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.
You can get a little more out of it with a Yugo 22” barrel. I did... :)
https://www.apexgunparts.com/sks-barrel-yugoslavian-model-59-66-7-62x39-nos.html
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/898784797
And contrary to popular belief, embedding an SKS actually does work and greatly improve accuracy.
Hmmm.. SGW was the predecessor of Olympic Arms, and owned by a student of P. O. Ackley. I’m surprised it was that bad. I wonder if you had a twist rate/ bullet weight issue going on. That said, I saw a pretty wonkitty early production Olympic with a cast receiver at a gunshow, once. Panic buying caused someone to drag it out and put a high$ price on it.
Lol... Ok, I was trying to factor in the “Tidal pull”.
Yep. 6.5 Creedmore if you’re starting from scratch. .308 (7.62X51) if you’re like me and already have reloading supplies for .308
Lol. That too.
Opps... “Bedding”.
I keep mine stock.
Also meant to state that neither round was designed for “long distance.” And, given that this is the topic of the article, why does the author sidetrack onto carry weight + # of rounds, recoil, regain of “sight picture”, etc.
Okay on the .445, I misread it. As for my choice on the .22-250, I was using a regular Ruger 22/10 for popping rats and mice on some stations there.
“Which is the better long-distance round: 5.56 or 7.62?”
You’re kidding!
Had several over the years and I used to keep them stock. But after doing some trigger group work, adding a longer barrel, and bedding it I am proud of how it actually performs. Considering the bad name SKS has as a “Cheap” rifle, And being a medium range rifle and round, this rifle has surprised many. I would take this over an AR or an AK any day.
Free Republic is a DISCUSSION FORUM after all. Articles are posted, and people comment on them.
And as far as the question the article author asked:
"Which is the better long-distance round: 5.56 or 7.62?"
then my best answer is still:
Neither is very good at long distance, but if you must use one the 7.62x39mm is better. Because it still can do some damage at 500 yards if you can get on target with it".
And, unlike the author, I explained WHY using standard data for the calibers. I bet I put as much time into my answer as he did his article! LOL. So what are you complaining about, I don't get it?
BTW: The most common answer was "neither", which does sort of lead to the obvious: Well, what then? follow on.
I was extremely gratified to see the entire group was on the same page on this one.
Years ago, a buddy loaned me his bolt 30-06 for deer hunting. Bought a box of 20 so he could help me sight it in. Told him we could shoot them up. Told me after shooting a couple, I wouldn’t want to shoot more. Kicked my @$$ but I shot a deer at 250 yards.
My Dad had a .22-06 when I was a kid. That was a flat shooting rifle...
They need you back. The meeses are taking over.
Neither is an effective long distance round.
That’s amazing, considering that cartridge has been around for what, 14 years?
They seem as accurate as the AK-47s we get over here. The downside, of course, is that they don't have a detachable magazine, which if you were to ever need a rifle for a true infantry weapon would be a pretty big disadvantage. But it's nicer looking, more compact, and all the ones I shot were 100% reliable. And, there are no magazines to lose, which is the flip side. (USA won WW2 with a similar set up, the Garand, which is a stripper-clip fed blind magazine.)
People who use stripper clips all the time get very fast with them.
The Vietcong used them in the War with the USA to good effect, I am told by friends who were there. Click image for article
I don’t bad-mouth them. I like them. 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 once tried to make a hunting rifle out of one. Easier just to get a hunting 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.