I'd like people's opinions on if you could only have one of the following two rounds, which one would you get. I know they are pretty different, one is more accurate at long distances so to set the preference, let's assume a TSHTF scenario and a prepper's mindset.
Given the top performing ammo for each caliber, assuming a similar rifle and understanding that both calibers have their pro's and con's, I'd like an evaluation of the 7.62x39 versus 5.56x45 rounds
I'm thinking if I could only have one, I'd like the 7.62 as it would not only be possible to be accurate at longer distances but it would have more knock-down power at closer(?).
What say you guys?
Dstraito, You've probably succeeded in starting the fight of the century in asking for an opinion on the efficacy of the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.69 X 39mm Russian short round. First things is that we are going to compare Russian military type bullets vs NATO type bullets. The Russians have followed the Geneva code very closely in the design of their bullets. By contrast, the NATO M193 (Viet Nam era) 55 gr. FMJ and the M855 NATO 62 gr. bullet with the steel penetrator act very differently in the human body from that of the Russian short.
The 7.62 X 39, in gelatin tests, would enter the substance and continue forward in a slightly upward direction, and might leave the gelatin altogether. In all tests, the bullet remained intact, i.e., it did not break up or deform excessively. By contrast, the M193 55 gr. NATO bullet would VIOLENTLY upset (turn sideways) upon entering the media, and because of the violent nature of the upset (TURN) would breakup at the cannuleer. This break up of the bullet would send bullet fragments throughout the temporary wound channel (The large channel) rather like a shotgun going off inside the target body. The M855 fragments less reliably, and as a result, in combat, a phenomena known as "through and through" (The bullet passes through the body doing little damage) occurs too often and has lead to many complaints by both Army and Marine Infantry forces that the bullet does NOT kill reliably. This fact has lead to a redesign of the M855, and to the issuance of the new bullet to our forces. That particular bullet is not yet available to the civilian market, though the bullet is still designated as an M855 with a letter designation appended to the end. I do not have have that letter designation.
Unless you think that you are going to go up against opponents wearing body armor you are far better off using the M193 NATO 5.56mm cartridge, as it leaves a MUCH more damaging wound than the either the 5.56mm 62 gr. M855 NATO round that's being replaced, or the 7.62X39mm Russian short (AK47 and SKS) round. The M193 5.56mm NATO 55 gr. bullet is a REAL zombie killer!
As for accuracy, more depends on your rifle than the cartridge. Neither the AK47 derivative rifles or the SKS are at all accurate. In terms of accuracy, the SKS, in my experience, has more accuracy potential than the AK47. The Russian designed rifles are loose as a goose, and will function even after having been left for days in mud. The price you pay for rifle with very loose specs. is a lack of accuracy. At 50 yds, however, the AK47-SKS rifles are accurate enough to "get the job done", so then you are back to the question of the bullet.
The AK47-SKS rifles are fed with a cartridge built around a 123gr FMJ bullet. That's twice the bullet weight as the M193 or M855 bullets of the M16/AR15 family of rifles. Bullet effectiveness (Here's where the fight starts) would have to go to the NATO rounds, especially the M193 55gr FMJ.
However, I have some Winchester 7.62 X 39mm soft points that should leave a REAL hole in whatever they hit. So, are they better (more effective kill) than the M193 NATO round? I don't know. The key thing to remember is that no particular bullet is any good unless you hit the vital organs of the target with it, and that depends upon accuracy. The M16/AR15 rifles have, on balance, a better record for accuracy than the AK47/SKS family of rifles.
Now, to more directly answer your question about accuracy at a distance. You hear stories about the AR15/M16 hitting targets at 600 meters. That's true, the AR15/M16 family can hit out to 600 meters, but the rub is that the bullet lacks any oomph at those distances. In fact, don't count on a kill with the 5.56mm NATO rounds at ranges greater than 200 meters. Better yet, the cartridge is a most effective killer at 150 meters and less. Why is this so? It's because at ranges beyond 150 meters the bullet has slowed to the point that it will no longer fragment, which is the great secret of the M193 NATO round.
In my own view, the AR15/M16 family of rifles are going to be around for a long while more because the recoil is almost non-existent. Small bodies woman and even children can fire those rifles, and will do so, almost without hesitation because they are so easy on the body. The AK47/SKS family of rifles (7.62X39mm) have a heavier recoil because the bullet is heavier (123 grs. vs 55 and 62 grs for the M16/AR15 family). But, the additional recoil is not so heavy that a small bodied person (Vietcong) could not handle it.
The two different families of rifles have their own quirks. For example, the AR15/M16 family of rifles, being built to tighter specs. like to shoot wet (lots of lubricant in the bolt and bolt carrier), while the AK47 hardly cares, even if filled with mud or is rusty.
In my own experience, I once owned an MAK47 (This is a Chinese derivative of the AK47). I found it to be inordinately heavy, and for me it was inaccurate. Others found it to be a more accurate shooter. I knew nothing of black rifles, having been trained in the 'brown shoe' Army when the rifles has wooden stocks, and fired the powerful 30-06 round. But, after my introduction to the AR15, I am a believer, and can be found with the AR15 hanging from a sling around my neck.
They soon grow on you!
Hope this helps with your decision.
Woolly
