100% wrong, here is video link, compare this little 50 grain 5.56 bullet to any 7.62x39 ballistics gel test and its pretty clear whats the winner. 7.62x39 is good, but 5.56 has so many options that it just wins. th-cam.com/video/5o-Tw0BbLd0/w-d-xo.html
@@fishersofmen4727 those are high quality HP rounds. Can’t compare them to standard steel case ammo. 7.62 and 556 are both great but 7.62 is a better combat cartridge and is way more versatile. It’s devastating. Look at 556 wounds before 7.62 wounds man. Big difference.
I do not own an AR. My interests being defensive in nature, I own a Ruger Mini-30. Your presentation is making me rethink this, for up close self defense. The AR is a fine weapon though, and I hope to own one someday.
Both rounds will work. Hone defense has a whole different set of concerns that aren't present on the battlefield. In my home, I have 3 children. Over penetration and the direction of a shot is a big concern to me, so I went with a low penetrating option: a 12 gauge with birdshot. The furthest shot I can have in my house is 21 feet. Testing shows that up to 20 feet, a load of #7.5 lead will punch a 2 inch hole, about 5 inches deep. It will work at my distances, and poses the least danger to others in my home.
Here is video link, compare this little 50 grain 5.56 bullet to any 7.62x39 ballistics gel test and its pretty clear whats the winner. 7.62x39 is good, but 5.56 has so many options that it just wins. th-cam.com/video/5o-Tw0BbLd0/w-d-xo.html
Interesting topic...There’s been SO much written about the merits-or lack of-with regard to the 5.56. It ranges from it being a great military round to wondering how we’ve had any military success at all with it! Your analysis seems to be right on factually, and in line with that old government chart showing that fragmentation falls off after about 2500fps. One area that remains interesting to me is temporary and permanent wound channel caused by hydrostatic pressure in soft tissue. I’ve experimented with shooting my AR through several items (see my very amateur channel) with fmj, and some things blow up, while some things just go through-and-through.
That's an interesting concept, and a hard one to test properly. I am constantly impressed at the elasticity of muscle tissue. Organs have less elasticity than muscle, with the liver having the least, in my experience. The elasticity of muscle tissue and blood vessels renders temporary cavity fairly useless in muscle tissue, whereas a shot to the liver or kidneys will show more tearing from the temporay stretch cavity. The temporay stretch cavity is what causes alot of the bruised areas around the wound tract on deer. It causes bruising and some bleeding, but doesn't generally cause enough to significantly quicken death. True hydrostatic shock is related to the more powerful fast moving rounds like the 338 Lappua and 300 Weatherby Ultra Mag. That's when the energy wave itself will tear a hole around the wound tract. The tissues are forced apart quicker and further than they can streach.
@@DD-su2qq it's TRUE several ballistics chart shows that after 500 yards 5.56 takes the lead but of course after 500 yards both rounds are less powerful than 9mm meaning your either punching a 22 cal hole or 30 cal hole
Still has no advantage 3130ish fps with a 5.56 is 1329 ft lbs where as a regular 7.62x39 from a 16 inch is 124 gr at about 2300 on the low end meaning 1456 ft lbs if you want a fair comparison 20 inch 7.62x39 is 2400 fps easily meaning 1585 ft lbs so yeah 7.62 at short range under 500 yards basically has more umph
Not exactly. The .223 has a sharp drop in velocity and energy after 175 yards. Even with quality bonded bullets, at 200 yards it lacks the energy to punch through the shoulder of a deer. It just looses a lot of penetration potential. That being said, if you want the best performance at the furthest distance with a 223, look at Remington's 62 grain copper TSX, or check out the 223 by Black Hills Ammo online.
556 is superior to 7.62x39 as long as you use FMJ ammo. 7.62 becomes a monster if you use soft or hollow point ammo. I hunt with a CZ 527 in 762 and the wound channel allmost looks like from a 308. In eastern Europe and Russia the use it even for moose and brown baer.
7.62x39 soft points dump a ridiculous amount of energy in targets even when close up. Monarch ( barnaul ) is at 1750 ft lbs If you want bullets that yaw you get m67 yugo which starts to yaw more early than 7n6 5.45x39
The 7.62x39 round hits harder than the 5.56 similarly to the difference between a ball round 9mm vs 45 auto. By the way 9mm is a 30 cal round also. The biggest difference is size to speed. Smaller, lighter and faster at close range trump's slower and heavier more often than not. Both rounds are extremely deadly which is why they are the 2 most common. Must 22 caliber projectiles turn into a blender when the hit a bone. Or should I say, fmj rounds. They aren't meant to mushroom like a soft nose round. Usually they also have a hollow part on the back of the slug which is why they grenade when they tumble. Neither one of these rounds are intended to shoot more than 200 yard. From the right platform and in the right hand they can perform much farther than that, but those aren't going to meant for defense. I know from experience that my 308 doesn't even mushroom at 30 yards unless it hits a bone and that is hunting rounds. I've shot 3 deer with it at that range or less and the exit hole was the same size as the entrance. However it did considerable damage from the shock of the bullet to soft internal tissue and organs. 308 is the 7.62x51 military equivalent in size and smokes the Russian 7.62x39.
Both rounds work well, but the balistics look kinda laughable compared to traditional hunting rifles, even though they work. They are close range options for sure. The 9mm has a listed bullet diameter of .355, so it's in the 36 cal group.
Damm imagine at 300 yard a ar/ak can still hit hard like a 10 millimeter pistol. 💪
love em both have em both. BUT 7.62x39 is better it just is.
100% wrong, here is video link, compare this little 50 grain 5.56 bullet to any 7.62x39 ballistics gel test and its pretty clear whats the winner. 7.62x39 is good, but 5.56 has so many options that it just wins. th-cam.com/video/5o-Tw0BbLd0/w-d-xo.html
@@fishersofmen4727 those are high quality HP rounds. Can’t compare them to standard steel case ammo. 7.62 and 556 are both great but 7.62 is a better combat cartridge and is way more versatile. It’s devastating. Look at 556 wounds before 7.62 wounds man. Big difference.
How about through Kevlar? Which is what ball ammo will encounter on the modern battlefield.
Soft point ammo will skew your results.
Yep.
I do not own an AR. My interests being defensive in nature, I own a Ruger Mini-30. Your presentation is making me rethink this, for up close self defense. The AR is a fine weapon though, and I hope to own one someday.
Both rounds will work. Hone defense has a whole different set of concerns that aren't present on the battlefield. In my home, I have 3 children. Over penetration and the direction of a shot is a big concern to me, so I went with a low penetrating option: a 12 gauge with birdshot. The furthest shot I can have in my house is 21 feet. Testing shows that up to 20 feet, a load of #7.5 lead will punch a 2 inch hole, about 5 inches deep. It will work at my distances, and poses the least danger to others in my home.
Here is video link, compare this little 50 grain 5.56 bullet to any 7.62x39 ballistics gel test and its pretty clear whats the winner. 7.62x39 is good, but 5.56 has so many options that it just wins. th-cam.com/video/5o-Tw0BbLd0/w-d-xo.html
124 grain soft point ammo and you'll be just fine
Interesting topic...There’s been SO much written about the merits-or lack of-with regard to the 5.56. It ranges from it being a great military round to wondering how we’ve had any military success at all with it! Your analysis seems to be right on factually, and in line with that old government chart showing that fragmentation falls off after about 2500fps. One area that remains interesting to me is temporary and permanent wound channel caused by hydrostatic pressure in soft tissue. I’ve experimented with shooting my AR through several items (see my very amateur channel) with fmj, and some things blow up, while some things just go through-and-through.
That's an interesting concept, and a hard one to test properly. I am constantly impressed at the elasticity of muscle tissue. Organs have less elasticity than muscle, with the liver having the least, in my experience. The elasticity of muscle tissue and blood vessels renders temporary cavity fairly useless in muscle tissue, whereas a shot to the liver or kidneys will show more tearing from the temporay stretch cavity. The temporay stretch cavity is what causes alot of the bruised areas around the wound tract on deer. It causes bruising and some bleeding, but doesn't generally cause enough to significantly quicken death. True hydrostatic shock is related to the more powerful fast moving rounds like the 338 Lappua and 300 Weatherby Ultra Mag. That's when the energy wave itself will tear a hole around the wound tract. The tissues are forced apart quicker and further than they can streach.
Interesting, Thanks for the reply.
7.62x39 from the same length barrel always has the advantage within
400-500 yards
Lol
@@DD-su2qq it's TRUE several ballistics chart shows that after 500 yards 5.56 takes the lead but of course after 500 yards both rounds are less powerful than 9mm meaning your either punching a 22 cal hole or 30 cal hole
@@jorgesolis9468 7.62×39 basically just punches holes. 5.56 and 5.45 created incredible damage to around 200 meter.
@@DD-su2qq not really 5.56 damage up to 200 meters isnt that much worse than 7.62x39 when it comes to center mass shots that involve bone
@@DD-su2qq 5.56 is also seen as you weak to hunt medium game since after 100 yards it delivers less than 1000 ft lbs while 7.62x39 is still enough
Try shooting at 62 grain soft point from a 20" barrel
Still has no advantage 3130ish fps with a 5.56 is 1329 ft lbs where as a regular 7.62x39 from a 16 inch is 124 gr at about 2300 on the low end meaning 1456 ft lbs if you want a fair comparison 20 inch 7.62x39 is 2400 fps easily meaning 1585 ft lbs so yeah 7.62 at short range under 500 yards basically has more umph
The problem with the 5.56 at 300yards could be fixed by just using a 223 soft point round right?
Not exactly. The .223 has a sharp drop in velocity and energy after 175 yards. Even with quality bonded bullets, at 200 yards it lacks the energy to punch through the shoulder of a deer. It just looses a lot of penetration potential. That being said, if you want the best performance at the furthest distance with a 223, look at Remington's 62 grain copper TSX, or check out the 223 by Black Hills Ammo online.
556 is superior to 7.62x39 as long as you use FMJ ammo. 7.62 becomes a monster if you use soft or hollow point ammo. I hunt with a CZ 527 in 762 and the wound channel allmost looks like from a 308. In eastern Europe and Russia the use it even for moose and brown baer.
7.62x39 soft points dump a ridiculous amount of energy in targets even when close up. Monarch ( barnaul ) is at 1750 ft lbs
If you want bullets that yaw you get m67 yugo which starts to yaw more early than 7n6 5.45x39
The 7.62x39 round hits harder than the 5.56 similarly to the difference between a ball round 9mm vs 45 auto. By the way 9mm is a 30 cal round also. The biggest difference is size to speed. Smaller, lighter and faster at close range trump's slower and heavier more often than not. Both rounds are extremely deadly which is why they are the 2 most common. Must 22 caliber projectiles turn into a blender when the hit a bone. Or should I say, fmj rounds. They aren't meant to mushroom like a soft nose round. Usually they also have a hollow part on the back of the slug which is why they grenade when they tumble. Neither one of these rounds are intended to shoot more than 200 yard. From the right platform and in the right hand they can perform much farther than that, but those aren't going to meant for defense. I know from experience that my 308 doesn't even mushroom at 30 yards unless it hits a bone and that is hunting rounds. I've shot 3 deer with it at that range or less and the exit hole was the same size as the entrance. However it did considerable damage from the shock of the bullet to soft internal tissue and organs. 308 is the 7.62x51 military equivalent in size and smokes the Russian 7.62x39.
Both rounds work well, but the balistics look kinda laughable compared to traditional hunting rifles, even though they work. They are close range options for sure. The 9mm has a listed bullet diameter of .355, so it's in the 36 cal group.
I just want to know which one is cheaper right now