Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by IronMonster, Dec 22, 2015.
there's a lot of other opinion and tests that suggest the opposite of what this article says.
even the PDF posted about the officer involved shooting stated...
"Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely
through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his
aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside
the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage"
the standard 5.56 cartridge used in the military has a muzzle velocity of 2900-3000fps and 1100-1200ft-lbs of energy compared to the muzzle velocity of 7.62 which is 2200-2300 fps with 1500-1600ft-lbs of energy.
physics suggests that a larger/heavier object which is moving slower but carrying more energy will inflict more damage.
Ive seen alot of critters ( Coyotes, Rabbits, pissed off coons, Etc) Run off after being shot with 556.. Yet never seen one critter ever get up or move after 7.62x39. The Exit wound of 7.62 is impressive.
Both are extremely lethal rounds, not sure how and article reached that conclusion as the energy is very extreme in a 7.62x39 . If you compare the round to others its pretty high up there.
The 223/5.56 may have the accuracy but in every test I have seen including my own the 7.62x39 decimated targets a 223 would barely dent. Worth more looking into on my part see if the article has merit.
Wait-A-Minute..... I see a AR Vs AK thread thinly vailed. It's always the winner, Clearly.
This. Either one will put you down. There are crazy stories out there regarding pretty much every piece of ordinance ever used.
Here's to being hit with none of the above
I saw that article and started reading it, but when it started depending on formulas which are valid, but don't tell the whole story with regards to terminal performance, I stopped reading as it didn't seem that it was going to be informative or even just correct.
There are a number of factors that come in to play in terminal performance, such as energy and velocity which are easy to point to but don't tell the whole story.
How effective a projectile is in stopping an animal (humans or other animals) comes down to is how much damage the projectile causes to the tissue, and what tissue the damage is inflicted upon. Besides energy and velocity, there is also where the animal is struck and how the projectile reacts to striking the tissue.
A projectile from any cartridge might or might not cause a lot of damage to tissue - it depends on what the design and mass of the projectile is, what tissue it strikes (bone, flesh, simply a grazing surface wound, etc.) and at what velocity the projectile strikes at (which is dependent on the distance).
What rifle it is fired from has little effect upon those variables.
If I shot a human with a .224 projectile, at 100 yards, leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps, and that projectile was designed for small game - like a light "varmint" projectile designed for prairie dogs to coyotes, it might make a messy surface wound, but probably wouldn't penetrate far enough to be lethal even if the placement was well within the center of the torso. If I shot a human with a heavier expanding .224 projectile designed for self-defense against humans at the same velocity and distance and in the same spot on the human, I might very well kill that human, probably at least cause a wound that would kill them without immediate treatment.
In between there are military FMJ projectiles with varying degrees of lethality, and there are distances where any projectile would just not expand or otherwise cause much damage, and there are places on the human body where the wound would be serious, but not lethal, and maybe not even cause enough damage to take a human out of a fight.
The same goes for 7.62x39 - but it does have a projectile that, due to its greater mass, will generally penetrate deeper into a human, and that in and of itself may make it more lethal if it reaches vital organs. You don't have to cause massive damage to a human heart or brain to kill someone - a small hole through it may be lethal in and of itself. If the distance is within the effective range of the cartridge - say 300 yards - then with proper shot placement you will probably be just as dead as if you were shot with something more powerful.
My main considerations, in order of importance, for a self-defense rifle are:
1) Dependability and durability. It has to go bang when I pull the trigger.
2) I have to be able to hit what I am aiming at.
3) The projectile has to be effective at the expected engagement ranges.
In these respects I like the AK over the AR because of its dependability and durability. I also prefer the 7.62x39 because I think that with the proper projectile design (i.e., a soft point expanding projectile - not FMJ), that it is superior to the 5.56x45 to a degree, in that the heavier projectile will penetrate animal tissue better and reach vital organs.
Kinda like an electrician being asked if he preferred getting electricuted by an outlet or a light switch.
They both bite you.
There is one clear winner...Tavor!!
Themz thar are area fightn wurds! AUG all the way!
Sounds like 308 and I might have a posse, I just picked up my second Tavor today... In 9MM
My home defense/SHTF load for my AR uses the 55gr Barnes Tipped TSX. These are devastating. Fast expanding for nasty holes, solid copper for deep penetration.
I've been shot with a .22 LR and almost didn't get up!
I prefer not to be shot with anything!
Fyi..... Don't google AK47/AR15 wounds.
wonder if this is the guy who posted the same thing on akfiles,,,,,,
In California, physics works differently. The more "Features" the rifle has, the deader it kills you.
Having seen what both 7.62x39 and 5.56 can do on people , my best advice is not to get shot by either one.
A lot of ink has been spilled and keyboards ruined by saying one is better than the other.
Both work well for what they were designed to do.
In my experience when being shot at , ballistic debates go out the window , I just wanted to stop the #*@!!! from shooting at me.
For what it is worth if the shooter was stopped , he was usually stopped with 5.56 or 7.62 x 51 , but I would have just as gladly used 7.62 x 39 , or a grenade or HE or whatever I could to get 'em to stop shooting at me.
No one really argues about a 12ga slug out to 100yds.
Vietnam vets I've talked to say that the enemy could take 2-3 556 rounds from their M16s. 7.62x39 seems to suggest that it has more power especially in penetrating barriers. Both these rifle cartridges would completely suck to get hit by. Would one rather have a SAW or a 240? I'd go with the 240.
There seems to be a consensus that it only takes one round from a M14.
that's the stuff....love Barns ! I haven't played with the tipped yet
this is a 53gr TSX I recovered from water jugs at 100 yards shot from an AR PISTOL, 8" Ballistic Advantage barrel, and it went 3 jugs deep so.....some people post math some people shoot and reload
here is a 69gr HPBT, same gun, same distance,@2283fps recovered from 2nd jug, first one blew up......still though, probably a little more than a surface wound of a varmint round
Separate names with a comma.