GuerrillaXXI
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 748
More penetration through what? As I've already explained, the AK rounds that are generally available to civilians in the US suck at penetrating armor. There are face masks and helmets out there now that can stop a 7.62x39 from 25 feet away. For example:
http://www.mtekweaponsystems.com/supply/index.php?route=common/home
This kind of lightweight armor is only going to become more common. Do you want a weapon that can't penetrate it? 5.56 NATO green tip is widely available to civilians and CAN go through the polyethylene plates, helmets, and other armor.
If you're talking about trees, bricks, window glass, and other common building materials, then yes, the 7.62x39 penetrates through those better. I think penetration through armor is more important, but your opinion may vary.
I already posted evidence that contradicts what you're saying here, at least as far as FMJ rounds are concerned. Didn't you look at the gel shots I posted? How about the statement from Martin Fackler?
If you're not restricted regarding the ammo you can use (which, as civilians, we're not), I'll grant you that a 7.62x39 will be deadlier than a 5.56 if good hollowpoints are used for both.
It's not garbage. If you think it's dangerous to shoot at a larger and well-armed group at a distance, just try doing it at close range. You'll be instantly ventilated unless you're behind great cover. At least if you have distance between them and you there's the chance of picking some off before escaping or being killed yourself.
Just look at the damage caused by people like Charles Whitman, who had all kinds of people shooting at him but managed to hold out for a long time. He could have just as easily been using an AR at the ranges he was shooting at. Or look at all the trouble Taliban marksmen have been causing the US, even though the Taliban don't have access to weapons and ammo nearly as accurate as what a good AR-15 with match ammo offers:
"Growing Taliban use of snipers worries U.S. military"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/01/02/58896/growing-taliban-use-of-marksmen.html
Yes, at close range and if FMJ is used. That's because the 5.56 fragments above a certain velocity. The AK round usually doesn't. This is common knowledge. At longer ranges where the 5.56 FMJ doesn't fragment, the AK is probably deadlier. But it's harder to hit with an AK at long range, and shot placement is crucial in any case.
"Ballistic tip"? Not sure what you mean. If you're referring to genuine AP 7.62x39, then I've already acknowledged that it's better against armor than 5.56 NATO. But again, the problem is that true AP in 7.62x39 is very hard to come by. 5.56 NATO green tip is everywhere.
Those "trauma plates," as you call them (there's actually a difference between trauma plates and armor plates) can be made of steel, ceramic, polyethylene (compressed Dyneema), or a combination of these. Any of them will stop lead core 7.62x39 -- it's one of the easier rifle rounds to stop with armor due to its moderate velocity and low sectional density. In contrast, fast 5.56 rounds (like M193) can get through some steel plates at close range. M855 can punch through hard polyethylene plates that will stop even .308 FMJ. These are not just my opinions; they are facts. Here's one source:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32839
Note that the polyethylene that can stop everything except 5.56 green tip is what's used to make the newest combat helmets and face masks. It will likely be used to cover other areas of the body in the future as well, since it's very light for the protection it provides.
As for blunt trauma, 7.62x39 will definitely cause more than 5.56. But neither will be a fight-stopper. If one bullet can penetrate and the other can't, I'll take the one that can.
No, 5.56 is not "harder hitting." It just penetrates armor better (unless you can get AP 7.62x39) and causes bigger wounds at close range (at least if we're comparing FMJ only). A close-range fight is when you most need AP capability and big wounds. If I'm out of my mind for saying this, then so are all the wound ballistics experts, and those body armor tests are all some big conspiracy.
Shooting a rifle and knowing what kind of torture it will endure are two different things.
I won't argue the point that the AK is more durable. It is. My position is that the AR is reliable and durable enough for even very hard use, and it has all those other advantages in addition -- like actually being able to put holes in some armored foes as opposed to just bruising someone or maybe breaking a rib.
What if your target is only at 200 yards but he's shooting from behind heavy cover, with only a small part of his body exposed? What if he's covered in armor except for his face and is shooting at you from 200 yards? Accuracy will be pretty important then.
7.62x39 is not a "scaled down .308." It uses an entirely different bullet -- one with an inferior ballistic coefficient. And no, hitting someone in the chest armor plate with a 7.62x39 is not guaranteed to put him down for any length of time. Some soldiers have been hit with that round and said that it just felt like they'd been punched. They kept right on fighting.
I'm glad you're hearing it now, because none of these things I've been pointing out are big secrets. I have no bias on this topic. As I said, I own and like both kinds of rifle. But facts are facts, and if you Google on any of these topics and read what reputable sources have to say on these matters (body armor manufacturers, wound ballistics experts, etc.), you will see that what I'm saying about the capabilities of these weapons is all correct.
Last edited:
Mine has an ATI stock with pistol grip, the BX-25 extended mag and a scope and I've got less than $300 in it totally. Should be able to pick up a base model for around $200.