User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 12:18:18 PM EDT
So last time around there were some complaints that I didn't use the right kind of concrete and the test results would have been different with "real" concrete. What do you say M1A firing M80 FMJ versus 16" AR firing M855 FMJ against roughly two inch thick concrete pavers. How many do you think each cartridge will penetrate? Will one cartridge penetrate better than the other? Don't cheat. Vote before you watch the test.
Link for phones |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 1:07:13 PM EDT
[#1]
7.62mm is of course just a larger round and is going to do more damage no matter what. I didn't even think the 5.56mm would make it through that concrete because it tends to fragment much easier. I prefer the 5.56mm for home defense because of it's lack of penetration. Just like in the .45acp vs 9mm debates there are advantages and disadvantages to both calibers. 5.56mm you can carry more ammo with less weight. 7.62mm can reach out farther and do more damage. But that's a good video and it does show that the 5.56mm is a plenty capable round just like the larger 7.62mm round. If I'm shooting at cars or barriers or something I'm still going to prefer the heavier 7.62mm round to get through better. But for the most part the 5.56mm is a good all around caliber.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:07:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
7.62mm is of course just a larger round and is going to do more damage no matter what. . 
thats not true at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:19:36 PM EDT
[#3]
My guess is ... the M80 will cause more damage then a M855 round... IMHO that is what is really meant by "Turn cover into concealment".... watching video now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 9:50:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Hi,
Its a nice test thanks for posting it. The USMC did the same test with similar results, but also did it wIth angled fire, with different results with 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 both giving significantly better results than 5.56x45 M855 (link below). My son ran into this first hand in Iraq in a fire fight between brick houses in a compound, M855 rounds only cratered the brick, but the WW2 era 7.62x39 round were punching through. They eventually had to call in an air strike to destroy the stronghold. My son purchased a 7.62x51 battle rifle as soon as he got back for his personal use. Regards: USMC PENETRATION TEST VIDEO |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 9:59:03 AM EDT
[#5]
I don't usually watch a lot of the vids people post on here but I've watched a few of yours. I particularly liked the arrow vs body armor test.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:40:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 3:24:46 AM EDT
[#7]
I'm actually shocked the M855 did so well. Curious why more people don't use 20" barrels on their AR's though. Velocity is the .223's main trate, so why deprive it of velocity with shorter barrels? Which is why I like to see tests with M193 out of 20" barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 4:23:24 AM EDT
[#8]
If the sole consideration is good terminal effect at as long a range as possible, a twenty inch barrel makes sense. A 10" barrel will produce great terminal effect with heavy OTM or medium weight soft point at distances beyond what is remotely likely for civilian defense, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 8:48:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Thanks for posting the video and I thought the 7.62 would have done more damage but your testing shows otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 8:58:31 AM EDT
[#10]
7.62 is clearly going to do more damage because it has rifle velocity and 2.5 - 3 times more mass. Like one of the other posters, I'm amazed at how well M855 did.
We had the same experience in Iraq - as soon as things heated up and we had some engagements with people in concrete block buildings, everybody dumped their 249s from the top of the HUMVEE and scrambled to find more fifties. Having said all that it's still kind of impressive the little M855 can do that well. M4/AR15 pattern rifles "jack of all trades, master of none". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 10:42:16 AM EDT
[#11]
M855 FMJ has a steel perpetrator M193 seems more comparable to copper jacketed lead 762NATO ball |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:34:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M855 FMJ has a steel perpetrator M193 seems more comparable to copper jacketed lead 762NATO ball That is true. Seems like that would be better comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:44:36 AM EDT
[#13]
I could have used a longer or shorter barrel, too. The "myth" that I'm testing is the oft repeated assertion that the M14 was a better combat rifle (despite its many flaws) because it could punch through cover better than the M16/M4/AR. The two ammunition types are the commonly issued FMJ for each rifle. I chose a 16" to split the difference between M4 and M16.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:11:04 PM EDT
[#14]
I remember reading about the penetration abilities of M80 vs the standard 7.62 x54. Best I recall they can both pass though 4" of concrete. And I have seen the 7.62x54R pass though a 8" thick tree trunk. I would expect 7.62x51 NATO to The be similar in ability. But maybe that mild steel core allowed the Russian round deeper penetration though wood?
Maybe next time use a medium that doesn't crack as easily from impact? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:25:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Yeah, next test is wood. I only redid the concrete because so many people complained that the other one was the "wrong" kind since the results weren't what they expected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 9:18:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, next test is wood. I only redid the concrete because so many people complained that the other one was the "wrong" kind since the results weren't what they expected. While this has nothing to do with these results... A friends .458 Lott w/ 500gr Horn. FMJ's 2400 FPS muzzle, will go through 39 1/2 inchs of one piece of wood with and against the grain... that has always impressed the heck out of me. Sometimes mass is King. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:35:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Well, to be fair, there's a respectable bit of velocity with all that mass. I have no protective to put that in but it sounds like a LOT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:41:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Do the test further out. Or use reduced loads to simulate distance. Shooting concrete 10ft away isn't a good representation of the real world, in my opinion. Like your work, keep it up.
|
|
|
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.
