which is a deadlier round?

Discussion in 'Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun' started by board917, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. board917

    board917 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    .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.
  2. southernshooter

    southernshooter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,956
    Location:
    Deep South Mississippi
    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
  3. 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.
  4. warriflefan

    warriflefan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Meadow Vista, CA
    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.
  5. evan03

    evan03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Idaho, its better here
    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.
  6. Old Grump

    Old Grump New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,320
    Location:
    Little hut in the woods near Blue River Wisconsin
    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.
  7. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,986
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    7.62X39 will most likely be the cheapest to feed.
  8. Albtraum

    Albtraum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    California
    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.
  9. fuzebox40

    fuzebox40 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,626
    Location:
    Apple Valley, Ca.
    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.:D
  10. evan03

    evan03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Idaho, its better here
  11. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,152
    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.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2011
  12. jbmid1

    jbmid1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,315
    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.
  13. jbmid1

    jbmid1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,315
    FYI

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

    http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/556-223-Ammunition-Ch-t22582.html
  14. CHW2021

    CHW2021 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    534
    Location:
    Louisiana
    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?
  15. happyskeeter

    happyskeeter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    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?
  16. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,986
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
  17. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    269
    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.
  18. bluesea112

    bluesea112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,336
    Location:
    West, TX
    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.
  19. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    18,269
    Location:
    Heart Of Texas
    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..
  20. woolleyworm

    woolleyworm Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,945
    Location:
    SW Fort Worth
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun Whats a good 12ga round to stock up on? May 27, 2014
Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun M249 SAW 800 Round Backpack Feed ( Video ) May 12, 2014
Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun Black 10 round Pmags in stock $13.95 Jul 31, 2013
Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun Steel core round vs 1" steel Feb 19, 2013
Large-Bore/Small-Bore Rifle/Shotgun Marlin 1894 45 LC (Round Barrel) Feb 6, 2013

Share This Page