.223 vs 7.62x39

Status
Not open for further replies.

xjedix

member
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
34
I took this interesting comparison picture of a .223 next to a 7.62x39 round.

.223 - 55gr @ 3,241 fps
7.62x39 - 122gr @ 2,396 fps

Any thoughts??



KIF_5612.jpg
 
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.
 
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.
.223 for zombies and 7.62x39 for robots??

Please explain what the job is of each, I am rather curious. I was under the impression they had the same job..... kill the bad guy. Question is, which one does it better??

This is not to spark a AR vs AK debate, this is purely about the ammo itself.


D
 
Please explain what the job is of each, I am rather curious.

Apparently their job is to fuel multiple and endless online ".223 vs. 7.62x39" discussions, mostly as a subset of the multiple and endless online "AR vs. AK" threads.
 
I'm too lazy or I'd take a picture of a hammer and a screwdriver side by side. Different tools for different jobs.
Really? They attempt to do the job differently, but essentially they are both battlefield rounds for regular soldiers of a given army. A better analogy might be a regular screwdriver and a phillips head.
 
The Energy on both rounds is very simular, I can not see how the 7.62x 39 is so supieror to the 5.56.

Sure the 7.62x51 is has more stoping power than the 5.56. But why the great debate on these two cartriges.
 
Looks like it's a slow day for THR...

Anyway, I've been thinking about getting my CCW, and I can't decide between a 1911 or a Glock 9mm. What do you guys think?
 
This is a discussion we've never engaged in before.

fail-owned-mens-accessories-fail.jpg
 
A picture says a thousand words:



I'd like to see an updated 7.62x39. One with a reduced case taper like the 5.45x39 and 9x39 have, and a more secure cripping area on the case. The Russians haven't used the 7.62x39 in any significant volume in decades.

Equipment trends are influenced by the results of usage.
 
Russians have been bringing back the x39 in small but increasing numbers.

the 5.45 and 5.56 rely on fancy ballistic effects for best results, yet even a 'bad' shot that hits its target in the kill-zone is gonna drop them and take them out of the fight as good as one that hits them as intended, with the fragmenting and yawing.

The 7.62x39 punches a hole through you so hard that it apparently feels like "getting hit by a car, then setting your insides on fire", according to a marine I met in school.

All depends on the training and shooter here.
 
A picture says a thousand words:

Maybe for militaries, but why should a civilian restrict themselves to mediocre or poor bullets simply because our armed forces try to comply with the Hague Convention? Regardless of which cartridge you choose, there are much more effective bullets out there than the ones depicted above.

The 7.62x39 having a little more energy, a heavier bullet, larger frontal area and far more momentum should have an edge when it comes to stopping power, but a good expanding .223 will do the job too and will shoot flatter.
 
dpends, really. if you wanna kill zombies or robots, hiding behind doors and walls, you go with the 762. if you want max tissue rupturing, go with a slow twist 223, a 1/12 or even the origional 1/14 , with a 55 grain hollow point.
Very messy.
this is why the russians switched to the 545, had a better tissue damage/kill ratio as a percentage, than the 762. but that was before urban warfare, kevlar, bullet proof vests. they did their tests on the ammo from 50 to 300 yds, in open fields, probably on dead pigs, or Christians they pulled out of the Gulags.
 
As a sport shooter and not a rambo wannabe, I say the difference is that the .223 is a flat-shooting long range round excellent for all manner of varmints. The x39 is a shorter range, higher energy round with .30-30 ballistics making it very suitable for deer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top