which is a deadlier round?

[board917]

.223, 5.56, or 7.62X 39?
which on is cheaper to shoot?
I am building an AR and thinking about chambering it in 7.62 because i also have an SKS that is 7.62.

[southernshooter]

X39 is by far cheaper to shoot. And to keep this from getting nasty I will just say that one leaves a 22 caliber hole and the other leaves a .30 caliber hole. Myself I like the X39. One of the main reasons is I like the guns they go in. Especially the SKS and AK. Also I use my X39 for hunting so I am prolly impartial their.
This is just my .02 but I would build an AR in a COBB lower that way you can switch the magwells out and go from a .22lr all the way up to 338 with the same lower. But that is just my opinion

[Pistolenschutze]

Southern is right on the ammo expense of the 7.62x39, board, though relatively inexpensive .223 can also be found if you keep an eye out. The .223 is also less expensive to reload if you're into that activity.

In terms of usefulness, I would have to say the 7.62x39 is more practical. It can be used for hunting up to deer sized game at reasonable ranges, while the .223 is really only good for varmints (or people!). By the way, the .223 Remington is the same cartridge as the military 5.56mm Nato.

[warriflefan]

A lot of AR's have a problem feeding 7.62x39. But if you want similar potency to the x39 you might check out the .300 BLK uppers.

[evan03]

Personly I'd pic the 223 run some horady 40 great vmaxes.

But I bet there all good full metal jackets would probly be least destructive.

[Old Grump]

A hit between the eyes makes the question moot. Be more specific, are you looking for the flattest trajectory, the largest hole and/or biggest end wound, most economical round to buy or the one that delivers the most energy at the target.

When all is said and done it runs the 5.56 best and that should be the major criteria if you are going with the AR platform.

[carver]

7.62X39 will most likely be the cheapest to feed.

[Albtraum]

I'd hate to be at the other end of any caliber. I'd say go with 5.56/.223 because of the low recoil. Russia doesn't even use 7.62x39 anymore, they've used 5.45x39 (similar to the 223/5.56) since the late 1970's.

[fuzebox40]

Some time ago I had a semi automatic rubber band gun capable shooting multi calibers from the same breech. Low recoil and very cheep to reload. Only accurate at close range but capable of putting an eye out (so I've heard).
Best uses: Shooting the occasional kitchen counter cat, and being a bad influence.

[evan03]

Lol

[hogger129]

7.62x39mm. Reason being that it's bigger, therefore a larger wounding pattern. I've heard somewhere that the 7.62x39mm round tumbles too. I don't think I'd want to be on the receiving end of either, but the reason for going to smaller calibers is because the rounds are smaller, therefore a soldier can carry more ammunition. Plus the rounds like 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are lighter recoiling than the 7.62 rounds.

[jbmid1]

The cheap 7.62x39 is either surplus or Russian made. OK for plinking and you don't really have to clean an AK anyways, so the black gunk that builds up from the Russian rounds isn't necessarily a problem. Good quality hunting ammo will cast about the same
as other .30 cal rnds.

Inexpensive surplus amma can also be found for .556. And with the right bullet, frangible for varmint or heavier expanding rounds for game, the .556 can be even
more effective than the AK round at the longer distances. And since you have to hit the target for the round to be deadly, I would give the edge to the .556.

[jbmid1]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Southern is right on the ammo expense of the 7.62x39, board, though relatively inexpensive .223 can also be found if you keep an eye out. The .223 is also less expensive to reload if you're into that activity.

In terms of usefulness, I would have to say the 7.62x39 is more practical. It can be used for hunting up to deer sized game at reasonable ranges, while the .223 is really only good for varmints (or people!). By the way, the .223 Remington is the same cartridge as the military 5.56mm Nato.

FYI

There are some differences between .556 NATO military and .223 commercial ammo.

http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/556...Ch-t22582.html

[CHW2021]

Deadlier for what? You are set up with 7.62 and if you add another caliber to the mix the cost will hit you dead in the wallet. The 7.62x39 is available at a cheaper price than the .223 so your cost will be lower. Buying only 1 caliber ammo is cheaper than buying multiple calibers.
As far as killing power, you would need to state for what use; the .223 will likely have more long range accuracy, the 30 cal 7.62 will have more short range punch. What are you looking for?

[happyskeeter]

It should be noted that the 5.56 should not be fired in the 223 while a 223 can be fired in a 5.56. The 5.56 being slightly more powerful and loaded hotter.

What is more deadly is what hits the target and most AR's are way more accurate than a AK. Since you already have a SKS in 7.62 I would go with that caliber as both are great calibers. I was wondering if SKS's can use the same magazine you will use in the AR? That would be a factor too.

What would you be doing with this rifle? Hunting? Target shooting?
I must say that the 7.62x39 is one caliber I do not have and if you are going to be into target shooting maybe someone more knowledgeable about the 7.62x39 can mention if they make real accurate loads for that caliber. I know they make great 75 and 77 grain Match loads for the 5.56/223. If you go with the smaller caliber I would think you will go with a 5.56 chamber?

[carver]

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/corb...x-p-75659.html

The solid copper bullets like the ones listed above change everythng in the .223 catagory. These bullets will reliably take deer.

[Regular Joe]

Very important that we've established that 7.62 has had known feeding problems in the AR platform. 5.56 does have the advantage in the AR. With correct bullet selection and placement, it's fine for deer.

[bluesea112]

Josh and I were just having the conversation the other day at his deer lease. The .223 Rem ballistics show that it has more energy than the 7.62 x 39mm. However, I watched a military channel documentary where they were shooting steel silouettes side by side with 5.56 NATO and 7.62 x 39mm at 15 meters. Both bullets were hitting the same place on the sillouettes, but the 5.56 was not able to knock it over. The 5.56 had more energy, but the larger diameter and heavier 7.62 bullet was the only bullet knocking the target down. And by the way, the bullets were not penetrating the targets, so all of the available energy was being obsorbed by the targets. I still don't understand the science behind it, because the ballistic charts show that the 5.56 has more energy than the 7.62 x 39mm.

Unless something has changed dramatically since I was in school,
1 pound of energy = 1 pound of energy

Anyway, the answer to your question is that the 7.62 x 39mm has more knock down power. You can also buy 7.62 x 39mm ammo for much less than .223 ammo.

[JLA]

yep. 1 pound of energy is indeed one pound of energy, but what would you rather have smack you in the chest? A pound of foam cushion or a 1 pound lead ball? Effective energy transfer is directly related to the mass of the projectile. Yes the .223 produces a bit more kinetic force than the 7.62X39, but the 7.62X39 is swinging a 50% bigger hammer..

[woolleyworm]

RE : Josh and Charles posts - 1# is 1#, the surface area of impact is what is important. The smaller diameter of the 556 and resulting fragmentation of the bullet is what is resulting in a lower "knock down" force. The larger diameter of the 7.62 spreads the impact force over a greater area and is delivering more of it's potential energy into the target. The design of the bullet and the make-up of the target are all going to affect how much potential energy are actually delivered into the target.

If the smaller bullet fragments and the rear portion of the bullet breaks apart, that weight/potential energy is lost.

[Regular Joe]

Who is being fooled here? Muzzle energy for a 62 gr. bullet @ 3,000 fps is about 1,238 ft./lbs. Muzzle energy for a 124 gr. bullet @ 2,300 fps is about 1,460 ft./lbs. The .223 is the weaker round, from the get go. The x39 "hits harder" because the energy is carried by about twice the mass, as already noted. Old Grump makes the big applicable point that the 5.56 is generally more accurate, esp. at ranges beyond 200 yards.
I've been wrestling with the same quandary. I have a decent AK, and it's acceptably accurate to about 200 yards. I can't use optics with it though, so I'm seriously considering building or buying a decent 5.56 with a 24" barrel and a decent scope. Hitting with a weaker round @ 300 yards is far more deadly than missing with a more powerful round.
The difference between .223 and 5.56 is the standard that applies to them. .223 is loaded and rated by the SAAMI standard, which limits pressure to around 50,000 psi. 5.56 is loaded to the Mil. Spec., which limits pressure to around 60,000 psi. Military brass normally has a little thicker walls, so the internal volume is smaller. Loading with data for the .223 could result in pressure that is too high with military brass.

[The Duke]

Ive always appreciated the 7.62 over the 5.56 round....By design, most AK platforms are made very reliable and not so very accurate, spray and pray weapon...Throw enough lead downrange fast enough and folks keep their heads in the mud...soon or later, someone may get hit after attackers have gotten closer..There are exceptions..Ive a friend who has an early Norinco that will stay around 1 1/2 " at 100; with surp ammo..Id buy or trade him in a heartbeat, but he's not letting that one go.

If I were given the opportunity to build a 7.62x39 and to pick and choose my parts for fit, I think it could be made to shoot very accurately...I suspect the Hornady is much better with a decent rifle to shoot it...

So Ive been 'thunking' about a 7.62 on the AR platform as at the present, the ammo is cheap and plentiful.... But A simple signature on a piece of paper can put an end to imported ammo over night....then the price goes up, making the 5.56 much more attractive pricewise.....The Monark and Wolf crap that I have shot is innaccurate out of any platform....but will run a FA AK like a Mercedes..

I got a feeling I should have an AK, just because I still can...Prob the first one the grabbers will go after if they get a chance...but have a hell of a time getting mine out of the safe or out of my hands..if I had one...

Decisions, decisions...

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by board917

.223, 5.56, or 7.62X 39?
which on is cheaper to shoot?
I am building an AR and thinking about chambering it in 7.62 because i also have an SKS that is 7.62.

So you are building an AR to shoot a cheap round that is deadly.
My answer to that would be to build with a 5.45x39 upper because the 5.45x39 is called the poison bullet for a reason.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
The Russian's developed this round to yaw upon impact with any soft target. If you note the chart the 5.45 will yield close to the same wound pattern as the 7.62 & almost double that of the 5.56.
And another note if you buy the 7n6 round it is steel core that can penetrate steel & concrete blocks. Here is a good place to buy a 5.45 upper & ammo.
http://www.usarmorycorps.com/index.p...mart&Itemid=53

[whirley]

All of the above also explains why we have horse races. That good difference of opinion. Learn all you can then make your choice. Both have advantages and disadvantages, so with knowledge make your choice.

[RunningOnMT]

Did you all notice this thread is over three years old ? In any event I think a lot of you underestimate the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 round. Not sure how many of you have seen wounds inflicted by this caliber but they are often not pretty. The round does have it's limitations but there are more advantages to 5.56 than just weight. It is accurate and trajectory is flat out to around 350m or so. The 7.62x39 has around the same effective range but the trajectory is more like a 30-30.

Referring to the original question, if it was me I'd build the AR with a 5.56, and leave the 7.62x39 for AK's and SKS's. That way you'd have weapons in both calibers in the oft discussed SHTF scenario.