in 2001 or 2002. I wish they would license the design to a commercial entity. An AR that uses AK mags while retaining the AR's manual of arms (other than magazine changes) would be very, very cool. Anyone know if the AR-47 by Michael Machine works?
I'd love to hear more about the SR-47 from III or Kevin B
http://inlinethumb19.webshots.com/46226/2173612270058660536S600x600Q85.jpg
Here (http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/01/18/rock-river-arms-lar-47/) you go...
A couple things of note in relation to the KAC SR47 and I assume that bastardization of a rifle created by RRA. The traditional AK47 mag is not a drop free design as is common of most STANAG mag using weapons (Most are but I don't believe the F2000 does). What this means is, that the magazine will have to be knocked free as is commonly done during speed reloads involving traditional AK rifles. The SR47 would make the magazines drop free, but only if the soldiers were using modified magazines made specifically for the rifle. I should also mention that the SR47 had a less than stellar record operationally, though this can largely be chalked up to a very, very short development cycle and the horrible ammunition available in country. In the case of the RRA you will simply have a horrible weapon made by a horrible company (though who knows, I could be wrong).
This is needed to solve the magazine issues:
http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac185/aeroscout9/IMG_0157.jpg
Even C158 mil-spec 5.56mm bolts were tested by the Navy and start to crack at 5000 and need replacement by 10,000 rounds - which is marginal as it is - that was for a tough firing schedule. An easier firing schedule may never reveal a problem.
Consider an extra power hammer spring to work with the 7.62x39mm primers, but remove it before going back to 223.
I'm generally a reader and not a poster, but I've had a Model 1 11.5 inch x39 upper that I run on one of my RR M16. I haven't had a bit of problems, haven't changed any bolts, firiing pins, etc. It runs and runs.
I bought it back when the Vector brass cased x39 was coming in to the US. I bought many cases of the stuff (I believe Zimbabwe thru PRC). It was brass cased and non corrosive. Worked great.
I bought a bunch of GTech mags and they always worked. I don't know about other brands, but the GTech were sweet.
I don't understand all the whiners about the caliber, as I beat mine full auto and haven't ever broken anything. With cheap ammo!
Brass cased 7.62x39mm ammo is not cheap. Who sells G-Tech mags?
I've been involved with military wound ballistic research since the late 1980's--in that time I have NEVER seen a consistently reliable 7.62x39 mm AR15 design. Most of the problems related to problematic feeding and numerous broken bolts. We have also seen more broken AR15 bolts with 6.5G, than 6.8mm or .300 BLK. Why are you guys getting all excited about the SR47??? It took a distant 3rd place in the early 2000's SPR-V trials for SF use--two other rifles performed better...
it's the 6.5 Grendel! O ya the 5.45x39 too
You might not agree but that's the idea behind it.
AS for the rifle to shoot it in that's up to you cuzz there is a 100's of them. I kinda like the M16 A2 20inch and a good 4A vest.
:big_boss:
I've been involved with military wound ballistic research since the late 1980's--in that time I have NEVER seen a consistently reliable 7.62x39 mm AR15 design. Most of the problems related to problematic feeding and numerous broken bolts. We have also seen more broken AR15 bolts with 6.5G, than 6.8mm or .300 BLK. Why are you guys getting all excited about the SR47??? It took a distant 3rd place in the early 2000's SPR-V trials for SF use--two other rifles performed better...
... and they were?
it's the 6.5 Grendel! O ya the 5.45x39 too
You might not agree but that's the idea behind it.
AS for the rifle to shoot it in that's up to you cuzz there is a 100's of them. I kinda like the M16 A2 20inch and a good 4A vest.
:big_boss:
I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time....
300 BLK is cheaper than 7.62x39mm if you go by US-made brassed-cased ammo. It is only when you start to talk about surplus or steel imported ammo where AK ammo is cheaper.
this is a straw man argument. further it has no basis in reality. No one only uses US made 762x39 ammo. fact of the matter is that brass cased US made 762x39 ammo is among the worst made (corbon being a notable exception). you dont buy a 762x39 and then NOT shoot 18 cent a round steel case, so comparing it to 75 cent a round 300blk ammo is silly, not to mention that 762x39 ballistics beat out the 300blk ALL DAY LONG.
the only thing the 300blk does is provide re-loaders and shooters with a base case to start from and magazines that works in the AR and good subsonic suppression. It's fantastic at that but THATS IT. it's not a better cartridge than 762x39,, it's 3x the price, it's not even close to the 6.8 ballistically, it's not a 308 or even a 30-30, and it's only marginally better IF at all than a good 556 round.
Mr Silvers, you did a great job on the 300blk, but it's just a really nice niche cartridge thats got some good press and some good marketing. it's just not gonna supplant the 762x39 or even the 6.8. and when folks discover it's limitations it'll go by the wayside.
"fact of the matter is that brass cased US made 762x39 ammo is among the worst made (corbon being a notable exception)"
This is NOT a true statement...
People say that US LE will never use 7.62x39mm because it is a "Russian" cartridge.
While that may be a factor, another reason, besides not working well enough in ARs, is that there is not a good enough selection of US made brass-cased ammo for it.
LE, especially Federal - is just not going to buy imported steel-cased duty ammo.
300 BLK, with a (soon to have) good selection of US made brass cased ammo, will be the viable option for LE that 7.62x39mm never was.
This is NOT a true statement...
I know. I use Winchester Super-X 7.62x39mm ammo in my home-defense AK - and it is brass-cased.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2900244739/winchester-super-x-ammunition-762x39mm-russian-123-grain-soft-point
not to mention that 762x39 ballistics beat out the 300blk ALL DAY LONG.
What testing are you using to draw this conclusion?
not to mention that 762x39 ballistics beat out the 300blk ALL DAY LONG.
I did the calculations. Lapua 7.62x39mm ammo - the kind that is over $60 a box at Midway - I ran the ballistics. It had more energy than 300 BLK below 120 yards. At 120 yards, they were equal. By 300 yards, Remington 125 grain Match ammo had 16.7% more energy. I am not sure a deer could feel the difference at any range, but 300 BLK won out at longer ranges due to the higher-BC bullets.
In my experience with it, winchester in particular has lower recoil and requires more effort to extract or something. when you look at US loaded brass cased x39 ammo almost across the board you see that they just do not stack up velocity wise to the russian steel cased loads. In any event they feel much softer that typical steel cased ammo and in rifles like the Sig and XCR require more gas to function the action than even wolf steel case FMJ. In rifles like the AK it just plain feels wimpy compared too Wolf. Sorry to have to be the guy to say it, but in x39, the russians just seem to be better at it.
The best brass cased stuff I've tried is the Yugo M67 stuff which has vigorous ejection and excellent terminal ballistics and velocity for an FMJ.
When we look at terminal ballistics the 8M3 and the Barnual softpoints BOTH exhibit excellent frag and/or expansion in flesh (based on hunting experiences not so much gel. the 8m3 tested very well in gel tho).
The numbers I was looking at were simply muzzle numbers. I did not compare longer range ballistics (and seriously who even buys lapua 762x39fmj at $43 a box?)
When we compare the 125gr match 300blk load to a similar projectile quality in a factory US made load (lets use the VMAX) we see that the 762x39 retains more velocity till 350 yards and drops less right thru till they meet at 800 yards... and THATS with a low power US load! (hornady 123gr vmax at 2360fps and G1 of .275 vs. remington 125SMK at 2215fps and g1 avg of .325)
if we run a proper russian loaded soft point from Barnaul at 125gr @2430fps g1 @.283 (based on a speer sp and case capacity limitations to reach stated velocity) we see that it retains more velocity right thru till 700 yards then STILL has LESS drop than the 300BLK.
going FURTHER... if we want to handload the 762x39 with a decent projectile and push it to it capabilities (this is using quickload) of even the 123gr Lapua fmj at 2528fps (g1 @.280) we see that it beats the 300BLK load all the way out to 800 yards in velocity, energy and drop. That not even considering the 150-175gr options either.
I'll also point out that there are several VERY capable russian loaded projectiles out there in steel cased ammo for VERY little money. If you want to use brass cased ammo in your weapon thats fine but dont fool yourself into believing that you are getting something better... because it's probably not true. You are just paying more for a lower powered round that does the same thing but may not be as reliable in your weapon.
As to the 300blk vs 762x39, you are gonna have a hard time convincing me that a $35 box of match ammo is somehow superior to a $7 box of soft point ammo that outperforms it ballistically and terminally, especially when realistic ranges are under 300 yards. Also please show me where I can get these $12.99 boxes of ammo in stock. perhaps we could compare ballistics of those to the x39 instead of $35 match ammo.
Sorry but "better than 762x39" doesnt play with the numbers or reality. the truth of the matter is that it's a solution for THE AR-15 to get a 30cal. it's a derned decent one at that and very well executed, but ballistically it's very mediocre and does not argue well with the economics of the 762x39.
This is NOT a true statement...
I'll quantify that by specifying that they have lower velocity and tend to require more gas to operate the system, cost more, performs similarly to russian steel case offerings, and show little to no improvement in accuracy in the typical combloc rifle and many other rifles.
this is based on my experience and a great deal of time and money spent on head to head accuracy testing of various 762x39 loads in different AK's and SKS's using irons, red dots and optics at ranges from 25-600 yards, over a dozen types and loads tested, thousands of rounds down range and on paper, disassembly of bullets and weighing components for consistency, and shooting bullets into flesh.
bottom line for me is that it is just not cost effective to shoot US loaded brass cased ammo and it gives no significant or usable increase in accuracy or terminally to the best russian steel case ammo (with the exception of Corbons DPX ammo thru barriers)
When we compare a similar projectile quality in a factory US made load (lets use the VMAX) we see that the 762x39 retains more velocity till 350 yards and drops less right thru till they meet at 800 yards... and THATS with a low power US load! (hornady 123gr vmax at 2360fps and G1 of .275 vs. 125SMK at 2215fps and g1 avg of .325)
I wish I did not have to correct your example, but if I leave it alone people will assume you are correct. I am not going to correct each of your examples, but they are equally flawed - so I will pick just one:
Let us compare the cheap 300 BLK ammo with V-MAX:
Remington UMC BC 0.290 PSI, 2295 fps 16" - $12.00 a box at Midway.
Brass cased.
Hornady V-MAX BC 0.260 PSI, 2350 fps 20" - $13.80 per 20.
Steel cased.
Velocity from a 16" barrel, according to QuickLoad, 2241 fps (based on 2350 from a 20 inch barrel).
At 50 yards, the 7.62x39mm has 4 ft-bs more energy.
At 100 yards, the low-cost UMC 300 BLK has 14 ft-lbs more energy.
At 300 yards, the low-cost UMC 300 BLK has 8.8% more energy.
At 300 yards, the 125 Match 300 BLK has 23.1% more energy.
I already did the math with Lapua and Hornady - the two best out there. Here is where you say Lapua and Hornady do not make good 7.62mm ammo and that the Russian stuff is better.
once again... you cant seem to dispute the apples to apples facts (125 300 vs 125 x39) and throw up another straw man.
NO ONE cares about energy numbers. it's not a useable metric to compare two similar cartridges!!. At least velocity gives us time to target and expansion threshold, and drop gives us ballistics. Even if you want to argue energy at usable ranges you STILL cant beat an equivalent weight handload or even cheap russian ammo with your custom MATCH ammo from the same length barrel!!
sorry you numbers just dont crunch and your 110 vmax vs 125 vmax still does not fly. My numbers are solid.
sorry you numbers just dont crunch and your 110 vmax vs 125 vmax still does not fly. My numbers are solid.
I can't compare velocity between two different bullet weights.
What is the flaw in my calculation? You can't hit and run. You have to finish this.
Velocity gives us time to target and expansion threshold
You want to argue expansion?
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/9338/300blk300small.jpg
Sorry Mr Silvers, but if you cant compare apples to apples then there is no use in explaining this any further.
Bottom line: 125 vs 125 from 16" barrels the x39 wins every time at usable ranges and beyond with ammo that costs 1/7th the price.
---
If we bring this back around to the OP's question about why the AR never succeeded with the x39, thats pretty much been answered.
What I would put out there is that there are other platforms that shoot the x39 well and are reliable, modular, affordable and available, the Sig556, the XCR-L to name the first two I can think of. i think there is a variant of the HK91/g3 clones that shoots it as well.
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. When a platform reaches the point where development is stunted and things reach past thier logical conclusion just for the sake of meeting platform requirements, it's time to move on. The AR has reached that point... clearly, and I feel that we should move forward;
some Ideas:
-develop a lower and mag system that is between the size of the 223 and the 308 for mid sized cartridges. The ability to use standard uppers could be included and mags could be made that fed shorter cartridges from the longer mag well
-stop trying to make a perfectly good DI design into something it's not. just develop a whole new upper with a more ergonomic design and stronger bolt/carrier system
-develop a lower that uses AK mags and a stronger bolt/barrel system to retrofit to the AR.
- how about a way to convert an AR-10 to use x39 and AK mags
the AR is far from dead, but we need to stop kicking anyway.
Sorry Mr Silvers, but if you cant compare apples to apples then there is no use in explaining this any further.
You want to skip and run because I proved you were incorrect. I am going to stay on this point until you answer the question without spin.
You said:
When we compare a similar projectile quality in a factory US made load (lets use the VMAX) we see that the 762x39 retains more velocity till 350 yards and drops less right thru till they meet at 800 yards... ... Also please show me where I can get these $12.99 boxes of ammo in stock. perhaps we could compare ballistics of those to the x39 instead of $35 match ammo.
Then I said:
Let us compare the cheap 300 BLK ammo with 7.62x39mm V-MAX:
Remington UMC BC 0.290 PSI, 2295 fps 16" - $12.00 a box at Midway.
Brass cased.
Hornady V-MAX BC 0.260 PSI, 2350 fps 20" - $13.80 per 20.
Steel cased.
Velocity from a 16" barrel, according to QuickLoad, 2241 fps (based on 2350 from a 20 inch barrel).
At 50 yards, the 7.62x39mm has 4 ft-bs more energy.
At 100 yards, the low-cost UMC 300 BLK has 14 ft-lbs more energy.
At 300 yards, the low-cost UMC 300 BLK has 8.8% more energy.
At 300 yards, the 125 Match 300 BLK has 23.1% more energy.
Then you said:
sorry you numbers just dont crunch
So tell me specifically - what part of my calculation is in error?
with ammo that costs 1/7th the price.
If the UMC is $12 per box, please show me where I can get reloadable 7.62x39mm ammo for $1.71 per box.
perhaps you misunderstood that comment. i was intending to compare the 300blk 125gr match load you had referred to in a previous post, to a similar quality projectile. the only real match quality projectile x39 in that weight is the 123gr VMAX.
I simply made a comparison to Remingtons 125 SMK match load with Hornadys factory 125gr VMAX load. all my other numbers are based on the factory listed number on Midway.com for the remington 125gr match load. I assumed that was from a 16" barrel.
when comparing those two together we see that the x39 retains more velocity and drops less. if we want to push it further with a handload, norma 200 gets us 2534fps instead of the 2360fps Hornady loads, making the gap even larger.
If we really get down to brass tacks, the larger case capacity of the x39 means it's capable of MORE.
You are correct when you say that it lacks the variety of projectiles that the .308 diameter has and thus suffers variety. I personally would like to see a good 100gr projectile developed that could be pushed to 2600fps. Corbons 150gr Hunter load for the x39 is simply awesome and represents what this cartridge is truly capable of.
what is the case volume of the 300blk in gr's of h2o?
Note: I edited my original post for clarity, it now reads
When we compare the 125gr match 300blk load to a similar projectile quality in a factory US made load (lets use the VMAX) we see that the 762x39 retains more velocity till 350 yards and drops less right thru till they meet at 800 yards... and
perhaps you misunderstood that comment. i was intending to compare the 300blk 125gr match load you had referred to in a previous post, to a similar quality projectile. the only real match quality projectile x39 in that weight is the 123gr VMAX.
I simply made a comparison to Remingtons 125 SMK match load with Hornadys factory 125gr VMAX load. all my other numbers are based on the factory listed number on Midway.com for the remington 125gr match load. I assumed that was from a 16" barrel.
The 300 BLK 125 Match does even better than the 300 BLK UMC - I only picked the 115 grain UMC for my example because it was lower cost - and to give you every advantage because I knew the UMC was lower performance than the Match ammo.
But, to completely settle this, let us compare the 125 Match 300 BLK ammo with 7.62x39mm V-MAX:
Remington 125 Match BC 0.338 PSI, 2215 fps 16"
Hornady V-MAX BC 0.260 PSI, 2350 fps 20"
Velocity from a 16" barrel, according to QuickLoad, 2241 fps (based on 2350 from a 20 inch barrel).
At 50 yards, the 300 BLK has 30 ft-bs more energy.
At 300 yards, the 300 BLK has 23.1% more energy.
Also if you want to talk velocity, the UMC has more velocity at the muzzle, more velocity at 300 yards, and more velocity at 600 yards, than the Hornady 7.62x39mm V-MAX ammo.
For a comparison to the 300 BLK 125 Match, while starts out with less velocity, by 50 yards has 10 fps more. At 300 yards it has 143 more fps.
You have no where else to turn but to claim that the USA-Made Hornady V-MAX and Finnish-made Lapua factory ammo is substandard compared to cheap Russian ammo.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1165713736/hornady-zombie-max-ammunition-762x39mm-russian-123-grain-z-max-steel-case
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/481507/lapua-ammunition-762x39-russian-123-grain-full-metal-jacket-box-of-30
Sorry Mr Silvers, but if you cant compare apples to apples then there is no use in explaining this any further.
Why would you want to compare the same bullet in each? Pick the BEST performer from each and compare those. Your argument is like saying to compare the effects of 5.56 to .308 rounds you need to compare the same bullet weight. It just makes no sense.
Mr Silvers,
what exactly is the case capacity of the 300blk?
How does it compare using a 150gr SP. please compare that to the Corbon Hunter load of 150gr SP @2300fps for the 762x39
thanks!
Rsilvers,
upon looking closer I see that the barrel length for the zmax was indeed 20" for the x39. thus a load comparison for that vs the remington match does indeed put the 300blk in a superior position. I see now that it was a poor example. please accept my apologies for that misunderstanding.
If we load that bullet to it's full 2474fps potential (30.1gr norma 200 fm 16" bbl) it out performs the 125 match in energy, velocity and bullet drop right out to 600 yards.
If we look at the $7/box Barnaul golden bear 125gr softpoint, we see that it trumps the 125gr 300blk match load in the same categories out to 600 as well.
I will stress for a final time that energy numbers are not a useful metric when comparing similar cartridges where other quantifiable factors can be used. it just does not relate to anything we can use on target or to determine bullet performance by itself.
---
Why would you want to compare the same bullet in each?
:confused:
We are comparing two .30 caliber loads, so the comparison is the only apples to apples way to test capabilities. you show what a 125gr will do, then a 150gr, maybe a 110gr etc etc. this is very similar to comparing a 223 to a 556 actually. or a 357 to a 38 or a 40 to a 10mm or a 45colt to a 454 casull. apples to apples = bullet weight and design to similar.
you do realize that these are the same caliber cartridges and very similar?
It's actually NOT ANYTHING like a 223 vs 308 comparison. ???
IrishDevil
01-24-12, 23:31
You were comparing factory ammo and proven incorrect. Now you want to switch to a handload to prove your point? Don't get me wrong I've killed a fair number of hogs with 7.62x39 and it works well. But the numbers don't lie. You're pretty much saying that x39 is better because it's cheaper and you say so.
You were comparing factory ammo and proven incorrect. Now you want to switch to a handload to prove your point? Don't get me wrong I've killed a fair number of hogs with 7.62x39 and it works well. But the numbers don't lie. You're pretty much saying that x39 is better because it's cheaper and you say so.
The 125gr barnaul soft point STILL beats the 300blk. and for WAAAY less! I dont even HAVE to use a handload to prove my point here.
Sure I was wrong about the hornady factory load. Just one more reason backing up my assertion that most US ammo is underpowered for this caliber!!
constructor
01-24-12, 23:52
If you handload both the 300 and the 7.62x39 with the same weight bullets to max safe pressure the 7.62x39 is faster. Any diameter bullet can be made of the same construction as the other, it just takes someone to want to do it. .308 and .310 is very little difference and there is no substitute for case capacity.
Is the 300 more reliable? feed better? maybe but I've seen videos of both running full auto. IMO the 300 may have better mil possibilities than civilian since there are better options for hunting and target use.
Rsilvers,
:confused:
We are comparing two .30 caliber loads, so the comparison is the only apples to apples way to test capabilities. you show what a 125gr will do, then a 150gr, maybe a 110gr etc etc. this is very similar to comparing a 223 to a 556 actually. or a 357 to a 38 or a 40 to a 10mm or a 45colt to a 454 casull. apples to apples = bullet weight and design to similar.
you do realize that these are the same caliber cartridges and very similar?
It's actually NOT ANYTHING like a 223 vs 308 comparison. ???
Fine, I used the 308 vs 5.56 as an exaggeration to show that there is no reason to compare identical bullets even in the same caliber. How about .223 vs 5.56, 22 mag vs 22lr, 30-05 to 7.62x54r etc are close enough?
My point here is that the goal of an assault rifle cartridge is to cause serious damage to two and four legged animals. If a steel cased 90 grain bullet (yes I know this isn't the case) is the best performing 7.62x39 and a 180 fmj brass loaded round (again exaggerated to show the difference) performs best in 300 aac that is what we should be comparing. Find the rounds with the best testing done at good standards as prescribed in the ballistics forum by Doc and compare those results. Regardless of the cost, bullet weight, type etc. I want to know which will most effectively end the lives of what I'm shooting at. Not what similar bullets in similar cases has the fastest travel to target.
Fine, I used the 308 vs 5.56 as an exaggeration to show that there is no reason to compare identical bullets even in the same caliber. How about .223 vs 5.56, 22 mag vs 22lr, 30-05 to 7.62x54r etc are close enough?
My point here is that the goal of an assault rifle cartridge is to cause serious damage to two and four legged animals. If a steel cased 90 grain bullet (yes I know this isn't the case) is the best performing 7.62x39 and a 180 fmj brass loaded round (again exaggerated to show the difference) performs best in 300 aac that is what we should be comparing. Find the rounds with the best testing done at good standards as prescribed in the ballistics forum by Doc and compare those results. Regardless of the cost, bullet weight, type etc. I want to know which will most effectively end the lives of what I'm shooting at. Not what similar bullets in similar cases has the fastest travel to target.
I get what you are saying... I really do. So why not compare a 125gr soft point to a 125gr soft point? those should perform similarly.
The problem with the x39 is that it's worked so well for so long at what it was designed for that no-one has the financial interest to develop anything beyond what has been developed. Barnes has done some nice things with the TSX and MPG. The best we can do for a match bullet is a 174gr SMK or the lapua D166 200gr both of which were developed for the 762x54. the AK is not a match rifle, and the AR doesnt shoot the cartridge well anyway, so why develop a match bullet? The XCR actually gets remarkably good groups with cheap Russian ammo but who's gonna make a bullet just for the XCR?
I'd compare a 125gr match bullet but the .311 does not have one, and the closest I could get was the 123g vmax. so I did at least attempt to compare similar bullets. Unfortunately most US loaded x39 ammo is under spec'ed by about 200fps and does not compare to an optimized wildcat load. that is why I used the handload as a comparison, because it shows what is capable rather than what is done by US mfr's.
If the BLK has a 150gr SP I'd be happy to compare that to the Corbon 150gr x39.
the benefit of the 300blk is that it has the entire spectrum of .308 bullets to draw upon and even use. it's a great design for that and it's CLOSE to the x39, but it just does not have the case capacity of the x39 and thus will always suffer in a head to head comparison loaded to similar pressures.
the AK is not a match rifle, and the AR doesnt shoot the cartridge well ...
Which, in my humble opinion, makes all of your pro-x39 points pretty well moot.
300BLK....will always suffer in a head to head comparison
If the 300BLK turns out to be a success in the market, then which caliber is really the one doing the "suffering?"
DeltaSierra
01-25-12, 14:18
Which, in my humble opinion, makes all of your pro-x39 points pretty well moot.
Correct, since the whole point of the .300 BLK to me is that it will function in an AR...
Correct, since the whole point of the .300 BLK to me is that it will function in an AR...
which brings us back to the OP's question about why the AR never succeeded with the x39, thats pretty much been answered.
What I would put out there is that there are other platforms that shoot the x39 well and are reliable, modular, affordable and available, the Sig556, the XCR-L to name the first two I can think of. i think there is a variant of the HK91/g3 clones that shoots it as well.
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. When a platform reaches the point where development is stunted and things reach past thier logical conclusion just for the sake of meeting platform requirements, it's time to move on. The AR has reached that point... clearly, and I feel that we should move forward;
some Ideas:
-develop a lower and mag system that is between the size of the 223 and the 308 for mid sized cartridges. The ability to use standard uppers could be included and mags could be made that fed shorter cartridges from the longer mag well
-stop trying to make a perfectly good DI design into something it's not. just develop a whole new upper with a more ergonomic design and stronger bolt/carrier system
-develop a lower that uses AK mags and a stronger bolt/barrel system to retrofit to the AR.
- how about a way to convert an AR-10 to use x39 and AK mags
the AR is far from dead, but we need to stop kicking anyway.
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. When a platform reaches the point where development is stunted and things reach past thier logical conclusion just for the sake of meeting platform requirements, it's time to move on. The AR has reached that point... clearly, and I feel that we should move forward;
I think this conclusion alone will mean you and I never agree on what is next for the AR.
I am curious though. If the AR has reached the point of needing drastic change would you say the AK is in the same boat?
If so then why make the ar take ak mags if they are both at the end of their life cycle or near it?
If not then how in the world does the AK have more future than the AR for development?
reliable, modular...the Sig556, the XCR-L ...variant of the HK91/g3 clones
That's almost as laughable as your opinion that the Mini-14 is a fine and reliable alternative to the AR15.
I think this conclusion alone will mean you and I never agree on what is next for the AR.
I am curious though. If the AR has reached the point of needing drastic change would you say the AK is in the same boat?
If so then why make the ar take ak mags if they are both at the end of their life cycle or near it?
If not then how in the world does the AK have more future than the AR for development?
The AK is at or past it's peak of logical development as well.
let me put it like this. when there are more silly add ons to a system in an attempt to make it "better" than there are substantive systemic improvements, then the system has reached it's logical peak.
EG:
last REAL improvements to the AR:
-better mags
-rail system
-surface and barrel treatments like BN
thing that did NOT improve the system
-piston add ons
-MORE "match" triggers
-endless arrays of stocks developed primarily for looks
That's ... your opinion ... the Mini-14 is a fine and reliable alternative to the AR15.
Funny story... On a pretty regular basis I get out to a training class. In most of those classes I encounter the green fella with the new gun. It never ceases to amaze me that in spite of spending copious amounts of money on a custom 1911 or an AK or nice well thought of AR, or a classic M1 Garand, that some guys just never seem to be able to keep them running.
I hear things like
"Oh I wont clean the packing grease out of it. it came like that from the arsenal and I dont want to mess with it!"
"this scope gets very good reviews online, I dont know why the clicks dont return to the same place!"
"naw, you dont have to lube this rifle, it has a special coating"
"this is a brand new pistol, I've never shot it before, I dont know WHY it wont feed right!"
"this is an XYZ brand rifle xforums.com has it on their list so it should be good to go, dunno why it keep jamming?"
yet over in the corner quietly shooting away is a guy with a simple factory rifle, a bottle of motor oil, using reliable mags a burris scope and wolf ammo that just plinks away without any problems. Completely ignorant of the fact that wolf ammo is shit, Burris is garbage, and that his rifle is only capable of 6MOA according to the factory. He's happy as a clam having read his users manual and heeded it's suggestions about user maintenance, and using the simple skills he learned in the service or at an appleseed about shooting. He's not trying to be a hot rod or prove his gun is the best, he's just happy shooting and LEARNING because his rifle works and does what he needs it to do.
I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps you've had some poor experiences with some guns in the past (I know I have!), but what I discover as time goes on is that it's less the gun than it is the owner, and that most guns are capable of doing what they were intended to do if only the owner would do what they were intended to do.
So while some folks will find the time to deride a gun or a cartridge because it's fallen out of favor, I'll just be happily plinking along with the tools I have and learning what they will and will not do for myself.
Jack :cool:
thing that did NOT improve the system
...
-endless arrays of stocks developed primarily for looks
Actually, newer designs enhance the standard m4 stock. Cheek weld and compartment storage, as well as QD sling attachment spots are a few of them.
My 7.62x39 is my chosen SHTF rifle, why?
1. Proven reliable, have yet to have a misfeed, jam, double feed, stove pipe, etc, etc, etc.:bad:
2. 1,260rds from AIM $214:ph34r:
3. Knock down power CQB:jester:
4. 1,260rds from AIM $214:ph34r:
5. If ever in Iraq, Russia, Cuba or China killin' Zombies, I'll likely find 7.62x39 before .223:jester:
And did I mention 1,260rds from AIM for the low low price of $214!??!
As long as you realize that the reason that ammo is so cheap is because some 3rd world country decided it was not good enough for them after being stored in a trailer in the hot sun for 40 years and sold it off.
constructor
01-26-12, 09:57
So why can we buy 5.56 surplus ammo?
Why would you not be able to?
EG:
last REAL improvements to the AR:
-better mags
-rail system
-surface and barrel treatments like BN
-better pistol grips
-better aiming devices (Aimpoints, etc.)
-better quality triggers (Geissele SSA, etc.)
-better ammo options (not exclusive to the AR but no less cogent)
-additional caliber options
-better barrel profiles and construction
Thought those might be worth mentioning.
I agree that we ought to look beyond the AR platform when designing better cartridges. We ought to also look at other technologies that influence cartridge design, like better propellants (www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433982) and newer, better bullets.
-B
So why can we buy 5.56 surplus ammo?
Technically you can't.
Realistically because they make extra just for those sales.
The govt will reject an entire lot based on the accuracy of a small sample of it, or some dents - then the maker gets to sell it.
constructor
01-26-12, 11:51
rsilvers As long as you realize that the reason that ammo is so cheap is because some 3rd world country decided it was not good enough for them after being stored in a trailer in the hot sun for 40 years and sold it off.
So why can we buy 5.56 surplus ammo?
Why would you not be able to?
........................
So Tula doesn't make ammo to sell? All 7.62x39 ammo has sit in a container or warehouse for 40 years?
Casting broad statements and shadows.
Wolf and Winchester 7.62x39 produce apx 2400fps and is fairly accurate 1-1.5" Remington produces apx 2300fps.
7.62x39 is not that inaccurate, depends on the rifle it is used in and the sights of course.
I have a pallet full of Malaysian 5.56 made in 1980, shoots better than UMC or Eagle, It's about on par with WWB.
........................
So Tula doesn't make ammo to sell? All 7.62x39 ammo has sit in a container or warehouse for 40 years?
Casting broad statements and shadows.
Wolf and Winchester 7.62x39 produce apx 2400fps and is fairly accurate 1-1.5" Remington produces apx 2300fps.
7.62x39 is not that inaccurate, depends on the rifle it is used in and the sights of course.
I have a pallet full of Malaysian 5.56 made in 1980, shoots better than UMC or Eagle, It's about on par with WWB.
Tula is not surplus ammo.
Tula is not surplus ammo.
That was Constructor's point. :rolleyes:
My point was that PD2BP253 gave a super low ammo price. I said that it was only that low because it was surplus, unwanted by a 3rd-world country - possibly because it had been stored for so long under unknown conditions.
Tula is new ammo and is 30% more expensive than PD2BP253's example. Yes - still very low priced though - I am not saying it is not.
Imported steel case ammo has never been on my radar for my ARs. I would buy it for some of my AKs. AK's and steel-cased ammo go together like sunshine and orange juice.
My point was that PD2BP253 gave a super slow ammo price. I said that it was only that low because it was surplus, unwanted by a 3rd-world country - possibly because it had been stored for so long under unknown conditions..
Or possibly because said third-world country is now having its military small arms needs met for a song by a big, fat Western defense industry in exchange for political favor, and now no longer needs commie ammo laying around so they sell it?
Besides the nightmares I get from seeing AKM mags sticking out of ARs like some minotaur(d), I feel like y'all are arguing over ammo that he can't even buy (unless I missed something): http://www.aimsurplus.com/catalog.aspx?groupid=39&name=7.62x39
My point was that PD2BP253 gave a super low ammo price. I said that it was only that low because it was surplus, unwanted by a 3rd-world country - possibly because it had been stored for so long under unknown conditions.
Tula is new ammo and is 30% more expensive than PD2BP253's example. Yes - still very low priced though - I am not saying it is not.
Imported steel case ammo has never been on my radar for my ARs. I would buy it for some of my AKs. AK's and steel-cased ammo go together like sunshine and orange juice.
Yeah, I just say that they don't have those 1,200rds for $214 right now, but I love the fact that I can buy 1,400rds for $280 right now from AIM, is it the best ammo available?? No, not by a long shot, but it works and its great for plinking around. I have a serious man crush on the 7.62x39, I like the Ak, but LOVE the AR... I don't really like the .223/5.56, it can be a very effective round, but I have seen a narcotics smuggler hopped up on cocaine take 10rds center mass from a 55gr 5.56 and not go down, only stopped by a center mass head shot. I really think the 7.62x39 would have dropped the smuggler.
The AK is at or past it's peak of logical development as well.
let me put it like this. when there are more silly add ons to a system in an attempt to make it "better" than there are substantive systemic improvements, then the system has reached it's logical peak.
EG:
last REAL improvements to the AR:
-better mags
-rail system
-surface and barrel treatments like BN
thing that did NOT improve the system
-piston add ons
-MORE "match" triggers
-endless arrays of stocks developed primarily for looks
Neither is past its peak of development. Both are constantly being improved. The AK-12 for example.
... I have seen a narcotics smuggler hopped up on cocaine take 10rds center mass from a 55gr 5.56 and not go down, only stopped by a center mass head shot. I really think the 7.62x39 would have dropped the smuggler.
This is the type of the unsubstantiated conjecture from which the idea that the 7.62 is tremendously more effective than the 5.56 comes from. (Or 9mm vs. .45, or any smaller vs. larger round). It's entirely possible that, had the man been hit by 7.62, the results would have been the same. In that instance, you may be thinking "Wow! It took TEN 7.62 to bring him down! Good thing I didn't have a 5.56!" Thus, any observation of one caliber's performance, without a subsequent observation of the other caliber in the exact same circumstances (which is impossible) is of no value to the "caliber war"
This is the type of the unsubstantiated conjecture from which the idea that the 7.62 is tremendously more effective than the 5.56 comes from. (Or 9mm vs. .45, or any smaller vs. larger round). It's entirely possible that, had the man been hit by 7.62, the results would have been the same. In that instance, you may be thinking "Wow! It took TEN 7.62 to bring him down! Good thing I didn't have a 5.56!" Thus, any observation of one caliber's performance, without a subsequent observation of the other caliber in the exact same circumstances (which is impossible) is of no value to the "caliber war"
I actually agree with what you say, in fact, if you look at ballistic studies of the rounds, the 5.56 relatively similar energy to the 7.62x39 on paper. What has really stood out to me has been the eye test, when I have shot steel with 5.56, it is really evident that the 7.62 packs a bigger "THUMP" than the 5.56, though on paper, they are supposed to be similar.... I'll still take the 7.62x39... Opinions vary...
7.62x39 suffers from a lack of good bullets. No one wants to design 0.311 bullets as they can essentially only be used in that one caliber.
Also most AK buyers are economy shoppers and so ammo/bullet companies are not motivated to do high-end products for it.
I have seen a narcotics smuggler hopped up on cocaine take 10rds center mass from a 55gr 5.56 and not go down, only stopped by a center mass head shot. I really think the 7.62x39 would have dropped the smuggler.
Why do you think this?
-B
Why do you think this?
-B
In all honesty, because of what I have seen in my personal experience shooting steel, I am a federal firearms instructor, I shoot thousands of rounds, I have shot steel with countless calibers, am I an expert? Some would say so, I don't consider myself to be all knowing, but I will say this, when I shoot a half inch steel plate and the 64gr 5.56 barely budges it, but the shitty, 17cent wolf 7.62x39 knocks the shit out of it, leaving it literally swinging, I'll take that any day.... do I trust 5.56 ABSOLUTELY, but if I had a choice when the zombies attack, I'll take 7.62x39.
In all honesty, because of what I have seen in my personal experience shooting steel, I am a federal firearms instructor, I shoot thousands of rounds, I have shot steel with countless calibers, am I an expert? Some would say so, I don't consider myself to be all knowing, but I will say this, when I shoot a half inch steel plate and the 64gr 5.56 barely budges it, but the shitty, 17cent wolf 7.62x39 knocks the shit out of it, leaving it literally swinging, I'll take that any day.... do I trust 5.56 ABSOLUTELY, but if I had a choice when the zombies attack, I'll take 7.62x39.
If I threw a cinder block at the steel it would probably really make it swing, but I wouldn't trust that to stop anybody. I suppose if you want to choose 17 cent Wolf over modern 5.56mm based on how much it moves a plate of steel, go ahead, but have you read any of the modern terminal performance information contained on this forum and elsewhere?
If I threw a cinder block at the steel it would probably really make it swing, but I wouldn't trust that to stop anybody. I suppose if you want to choose 17 cent Wolf over modern 5.56mm based on how much it moves a plate of steel, go ahead, but have you read any of the modern terminal performance information contained on this forum and elsewhere?
Yes, his test doesn't really mean a whole lot in terminal effectiveness. However, I would still take the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45. It's still a varmint round no matter how you shake it.
If I threw a cinder block at the steel it would probably really make it swing, but I wouldn't trust that to stop anybody. I suppose if you want to choose 17 cent Wolf over modern 5.56mm based on how much it moves a plate of steel, go ahead, but have you read any of the modern terminal performance information contained on this forum and elsewhere?
The thing about it is, I actually agreed with you on my post.... And yes, of course I've studied ballistics, read all the literature, I know what they say, this really boils down to personal preference, not just in cost effectiveness or performance, but purpose of use.... I often see guys thrilled about the 300blk, I think its funny because a well made 7.62x39 has similar if not better ballistics than that 300blk, yet that 300blk ammo sells for $1 a round which is unsatisfactory to me. I don't want to come off saying I don't have any faith in the 5.56 because I do, its my duty carry rifle caliber.
Yes, his test doesn't really mean a whole lot in terminal effectiveness. However, I would still take the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45. It's still a varmint round no matter how you shake it.
Lol.. just lol.
Tell you what I'll let you shoot me with a 22lr varmit round if you let me shoot you with a 5.56 first :big_boss:
Lol.. just lol.
Tell you what I'll let you shoot me with a 22lr varmit round if you let me shoot you with a 5.56 first :big_boss:
People have gotten killed by airguns and BB guns. Does that mean they are the best tool available for killing people? I wouldn't want to get hit by A BB gun,airgun,.22 LR, or 5.56x45.
My posts above weren't meant to be taken as "5.56, good. 7.62, bad". I was just making two points:
1. It's a fallacy to think that 7.62 FMJ is hugely more effective than modern 5.56mm. You can contend that it might be slightly better (I disagree), but there's nothing at all that indicates it more effective by any large margin.
2. You can't make terminal ballistics conclusions by shooting steel.
Go ahead and turn this into a 5.56 vs. 7.62 thread (never had one of those), but that's not what I was saying.
I often see guys thrilled about the 300blk, I think its funny because a well made 7.62x39 has similar if not better ballistics than that 300blk, yet that 300blk ammo sells for $1 a round which is unsatisfactory to me.
Nobody is thrilled about the terminal performance of FMJ out of the .300blk, just like they aren't with surplus or Wolf FMJ out of the 7.62.39mm, because it's not very good. The .300blk costs $1 per round because there isn't a boat load of former communist surplus .300blk being imported every day. Domestic 7.62x39mm ammo with a decent expanding / fragmenting bullet is on par, price and terminal performance-wise, with the .300blk. Neither in FMJ form are anything to get excited about, in terms of terminal performance.
In all honesty, because of what I have seen in my personal experience shooting steel...
Do you feel impact on steel reflects terminal ballistics on a person?
Yes, his test doesn't really mean a whole lot in terminal effectiveness. However, I would still take the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45. It's still a varmint round no matter how you shake it.
Even if this varmint round outperforms the 7.62x39 in every way except vs intermediate barriers and out of very short barrels? Even if newer bullets and loads are significantly closing the gap between the two in the only two ways in which the 7.62x39 is superior to the 5.56x45?
C'mon now. If we're going to assess these rounds, let's at least do it honestly.
-B
There are several things you can do with 7.62x39. But the best part of it to me is the fact I can run bullets from 57grs to 200grs subsonics. If it is shot from an AK it will cycle all of them as well. Actually, if one must it can be loaded with .224 bullets with sabot as well. People get ridiculously high V(0) by doing that.
There's great deal of things the cartridge can do. Definately my favourite short range cartridge.
If it is shot from an AK it will cycle all of them as well.
My AR cycles 7.62x39 extremely well, granted I have never run sub sonic through my AR.... I would probably love 300blk too if I could afford it:)
Do you feel impact on steel reflects terminal ballistics on a person?
Even if this varmint round outperforms the 7.62x39 in every way except vs intermediate barriers and out of very short barrels? Even if newer bullets and loads are significantly closing the gap between the two in the only two ways in which the 7.62x39 is superior to the 5.56x45?
C'mon now. If we're going to assess these rounds, let's at least do it honestly.
-B
There are newer bullets for the 7.62x39 also.
There are newer bullets for the 7.62x39 also.
Yes, at prices equal to or higher than premium 5.56mm rounds, with generally decreased reliability and bolt life in the AR platform. Hmm, if only we could get 7.62x39mm ballistics in the AR using the existing magazine and bolt...:confused:
Yes, at prices equal to or higher than premium 5.56mm rounds, with generally decreased reliability and bolt life in the AR platform. Hmm, if only we could get 7.62x39mm ballistics in the AR using the existing magazine and bolt...:confused:
I don't think you can have a reliable AR15 in 7.62x39 with the existing magazines and bolt, it's just not possible. Rock river is coming out with a 7.62x39 AR15 that takes AK magazines. That seems like a good combo to me.
I don't think you can have a reliable AR15 in 7.62x39 with the existing magazines and bolt, it's just not possible. My 7.62x39 is pretty friggin' reliable, I have had a lemon once, but ever since building my current rifle, I have yet to have a single malfunction, I'm overall very pleased with my 7.62x39....
Rock river is coming out with a 7.62x39 AR15 that takes AK magazines. That seems like a good combo to me.I had something similar, it was an MGI Military version of that lower, it was trash!!!! I never went more than 3rds before a failure to feed or stove pipe... I finally parted it out, labeled "Buyer Beware". The RRA version looks really interesting, but like I have said before, if I buy anything that takes AK mags that is not an AK, its a Sig556R, in fact, I may be making that purchase sooner than later.... I love the 7.62x39...
Oh, fyi, its not only because of the cheap ammo because I get free 5.56 at work as the PFI:)
There are newer bullets for the 7.62x39 also.
Your earlier comment was preferring the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45 because it's a 'varmint round'. Data, conveniently on this site even, shows the 'varmint round' to be better than the 7.62x39 in all but two areas, which are mitigated by newer bullet options.
Do the enhanced capabilities of the newer 7.62x39 bullets surpass the enhanced capabilities of the newer 5.56x45 bullets? Do they close the performance gaps in significant ways, or nominally? What's the cost difference between newer premium 7.62x39 rounds vs premium 5.56x45 rounds?
-B
Your earlier comment was preferring the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45 because it's a 'varmint round'. Data, conveniently on this site even, shows the 'varmint round' to be better than the 7.62x39 in all but two areas, which are mitigated by newer bullet options.
Do the enhanced capabilities of the newer 7.62x39 bullets surpass the enhanced capabilities of the newer 5.56x45 bullets? Do they close the performance gaps in significant ways, or nominally? What's the cost difference between newer premium 7.62x39 rounds vs premium 5.56x45 rounds?
-B
I'm not aware of any data that suggests the best 5.56x45 on the market will outperform the best 7.62x39 in lethality at all ranges. I'm also not aware of any data that suggests the best/heavier loadings of the 5.56x45 will outperform a 7.62x39 in barrier penetration.
Reread. Dr. Roberts posted plenty comparing military rounds to military rounds in both calibers. With the information provided we know that the military 5.56 rounds outperforms the military 7.62x39 rounds in all but two areas. We also know that in those two areas, newer 5.56 bullets have improved its capability.
You stated that you prefer one versus the other because the other is a 'varmint round'. That 'varmint round' has been shown to outperform your preferred round, and that 'varmint round' has newer bullet options available that improve its performance dramatically in the two areas where it is deficient (in comparison to your preferred round). Your response to this was that there are newer 7.62x39 bullets... with no explanation besides.
So again: do the enhanced capabilities of the newer 7.62x39 bullets surpass the enhanced capabilities of the newer 5.56x45 bullets? Do they close the performance gaps in significant ways, or nominally? What's the cost difference between newer premium 7.62x39 rounds vs premium 5.56x45 rounds?
-B
So again: do the enhanced capabilities of the newer 7.62x39 bullets surpass the enhanced capabilities of the newer 5.56x45 bullets? Do they close the performance gaps in significant ways, or nominally? What's the cost difference between newer premium 7.62x39 rounds vs premium 5.56x45 rounds?
-B
The 7.62x39 V-max. I don't know of any 5.56x45 load that allows it to destroy hard cover every bit as well as the 7.62x39. No in barrier penetration, No. No new 5.56x45 eclipses in that area. As far as lethality, it's going to penetrate more. The 5.56x45 JHP, or what ever new loading might expand and penetrate close to a 7.62x39 close up in gelatin, but the 7.62x39 is going to retain a greater lethal effect as the distance increases and other side outside factors.
I earlier have made this compilation of Dr. Facklers pictures. It shows 5.56, 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 side by side. Russian 7.62 data is from the M43 round but moved left to match M67 bullet, i.e. normal lead-cored FMJ round. Green is M855 5.56x45, Blue is M67 7.62x39 and the red is 9.7g FMJ 7.62x51
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/TBCombination.jpg
What this picture IMO shows is how academic this kind of discussion is. 7.62x39 carries more kinetic energy than the 5.56, as much is fact. How and where than energy is transferred on the target is a matter of bullet design. Regardless, the differences are pretty academical.
I earlier have made this compilation of Dr. Facklers pictures. It shows 5.56, 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 side by side. Russian 7.62 data is from the M43 round but moved left to match M67 bullet, i.e. normal lead-cored FMJ round. Green is M855 5.56x45, Blue is M67 7.62x39 and the red is 9.7g FMJ 7.62x51
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Guns/TBCombination.jpg
What this picture IMO shows is how academic this kind of discussion is. 7.62x39 carries more kinetic energy than the 5.56, as much is fact. How and where than energy is transferred on the target is a matter of bullet design. Regardless, the differences are pretty academical.
Very interesting.
Would you say the same thing for hunting ammunition and the target being a medium to large whitetailed deer?
BTW, I have shot deer with 7.62x39 and 308. I have not used my 300-221 or 223. I was concerned with not having enough terminal effect with the latter cartridges with a less than perfect chest shot.
Very interesting.
Would you say the same thing for hunting ammunition and the target being a medium to large whitetailed deer?
I am not a subject matter expert on terminal ballistics, far from it. But I suppose with hunting deer or elk it all becomes an function between kinetic energy, ability of the round to transfer that energy and durability of the bullet.
I believe only reasonable bullet types are different soft points and expanding solids. Expanded 7.62 diameter bullet will create a bigger permanent wound canal than the 5.56 diameter one, just because it is bigger. This leads to faster bleeding. After that it only becomes a matter of required penetration for the given target and durability of the bullet on bone strikes.
Roughly put, 5.56<7.62x39<.308 energy wise. More you have energy more you can afford to waste it. 5.56 is not deer legal where I live and 7.62x39 is. Also 7.62x39 is not elk legal but .308 is. I do not know how good those limits are, but I suppose smarter men than I am were deciding on them. I personally still would like to use .308 personally as I see no point trying to manage with less if it isn't necessary for a reason or other.
What this picture IMO shows is how academic this kind of discussion is. 7.62x39 carries more kinetic energy than the 5.56, as much is fact. How and where than energy is transferred on the target is a matter of bullet design. Regardless, the differences are pretty academical.
Energy is not a wounding mechanism. Tissue crush and displacement are.
Looking at the image you posted, I see the 5.56 has the greatest permanent wound cavity, i.e., the most destroyed tissue, followed by the .308 and then the 7.62x39. Yet the 5.56 has the least energy of the three, the .308 the most, and the 7.62x39 sits between them. If looking only at that image alone, one can reasonably conclude that energy does not appear to be the driving factor for tissue destruction.
Esh325, do you have support for your assertion of penetration and destruction characteristics for the 123 gr 7.62 V-Max? Have you compared them to those of the 62 gr 5.56 Federal TBBC? The 50 gr 5.56 Black Hills TSX load? Hornady's 75 gr 5.56 OTM? Sierra's 77 gr 5.56 SMK? Speer's Gold Dot? Nosler's OTM? Can you show, not just tell, that the 7.62x39 V-Max can do what you say it can do compared to similar higher-quality 5.56 bullets/rounds?
-B
Looking at the image you posted, I see the 5.56 has the greatest permanent wound cavity, i.e., the most destroyed tissue, followed by the .308 and then the 7.62x39. Yet the 5.56 has the least energy of the three, the .308 the most, and the 7.62x39 sits between them. If looking only at that image alone, one can reasonably conclude that energy does not appear to be the driving factor for tissue destruction.-B
Did anyone claim that energy was the driving factor in military cartridges? Do not mix it with the discussion about hunting cartridges.
If you want to talk about military ammunition and their "stopping power", then first answer me this: How many people have ever complained about the stopping power of the 7.62x51? Yet if you look at the picture I posted it could be easily argued that it is worst of the three rounds as it yaws at 20cm/8inch depth. That means that it starts delivering it's energy when in many cases it has been through it it's target already. (this would not be the case with hunting ammunition)
The picture is there to show how close all these bullets really are to each other regardless of the perceptions people may have. Also if you want to really(?) have a 5.56x7.62 debate remember that M855 causes the wound like in the picture at close distance from a 20 inch barrel (velocity in the test was over 3000fps). From the distances it doesn't fragment it will behave like a smaller 7.62 bullet.
You’re obfuscating. That graphic you posted was paired with commentary regarding energy for each round. What the graphic shows is that energy appears to play no role in the actual [permanent] tissue destruction caused by those three rounds.
The topic is improving upon the military standard of the 7.62x39. We are not talking about exclusively military (or hunting) use. We are talking about external and terminal performance of these rounds in the context of improving from M43/M67 performance. So when we discuss improvements in bullet performance in one caliber, we should be discussing it in context of other improvements in other calibers. That image is helpful for dispelling certain myths, but itself is limited in application to modern bullet performance. We’ve long since improved upon the M855 shot from 20” barrels.
While performance of the three compared military rounds may have been fairly academic, the widely varying performance of modern rounds is not.
-B
While performance of the three compared military rounds may have been fairly academic, the widely varying performance of modern rounds is not.
-B
Well it was you who was talking about 7.62x39 in a manner like only thing that exists in .30 caliber is M43.
Then it becomes obvious. 5.56 has no advantages over 7.62x39 in terminal performance as it carries less energy compared to the Russian round. Percieved good terminal behaviour becomes from the fragmenting FMJ bullet.
If we are not considering the Hague conventions in this discussion 7.62x39 offers better performance and more options for the normal engagement ranges. We can go from undercaliber sabots at over 1000m/s to high explosive rounds, and from 50gr weight bullets to 200grs. We can also make rounds mushroom or fragment if that is wished. Only advantage of 5.56 is smaller cartridge.
Once again, the energy the bullet carries does not matter. Energy does not destroy tissue. Energy does not defeat intermediate barriers. If you're going to make a case for any round, stop mentioning its energy. I'm beginning to think that you're only beating the energy drum because it's the only one you can beat. You haven't shown evidence to support any claim made thus far... except that the 7.62x39 has more energy.
All I'm asking for is evidence to support what you and others have claimed. That's it. I didn't bring up the 7.62x39 comparisons but I'd sure like to see what proof other people are looking at to lead them to their conclusions.
-B
Once again, the energy the bullet carries does not matter.
...
All I'm asking for is evidence to support what you and others have claimed. That's it. I didn't bring up the 7.62x39 comparisons but I'd sure like to see what proof other people are looking at to lead them to their conclusions.
-B
I'm sorry I do not quite follow. You believe that energy has no function in creating tissue damage? Or that 7.62 can not penetrate intermediate barriers?
Maybe we should tackle this smaller piece at a time. If you have a more specific case we could look at this would be easier. As it is now, at least I can't make sense what we are trying to discuss about because penetration and tissue damage are in the opposite ends of the spectrum as far as I understand anything.
"I've always wondered why a truly well-designed and reliable AR was never created for the 7.62x39mm caliber. "
Because it would need a lower than takes AK mags, and a larger than normal bolt face - like the 30 RAR one. Then it needs an extra power hammer spring. Then the 0.311 bullets have limited options. The bolt carrier would also need to be modified to allow the magazine feed lips to clear.
This is all doable, but 300 BLK does the same thing with normal mags, normal bolts, normal carriers, normal hammer springs, and normal bullets. 300 BLK also has way better ammo either already out, or coming out in 2012.
Doc has tested the 7.62 V-Max, and it tests rather nicely;
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88138&highlight=rifle+caliber+tests
I have seen this bullet used on people twice, leaves a mess that is very obvious at autopsy is not the same tissue damage as all of the other 7.62X39 wounds that I have seen in the past.
Jippo, your own image showed that energy itself doesn’t seem to matter in measuring tissue destroyed by different calibers. This means there are other things at work that actually creating differences between calibers’ performance, however great or small these differences may be.
Bullet shape and sectional density defeat intermediate barriers (the pointier the bullet and higher its SD, the more it will penetrate). Bullet shape, construction, mass, and moment of inertia all effect bullet behavior in a substrate (read: cause damage). Yawing is good because it presents more surface to crush more tissue as it passes into/through a substrate. Fragmenting, while somewhat less reliable, is better because it presents even more surface and can create damage within the stretched tissue (temporary wound cavity) that makes the final (permanent) wound cavity bigger than it would be otherwise.
The actual mechanisms by which a bullet damages tissue are known. The behaviors of many different bullets within tissue are also known. Dealing with the now and the things that we know exist, how do the best 7.62x39 loads and bullets compare to the best 5.56x45 bullets from a given barrel length? Which ones consistently penetrate further? Which consistently have the larger permanent wound cavities? Which are the most ‘barrier-blind’?
-B
Doc has tested the 7.62 V-Max, and it tests rather nicely;
Yes, that is a start. The other decent one is the Winchester soft point.
Barrier-blind ammo though?
Jippo, your own image showed that energy itself doesn’t seem to matter in measuring tissue destroyed by different calibers. This means there are other things at work that actually creating differences between calibers’ performance, however great or small these differences may be.
Bullet shape and sectional density defeat intermediate barriers (the pointier the bullet and higher its SD, the more it will penetrate). Bullet shape, construction, mass, and moment of inertia all effect bullet behavior in a substrate (read: cause damage). Yawing is good because it presents more surface to crush more tissue as it passes into/through a substrate. Fragmenting, while somewhat less reliable, is better because it presents even more surface and can create damage within the stretched tissue (temporary wound cavity) that makes the final (permanent) wound cavity bigger than it would be otherwise.
The actual mechanisms by which a bullet damages tissue are known. The behaviors of many different bullets within tissue are also known. Dealing with the now and the things that we know exist, how do the best 7.62x39 loads and bullets compare to the best 5.56x45 bullets from a given barrel length? Which ones consistently penetrate further? Which consistently have the larger permanent wound cavities? Which are the most ‘barrier-blind’?
-B
You got me back on the map with that, thanks.
I was confused because if we are not restricted to military ammunition none of the things you mentioned is a problem. Roughly put any caliber rifle bullet can be made to fragment. Hollowpoint rounds are generally speaking always fragmenting, and they do so reliably over long distances as well. Soft point and expanding solids do not need to yaw at all because they mushroom. Penetration depth of tissue and rate of energy delivery can be fine tuned by bullet design at will. That means that all of the energy in the bullet can be used to cause tissue damage even in very shallow depths unlike with military cartridges that must adhere to international law. This makes cartridges with higher energy better choice up to certain energy level somewhere way above 7.62x39.
Same goes to barrier penetration. Best penetrator for intermediate obstacles is ball shaped because it will not start yawing. 9x19 FMJ bullets actually penetrate e.g. sand better than your normal high-power rifles because of the shape of the bullets. 5.56 is at disadvantage in this because of it's thin and long (relatively) bullets. It is only better when we are talking about penetration armor with standard caliber bullets because in armor penetration the objective is to use the energy on as small surface area of the armor as possible. But this difference is rather marginal as the same armor level (III) that stops the 7.62x39 FMJ will also stop 5.56x45 FMJ. Better penetration can be achieved with specialty AP rounds but that changes very little in this comparison.
And if one must, one can fire all the .224 bullets available from a 7.62x39 casing at the same or greater speeds than from a 5.56x45 casing using sabots.
If you think about the bullet availability in .308/.311 diameters it is quite clear that one can make 7.62 do all sorts of things. It just becomes a question what one wants out of the bullet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.