Choosing between the 5.45x39, 5.56x45, or the 7.62x39, which one is the best? in accuracy to 300m? in velocity? in energy? using standard mil surplus ammo. Which one would be the best in engaging man sized targets out to 300m with minimal sight adjustmant?
Posts: 121 | Location: Elmira, NY, USA | Registered: 20 February 2002
quote:Originally posted by Rock8296: Choosing between the 5.45x39, 5.56x45, or the 7.62x39
Please add the 5,6x39 (a factory cartridge too) to your comparison, to be complete. Of course, this one is a hunting round, not a military cartridge, so maybe I am digressing... :-).
C.
Posts: 2452 | Location: Old Europe | Registered: 23 June 2001
The .223 shoots a little flatter than the others, but in Afghanistan, they're having stopping power problems with the NATO SS109 ball ammo. It goes right on through, without causing the subject to cease doing what he was doing when shot!! It spins too fast to tumble like the earlier 5.56mm did!!
quote:Originally posted by eldeguello: The .223 shoots a little flatter than the others, but in Afghanistan, they're having stopping power problems with the NATO SS109 ball ammo. It goes right on through, without causing the subject to cease doing what he was doing when shot!! It spins too fast to tumble like the earlier 5.56mm did!!
Bullshit! Just an Urban legend! The 5.56mm nato is the hot ticket, the SS-109 is a spectacular performer in a 20" barrel.
Posts: 3097 | Location: Louisiana | Registered: 28 November 2001
I'll Take an Arma-lite in .243win, everyday ending in Y, over the 5.56x45 Nato varmint popper. Bucks the wind better, 85-100 grain pills hit harder period.
Posts: 358 | Location: Stafford, Virginia | Registered: 14 August 2001
Per Major Caliber!!quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by eldeguello: The .223 shoots a little flatter than the others, but in Afghanistan, they're having stopping power problems with the NATO SS109 ball ammo. It goes right on through, without causing the subject to cease doing what he was doing when shot!! It spins too fast to tumble like the earlier 5.56mm did!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullshit! Just an Urban legend! The 5.56mm nato is the hot ticket, the SS-109 is a spectacular performer in a 20" barrel.
If what you say is true, Major, why is the Army currently developing a larger caliber round for the M16?? From what I have been able to learn, it is a .276" diameter (.270) bullet, to be fired from the 5.56mm case necked up, so it can use current magazines. The reason for it is that S.F. folks in Afghanistan have complained about the stopping power (NOT THE KILLING POWER) of the 5.56mm. Hardly bullshit, compadre!! When you are fighting wild tribesmen, some of whom are hopped up on hashish, ordinary weapons often do not produce the kind of performance one gets when shooting people who have some knowledge of anatomy, and know what a wound will do to them. We last learned this the hard way during the Philippine Insurrection, when we had to dump the .38 and reissue the .45's!!
Wait a 276 bullet short cartridge? Isn't that what the Brits came to Nato's table with 50 years ago? Another victim of the Not Invented Here syndrome, perhaps. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
Dan, You are partly correct, the original P-14 made in the US for the UK was to be chambered in .276, but with a large case and very high velocity. Given the wartime supply issues they went with .303 Now the Garand was originally a 10 shot short case .276 as designed, but MacArthur who was Chief of staff of the army wouldn't buy the 120 grain bullet at 2500 fps and sent them back to the drawing board with the 30-06.
Posts: 692 | Location: Fairfax County Virginia | Registered: 07 February 2003
there is a very very cool article on the m16 over on the hunt america forum. it goes into great detail about the m16's early problems. it also compares the .308 the 223 and .22lr basically at 500 yards the 223 has the same muzzle energy as a 22lr check this out quite lengthy but very interesting http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
quote:Originally posted by graycg: Dan, You are partly correct, the original P-14 made in the US for the UK was to be chambered in .276, but with a large case and very high velocity. Given the wartime supply issues they went with .303 Now the Garand was originally a 10 shot short case .276 as designed, but MacArthur who was Chief of staff of the army wouldn't buy the 120 grain bullet at 2500 fps and sent them back to the drawing board with the 30-06.
I think Dan was referring to the .280 cartridge (7x43) which they British proposed as the standard NATO rifle round in the late 40s/early 50s. They chambered it in the EM2 bullpup rifle, and the TADEN GPMG. It received a lot of support from other countries but the USA overruled because they wanted a .30 cal with the performance of the .30-06, so NATO neded up with the current 7.62x51 round.
This story is told, and the ammunition illustrated, in a couple of articles on my site (see link in my post above).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
Dan, Almost! The British round was a full 7mm (.284") not a .276". However, it is probably the round that NATO SHOULD have adopted in lieu of the 7.62 NATO (.308 Win.), or, worse, the .223!!! Tony is right on!!
quote:Originally posted by eldeguello: Dan, Almost! The British round was a full 7mm (.284") not a .276".
For a 7mm rifle, .276" is the bore diameter, .284" the bullet diameter. Either designation can be used, but the British usually used bore diameter (e.g. the .303" had a bullet diameter of .311").
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
Many ignore the basic fact that the accuracy, energy, trajectory, stopping power etc tend to be secondary to weight and volume.
The fact is that you can carry more 5.56 than you can 7.62 and weight of fire is what tends to win the firefight. Each few kilos saved is another mortar round in the bergan, another LAW 90 per section etc etc.
As to terminal effect, maybe the people of NI are thinner skinned.....
Posts: 2258 | Location: Bristol, England | Registered: 24 April 2001
After having shot critters with both the 5.56 and the 7.62x39, both with military ball ammo, I'd have to say the 5.56 is far and away the better killer. The 7.62x39 drills a small hole through, but the .223 fragments and makes a steaming mess. (all shots under 200yds)
Which cartridge is best? Well now, I guess that it depends on what you want to do. Nothing is perfect for all applications. However getting shot with ANYTHING hurts. Trust me on this.
