Why cant you guys admit 7.62x39mm is superior to 5.56?! - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why cant you guys admit 7.62x39mm is superior to 5.56?! (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:05:08 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
well this proves you are a troll once and for all.

You've never once answered any questions. Whos the troll?

That's because you ask the most assinine questions possible. You're not worth giving a serious answer to.

Your not banned yet??

No.

I've been here about 20 times longer than you have, but oddly only have 3 times the number of posts.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:05:18 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
[no life] How in the fuck can you have that many posts in only a couple of months? [/no life]
Your rate of post is like one a second or in lay man terms = a hell of alot more votes than kErrys gittin

+1

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:06:11 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
well this proves you are a troll once and for all.

You've never once answered any questions. Whos the troll?

That's because you ask the most assinine questions possible. You're not worth giving a serious answer to.

Your not banned yet??

No.

I've been here about 20 times longer than you have, but oddly only have 3 times the number of posts.

And even more strange, have probably contributed half as much.
I say again

Your not banned yet?

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:06:49 PM EDT

[#4]

My baseball has more mass than a 7.62. It must be a "better" than 7.62, and run rings around 5.56, right?

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:07:48 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
My baseball has more mass than a 7.62. It must be a "better" than 7.62, and run rings around 5.56, right?

Its that whole velocity squared thing..... Or was it mass times the coefficient of the diameter?
Fuck man, I never was very good at math.....

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:08:10 PM EDT

[#6]

Specop_007,

Have you actually read through ammo-oracle? If not, then do so. It explains it in black and white. I love AK's and AR's, but it is a fact that FMJ 7.62X39 is inferior to FMJ 5.56mm if you are using ammo that has a thin jacket that will reliably fragment. If you use Wolf 5.56mm, whose jacket is a copper-steel-copper 'sandwich', and which does not fragment, then the two calibers are comparable.

If you don't read through ammo-oracle and all of Dr. Fackler's articles tacked up in the Ammo Forum, then you'll just continue to be ignorant.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:09:12 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Your not banned yet?

My not banned yet what?

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:09:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets be realistic here. The 7.62x39mm is a larger bullet and carries more energy. Why cant you guys clearly see its preferable to the 5.56 due to this fact??

Sounds like you like AK's/SKS more than AR's?

No, I actually prefer the AR's.
I just dont want a hole eaten into my stomach from the ulcer I was getting by watching the news. I knew if anything would get the Arfcommers to action on something BESIDES the election it was this topic.

In all honestly, I appreciate both for what they are.
Very effective mankillers.

So you admit to being a

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:09:51 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Specop_007,

Have you actually read through ammo-oracle? If not, then do so. It explains it in black and white. I love AK's and AR's, but it is a fact that FMJ 7.62X39 is inferior to FMJ 5.56mm if you are using ammo that has a thin jacket that will reliably fragment. If you use Wolf 5.56mm, whose jacket is a copper-steel-copper 'sandwich', and which does not fragment, then the two caliber are comparable.

If you don't read through ammo-oracle and all of Dr. Fackler's articles tacked up in the Ammo Forum, then you'll just continue to be ignorant.

Dude... Your takin this all too seriously....
Read my posts on the first page, it'll come together for ya.

And yes, I have read it. For man killin I want a 5.56. For 4 legged huntin, 7.62.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:10:30 PM EDT

[#10]

All right Mr Speck op lets send you to battle you get a rifle and 1000rnds of ammuniton.

.223 with it's 55gr bullet or

7.62X39 with it's 123gr bullet over twice the weight

Now which one was it you wanted to carry through the hot desert sand again?

Even the stupid communists were smart enough to switch to the smaller bullet weight so they could carry more ammo.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:10:40 PM EDT

[#11]

update:

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:10:44 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets be realistic here. The 7.62x39mm is a larger bullet and carries more energy. Why cant you guys clearly see its preferable to the 5.56 due to this fact??

Sounds like you like AK's/SKS more than AR's?

No, I actually prefer the AR's.
I just dont want a hole eaten into my stomach from the ulcer I was getting by watching the news. I knew if anything would get the Arfcommers to action on something BESIDES the election it was this topic.

In all honestly, I appreciate both for what they are.
Very effective mankillers.

So you admit to being a

Actually, in this case....
YES.

>

And by being a

it keeps me from feeling

from watching election info

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:11:36 PM EDT

[#13]

real life troll:

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:11:43 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
All right Mr Speck op lets send you to battle you get a rifle and 1000rnds of ammuniton.

.223 with it's 55gr bullet or

7.62X39 with it's 123gr bullet over twice the weight

Now which one was it you wanted to carry through the hot desert sand again?

Even the stupid communists were smart enough to switch to the smaller bullet weight so they could carry more ammo.

1) You spelled my name wrong
2) Read my posts on the first page. This is a farce
3) A fuckin stud like me could hump 1000 rounds of .50 cal with nothing more then a bit of a sweat forming on my brow

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:12:41 PM EDT

[#15]

YEAH BITCH!!!

Bush - 195
Kerry Troll - 112

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:14:49 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Dude... Your takin this all too seriously....
Read my posts on the first page, it'll come together for ya.

And yes, I have read it. For man killin I want a 5.56. For 4 legged huntin, 7.62.

Good. You were scaring me more than the damn polls here in NH.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:17:50 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude... Your takin this all too seriously....
Read my posts on the first page, it'll come together for ya.

And yes, I have read it. For man killin I want a 5.56. For 4 legged huntin, 7.62.

Good. You were scaring me more than the damn polls here in NH.

Yeah, but it got your mind off the election for a minute didnt it.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:18:21 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Lets be realistic here. The 7.62x39mm is a larger bullet and carries more energy. Why cant you guys clearly see its preferable to the 5.56 due to this fact??

take your

ass back to the DU where you belong!!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:19:06 PM EDT

[#19]

Probably because it's not ballistically!!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:19:40 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets be realistic here. The 7.62x39mm is a larger bullet and carries more energy. Why cant you guys clearly see its preferable to the 5.56 due to this fact??

take your ass back to the DU where you belong!!

I was banned from there.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:22:22 PM EDT

[#21]

Bush - ~~170~~ ~~176~~193

Kerry - 112

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:22:29 PM EDT

[#22]

You know I hear 9mm is better than .45 too

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:22:59 PM EDT

[#23]

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:23:01 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Bush - ~~170~~ ~~176~~193
Kerry - 112

SWEET!

Errrr...

Take your political shit somewhere else!!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:24:01 PM EDT

[#25]

AIRSOFT RULES!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:24:09 PM EDT

[#26]

Probably because it's not ballistically!! The 7.62X39 may have more energy and yes i grant that a larger bullet will retain more kinetic energy, BUT, that is not the end of discussion, because it also has to do with how effectively it uses the energy it has!

7.62X39 stays together punches one hole haphazzardly!

5.56 tumples and eventually flys apart catastrophically inside body causing not just a hole and a energy dump but a really nasty wound that bleeds like hell and isn't stopped easily!!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:25:45 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Probably because it's not ballistically!! The 7.62X39 may have more energy and yes i grant that a larger bullet will retain more kinetic energy, BUT, that is not the end of discussion, because it also has to do with how effectively it uses the energy it has!

7.62X39 stays together punches one hole haphazzardly!

5.56 tumples and eventually flys apart catastrophically inside body causing not just a hole and a energy dump but a really nasty wound that bleeds like hell and isn't stopped easily!!

But earlier someone said it fragments. Paintballs fragment too. Paintballs dont really do any damage at all. How can a 5.56 round do any damage if it fragments like a paintball.
Are you tryin to pull a fast one on me??

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:26:59 PM EDT

[#28]

I've always been under the impression ...

Use an AR15 to shoot rag heads.

Use an AK47 to shoot rag heads in cars.

I can be wrong.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:29:45 PM EDT

[#29]

7.62X39 s a Commie cartridge, hence it's crap by association. [At least, it ought to be.]

It's good because surplus plinking ammo is cheap; i.e., it's a good can killer.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:30:08 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Lets be realistic here. The 7.62x39mm is a larger bullet and carries more energy. Why cant you guys clearly see its preferable to the 5.56 due to this fact??

Show me an affordable 7.62x39 semi that has an ungodly supply of spare parts AND will hold 1 MOA while maintaining combat accuracy...

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:30:14 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I've always been under the impression ...

Use an AR15 to shoot rag heads.

Use an AK47 to shoot rag heads in cars.

I can be wrong.

That sounds good. I like that.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:34:10 PM EDT

[#32]

Patrick Purdy shot 35 children in California with an AK-47
Only five of the kids died

The terminal ballastics on the AK sucks.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:36:48 PM EDT

[#33]

I don't play with childrens' toys!

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:37:50 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Patrick Purdy shot 35 children in California with an AK-47
Only five of the kids died

The terminal ballastics on the AK sucks.

Any bullet sucks when you dont hit center mass

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:40:28 PM EDT

[#35]

30.06

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:42:34 PM EDT

[#36]

The 7.62 is merely a good suppresive fire weapon. The .223/5.56 is for pin point accuracy.
I've never killed a groundhog with an AK at 250yds open sightsor scoped, but I have with my oly open sights at 250yds and out to 350yds+ with a scope made by ATN. Hands down .223.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:42:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
A shotgun is also the best home defense weapon. I saw it on tv.

The AR hurts more than the AK because the AR bullet tumbles through the air.

I saw that on TV, too.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:42:51 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably because it's not ballistically!! The 7.62X39 may have more energy and yes i grant that a larger bullet will retain more kinetic energy, BUT, that is not the end of discussion, because it also has to do with how effectively it uses the energy it has!

7.62X39 stays together punches one hole haphazzardly!

5.56 tumples and eventually flys apart catastrophically inside body causing not just a hole and a energy dump but a really nasty wound that bleeds like hell and isn't stopped easily!!

But earlier someone said it fragments. Paintballs fragment too. Paintballs dont really do any damage at all. How can a 5.56 round do any damage if it fragments like a paintball.
Are you tryin to pull a fast one on me??

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:43:31 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I don't play with childrens' toys!

members.cox.net/southparkmilitia/images/guns/spud/spudgun1.jpg

OK, so which has better stopping power, the Russet or Idaho?

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:51:02 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Patrick Purdy shot 35 children in California with an AK-47
Only five of the kids died

The terminal ballastics on the AK sucks.

Any bullet sucks when you dont hit center mass

In Vietnam, there were many reports of the then new M16 blowing off limbs. 'Course, reports also ran the gamut from "just punches neat holes" to leaving huge, gaping wounds.

It's a velocity thing for the .223. It'll tumble and fragment quick if it's going over 2800 fps. Needs more flesh to travel through under that speed or it won't tumble right.

The speed thing is why some reports from Iraq have been bad. The short barrel of the M4, combined with the heavier SS109/M855 62gr bullet, means that the velocity sheds off faster.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:51:25 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
The 7.62 is merely a good suppresive fire weapon. The .223/5.56 is for pin point accuracy.
I've never killed a groundhog with an AK at 250yds open sightsor scoped, but I have with my oly open sights at 250yds and out to 350yds+ with a scope made by ATN. Hands down .223.

Sooo, what your sayin is your just a bad shot then?

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:53:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
...
OK, so which has better stopping power, the Russet or Idaho?

Rose potatoes have the highest sectional density and therefore the highest ballistic coefficient of any tuber I've tested.

But not as good as a solid ice round.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:54:01 PM EDT

[#43]

My uncle was shot in the thigh in Vietnam with an AK. Nasty thru and thru, missed his femoral artery by mm. They had to take out a good chunk of the entrance and exit wound. I have seen the damage they cause, and its not pretty. I am sure the M193 of that area was nastier. Just getting shot period, sux.

Posted: 11/2/2004 6:56:48 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:

www.ammo-oracle.com/

You link to a big webpage??

5.56
7.62x39mm

The 7.62 clearly has more energy.

It has a trajectory like a softball.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why cant you guys admit 7.62x39mm is superior to 5.56?! (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us