Posted on 06/29/2021 2:20:50 PM PDT by PROCON
Unless you’re an avid shooter, there tends to be only a handful of ammunition types a person can list off the top of their heads, and even fewer if we’re talking specifically about rifles. Although there’s a long list of projectiles to be fired from long guns, the ones that tend to come to mind for most of us are almost always the same: 5.56 and 7.62, or to be more specific, 5.56×45 vs. 7.62×39.
National militaries all around the world rely on these two forms of ammunition thanks to their range, accuracy, reliability, and lethality, prompting many on the internet to get into long, heated debates about which is the superior round. Of course, as is the case with most things, the truth about which is the “better” round is really based on a number of complicated variables — not the least of which being which weapon system is doing the firing and under what circumstances is the weapon being fired.
This line of thinking is likely why the United States military employs different weapon systems that fire a number of different kinds of rounds. Of course, when most people think of Uncle Sam’s riflemen, they tend to think of the 5.56mm round that has become ubiquitous with the M4 series of rifles that are standard issue throughout the U.S. military. But, a number of sniper platforms, for instance, are actually chambered in 7.62×51 NATO.
The new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle chambered in 5.56 during the Marine Corps’ Designated Marksman Course (Official Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Levi Schultz)
So if both the 5.56×45 vs. 7.62×39 rounds are commonly employed by national militaries… determining which is the superior long-range round for the average shooter can be a difficult undertaking, and almost certainly will involve a degree of bias (in other words, in some conditions, it may simply come down to preference).
For the sake of brevity, let’s break the comparison down into three categories: power, accuracy, and recoil. Power, for the sake of debate, will address the round’s kinetic energy transfer on target, or how much force is exerted into the body of the bad guy it hits. Accuracy will be a measure of the round’s effective range, and recoil will address how easy it is to settle the weapon back down again once it’s fired.
The NATO 5.56 round was actually invented in the 1970s to address concerns about the previous NATO standard 7.62×51. In an effort to make a more capable battle-round, the 5.56 was developed using a .223 as the basis, resulting in a smaller round that could withstand higher pressures than the old 7.62 NATO rounds nations were using. The new 5.56 may have carried a smaller projectile, but its increased pressure gave it a flatter trajectory than its predecessors, making it easier to aim at greater distances. It was also much lighter, allowing troops to carry more rounds than ever before.
7.62×39 (Left) and 5.56×45 (Right) (WikiMedia Commons)
The smaller rounds also dramatically reduced felt recoil, making it easier to maintain or to quickly regain “sight picture” (or get your target back into your sights) than would have been possible with larger caliber rounds.
The 7.62x39mm round is quite possibly the most used cartridge on the planet, in part because the Soviet AK-47 is so common. These rounds are shorter and fatter than the NATO 5.56, firing off larger projectiles with a devastating degree of kinetic transfer. It’s because of this stopping power that many see the 7.62 as the round of choice when engaging an opponent in body armor. The 7.62x39mm truly was developed as a general-purpose round, limiting its prowess in a sniper fight, however. The larger 7.62 rounds employed in AK-47s come with far more recoil than you’ll find with a 5.56, making it tougher to land a second and third shot with as much accuracy, depending on your platform.
Hard to beat the ol’ 5.56 round. (Official Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Julio McGraw)
So, returning to the metrics of power, accuracy, and recoil, the 7.62 round wins the first category, but the 5.56 takes the second two, making it the apparent winner. However, there are certainly some variables that could make the 7.62 a better option for some shooters. The platform you use and your familiarity with it will always matter when it comes to accuracy within a weapon’s operable range.
When firing an AR chambered in 5.56, and an AK chambered in 7.62, it’s hard not to appreciate the different ideologies that informed their designs. While an AR often feels like a precision weapon, chirping through rounds with very little recoil, the AK feels brutal… like you’re throwing hammers at your enemies and don’t care if any wood, concrete, or even body armor gets in the way. There are good reasons to run each, but for most shooters, the 5.56 round is the better choice for faraway targets.
I agree 100% about the SKS.
I have 2, a Yugo and a Chicom.
Follow up shots? Not a problem.
My Chinese SKS hits dead center in rapid shots making figure 8s in the target easily at 100 yards.
What a great weapon. Great round.
Had a [aratrooper model with 20 round box mag. I went to detachables and like an idiot gave the box mag away to a friend. When I sold it I had detachable mags and a folding poly stock on it. It was a bit heavy.
Yeah. I guess one of the big selling points is that the current inventory of tools would require only a barrel change to retrofit.
I’ve heard about that round. My men folk being former military have really instructed me on firearms and how to shoot; I have three handguns plus my work gun. I love long distance shooting; lots of math involved.
But the Aussie gov’t has hysterically limiting guns there. My mate there had to fill out an almost 20 page request on why she needed a .22 rifle. She gave it up rather than go through all that. The result is that gun violence (not reported) had increased dramatically and the rodent, varmint pests, have pretty much taken over grain storage, plus, get this, due to climate change and global warming, pesticides are also closely controlled and regulated to the point where you basically can’t buy it.
The front sight base of that rifle looked like it had been buried in a corrosive substance. It was pitted beyond belief. That is why I believe it came from a scrapped or condemned M-16.
***I miss the days when every gun shop I walked into had at least one, maybe several, and from different countries, usually for less than $250.***
I saw my first in a pawn shop back in 1970. A war trophy from SE Asia. Price was $98 but back then no one had ammo so several pawn shops had a few.
You could buy a new in box Winchester 1894 for $45 all over the area back then.
Yep, I love them for an all round tough dependable firearm. I bought my first for $69 also. All machined Norinco with a blade bayonet. The blade was still legal back then.
And absolutely! I like stripper fed mags. Unless you have unlimited ammo supply being dropped to you, you are going to have to reload the mags at some point anyhow.
I like my Enfield for that feature also.
Some of the FB pages are fights between purists and modifiers. It gets a bit tiresome, if occasionally humorous.
Honestly, even though it was very flat shooting at long distance it was almost over kill with charge. There was probably a lot of powder still burning long after the bullet was gone. lol
Hold on a minute, I’ve got a rifle in each caliber.
Bang .......Baang!
Hmmm.....inconclusive.
I need more ammo for testing. (opening browser tab to Lucky Gunner)
Good that you are hip to using firearms. :)
All my girls are pretty good shots, and even though my wife can handle arms well she just never got into it much. She can defend herself fine if she needs too, just never got too excited about it as a sport. :)
One variable should be the age & experience of the shooter...
At my advanced age, everything is “long distance”...
While we (and children. grandchildren, & great grandchildren) have a virtual Baskin & Robbins of tools to chose from, the first one I would grab for that 400-500 shot will be my trusty M-1 Garand and for anything longer than 500 it will be time for the AR-50 ...
7.62 and .223 will certainly get their turn as distances diminish...
If the range targets have helmets and/or body armor, definitely 7.62...
May not penetrate, but will definitely tip them range targets over...
I’ve never got into long distance shooting but I do have a few calibers that do it quite well. I like fast movers so none of mine will handle the longer heavier bullets available but they do OK for hunting here in West Texas’
I shoot 150’s in my 300 Weatherby, 140’s in my 7-mag, 130’s in my 270 WSM and 100’s in my 257 Weatherby. They’re solid 500 yard rifles, with the proper bullet and twist you can stretch them out to twice that range. 500 yards is about my limit, I’ve only taken two animals past that and both were with the 300 Weatherby. One was a bull Elk in Colorado and the other an Aoudad ram down by Big Bend. Buddy of mine builds long distance rifles and his personal rifle is a 300 Weatherby shooting a 230 grain Berger. He’s taken that rifle well past 1000 yards.
For most common situations, better than 7.62x39 but not x51. 5.56 75gr or heavier match can reach out pretty good. 6.5 Creedmoor wins, BTW. ;)
A buddy has an AR in 7.62x39—the AK round. Shoots pretty good. Kick ain’t bad at all. I think he played with the buffer tube recoil spring and weight, though.
.308 Norma Magnum. I shot that, once.
Just once.
Far Away Targets.
.
Never heard it put
that way before.
II don’t know where you are, but the bayonet may be legal, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.