View Full Version : .223 vs 7.62x39
September 21, 2000, 02:59
Ok Gentlemen I need your assistance. I have been having a disagreement with buddy of mine. I favor the .223 as a more effective round out to say 300yds. My Buddy says" The .223 is crap and 7.62x39 has better balistics"
I am depending on your objectiveness and expertise to settle this long running dispute. Personally since coming to this board I have been won over and I'd prefer "FALISTICS" over both...hahaha
September 21, 2000, 07:24
Follows is my OPINION:
.223 for wide-open areas and 7.62X39mm in brush as a .223 can be deflected more easily by sticks and brush that a 7.62X39 will go through.
And like you I prefer a 7.62X51mm over both as it will go through whatever and will go a long way. Lets just say I swapped my AR15 for a FAL! http://www.fnfal.com/forums/smile.gif
September 21, 2000, 13:10
if we're talking about wounding in animal tissue, check this out:
also read up on the good stuff at:
under 200m, 5.56mm M193 or M855 has better wound profiles than 7.62x39 or 7.62NATO (other than the tested West German ammo).
beyond the reliable fragmentation range, the wound profiles are just like handgun wound profiles - a function of the diameter and inertia of the projectile. you get a larger wound profile if you can keep the velocity up, because high velocity (2000+ fps) in flesh causes cavitation. if the cavitation exceeds the tissue's elasticity, it tears. fortunately (if you're being shot), animal tissue is quite elastic and returns to shape after being stretched.
in this case, the destabilized, tumbling rifle bullet (all bullets tumble in dense media unless stabilized by an almost 1x1" twist) has a wound diameter that is the length of the bullet.
i'll leave the rest for your bedside reading. [grin]
September 22, 2000, 00:38
LOL Bedside Reading....Whats that? Thanks for the input Guys.
September 22, 2000, 16:40
300 yards isn't impossable for a 7.62x39. However this starts to sound like the AR-15 vs AK-47. Ok, which is better? What is the application? If you're wanting to hit open targets at distance, the .223 is what you want... It is a much more accurate round than the 7.62x39. However, if you're shooting through obstuctions, I concur with Ak-guy, the 7.62x39 is the way to go (between the 2 calibers) They both have their positives and negatives... For me, I like the 7.62x39, I love my AK... the other bonus that a .223 can't offer is use as a hunting rifle... In Colorado, one is allowed to hunt elk with a 7.62x39, but it the bare minimun requirement (and I won't do it, and wouldn't recomend it) for deer and coyotes its just fine http://www.fnfal.com/forums/smile.gif
I'm sure the 7.62x51 combines the best of both, but I'm a FAL-2-B right now... I was wanting a Romak-3 (7.62x54) but .308 is much easer to get ahold of and that shall be the next on my list...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.