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.
There is an old GunDigest article on the steps that people used to have to go through to make 7.62 x 39 ammo. A real pain.
A little Gun Porn
Might take the edge
Off there,ProCon.
.
Personally,
It’s been so long
I can’t remember what
It’s like!
I don’t hunt. I shoot for accuracy.
Well, the question was what works better on long shots, and yes, a cannon would be effective to a greater range than either of those rounds.
As a Curio? I was in Ca when they outlawed them. Az now.
This shows AZ as wide open:
https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/banned-guns/
Great article for reference thank you! I never understood the idiotic difference between a blade and a spike, they will both poke you and kill you. The stupid Ca “scary looking” factor again?
Honestly I always took the bayonet off anyhow. I don’t plan on letting anyone get close enough that I would need it. That mount is better purposed for other accessories such as a bipod.
But having one being legal would help with resale of an “all original with blade bayonet” for sure!
Just had to share this off the board... I have a friend of a friend of a friend who took a spike bayonet and cut it off of the flip up mount. Did some welding and made a flip up “Oil Can” where it slides over the end of the barrel.
Actually a pretty cool idea for repurposing that mount. :)
The Chinese went from blade to spike bayonet fairly early. It’s more an issue of when the rifle was imported. Many had their bayonet lugs removed for importation. Also, some Chinese rifles were made for the civilian market and are not C&Rs.
Yep, all true... :)
A threaded adapter to take an oil filter? Asking for a friend of a friend of a friend.
PM, sent... :)
I highly suggest not doing this because it might not be legal, I would never do it myself.
A good friend of mine, a fanatic hunter who goes on multiple deer and elk hunts every year in different states swears by his 7mm Weatherby Mag (but still has a bunch of other guns, including a 300 Weatherby Mag).
I drooled over both the cartridges and the guns when I was a young engineer. At the time they were just out of reach cost wise. I got a .25-06 as the cheaper runner up on the .25 Weatherby Mag, which stood out as a laser-beam of flatness in the Ballistic Tables in the back of Gun Digest back in that era.
Of course, now there are lots of new high-velocity rounds from various makers, even a couple from Weatherby!
I think there is a point of diminishing return on shooting giant cartridges to get a little more velocity, but I'm not sure where it is!
I like the looks of the new 6.5mm Weatherby RPM
This beast is slightly faster than the good ol' .264 Winchester Mag - another cartridge I've always loved but never owned. The .264 Win Mag came chambered in a Winchester rifle that was dubbed "The Westerner" when it was released. Now I like old cartridges because they are old, which I guess has to do with my increasing age. There is just something fun about cartridges that date from the 1950s and the guns that chambered them.
Reading (just now) the page on the .264 Win Mag (which was part of Winchester's triple shot of .375 H&H based cartridges: the .338 Win Mag ("the Alaskan") and the .458 Win Mag for African hunting.
All three were super successful cartridges, and 70 years later the "innovations" used to surpass them are sort of minor. The new Weatherby has done away with the belt, and done away with the double-radius case, but is still pretty much a .264 Win Mag in performance (yeah, a touch faster).
An original circa 1958 Winchester "Westerner" chambered in .264 Winchester Magnum.
Which of your Weatherby's do you enjoy the most?
“Which of your Weatherby’s do you enjoy the most?”
That’s easy. The 257 Weatherby is by far my favorite, it’s just about perfect for anything smaller than elk size. I’d have no problem taking an elk with it but I’d have to move up in bullet weight and doing that costs velocity. Funny you mention the 264 Win Mag. I always liked that round but when it was first offered you could only get 140 grain ammo for it. That was a time when velocity was king and they hobbled it right off the bat, by the time they figured it out the 7-mag had already passed them in popularity. Hand loaders were shooting 120 and 100 grain bullets through it and were getting plenty of speed from it.3600 fps with the 100’s and 3300 with the 130’s.
If I was to buy another Weatherby I’d probably get a 6.5-300 and just like the 254 Win Mag I’d keep bullet weight 130 or below.
Bah. He doesn’t even define ‘long range’. Silly.
The other 7.62, aka .308 Winchester.
Agreed. Compare these at the 100-200 yards/meters. Past that grab your deer rifle.
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.