Killing power at distance: 762x39 versus 5.56

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Killing power at distance: 762x39 versus 5.56 (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 1/13/2008 8:46:25 AM EDT

I am currently trying to decide which platform to optimize as my primary go-to gun if I were forced to leave my house for an extended period of time. While it is good to have several weapons, in the end you will only grab one.

Whenever you ask that question of yourself you always have to weigh: number of cartridges you can carry, reliability of the weapon under adverse conditions with no resupply, weight of the weapon and ammo, overall effectiveness of the cartridge and various other issues.

Clearly, if you were defending your neighborhood against LA Rioters driving around in Oldsmobiles you would want something like a 7.62x51 or even 7.62x39 to penetrate those vehicles. And you really wouldn't care about weight as you aren't humping the rifle or ammo very far.

On the other side, a lightweight M4 with 55 grain 5.56 is a backpacking dream but might be suspect for long distance shots or badguy in vehicle use; or worst case, reliability under adverse conditions with no resupply.

In reviewing the ballistic tests of all the rounds I noticed that most all of the tests were done from some unrealistic distance of 15" to a couple of feet.

I would propose that a pellet gun would have effect at 15".

What about 500 yards? If you had to choose amongts the 7.62x39 or 5.56 offerings and considered a "worst case" use at 500 yards, which would be the most effective round?

At 500 yards you must consider bullet design, velocity, wind drift, drop and energy.

Which of the two rounds are the most effective at that distance, all things considered?

1. Assume your choice of round (75gr OTM versus say a good Lapua FMJ or SP).

2. We need to stick to the calibers above. We all know a 300 Mag would be better.

3. Assume you actually "DO" want to shoot at that distance for whatever reason.

4. Assume a good quality AK for the 7.62x39 and either an M4-16" or a AR15-20" Govt contour barrel. No heavy guns in this study. Also assume you have a scope attached.

Posted: 1/13/2008 8:51:13 AM EDT

[#1]

I'm pretty sure that at 500yd, .30cal is the better choice of the two.

That said, as bad as some SHTF might get, I really will do everything in my power to avoid any engagement at distances like that. If you've got over a quarter mile between you and the BG, unless you're in an open field or stretch of highway, there's a good chance you can find cover pretty easily and avoid the gunfight.

It's not likely to be a "war", you don't have to press on and take the hill/bunker/pillbox.

Just my $0.02.

Posted: 1/13/2008 8:57:23 AM EDT

[#2]

Edited to add: That for whatever reason you actually want to shoot badguys at 500 yards

Posted: 1/13/2008 9:16:13 AM EDT

[#3]

If your worried about shooting at 500yrds.
Then get rid of that M4 upper and replace it with a 20inch HB and a ACOG...

That will take care of your 500yrd issues.

I really like the Marines approch....M16-A4

Posted: 1/13/2008 10:47:40 AM EDT

[#4]

I am currently trying to decide which platform to optimize as my primary go-to gun if I were forced to leave my house for an extended period of time. While it is good to have several weapons, in the end you will only grab one.

Whenever you ask that question of yourself you always have to weigh: number of cartridges you can carry, reliability of the weapon under adverse conditions with no resupply, weight of the weapon and ammo, overall effectiveness of the cartridge and various other issues.

Clearly, if you were defending your neighborhood against LA Rioters driving around in Oldsmobiles you would want something like a 7.62x51 or even 7.62x39 to penetrate those vehicles. And you really wouldn't care about weight as you aren't humping the rifle or ammo very far.

On the other side, a lightweight M4 with 55 grain 5.56 is a backpacking dream but might be suspect for long distance shots or badguy in vehicle use; or worst case, reliability under adverse conditions with no resupply.

In reviewing the ballistic tests of all the rounds I noticed that most all of the tests were done from some unrealistic distance of 15" to a couple of feet.

I would propose that a pellet gun would have effect at 15".

What about 500 yards? If you had to choose amongts the 7.62x39 or 5.56 offerings and considered a "worst case" use at 500 yards, which would be the most effective round?

SHTF.......consider, where you are. Is "law and order" returning soon or never?

You mentioned: "out the door" with whatever you can carry.......so, consider.......what do you suppose will be best for, "blending in and bartering?"

Murphy Rules.
_____________________________

Have you shot an AR and/or AK at 500 yrds? Try it with iron sights. Your scope may be a victim of Murphy.

And, do you really think the M4 w/ "special rounds" will cut it at 500 yds? Or, should you have picked the 20" AR to begin with?
_____________________________

Clearly, different senarios will require different tools to be most effective. Anyway.....good luck.

Aloha, Mark

Posted: 1/13/2008 10:59:50 AM EDT

[#5]

I would venture that no matter the AK platform, 500 yard shots will be wholly suspect. Despite my wanting to say that at 500 yd the 7.62x39 round would perform better terminally, you would be far more likely to hit what you were aiming at with an HBAR 20" AR or a SPR clone.

At 500 yds, I would imagine the 123 gr Winchester Power Point wouldn't show much expansion. The 123 gr Vmax would, but again we're faced with actually hitting the target, and hitting a man-sized target at 500 yds with an AK and irons is more luck than skill.

The 75 and 77 gr .224 diameter match rounds would certainly score hits at those distances, but there is debate as to their fragmentation at those distances (some people want to use the same threshold of energy - 900 ft-lbs - for the fragmentation of the match rounds as the military FMJ rounds despite their different construction). The 60 gr Vmax would probably expand at that distance, but at closer ranges it is an unsatisfactory performer unless you're being attacked by roving bulimic gangs.

Posted: 1/13/2008 11:21:03 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I would venture that no matter the AK platform, 500 yard shots will be wholly suspect. Despite my wanting to say that at 500 yd the 7.62x39 round would perform better terminally, you would be far more likely to hit what you were aiming at with an HBAR 20" AR or a SPR clone.
At 500 yds, I would imagine the 123 gr Winchester Power Point wouldn't show much expansion. The 123 gr Vmax would, but again we're faced with actually hitting the target, and hitting a man-sized target at 500 yds with an AK and irons is more luck than skill.

The 75 and 77 gr .224 diameter match rounds would certainly score hits at those distances, but there is debate as to their fragmentation at those distances (some people want to use the same threshold of energy - 900 ft-lbs - for the fragmentation of the match rounds as the military FMJ rounds despite their different construction). The 60 gr Vmax would probably expand at that distance, but at closer ranges it is an unsatisfactory performer unless you're being attacked by roving bulimic gangs.

Well put. If you actually need to make 500 yard shots, you will be best served with a 20" 5.56 AR or better still, a .308 M-1, FAL or AR-10 variant.

IME, at least the ones I have used, the AK is not a consistent 500 yard gun.

ETA: Re-read your original post. Forget the AK, and go with a 16-20" AR. My preference is for 14.5 and 16" variants of the AR. Even the worst AR is more accurate than a typical AK. Ammo is lighter, so you can carry more. And the AR is plenty reliable and durable enough, IMO.

Posted: 1/13/2008 5:05:38 PM EDT

[#7]

I will echo what others have said about the AR. At 500yds, generally speaking the ballistic energy of the 223 is roughly equivalent to a 22mag at the muzzle.

The average AR-15 will probably be at least twice as accurate as the average AK.

Posted: 1/13/2008 6:45:36 PM EDT

[#8]

Killing power at a distance of say 500M or so is a moot point based on the OP's 7.63X39 V 5.56mm. As the distance between you and said target increases, the "lethality" of the cartridge becomes less important compared to the hit probability that can wound or kill the enemy. Given the awesome lethality of 5.56mm ammo at closer range, coupled with its flatter trajectory over distance, makes it a sure winner.

Posted: 1/13/2008 7:16:14 PM EDT

[#9]

Dude, you'd be lucky to hit anything with that AK (and those crappy iron sights) at 100M let alone 500M. If long distance hits are your concern, the solution is simple, an AR 20" HBAR with Black Hills 68, 69, 75 or 77-gr projectiles. If you are using iron sights, you'll have trouble seeing too much past 250M, let alone hitting it.

Posted: 1/13/2008 7:32:28 PM EDT

[#10]

Your choice of weapons systems is flawed from the start when accuracy is considered. The average AK is by no means an accurate 500yd. weapon. So a miss with the more powerful 7.62x39mm is still a miss.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&NR=1

Posted: 1/13/2008 7:51:24 PM EDT

[#11]

I can put holes in things at 500 yards with my Bushy 20in Govt 1/9 w/ACOG and BH 75gr ammo all day. I can also put holes in cans at 25yds with my Yugo underfolder AK and WOLF 124gr MC HP all day. I put holes in cans cheaper though.

Posted: 1/13/2008 7:53:52 PM EDT

[#12]

If I hit a guy at 500 yards with my .223 round that doesn't expand, I bet he will quit the fight. If he hangs around much longer, I bet I will hit him again. You can never miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

Posted: 1/13/2008 7:58:06 PM EDT

[#13]

M1a is hard to beat at 500 yards

I have a verp k with glass that with shoot 500 yards all day

in 7.62 x 39

Posted: 1/13/2008 8:25:49 PM EDT

[#14]

I think if your shooting a 55grn xm-193 at 3300 fps or a 123 grn .762x39 at 2300fps you'll find that the energy at 500yds. is around 350 or so with either cartridge. By the way..... a few years ago I shot two silhouette rams at 500 meters with a Ruger mini-30 using cheap russian plain brown wrapper hp. ammo.It seems to me I read the ram weigh around 65lbs. and they went down very..very slowly.I've never tried that with my AR-15 but it would be fun to know? The mystery here is that I've never hand loaded a .762x39 cartridge that printed better than 2 1/2" at 100yds. for this Ruger. My Colt sp-1(1976)will shoot 1in. with pet hand loads so I guess it would be my choice if need be.

Posted: 1/13/2008 9:23:36 PM EDT

[#15]

I have a ruger M77 in 7.62 x 39 and it will do 1'' groups at 100 yard with pmc or umc ammo

Posted: 1/14/2008 7:52:38 PM EDT

[#16]

Thanks for your reponses. Some of you didn't notice that I said both the AK and AR would be scoped.

But most didn't answer the question; instead saying that no one can hit anything with an AK.

It would be interesting to load a round in either caliber and shoot it at geletan at the velocity simulating 500 yards to see what you get.

I do know that I get a "clang" with an AK and a "ting" with 5.56 and a "smack" with a 308.

Posted: 1/14/2008 8:15:35 PM EDT

[#17]

7.62x51. You can get a light enough rifle in 7.62 nato and you will have all of the power and range you would ever need....plus .308 ammo can be found anywhere.

CMS

Posted: 1/15/2008 1:29:43 AM EDT

[#18]

These conversations always bring a question to mind. I noticed you said "leave my house for an extended period of time." By that I assume that you would, indeed return at some point. But if the S really HTF, I mean REALLY HTF (big-time), then should we consider returning at all?
Everyone talks of what they would carry when bugging out, but I can't help but wonder to where, for how long, and is there a return trip ? That depends on a lot of different factors.(I'm not going into that) Sure, everyone is going to carry what they can and pick up things along they way as needed. But if things are really that bad, does it matter what your carrying ?
I for one will grab anything that goes bang. Forget about terminal ballistics. The survival instinct kicks-in and you do what you can with whatever is available. If you bo with an M4 (or whatever)and run out of ammo, what will you do if you run across a cache of Romy G AK's (or whatever)and cases of ammo ? Press-on till you find a couple of boxes of hand-loaded Seirra Match Kings ? NOT !
I'm sorry . . . to answer your question, the 5.56 would be more effective at 500 simply because you have a better chance of hitting the target. Forget knock-down power at that range. Simply hitting the target.

Posted: 1/15/2008 1:49:38 AM EDT

[#19]

Agreed long distance "killin' power" isnt really that important. Short range is where its at, at long distance the chance of the guy killing me with his last breath is slim to none. You can just wait till he bleeds out.

Posted: 1/15/2008 10:48:00 AM EDT

[#20]

It doesn't matter how big your bullet is if it's not hitting the target. In general, AK's aren't very accurate at distances and I've seen people staying on target at 800+ yards with 16" AR15's. One .223/5.56 on the target is better than an entire magazine full of big bad 7.62 that never even comes close. Scopes have nothing to do with it, most AK's aren't consistent so you could have whatever scope you wanted on it and never hit the bad guys. I have heard of exceptions to this is concerning some of the more high end AK variants.
As for shtf, most fighting in modern war is expected to take place in urban centers. A civilian would not often have to engage a target at that distance, most of the fighting would take place much closer. The likelyhood of fighting out in the open areas of the country are slim. America is so large, with too many major city centers, and any invading force would be exausted just trying to hold the major capitals. The countryside would probably never see any major military incursions.
As for weight, if you are worried about the weight difference between 7.62 and 5.56, or an AK vs. an AR, you need to do some pushups or get some handweights or something. I'm not saying you are weak, it's just that we're are talking about winning a war, not the Kentucky Derby.

Posted: 1/15/2008 11:08:05 AM EDT

[#21]

But if things are really that bad, does it matter what your carrying ?

Say the invasion (SHTF) came and the enemy troops are carrying AKs. So, I see you at 500 yds carrying an AK. Do I shoot you or wait till you get closer to ask you: Friend or Foe?

Is there a court and jury operating to have a trial?

Aloha, Mark

Posted: 1/15/2008 11:13:15 AM EDT

[#22]

Thanks for your reponses. Some of you didn't notice that I said both the AK and AR would be scoped.

But most didn't answer the question; instead saying that no one can hit anything with an AK.

It would be interesting to load a round in either caliber and shoot it at geletan at the velocity simulating 500 yards to see what you get.

I do know that I get a "clang" with an AK and a "ting" with 5.56 and a "smack" with a 308.

You sounded frustrated and angry in that post. Did you really expect to have a definitive answer from some gelatin junkie who had done the experiment at 500 yds?

You are always welcome to try......w/ your own $......don't forget to share the results.

Aloha, Mark

Posted: 1/15/2008 11:34:11 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
If I hit a guy at 500 yards with my .223 round that doesn't expand, I bet he will quit the fight. If he hangs around much longer, I bet I will hit him again. You can never miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

Big +1

This answer made the tread worth reading.

Dk

Posted: 1/15/2008 12:22:40 PM EDT

[#24]

At 500 yds an AK if pretty damn iffy... and I'm not saying that because I dislike AK's. I have 3, and 7.62x39 does not have the oomph to effectively hit or kill on a consistent level at that range. I shot my SAM-7SF out to 600yds this summer and hitting a man hole cover at that distance was 25%-30% at best. It was easy with a .308. Go with 7.62 NATO and you'll be happier if you ever did need to use it.

CMS

Posted: 1/15/2008 12:48:57 PM EDT

[#25]

what i have found with shooting my ar15 at 400 yards with 77gr fodder is that the slighest wind pushes that little bullet all over the place. if i was zero'ed on a clam day i could be 2 or 3 feet off, left or right depending on the wind. let's not even talk about 55gr ammo and the wind!

that being the case i would still pick the ar15 since ammo is going to be as abundant as 7.62 and the accuracy would be better, at least in MY rifles. my ar15 battlefield rifle is a 20" gov profile barrel but cold bore shots are plenty accurate. as for bug out ammo, i dont think anything short of heavy match is gonna do all that well at 500 yds, accuracy wise. i have alot of different kinds of 55gr and 62gr mil-surp and it all shoots differently out of different barrels. i am stocked on 75gr black hills for my rainy day.

i think from a weight standpoint, i am picking the ar15. have you ever loaded up with 8 to 12 mags of 7.62x39? no thanks.......lol

hope that heps.

Posted: 1/15/2008 3:43:48 PM EDT

[#26]

Aloha Mark: no I wasnt' frustrated; just pointing out that the discussion had veered from ballistics to rifle. Which I guess is fair because you cannot divorce the two completely.

I agree that hit probability is important, it is just that at 700 yards I don't see much difference between the AR and the AK in that department. I shoot regularly at up to 800 yards (Utah) in which I can see the impact in soft dirt. You know, aim at a small boulder and see how close you group to the side of that boulder.

While the 5.56 and AR are technically more accurate; the wind tends to be the great equalizer at that distance.

So I was just curious if anyone knew of the difference in terminal ballistics.

One comment about weight. While the difference between an AK, AR and FAL are not great; add a pack with all your stuff (especially water) and then a supply of ammo, and it doesn't matter what great shape you are in; the light weight carbine would bring more smiles.

But back to the scenario. The only case in which I could visualize shooting at badguys from 500 yards plus (for a civilian) would be if you were in a retreat (either formal or informal) after the end of the world and you wanted to keep the badguys far away from your retreat. You don't want them within 200 yards; you want them to stay far away.

If you had prepositioned ammo then 308 would be fine; if not then 223 is the easiest to carry.

I guess another possible long range scenario (short of the Chicoms invading) would be a major riot in which there are no police around and you see rioters killing your neighbors. After awhile even a Democrat might consider taking them out at long distance rather than risk short range encounters. At that point you are not going to tell the world you did it if/when the rioting ended.

(all scenarios for discussion purposes only)

Probably the best weapon for that, short of a 308, would a government contour AR15, 20 inch shooting 75 grain rounds. CMMG has a pencil barrel 20 inch. Any comments on that?

Posted: 1/15/2008 6:52:11 PM EDT

[#27]

we have established that that 7.62x51 is superior to 5.56 and 7.62x39. not only for car bodys but long range bulistics, also it penetrates cover far better. weight of ammo, I carried a m-14 in viet nam with 120 rounds, that was much less than was carried with a m 16, however m14's are usually placed in the shoulder and aimed. thus 120 rounds lasted alot longer than 200 or so 5.56 fired full auto and from poor firing positions.

look at close combat in iraq, rag heads spray and pray, marines aim and hit. a m1a with 120 rounds could be very efective to day, and rifle and ammo would be no heaver than a ar15, especialy if the ar 15 is loaded down with gadgets like a swiss army knife. my philosify is to grab a rifle with power for stoping vehicles and able to make long shots (look at the service sight on a m1a)
yet be fast on target at close range. --------------he went into younder village and never returned

Posted: 1/15/2008 6:53:23 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
7.62x51. You can get a light enough rifle in 7.62 nato and you will have all of the power and range you would ever need....plus .308 ammo can be found anywhere.

CMS

+1. If choosing between 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 for 500m work, then 7.62x51 is the clear choice.

Posted: 1/15/2008 7:30:47 PM EDT

[#29]

If I am hiking, its gonna be the AR15.

If driving, I'm loading up the HK-91 for the fun and games when dismounted from the truck.

Posted: 1/16/2008 10:25:26 AM EDT

[#30]

I found this info about the 7.62x39 round. someone had posted in and i saved the text for reference. thanks to whomever did this work....hope it helps.

Firing table for 122-gr. Type PS Ball, GMCS mild steel core BT
G7* : 0.156, Standard Metro, adapted from Soviet and U.S. Army Data
Range_ Velocity_ Energy___ Drop___ Elev.__ Max. Hgt.
(yds.)__ (fps)___ (ft.-lbs)___ (ins.)__ (moa)___ (ins.)
0_____ 2340____ 1483______0_______0____- 1.9*
100___ 2080____ 1172_____ 3.5_____ 5______0.3
200___ 1836_____ 913____ 14.9_____ 8.2____ 3.5
300___ 1606_____ 699____ 37______12.8____ 9.9
400___ 1388_____ 522____ 72.4____ 18.5___ 20.9
500___ 1190_____ 384___ 126.5____ 25.6___ 38.7
600___ 1051_____ 299___ 206.9____ 34.7___ 65.9
(*AK47 sight height not 1.5") (*SKS=1.6")

Posted: 1/16/2008 4:45:23 PM EDT

[#31]

+1. If choosing between 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 for 500m work, then 7.62x51 is the clear choice.

If the choice is between 7.62x39 and 5.56 then I clearly prefer the 50 caliber.

Posted: 1/16/2008 5:37:33 PM EDT

[#32]

The only time as a civi I can justify shooting someone at long distance would be the neighbors at my BOL. One is 300 yds. away, and the other is 400 yds. I could easily hit an attacker that was shooting up my neighbors house. I have even established this as my first long range training distance to prepare for a shot like this.

If anyone was shooting at them from their barns, I would have a decent chance of supressing the fire long enough to discourage the attack or kill the attackers.

I feel very confident that I will do just fine with .223 at that range. My rifle shoots MOA at this distance so far. I believe that with practice I can bring that down to close to 1/2 MOA on a regular basis.

My primary objective is to get rounds into and thru the BG.

Posted: 1/16/2008 6:18:26 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

But if things are really that bad, does it matter what your carrying ?

Say the invasion (SHTF) came and the enemy troops are carrying AKs. So, I see you at 500 yds carrying an AK. Do I shoot you or wait till you get closer to ask you: Friend or Foe?

Is there a court and jury operating to have a trial?

Aloha, Mark

Desperate times call for desperate measures. I'll shoot whatever I get my hands on.
If you can't confirm your target before you pull the trigger, please don't kill too many of OUR GUYS !!!!!!!

Posted: 1/16/2008 6:18:32 PM EDT

[#34]

In a fight for my life and or for that of my loved ones, beginning at close range, say under 150 yards, I would prefer the 5.56 any day of the week. Once we get out beyond fragmentation range, then I would prefer a good 7.62x39 round that is known to tumble on impact, however only up to the limits of accuracy of the weapon and the person using it. Most AKs should be good for reasonably accurate engagement out to 250 yards or so. I have a hard time imagining engaging someone at anything beyond 250 yards, unless I was exposed in wide open country, had lots of ammo to expend, and there were more of them, than standing with me. In that case I might try some longer range shots with the 7.62x39 or the 5.56. Neither would be first choice, as over 300 yards is definitely 7.62x51 territory in my book. If I had to choose between a 5.56 and 7.62x39, for ranges between 300 and 500, and assuming typical accuracy of each weapon, I would go with 5.56 because I would have higher confidence in the accuracy needed to make the shots count at that range. If I knew I could make those shots with 7.62x39, then that is what I would choose, because I think the terminal effectiveness of good 7.62x39 is superior beyond frag range of 5.56.

I hope I never see the day.

Posted: 1/16/2008 6:25:34 PM EDT

[#35]

I wouldn't want to be shot by either, That said, assuming the same shooter is gunnin' for me...(lol...can't believe I allowed myself to post in this stupid thread) I'd have less of a chance of being hit by the AK47 than an AR15....considering the inherent retarded accuracy potential of an AK compared to an AR.

You can bore me by citing some war story about a match grade AK47 you read about and how poorly the AR15 serves the operator underwater....but I have BRD thanks to you fucking savages and to argue against this rational logic on AR15.com earns you a fastlane commute to the underside of my parkerized left testicle.

So um....I choose the 5.56 based a greater chance of you actually hitting the target. That's based on the mechanical advantages of the AR platform over that mass produced vodka soaked eurotrash monrovian lead delivery system who's greatest value is that it functions no matter how ignorant it's operator may be.

Posted: 1/16/2008 8:26:43 PM EDT

[#36]

I don't reckon that I will have a spotter and a caddy to give me the range, and hand me the proper weapon for the distance and conditions that I might find myself in. After all, we are not hunting lions in Africa. I will take my AR-15 over any other semi auto for the ranges and conditions that I am likely to face. I figure I am more likely to fire at an intruder entering my living room than I am a spetnaz parachutist landing in my front yard. I also figure that any engagement that I am involved in will be under 200 yds. There are too many ditches, trees, and houses in my AO to get much further a shot. I suppose that I could climb the water tower and dominate the nearest treeline, but that is not in my agenda. In a non-TEOTWAWKI situation, I figure a tracer or two will stop most vehicles and individuals at a stand off range if I do not decide to immediately engage them. I have 4 AKs and 3 ARs because I can though.

Posted: 1/17/2008 8:14:36 AM EDT

[#37]

At 500+ yds between 7.62x39 and 5.56, I prefer .338 lapua seriously though, you said it is a high quality ak? It should group not much over 1moa with good ammo. For arguments sake lets say it shoots 2 moa. That means at 500 yds it will shoot roughly within 10" about the size of a pie dish. With a scope and proper distance calculations you should hit your target every shot with the ak. The holes will be that much bigger and reliability will be better. However if the ak shoots >2moa then i would take the 20" ar with heavy ammo. Of course you could always buy a piston upper to imoprove reliability for ar! You should try posting this same thing in the ak forum and see if you get different opinions.

Posted: 1/17/2008 10:16:45 AM EDT

[#38]

With as many scoped deer rifles there are in this country in 30-06, 7mm mag, .270, .300wing mag, etc., I would make damn sure whoever I was shooting at 500 yds away with my AK (or AR) did not have one of those. Because if they did, and they halfway knew what they were doing, I have a feeling popping off at them with an AK (scoped or not) would be a quick way to get killed. You'd have to be the luckiest shot on earth to hit them with the first round, and anything other than doing that would be bad for anyone carrying an AK.

That said, a .30 cal bullet will make a bigger hole at 500yds than a .223 cal. But hits are want count. I'd take the AR.

Posted: 1/17/2008 10:30:11 AM EDT

[#39]

That's might thought too, which is why I view everything beyond 200 yards as evasive. For that reason, give me an AR15 anyday of the week.

While I'm getting jiggy with a 30 round mag chasing down a 500 yard target, there's a good likely hood that some hillbilly is getting read to aerate my skull with a single shot from his 15 year old bolt gun.

Posted: 1/17/2008 10:49:52 AM EDT

[#40]

....... to the underside of my parkerized left testicle....

Now THAT is too painful to even imagine!!!

Posted: 1/17/2008 10:56:52 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I figure a tracer or two will stop most vehicles and individuals at a stand off range if I do not decide to immediately engage them.

Hmmmmmm.... 5.56 tracer. I forgot about those. How do they stack up against a vehicle versus an AK round? Say, under 100 yards?

Posted: 1/17/2008 12:28:54 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I figure a tracer or two will stop most vehicles and individuals at a stand off range if I do not decide to immediately engage them.

Hmmmmmm.... 5.56 tracer. I forgot about those. How do they stack up against a vehicle versus an AK round? Say, under 100 yards?

to quote a famous line....

"I don't care who you are back in the world...You give away our position again and I'll bleed you quiet and leave your fuckin' ass right here.
Got it?"

i dont think i would use tracers to snipe with. even if they dont light for 50 to 100 yards. it just seems counter intuitive.... but of course i could be wrong.

Posted: 1/17/2008 1:39:17 PM EDT

[#43]

.

Posted: 1/17/2008 2:53:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
With as many scoped deer rifles there are in this country in 30-06, 7mm mag, .270, .300wing mag, etc., I would make damn sure whoever I was shooting at 500 yds away with my AK (or AR) did not have one of those. Because if they did, and they halfway knew what they were doing, I have a feeling popping off at them with an AK (scoped or not) would be a quick way to get killed. You'd have to be the luckiest shot on earth to hit them with the first round, and anything other than doing that would be bad for anyone carrying an AK.

That said, a .30 cal bullet will make a bigger hole at 500yds than a .223 cal. But hits are want count. I'd take the AR.

If they are taking fire I doubt they will be able to sit still and take their time to squeeze off a really accurate shot. Good point though about making sure that your target is not carrying a rifle that has better range and terminal ballistics than yours.

Posted: 1/17/2008 4:24:54 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I figure a tracer or two will stop most vehicles and individuals at a stand off range if I do not decide to immediately engage them.

Hmmmmmm.... 5.56 tracer. I forgot about those. How do they stack up against a vehicle versus an AK round? Say, under 100 yards?

to quote a famous line....

"I don't care who you are back in the world...You give away our position again and I'll bleed you quiet and leave your fuckin' ass right here.
Got it?"

i dont think i would use tracers to snipe with. even if they dont light for 50 to 100 yards. it just seems counter intuitive.... but of course i could be wrong.

I would use the tracers much like how our soldiers use flares in IRAQ to warn vehicles to go away before engaging them. In a Katrina type situation, I am not going to fire up a vehicle just for approaching my position. If the time has come to kill everything that I see, then I might use a few tracers to direct the fire of other riflemen if necessary. I wouldn't think the penetration would be any greater than with standard ball ammo.

Posted: 1/17/2008 4:59:48 PM EDT

[#46]

500yd hits with 7.62x39mm

Posted: 1/17/2008 5:10:11 PM EDT

[#47]

The 5.56 fired from an AR15 at 500yds is more than enough to be deadly. It might not be a one shot stopper 100% of the time. However, considering the terminal ballistics at that distance is roughly close to that of a .22 magnum at the muzzle, its certainly deadly. In a SHTF situation, the BG's probably wont have access to immediate medical attention, so that shot from the 5.56 has just ruined their prospects for a life of crime. If the shot is a center of mass hit, especially in the lower torso, they will probably not last more than a day or two, just guessing, either from blood loss or blood poisoning from damaged vitals.

Posted: 1/17/2008 7:50:53 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
500yd hits with 7.62x39mm

Ah, but I can do it all day long

Perhaps we should also discuss car popping ability. If you were in your fancy retreat in Idaho and a couple of cars pulled up 400 yards away at your gate and looked nasty....the AK might be the better persuader versus the 5.56.

Of course a 50 would be even nicer.