User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 10:14:46 AM EDT
[#1]
M193 for me.
CP |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 10:20:32 AM EDT
[#2]
I would say, carry 6 mags of m193 and 2 mags of m855 in case you enocounter a hardened target. So I would say stock up in that proportion.
I would imagine that 193 would do the most damage on soft targets. That is if you are stocking for the zombipocalypse. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 10:27:30 AM EDT
[#3]
I shoot and stock more M193.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 10:38:23 AM EDT
[#4]
If money was no object my answer would be neither because I would have the money to buy better ammo.
But since you asked about the two, I stock M193 and don't bother with M855. M193 has a bit better frag range, especially with shorter barrels (and most of my AR's ar 16" or less) so it is more useful for me. Alot of folks here like M855 for its penetration abilities and that is fine but it isn't AP ammo either. I think a situation where the penetrating advantage of M855 would outweigh the added frag ability of M193 will be the exception. If I only stock one, I'll pick the one for the rule, not the exception. A few points to consider is that M193 will penetrate steel body armor and M855 will not. M855 will penetrate dyneema composite body armor and M193 will not. Neither will penetrate ceramic or hybrid plates. Neither performs well through windshield glass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:42:49 AM EDT
[#5]
Whatever is cheaper, as I won't be choosing either if given an option.
75 gr TAP, 77 gr matchking, 62 gr DPX for animals, no shortage of superior rounds available at the moment. I have a proverbial shitload of 55 gr ammo, only because I bought it when it was 1/2 to 1/3 the current price. IMO the ammo you use for training doesn't really matter much, so long as it's reliable and won't damage your rifle ... and using brass ammo means you can reload obviously, which is a perk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 12:27:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Both. I probably stock m193 over m855 in a 3:1 ratio.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 12:44:41 PM EDT
[#7]
M193.
M855 is an answer looking for a question. It was designed to do one thing: To pass longer range penetration tests. It is LESS effective at most other tasks. Since it's fragmentation threshold is significantly higher than M193 it frequently fails to performs adequately at moderate and longer range distances. Yes it penetrates, but it does not reliably incapacitate. The M855, coupled with the typical lower muzzle velocities of the shorter barrelled M4 are entirely responsible for the 5.56mm's current reputation as being inadequate. The original SS109 bullet was designed solely to meet one limited testing criteria, and it does so at the expense of all others. With the m193, especially in longer barrels, the fragmentation threshold is lower. it will come apart at lower speeds, leading to better performance in most situations. My preferred projectiles for 5.56 are, in order: 65 Sierre Gamekings, 55 Pointed soft points, and M193. There isn't a sing round of M855 (or its clones) in the house. I regard it (the M855 round) as a massive mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:13:11 PM EDT
[#8]
I shoot a 1:7 twist 14.5" barrel, and the M855 green tips with SS109 shoots more accurately for me.
M193 is a bit light, and doesn't group as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:45:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
M193 for me. CP the bulk of my .556 is m193 but I do have some m855. The M193 seems to shoot better for me out past 100. My ratio is about 10 (m193) to 1(m855) in my stock pile. J- |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:52:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
M193 for me. CP Yups, same same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:55:52 PM EDT
[#11]
money no object? neither, why would I handicap myself?
Stockpile TAP and a solid, maybe one of the Barnes X bullets or something similar. Now, if I have to pick between the two listed, mostly M193 for the reasons already given by folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 3:04:30 PM EDT
[#12]
i store M193 and practice a little with it.
i practice mostly with WPA or Brown Bear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 3:07:52 PM EDT
[#13]
if i am stockpiling expecting to use it for fighting.... neither. i's rather have something in 30cal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 3:16:00 PM EDT
[#14]
MK 262
M118 or M80 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 3:27:52 PM EDT
[#15]
if i am stockpiling expecting to use it for fighting.... neither. i's rather have something in 30cal.
Thats my thinking. Always have been a .30cal man myself It all depends on what your twist rate is on your barrel. If you have an older 1-12 twist, 193 is the way to go (55gr). If you have a 1-7 or 1-9, M855 (62gr) is the way to go. It's the same reason why the DOD went away from the M193 when they went from M16A1's to M16A2's and M4's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 4:06:03 PM EDT
[#16]
I have a little xm193 and m855, and I could not say the last time I shot any of it. I shoot hand loaded Winchester 64 grain power points for hunting, and I suspect they will do just fine for any of my needs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 5:17:14 PM EDT
[#17]
I try to stick to 62gr minimum for my AR's, but I won't pass up a deal on 55gr. If your barrel length is shorter than 14.5" then 55gr isn't really an option.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 5:38:53 PM EDT
[#18]
M855
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 5:48:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I try to stick to 62gr minimum for my AR's, but I won't pass up a deal on 55gr. If your barrel length is shorter than 14.5" then 55gr isn't really an option. I'm curious why you feel that way. The M855 is less likely to be effective from a short barrel than M193 because of the higher frag threshold and lower MV. ETA: To be clear, neither is a good choice in an SBR but I think M193 is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 6:06:25 PM EDT
[#20]
M193 for me unless I am deer hunting. For deer I prefer the 65gr gameking or the 64gr powerpoint.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 6:25:48 PM EDT
[#21]
the M193 will fragment and do what it was designed to do better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 6:30:44 PM EDT
[#22]
M855 or 60 some grain handloads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 6:32:40 PM EDT
[#23]
m193 for me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 6:45:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I try to stick to 62gr minimum for my AR's, but I won't pass up a deal on 55gr. If your barrel length is shorter than 14.5" then 55gr isn't really an option. I'm curious why you feel that way. The M855 is less likely to be effective from a short barrel than M193 because of the higher frag threshold and lower MV. ETA: To be clear, neither is a good choice in an SBR but I think M193 is better. I believe in higher weight out of shorter barrels to help stabilize the round. Ideally 77gr is better but I don't go lower than 62gr in my 10". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 7:08:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
I believe in higher weight out of shorter barrels to help stabilize the round. huh? ar-jedi |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 8:24:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe in higher weight out of shorter barrels to help stabilize the round. huh? ar-jedi +1 The longer bullet is more likely to be unstable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 8:29:29 PM EDT
[#27]
I'd go with m193.
It's what I use now as my all round general purpose load and it works well out of my weapons. Sometimes I get to thinking about changing up to a different HD/shtf load, but seeing as cost is a major factor m193 is an adequate load for the price. Matching the tool to the job is key, if the m193 won't cut it, then it's time to pick up either the m1a or the 300 win mag. YMMV. BT |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 8:34:52 PM EDT
[#28]
If limited to these two options, M193. If money is no object, Black hills 77gr SMK. A reasonable balance is PRVI 75gr BTHP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 2:41:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Well, in my case I bought a bunch of pulled SS109's and loaded them at 223 pressure levels so they could work in my bolt action if I ever needed them to so I'd be leaning towards the SS109. I also stock the federal american eagle tactical 55gr fmj because I like the idea of my ammo being able to operate safely in another 223 also if needed.
I'd also agree with the other sentiment here that you also need some soft point type of ammo and possibly some heavier weight ammo. I keep a supply of handloaded 55gr SP, and 69gr matchking ammo on hand as well. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 4:25:41 AM EDT
[#30]
So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:17:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:59:31 AM EDT
[#32]
As for the M855 vs M193, I'll pick M855 every time...
I shoot M855 because my 14.5" 1:7 barrel stabilizes and shoots them much better than 55gr fmj bullets... Why should I shoot a 55 grain bullet that gets me 2.2 MOA when I can shoot a 62 grain bullet that gets me 1.5 MOA out of the same short barrel??? If you're going to be penalized by lower velocities with a shorter barrel - it's much better to shoot a heavier bullet so your projectiles at least have some MASS to transfer more energy into your target. If the barrel cannot attain the necessary velocities to perform the way its terminal ballistics were designed - it's better to fire a heavier bullet that will at least retain sufficient mass & velocity to do some damage at longer distances! That's why I'll shoot 62 grains minimum in my rifle, but my AR prefers 69 grain SMK or 65 grain Game Kings. Also, look at it from a Cost Perspective! I can handload 62gr Armscor FMJ (lead core) to M855 velocities for $0.26 per round. I can handload 62gr SS109's to M855 velocities for $0.24 per round. I can handload 55gr FMJ's to M193 velocities for $0.22 per round. I can handload 65gr Sierra GameKings for $0.30 per round. I can handload 69gr Sierra MatchKings for $0.32 per round. Compare that to WOLF factory shit ammo $0.21 per round. Compare that to PMC SS109's to M855 velocities for $0.30 per round. Compare that to Federal M193 ammo at $0.38 per round... WHY shoot 55 grain FMJ / M193 bullets when you can shoot MUCH BETTER performing rounds for LESS than factory M193, and only a couple cents more than handloaded 55gr FMJ M193 bullets??? WHY??? It makes NO SENSE. When I can shoot much better performing ammo for negligible cost difference??? Quoted: So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate As for that, you have two options: 1.) Cheap ammo. 2.) More established ammo. For the 5.45x39mm, you have only TWO ammo options: A.) Russian Surplus, which is dirt cheap and running around $0.14 per round these days. B.) Hornady Vmax 'partially domestic' produced ammo running around $1.40 (yes, 10 TIMES more expensive) for 'hunting'. For the 7.62x39mm, you have reloadable, FULLY domestically produced ammo with a wide variety of bullets & velocities. You can even shoot your own cast lead bullets through an AK in this caliber with no notable problems... The caliber will be around to stay forever, and even if importation of surplus is banned outright, you can still buy domestic produced reloadable ammo. SO, Pros & Cons... 5.45x39mm - Cheap Surplus, but if importation of ammo / components from Russia is banned - you will have nothing more than an expensive paperweight. Even the Hornady "Domestic" produced ammo, costing $1.40 MSRP, is made on imported RUSSIAN steel primed cases... Good luck reloading berdan primed steel cases... Legislation can make your gun into a paper weight. 7.62x39mm - More expensive, not as readily available as it used to be, but can shoot anything from the highest quality domestic produced reloadable ammo to the shittiest, cheapest imported garbage ammo, and will keep shooting it all day long... Though not as accurately as a 5.45 rifle would shoot. I vote for 7.62x39mm. If I'm buying a gun, I want the ammo to be around for a long, long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 10:19:33 AM EDT
[#33]
Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair
Millions around the world would disagree. The 5.45 and 7.62X39 have been effective man stoppers for many years. They were not designed to fire "premium ammo". They were designed to be reliable while using cheap steel cased cartridges. As far as better ergonomic's, thats opinioned based as many find that it does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 10:38:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair. He didnt say anything about AK's or SKS's. AR's are available chambered in both calibers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 1:02:27 PM EDT
[#35]
meh, I dont really consider that 10grain penetrator to be much of an improvement - whichever is cheaper is my vote - more=better. that said, I did load my "go kit" with m855 since if there was a difference I'd want any benefit the m855 could afford to be present in those critical first moments.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 2:22:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I try to stick to 62gr minimum for my AR's, but I won't pass up a deal on 55gr. If your barrel length is shorter than 14.5" then 55gr isn't really an option. ? If the barrel is less than 14.5" then M193 is going to be a better choice than M855 (not that either is optimal). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 2:29:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate IF (and that's a big if) you need to stick with one of those calibers I'd go with 7.62x39. More common in the US, better terminal performance than 5.45, easier to reload. The downside? More weight, recoil, and hitting targets beyond 400y becomes problematic (not that it's really important with a carbine but I thought I'd throw it out). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 2:29:13 PM EDT
[#38]
193 for me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 2:41:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Millions around the world would disagree. The 5.45 and 7.62X39 have been effective man stoppers for many years. "Working" and being "as good as" are not the same. Yes they will work, that doesn't mean their terminal performance is impressive. . As far as better ergonomic's, thats opinioned based as many find that it does not.
I do not think you understand what the term 'ergonomics' means. It does not mean what you are used to. It relates to economy of motion to do tasks and doing so in a natural way. There is no question the AR is more ergonomic than the AK. Inserting magazines, removing magazines, using the safety/selecter are much quicker/easier operations with the AR than the AK. That doesn't mean you can't do them fast in the AK, but it does mean you'll have to put more effort to get the same results as a person running an AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 3:50:03 PM EDT
[#40]
"Working" and being "as good as" are not the same. Yes they will work, that doesn't mean their terminal performance is impressive.
In the real world, more people have been killed by the 7.62X39 than any other caliber. Not to sound like an ass but I am sure that none of their last words were about how impressive the terminal performance of the bullet was that just struck them. Being that your average engagement for handgun is 7 ft and average engagement for rifle is less than 100yds, it might not matter. I do not think you understand what the term 'ergonomics' means. It does not mean what you are used to. It relates to economy of motion to do tasks and doing so in a natural way.
There is no question the AR is more ergonomic than the AK. Inserting magazines, removing magazines, using the safety/selecter are much quicker/easier operations with the AR than the AK. That doesn't mean you can't do them fast in the AK, but it does mean you'll have to put more effort to get the same results as a person running an AR. Yes, I am well aware of what ergonomic means. I have a M.A. in Physics as a matter of fact. It means science of work. This includes two main parts ––Comfort & Efficiency. The item you use must be comfortable to its user. Efficiency–– If something is easier to do you are more likely to do it. If you do it more, then it is more useful. And if you willingly do something more often you have a greater chance of liking it. If you like doing it you will be more comfortable doing it. The two go hand in hand. Ergonomics is in the eye of the beholder. What might be comfortable and efficient for a right hand shooter, might not be for a left. Same goes for stature. What might be a nice length of pull for John who is 5'6", might not be ergonomic for a guy who is 6'3". When the automotive industry designs interiors, they base it off of what is ergonomic to the average american, not everyone. If ergonomics was a scientific fact, it would fit everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 4:21:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair
Millions around the world would disagree. The 5.45 and 7.62X39 have been effective man stoppers for many years. They were not designed to fire "premium ammo". They were designed to be reliable while using cheap steel cased cartridges. As far as better ergonomic's, thats opinioned based as many find that it does not. The poor performance of both with military ammo is well documented. There is an ecellent graphic here: Best Choices for Self Defense Since they neither fragment or expand they are among the worst performers except for penetration. The 7.62x39 has tremendous potential, provided the ranges are modest, with the right projectiles but we're talking about military surplus ammo. Just because they have been used to kill lots of people doesn't make them ideal or even good choices when compared to other options. As for the AR being more ergonomic, that is an opinion. I own and shoot all 3 and it is no contest in my opinion but others may disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 4:22:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, where does everyone sit on the whole 5.45x39 vs. 7.62x39 debate Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair. He didnt say anything about AK's or SKS's. AR's are available chambered in both calibers. Very true. I've read that both have their limitations and reliability issues in the AR platform but to be fair I don't have an AR in either caliber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 4:30:07 PM EDT
[#43]
I stock more M193/55 grain than anything else due to cost and availability.
I also have a lot of Federal premium and mil/LE loads simply because it is available to me at a low price. I have set aside a small amount of 5.56 SOST rounds for my apocalypse ammo––because it has been available to me at great prices. However, I will most likely move to AE 55 and 62 grain after my XM193 is shot up, again due to price and availability (I work at Federal). and keep my SOST and LE loads in reserve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 4:34:23 PM EDT
[#44]
M193 is good enough to do the job. And the M855 seems to have mixed results. But my bug out 223 ammo is 75 grain Hornaday HP. In fact I don't understand why any civilian would not be using HP or ballistic tip ammo for their bug out weapon. Do you only use FMJ rounds in your CCW?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:09:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
In the real world, more people have been killed by the 7.62X39 than any other caliber. Not to sound like an ass but I am sure that none of their last words were about how impressive the terminal performance of the bullet was that just struck them. Being that your average engagement for handgun is 7 ft and average engagement for rifle is less than 100yds, it might not matter. I've never understood why people use that argument. Lots of people have been killed with .22s, rocks, and sharpened sticks and I'm sure they also weren't overly concerned about how effective those tools were. It is a matter of relative effectiveness and the 7.62x39 and the 5.45x39 do not perform well with military surplus ammo. Nobody here is saying they want to get shot with them or that they can't kill. Of course they can. They have been shown to be less effective at causing tissue damage. I'm not really sure where you are going with the distance argument. Most projectile weapons are more effective the closer the range but that will be generally be true regardless of what platform or caliber. If you are saying that because engagements are inside 100 or 7 yards that terminal performance doesn't matter then I will have to disagree. If the guy trying to kill me is 7 yards away it is far more important to stop him quickly than if he's at 300 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:15:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
If you're going to be penalized by lower velocities with a shorter barrel - it's much better to shoot a heavier bullet so your projectiles at least have some MASS to transfer more energy into your target. If the barrel cannot attain the necessary velocities to perform the way its terminal ballistics were designed - it's better to fire a heavier bullet that will at least retain sufficient mass & velocity to do some damage at longer distances! The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power. Once you have reached a distance where velocity drops to the point where neither bullet will fragment then I suppose M855 would hold an advantage but M193 will have the advantage up to that point. Since most rifle engagements are inside that envelope M193 just seems like a better option if you are limited to millitary surplus ammo. I agree with you on choosing 7.62x39 over 5.45x39 for the reasons given and that 7.62x39 has much more potential to be a good performer with the right bullets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:34:29 PM EDT
[#47]
M193 for me. It is cheap and has been proven to make people dead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 6:03:49 PM EDT
[#48]
The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power.
Yes and no. The reason why the 5.56 has a poor rep for being a man stopper is that Uncle Sugar uses 55gr to 62 gr bullets and is limited to using ball ammo only due to the Hague Conventions. A 62gr bullet does not transfer enough sufficient mass. The larger the mass, the larger the energy transfer depended also on speed. There is a reason why you can't hunt anything above varmit size game in most states with a 223. It was decided on long ago that a .22 cal bullet no matter what grain did not do enough damage to be effective on deer size game or larger. There is also a reason why the DOD is wanting to move beyond the 5.56, but is currently limited due to budget cuts. Most U.S. SOF have already begun to move past. The 7.62X39 does have loads of potential, but some have drank too much of the AR kool-aid to see it. It is a fantastic performer inside of 500yds. It is only limited by the type of platform and sights used. Some think that the 5.56/223 is a mythical rounds that will travel around the world compared to the 7.62X39 and in their SHTF wet dreams will be hitting zombies at 900yds with their M4. I hate to tell you this but it's not. Every T.O. or T.M. will tell you ithat a 14.5 to 16in barrel is only accurate at 500yds for a point target. Aything past that is considered an area target. But this is acceptable as they are called "battle rifles" for a reason. They are not made to be bench rest guns like others would have you believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 6:31:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Every T.O. or T.M. will tell you ithat a 14.5 to 16in barrel is only accurate at 500yds for a point target. . You might want to re-read those TMs.  It's 500 METERS (roughly 550 yards), and that applies to worse case M4s using M855. Use better ammo and have a decent rifle and it's no problem to go well beyond that with 5.56 should the need arise (though honestly I don't see such a need poping up).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 6:37:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power.
Yes and no. The reason why the 5.56 has a poor rep for being a man stopper is that Uncle Sugar uses 55gr to 62 gr bullets and is limited to using ball ammo only due to the Hague Conventions. A 62gr bullet does not transfer enough sufficient mass. The larger the mass, the larger the energy transfer depended also on speed. There is a reason why you can't hunt anything above varmit size game in most states with a 223. It was decided on long ago that a .22 cal bullet no matter what grain did not do enough damage to be effective on deer size game or larger. There is also a reason why the DOD is wanting to move beyond the 5.56, but is currently limited due to budget cuts. Most U.S. SOF have already begun to move past. The 7.62X39 does have loads of potential, but some have drank too much of the AR kool-aid to see it. It is a fantastic performer inside of 500yds. It is only limited by the type of platform and sights used. Some think that the 5.56/223 is a mythical rounds that will travel around the world compared to the 7.62X39 and in their SHTF wet dreams will be hitting zombies at 900yds with their M4. I hate to tell you this but it's not. Every T.O. or T.M. will tell you ithat a 14.5 to 16in barrel is only accurate at 500yds for a point target. Aything past that is considered an area target. But this is acceptable as they are called "battle rifles" for a reason. They are not made to be bench rest guns like others would have you believe. I'm not confident in the 500 yard range for the 7.62x39. It would have a pretty bad trajectory at that range with a muzzle velocity of 2300fps and a poor BC bullet. Otherwise we are in complete agreement. My only beef with the 7.62x39 is that mil surplus ammo won't expand or fragment at the velocity it can be pushed to from a 16" barrel. If you look at some of the testing done with modern bullet designs in the 7.62x39 it performs exceptionally well. I'm not saying that 5.56, regardless of bullet, is anything magical. I think there are much better choices out there. But in the context of this discussion and general availability of ammo and platforms I think it is probably the best SHTF caliber for general defensive use. I actually like the 7.62x40, which functions well in the AR without the drawbacks of 7.62x39 and has a little bit better ballistics. It is an impressive caliber in the AR platform but still has the range limitations of the 7.62x39. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
