PDA

View Full Version : 7.62x39 vs 5.56x45



Abbas
08-04-2009, 09:14 PM
It's strange we haven't discussed this before but what in your opinion is the better round for usage in countries with a hot and dusty climate like Pakistan ? The 7.62x39 or the 5.56x45 ?

Pro's and Con's welcome.

Balazona
08-04-2009, 09:20 PM
7.62x39 all the way.i am a big fan of Russian firearms and ammo.

Abbas
08-04-2009, 09:23 PM
Found an interesting article.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm

Faisal Khan
08-04-2009, 09:59 PM
Few weeks ago I saw an interesting program on tv regarding ammo used in current conflicts around the world. Experts from different countries shared their findings on drawbacks and benefits of 7.62x51, 5.56x45, 6.5, 7.62x39 and .50bmg. All of them unanimously agreed that 5.56x45 is under powered, has very high crippled shots than fatal hits and the only benefit was its portability factor. Where as 7.62x39 has more one shot kills and is much more potent and yet light enough to carry 300rd per soldier. The round which came on the top was 7.62x51 due to its hard hitting capabilities and being very effective and accurate at engaging targets from close to long range.

The prices on 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 are pretty high here in US now, I use to pay less than $150 for a sealed can of 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 and less than $200 for 7.62x51 NATO (1000 rounds) up until 2007.
Bought 4, 1000rd cans of 7.62x51 NATO bullets in January of this year and paid $556.00 per can. Prices have gone up due the fact that armies are using more of 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 as compared to 5.56x45.

HassaanAfzal
09-04-2009, 01:53 AM
7.62x39 I trust it more then anything

Abbas
09-04-2009, 02:02 AM
I've heard that one of the major reasons Nato chose 5.56 is because it's not one shot kill. They wanted a round to damage an enemy as much as possible without killing them. This is done somewhat out of humanitarian reasons but the primary logic was that an injured solider exerts much more logistical pressure on an opposing army than a dead one.

I do agree, 5.56 is under powered when compared to 7.62 and it's penetration on hard surfaces is about 1/3 of the 7.62.

Thunder
09-04-2009, 02:49 AM
I've heard that one of the major reasons Nato chose 5.56 is because it's not one shot kill. They wanted a round to damage an enemy as much as possible without killing them. This is done somewhat out of humanitarian reasons but the primary logic was that an injured solider exerts much more logistical pressure on an opposing army than a dead one.

I do agree, 5.56 is under powered when compared to 7.62 and it's penetration on hard surfaces is about 1/3 of the 7.62.

completely agree with you.

Glxspk
09-04-2009, 03:54 AM
If you have hit the target it is incapicitated and that neutralizes threat to a certain level. That IS the primary objective of any contemporary voilent engagement. 5.56 being an accurate round at a longer range I personally thing should be considered a better round. Besides almost all sophisticated rifles & carbines are fed on it so I'll be with 556.

Faisal Khan
09-04-2009, 04:17 AM
There was some type of nationwide survey by NRA regarding choice of weapon in SHTF (civil war/riots and home defense etc etc) type situations and its rather surprising that majority of the people responded in favor of AK47 in 7.62x39 and 12g pump guns inspite of the fact that choices are unlimited in this country.

Glxspk
09-04-2009, 04:26 AM
Civil war, riots and home defense are all close quarter engagement where stopping the threat dead in it's tracks is always the primary objective and obvioulsy the 7.62x39 would be the best round for that.

My earlier post favored the 5.56 utilization in a conventional engagement.

Faisal Khan
09-04-2009, 05:20 AM
It does make sense.

CougarMan
09-04-2009, 11:49 AM
Don't forget that the 5.56 was originally designed to be used in a longer barrel, giving it the velocity and unstableness that made it so lethal in the original M16 in 'nam. It did the job that it was created for at THAT time in THAT place

Once they started making shorter barrels the basic weaknesses of the caliber showed up. That's why forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are demanding a heavier caliber. In the US, you are not allowed to hunt deer with the .223 but can with the 7.62 x 39, so that should also give some indication of the effectiveness.

I think that fact that the entire NATO countries have so much stock of 5.56 ammo is the main reason that they are not switching!!! Cost of replacing this with 6.5/6.8 or 7.62 would be enormous.

And then of course there is the problem with the m16 platform, but that is another story all together!!! That's why the special forces had HK develop the 416 and 417!!!

Omkhan
09-04-2009, 12:13 PM
Don't forget that the 5.56 was originally designed to be used in a longer barrel, giving it the velocity and unstableness that made it so lethal in the original M16 in 'nam. It did the job that it was created for at THAT time in THAT place
I dont think so. Many a US soldiers comlain of these rounds being ineffective on many gurellas. Even the three rounds burst into the target was sometimes ineffective. It was revealed that most of the gurellas were high when in battle.

One thing I would agreee is abt the huge amount of 5.56 & M4A1s in NATO/ US Army. They simply can't afford to change that right away. so M4A1 & 5.56 r going to last atleast a decade more.

CougarMan
09-04-2009, 12:45 PM
I agree on the drugged guerrilla aspect, but then nothing short of a .50BMG would stop those guys!!!

if you go into the history of the m16, you will find that out of the original weapon (as designed by Stoner), the lighter bullet was very fast (3000+fps), very unstable and would tumble several times on hitting the target creating devastating wounds that would stop the enemy. There was a similar outcome when the soviets had introduced the AK74 (5.45) in the mid 80s in afghanistan too.

the US govt. decided to play around with the barrel size, the twist and finally the weight of the bullet. All this resulted in a heavier, more accurate but stable bullet that would not cause the kind of damage that the original did.

But the US were committed and they had already annoyed the rest of the NATO countries by insisting on a 5.56 round and forced all of them to shift to the standardized ammo (in the 1970s).

BTW, here is another point of view: http://lifeofowen.blogspot.com/2005/11/556-military-utility.html

Bluff
09-04-2009, 03:50 PM
@ Abbas .... bro
there is no comparison between them ... like how can u compare a beauty (5.56)to a beast (7.62):)

Abbas
09-04-2009, 03:52 PM
Lol in combat the beauty complains of 'war crimes' and the beast kicks everyone's backside to kingdom cum :lol:

Bluff
09-04-2009, 04:03 PM
hhahhahhhaha well that true .....but if u r compareing like this then i won`t go for the beauty.... :)

Kulachi
09-04-2009, 06:02 PM
7.62x39mm has more stopping power than 5.56x45mm, whereas 5.56x45mm has much flatter trajectory and good penetration. Other than that, all the differences are on the margin. No one would like to be in the path of any of these, even up to 600 meters :-)

Mohammad
09-04-2009, 06:15 PM
Each bullet have there own pros and cons:
1) 7.62x39mm has more stopping power than 5.56mm
2)7.62x39mm has lower muzzle velocity than 5.56mm & so is the range (but this deficiency doesnt occur in 7.62x51mm)
3)Range of 7.62x39mm is less than 5.56mm.

As far as range is concerned AK bullet can hit target easily up till 300meters which is enough for modern day battle. For any target more further, we have sniper rifles for that purpose. So i would go with 7.62x39mm. Atleast after shooting the ene,y with it, you wont be spending time to guess whether the man is dead or alive!!!!

WajahatBeg
10-04-2009, 12:07 AM
I have been a diehard fan of H&K G3 and this forum just inflates my liking. Its a powerful gun with a mssive impact. Its got a beautiful sound and kickback. Just love firing the thing. Ak47 is also an extremely likable weapon, but the power and kick delivered by a G3 is unmatched in its category. I own both a russian ak47 and pak g3. firing 5 rounds out of g3 gives me the same kick as firing 30 rounds off ak47.
On the other hand, ease of firing, maintenance and reliability of an ak47 is unmatched, combined with beautifully desgined firing mechanism.
The russinas have recently switched to 5.56 with an advanced fibreglass model of the ak74 with a solid folding stock as their main weapon.

Thunder
10-04-2009, 01:57 AM
you need to knock out the enemy with the least hits, and that a 7.62 does better. I believe bigger is better

Glxspk
10-04-2009, 02:04 AM
I think all these debates about 7.62 vs 5.56, 9mm vs .45, republicans vs democrats, revolutionaries vs reactionaries are a futile effort. They all do the same thing but in a different way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To each his own. You want a 7.62 keep one. You want a 5.56 nobody's stopping you. It's a matter of personal preference with in view of the utility that is served.

Let us close this topic & figure out a way to lower down prices of imported arm & ammo, get firearm import licenses, get arms manufacturers to manufacture quality 'finger candy' and how to protect ourselves, our family peers & country.

Abbas
10-04-2009, 02:06 AM
Let us close this topic & figure out a way to lower down prices of imported arm & ammo, get firearm import licenses, get arms manufacturers to manufacture quality 'finger candy' and how to protect ourselves, our family peers & country.

Spoken like a statesman Glxspk, we should elect you President ! Btw No ducky talk today ? ;)

Glxspk
10-04-2009, 02:14 AM
Haha I was actually thinking of ending with a 'Pakistan Zindabad' Duck hunting is now off the record. Too many people coming in and you wouldnt want hunting tales becoming public property. ;)

Firepower!
10-04-2009, 02:34 AM
I have used both extensively. I dont mind using either in a SD/HD situation. 5.56 is offered in a variety of firearms whereas x39 is just AK for the most part. AK design is such that it makes it near indestructable and reliable as it can be. Then thats just the design not the ammo. 5.56 is much smoother to shot than x39, but x39 has more impact on the target- how much more? Not enough for me to give up 5.56's advantages in range. The real difference in power kicks in when you move from 5.56 to x51. So what does all this mean?
1. X51 for special roles where you need to hit hard and distance.
2. 5.56 is .22 high velocity and light ammo that can be carried in larger numbers than x39, therefore, better option in combat.
3. Ak beats M16 on reliability not accuracy.
4. Whats the perfect solution for a service rifle that has AK's reliability and M16's accuracy: Galil 5.56.
5. Even Russians realized this and moved to 5.45x39 in 1974.
6. It does not mean x39 is useless. It remains excellant round for under 250 yards combat because at that distance it wont lose much trajectory to effect accuracy yet it will yield more power than 5.56.

In conclusion: they are both good rounds. You have to really shoot them extensively to figure out which you shoot better. No one would want to stand in the way of any of the bullets discussed. Finally, it the SHOT PLACEMENT that counts.

Glxspk
10-04-2009, 02:42 AM
And how hard I try to ignore Galil and make myself feel that I am not interested in it and that it is one ugly weapon, but you have got me mind ticking & ticking with your Galil-o-rama :P.

Now what are the chances of me bedding one? :/

Abbas
10-04-2009, 03:51 AM
Thanks Fp, that was the kind of discussion I was looking for.

@Glxspk You have a fantastic collection, how can you not have a Galil ??

Glxspk
10-04-2009, 03:54 AM
*sigh* you had to push in the final nail.

I want one. FP, your PM pls.

Mohammad
11-04-2009, 08:19 AM
In order for a person to have a reliability of an AK47 but a more potent 7.62x51mm round, i prefer Galil 7.62 AR. This gun has the exact working mechanism of AK47(even field strip of galil is same as ak) and a more powerful round i.e 7.62x51mm thus eliminating the range and muzzle velocity deficiency of the ak

TAREEN
21-05-2009, 05:43 PM
Although the thread has been quiet for some time now, any information on the availability of bolt-action rifles in 7.62x39?

Abbas
21-05-2009, 06:34 PM
The only ones that I am aware of are the SKS. They are generally available from 'maal khana's if you have a source, normal rate in the market should not be more than 25 K. I was looking for one myself but decided it's not wasting a P.B over.

Naazer
22-05-2009, 08:19 AM
isn the sks the semi auto version...magazine capacity is like 7. the FC guys still have it and so does the isloo police.

haven seen a bolt action variant...

TAREEN
22-05-2009, 06:00 PM
@Abbas
Thanx for the input. Actually both these rounds are the cheapest yet capable rounds for small & medium game specially in scoped bolt-action rifle. As 22 hornet rifles & ammo prices are touching the skies, this is the best or rather better option as the ammo is cheap and available everywhere.

Any other information regarding this will be highly appreciated as couple of people that I know, including me, are looking for the same.

MOLAjat
27-05-2009, 09:11 AM
7.62 x 39 all the way

KageFox
03-06-2009, 06:47 PM
The 7.69x39mm has a higher impact compared to the 5.56x45. Which is why the US Army was looking for a replacement weapon a while back. An episode of FUTURE WEAPONS on discovery compared the 7.62 to 5.56, and cited it as the reason for the creation of the 6.8mm SPC (US Army lost interest... as usual).

Sherwan_88
10-06-2009, 12:36 AM
Both the 5.45x45 and 7.62x39 are assault rifle calbers,

what is an assault rifle?
It is a selective fire rifle with a short to medium range rifle. Assault rifle was first introduced in World War II, Germany deployed "Stoßtruppen" (Shock Trooper), who were equipped with "Sturmgewehr 44" (Storm Rifle) chambered for 7.92x33mm Kurz, major battlefield results showed that major engagements occurred at less distance than 300 meters, which meant that the heavier 7.92x57mm round rifles were over powered and were heavy and difficult to assault with. This was the dawn of Assault rifles. Now the performance showed for it self, soldiers were able to fire in bursts while moving, and they moved faster too. This idea was the result of "Blitzkrieg", a German Army assault tactic.

What is a battle rifle?
A battle rifle incorporates a heavier round for e.g 7.62x51, with a range and accuracy upto and beyond 1000 meters. These rifles have been in the world since the begging of the 19th century.

Now, Armies and their commanders are not stupid, they know what they are doing, The US Army standard issue is M16, heavier and longer barrel, while an M4 is a special forces weapon with a shorter barrel and its compact, SF's job is to infil and exfil light and quick and complete their objectives, while the Army has to stick it to the enemy.

Pak Army standard issue rifle is the G3 for a soldier, which is dead accurate and lethal at range, but JCO's get the MP5, which is 9mm, so if the point is lethality then the JCO with the MP5 is worthless who is supposed to be leading his squad/platoon. Why does the Pak Army and Germans still incorporate the MG3 as their primary machine gun, Power? No its meant for suppression, a 7.62x51 will suppress an enemy the same as a .50 BMG, they want it to be light, deploy able and suppress the enemy by volume.

The lighter the round, the lighter the rifle, more a soldier can perform and more he can carry in volume.

The debate about penetration, when you are in Close Quarter Battle, having a heavier bullet makes a bullet prone to penetrate walls, in a hostage situation do you want that? NO
Both 9mm and 50 BMG can kill a man, the 50 BMG will only make his guts spill out more.

The 7.62 and the 5.45 are both great rounds in their category, the 7.62 Assault rifle is intended for a powerful barrage of bullets while deadly at short range, while the 5.45 is intended for accurate and controllable hits. the 5.45, 7.62, 223, and 308 are excellent calibers in battlefields they are to be.

The objective and conditions decide which caliber, not vice versa.

Rawana
11-06-2009, 02:32 AM
mr abbas u told me that PB disscussions are banned and u by yourself started the disscussion on PB why?is the rules are only for members not for adminitrator?

Abbas
11-06-2009, 02:40 AM
This topic was in discussion before P.B was banned but anyway you have a valid point.