Quoted: I will try to be as objective in this as posible.  We see these same statements over and over again, but............ 1) you can not compare the 5.56 to the 7.62 X 39. It is a much older round dumped almost 30 years ago. Compare current rounds, 5.56 (62 grain) with the 5.45.

Ok try a .222 Rem vs a 5.56 x 45 NATO

2) Ergonomics is always the opinion of a single individual. 3) Dr. Facklers name is always brought into this arguement.  A) Who is he? (credentials) B) When was his study done?  C) Who was he working for (posible biases)?

Dr. Fackler's work with the DA should not color his judgment.  He has disseceted countless lab tests (animal, cadaver and ballistic geletine)and has autopsied many actual combat wounds from Vietnam to present.  He is a leader in the field of ballistic wound study and contributes to the professional journal "Ballistics Wound Review"

4) Many have stated that the 5.45 has much beter performance in periferal hits. What is the combat ratio of periferal hits to torso hits? [/qoute}  I do not know.  Most wounds are from indirect fire and as such, small arms are not the predominate mechanism of force reduction. The 5.56 x 45 has a much longer service record but even so, the mythical potential of the Soviet-Bloc immitator has never been proven in the lab or field.   I just always see the same arguements thrown around like they are gospel...just a thought, not taking a side in either camp. ScottFn308, don't let Campy see this arguement, he'll flip his lid. Edited to ad that I am not asking for the same old six page long links, just short sweet simple answers.  I am sure I am not the only one who has though this.

ar15 or m16 you can carry a lot more ammo, it's smaller and lighter. The 5.56x45 is more effective at killing the target. The ar15 or m15 looks better and doesn't have the jamming problems anymore. The firing pin cant the the primer unless the bolt is locked making the weapon much more safe. you have a forward assist so you can be sure the next round will fire. If you have an A2 upper, you can adjust your sights for any range quickly.

The ak47 is inaccurate, the cartage is heaver and bigger so you cant carry as much ammo. The 7.62x39 is not as effective. the weapon was invented over 60 years ago, the ak47 was the German STG44 with a few small changes and re-named the ak47. outdated piece of junk and just plain ugly.

I say get an AR15 or M16 don't waste your money on an ak47. If you must have an ak47 buy a new SAIGA .308 its an ak47 converted to .308 with black synthetic stocks.

the SAIGA's cost $3-400.00 new.

If you want to see what a german STG model 1944 (STG44) looks like go to this web page, not much different then an AK47 now is it?

http://aster.iespana.es/aster/Library/stg44.htm

Keith_J, I was not trying to denounce Dr. Fackler or his work, just trying to see it from his side.

I do not understand your arguement "try a .222 Vs a 5.56 Nato"
I know of the history of both rounds, but I do not understand what point you are making.

Quoted: , the bullets being shot out of M4's tend not to do what you see in your diagram. They're tending not to frangize, or frangate, or whatever you call that.  Instead, they tend to stay perfectly in tact, not yaw at all, and go in and out of the target very quickly.

Dave that is HIGHLY dependant on range.

Rounds WILL fragment within the 2700fps envelope - which is much shorter for the M4 than it is for the M16A2.

The 5.45x39mm military round, however, from all reports I've heard, yaws pretty much every time, and gets the job done.

Yaws yes - but that does minimal extra dammage.  Get the Job done?  WTF does that mean.

Care to share your reports?

The 7.62x39mm is a .30 cal round, so at least it makes a bigger hole than the 5.56, no matter what.

Only at extended ranges (read greater than typical combat engagement distances).  Inside the typical distances the 5.56 rounds make much bigger holes.

I don't see the similarities between the STG44 and the AK47.  Aside from having a wooden stock, they are completely different.