Wartime is almost entirely irrelevant, as the vast majority of killing and wounding in war is done with explosives, versus the shotguns, rifles and pistols that are significantly more likely to be used against you in a CONUS survival situation. In addition to that, having at least a squad sized element, usually with trained medics, and access to medivacs further differentiates between soldiers and civilians. Furthermore, "I don't want to get shot with it" isn't a smart way to choose what you defend yourself with, we've done that discussion thousands of times on this forum; nobody wants to get snapped with a rubber band, but that doesn't make it an effective weapon.

x39 will work, the biggest problem with it is most people buying it are buying it for the wrong reasons (it's cheap, so they buy garbage ammo that performs poorly) and the guns that fire them. Both of these issues can be fixed by spending the money to buy quality ammo, and spending the money to modernize an AK, but still.
The point of my above post was not that x39 won't work, but that wounding potential absolutely SHOULD be a priority in choosing ammunition. You're far more likely to need the wounding potential of good ammo than you are to need to expend thousands of rounds of junk ammo suppressing a position.

That second vid was great. Windshields are very hard on bullets and that x39 Fusion did very, very well to me. I know the 223 load is excellent and the 270 Fusion is a very solid performer but I wasn't sure about the x39. Looks like the whole line is a good option.

How any times in this thread has someone said "10.3" barrels with 77 grain bullets work for our men over seas?" Wartime experience is only relevant when we're talking about our weapon systems?

My question above was meant to inquire on the results of crap ammo on center mass shots of people. If you dont have the data thats fine. Im not an AK/762 fan boy. I have one for training and have killed 7 deer with it. Golden tiger ammo did more damage to the shoulder/organs than any 556 round that ive used, including 77hpbt noslers and bonded bullets.

Saying that most people buy crap ammo isnt a reason to write of the 762 as being inferior as some here have stated. Just like 556 there is good and bad ammo out there.

X51 NATO then...or 06'...or ....

A CTM hit by any round is gonna be pretty much a kill -eventually.

I guess it boils down to the end user and what they want.

Me..cheap and deep. Engagement ranges here are sub 200...most 0-75 yards. Dense foilage.
What a Guy in say Nevada uses is gonna be a lil different.

Folks just over think shit IMHO. Put your round of choice in the right spot and it'll do its job.

The CTM comment I made was honestly if were talking shtf firefights...wont matter to the Guy shot. His day is fucked. Can he still "be in the fight " ..yes he can.
But I've killed stuff with super duper wonder mangums blowing grapefruit sized holes in shit and got the same drt results from.lowly sp 30/30...
Placement is key...bigger /performance helps....

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

It depends on the type of data you're trying to derive from that wartime experience. Of course, it's going to be mere (unscientific, and not trustworthy because of that) anecdote, because neither of us have access to that information from the DOD, regardless of the fact that it isn't the same situation that a civilian needs to concern himself with. There's a difference between saying "77gr ammo has been used effectively overseas, therefore, will likely work well in CONUS" (something that is rather well documented, both from anecdotes and from scientific studies, such as gel tests) and trying to derive how many military personnel survive a specify type of wound from a specific loading used by our enemies, who don't keep records like we do, and then apply that to a situation where you or I are defending ourselves against people without support infrastructure like a soldier does. I mean, there's absolutely no way of knowing authoritatively whether a guy that has the exact wound we're looking for was shot with an AK or with a PKM. On top of that, the GWOT soldier has access to the best, most advanced first aid and medivac system to ever exist, which in of itself makes the situations utterly incomparable.
It's a roughly similar genre of discussion, but is different enough that they don't mesh well enough to draw adequate conclusions. But, hey, maybe you know something I don't and can correct me as to what I'm not seeing.

Regarding the second point, you said it yourself...it's shit ammo, and shit ammo performs like shit. As far as data, I'll do the work for you this go around, here's a graph from the ammo oracle on this very website showing typical performance of typical x39 ammo, in comparison to shittier 5.56 ammo, such as M855, and fairly decent ammo such as Mk262. (If all you wanted was the data, you should have said so, and I would have got that for you in my last post. )The only way this chart could get better was if it included the most overrated round in existence, 7.62x51 FMJ. (You can find the chart with that information on the ammo oracle.)

So theres no real world data on 762x39, fine you could have just said that which would have answered my question.

The ammo oracle pic only restates what I already said. The best 556 is a whole lot better then the worst 762.


fwiw you and i seem to be in agreement. I was just asking for data i havnt seen.

Uhh... the ammo oracle lists the best "real world" data we have in the form of gel tests. Furthermore, if you would read the chart, you will see it lists both M43 AND M855, and M855 is ANYTHING but the "best" 5.56 available.
Unfortunately, terminal ballistics isn't something that is easy to test, due to the variables inherent in such a chaotic event as a bullet hitting tissue and reacting to doing so. Gel tests are the best we have that can be scientifically analyzed and spoken about with some semblance of authority.
Did you even read my post, or did you just scroll past the graphic and post?

Yeah i read it. Did you read mine?

I wasnt refering to 855. I was refering to the 77hpbt

To me real world data is information gathered from autopsies or bn surgical units. Because of body armor and the medical treatment .mil recieves its hard to draw really good comparisons between the effectiveness of the 2 weapon systems beyond the ammo oracle that we've all seen for years. I was asking for any data that I might have missed

Full circle ad nauseam.

I think we're talking about two different things, but sure. The Ammo Oracle is the easiest to use receptacle of information we have on the subject matter, and it agrees with most everything else you read regarding the wounding potential for 7.62x39. Dollar a round ammo will work fine, most other is decent at best, terrible at worst. Most AK ammo is the latter. My overall point, I supposed, aside from "buy good shit" is "at least low end 5.56 has the potential to fragment."
There's also Ballistics In The Morgue, but it's anecdotal again. That's the trouble with autopsies, you can't control variables and get enough verifiable information to reliably make predictions. (Someone will inevitably disagree with me, but that's Arfcom for you.) As an example, a bullet recovered in an autopsy in the US could come from an 8" AK pistol or a 23" RPK, and anything in between, overseas it could be God knows what abomination from Pakistan. Then there's the crazy, unmeasurable things like will to live and drugs that can affect the outcome of a shooting.
It's the same thing we run into every time someone wants to try to mathematically show that x gun is better than y gun, which usually comes up at least once in threads like this.

I haven't shot a human before. I have shot plenty of animals. I've seen M193 kill something dead as a chip with one shot. I've seen a beaver take 6 rounds before it quit swimming around. I've seen 7.62x39 kill lots of things drt and I've seen a HP round blow a whitetail deer's shoulder clean off on exit. I can tell you that 7.62 will blow clear through most medium sized trees and keep going. 5.56 is more likely to be stopped.

Anyone that has shot enough animals will tell shot placement is king and you never can be sure that an animal is going to drop dead from being shot. People get all wrapped around the axle about this, but the truth is, they both will kill the crap out of stuff, people included. As a side note, people keep saying the AK lacks in ergonomics or needs modernizing or you can't accessorize it. You can easily attach a sling, light and optic to an AK. What else do you need?

Pick one and train with it. Or get both and train with both.

Don't know why I keep getting sucked back into this discussion...

Eta: Nameless Hobo, I'm not sure why I quoted you. I think I was going to say something else but got side tracked.

This. I personally think that anyone would be stupid to start their defensive battery nowadays with non-prolific calibers (6.5 grendel, .41AE, etc), but the simple fact is, those calibers are as capable as most anything to be found in the more mainstream choices; and a person using them would be as well-armed as they would be with the more common calibers.

Within very broad limits of reasonable power, as others have said, it really is a matter of "the indian, not the arrow".

Don't remember if I posted in here yet, probably did but I'll post again.

In a true SHTF/TEOTWAWKI scenario, it doesn't matter what you use. Wartime experience means little because of one thing...EMS.

If you're looking to drop someone DRT, brain hits are your only option. Even a .22LR will kill, if not from organ damage but from infection.  Point being, pick a platform and caliber you are comfortable with and stop worrying.

If you're concerned about defeating barriers in these types of scenarios, the bigger question is whay are you trying to defeat them?  Remember, if they aren't getting EMS then neither are you.

Simple is best. An AR  which is an army clone like a PSA, DPMS, S&W. Carbine length gas tube, standard front sight. Magpul MOE hadguard rail- they are lightweight, & cheap. For a stock I like the SOPMOD type as you can store batteries for your light in them. Also a tango down VFG if you are going to use a VFG because they hold a spare bolt head and firing pin, along with a pistol grip with storage for a retaining pin and cam pin .A good sling, a light like a M3. Rear sight - cut down a carry handle. For optics, I think the best choice is a trijicon reflex. They are very durable and don't use batteries.

For a back up, get a SKS and store it seperately with some stripper clips and a sardine can of ammo and one of those chi com chest racks that hold a bunch of clips.

I am not going to get into which rifle is best for self defense in a SHTF scenario( It's an AR). However, I strongly disagree with a .22 being a choice. I counted the other day and I know personally five people that were shot with a .22, ludicrous I know. However all of them were fine and all of them were walking around like nothing was wrong, and one of them was shot 7 times during a robbery. The FBI statistics put death from a .22 at about 7% of the time. But who cares about death as you pointed out, regardless you need a caliber where someone knows they are shot at least. Really any caliber of an actual rifle cartridge is  likely going to put a man out of the fight.

I'm not saying that .22 is a good choice.  I was trying to imply that any penetrating injury without medical care provides an unfavorable outcome.  5.56, x39, .308, etc are all better choices without question.

Where is Blain on this??



http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/27/marine-officials-endorse-infantry-plan--ditch-m16--m4/30145257/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Makin' it hot for ya.

Having an aneurysm is my guess.

A rifle for survival should be dictated by your location and situation. Reliability and ammunition selection should be some of the driving factors in your decision.

I use a AR as my go to rifle if the SHTF because I am familiar with it and I can break it down to a small package. Im in a urban / suburban environment so low profile is the way to go.

If I was in Alaska or a rural setting I'm sure I would choose something different like a bigger caliber or action type.

My AR is a fighting gun first and foremost since I'm in a urban / suburban environment. I have other things like snare sets, fishing tackle and smaller guns like a .22LR to harvest animals. My goal is to live to see another day and staying off the radar using passive collection of animals, foraging for edibles to supplement my food stores as much as possible. Being able to bring the pain to bear in short order is an advantage a magazine fed semi auto rifle has and I don't want to blow my load without a good reason.

Also two is one one is none, remember how gun owners were treated during Katrina? A second weapon outside of your primary AO is probably a good idea.

RON has said that qual scores have gone up with the use of the m4.

I shot over 30 wild dogs in Iraq in 2004. Over half were with 62gr FMJ out of a 14.5" M4. Took 2-3 rds to kill a dog. Small hole going in and a small hole going out. The dogs would run for three counties.

I took to shooting them in the shoulder to drop them, then running up and shooting them in the head for the kill. Still 2 rds minimum.

Shot 15 dogs with 77gr OTM rds, MK262, and all were on shot one kill. None of the rounds exited the carcass. Velocity was not the difference, round construction was.

I also shot one cat. That creature would not die. 3 shots including a head shot and it just looked at me and growled more. I finally walked away and let it bleed out. The KBR vector control guy did not like drowning them and asked me to shoot them instead. One attempt was enough for me. Thing was possessed.






And before you PETA MFR's freak out, the dogs were feral, not your normal family pet and were attacking soldiers and civilian contractors. I was given the mission to deal with the issue and I dealt with it.

Too bad you couldn't try out 55gr. As well just for comparison.

Ive shot a lot of animals with 193 and if it was between m193 an m855 ill choose m193 all day long

That's great info, thank you.

TANGOCHASER,
What was the shot placement on the dogs that ran off?

Almost all the shots with the 62gr were chest/lung shots on the ones that got away or bled out. The shoulder shots were effective in dropping them but required a head shot to finish them. The 77gr shots were all chest area hits. My big surprise was no exit wounds with the 77gr.

Largest dog was around 150 lbs. Some kind of German Shepard cross breed. Most were in the 50-60lb range.

I get pass throughs on 150lbs deer with 77 grain nosler CC if I dont hit a shoulder. It will exit after hitting 2 ribs inside 100 yards.

It seems anything smaller than a deer is to small to take advantage of a tumbling/fragmenting bullet past 50 yards. Inside 30-40 even m855 will work very well on yotes, foxes, minks, etc

also, all my culling has been with a 20" rifle

14.5 inch LWRC with Geissele SSA, WML and ACOG TA33 G-H..




If bigger trouble comes along:

I really think it's all dependent on geographical location and personal circumstances. I don't know exactly the type of SHTF scenario we're discussing, but for me, I live 200 yards outside the city limits of a small town.  Not too many natural disasters where I live in N. Carolina.  I prepare mainly for a martial law/economic scenario.  I honestly feel like an economic crisis is imminent in which case martial law could follow. There might be a few nut jobs that would use the situation to raise hell, but where I live, I feel like there are more good folks than bad and they would want to try to help out the needy in the community...Heck even the liberal hipsters doofuses would probably share a pint of closet brew with you before they'd even consider stealing from you.  

That being said, I like to think that I would see the signs and bug out to my predetermined destination early on in the event before the minority of psychos realize how bad things are about to get (and make things worse) and ESPECIALLY before NG/UN/some other government entity arrives on the scene to confiscate everything. which is why I've opted for suppressed 10.2 inch blackout (see John Noveske Recoil issue 4 except, minus the stock ). 300 blackout out of a shorter barrel has impressive ballistics, it's also quiet with 220 grainers should I ever (highly doubt unless hunting) have to use it.  I just wanted something that packs a punch yet small, compact and quiet that I can break down and throw in an unassuming backpack so as not to get it confiscated during my retreat to the boonies.

These types rufles are being used all over the world with great effect.  They're perfectly suited for pretty much any situation.  They will put down two and four legged creatures effectively.  IMO, I can think of few exceptions to this type of rifle being the perfect SHTF weapon.