Indians For Guns

Greatings to all firearm lovers . . .

A simple query needing a slightly technical reply . .

1. Does the tumbling nature of the lighter 5.56 actually score over the the greater power of the basic 7.62 round
2. Does the "Improved Accuracy" by the lighter recoil from the 5.56 coupled with the "tumbling" when it enters flesh make it a better stopper. . . .

looking for some expert info on this one

regards to all

Please refer http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 71&start=0 and http://www.grosswildjagd.de/penetr2.htm it would give you an idea. Basically what it comes down to is that bigger the bore the stronger the hydrostatic shock of impact. It is the HYDROSTATIC shock that kills you---the bigger the bore---the lethal the round.

Not true. The 7.62x39 is one of the least lethal rounds in the assault rifle category. The 5.56 in the proper velocity envelope creates much more damage. Hydrostatic shock is an effect of velocity and the 7.62x39 bleeds velocity quickly. There is a visible decrease in velocity especially over 200 yards. For example, at 300 yards you need to consciously aim about 6 inches to a foot higher than your intended target.

Depends on what the proposed use is I guess, for example in a battle scenario the 5.56 may have an advantage as more enemy soldiers can be tied up in helping if one of them is wounded rather than killed outright, due to the fact that the bullet tumbles on entry. In a Police or self defense situation, wounding may or may not neutralize the threat and stopping immediately is required, in such a case the larger the bore the better.

Stopping power as against wounding power as against killing power!
Anand

not at 300+m. lets face it are you going to wait till the baddies are under 300m? or would you like to take em out for the count at say 350+

as always we do forget the main points which are, in battle rifle the max effective range? and not how far the shot go.

and in self defence, the range tends to be less then 100, so almost any cal can work.

FBI proven facts, 9mm pistol rounds are more effective then .44 the FBI did a survey of shootouts and they came out with this info.

one does need to aim off at a distance weather one is using a .22 rifle at 25m 50 m or 105mm at 1k or 10k aim off or adjusetment is always needed. As battle rifle are zeroed for 300m so hitting at 400 one would need to adjust some what. basic marksman ship principle.

7.62 ? never seen it fail.

It is interesting to note that the 5.56 round, AKA 223, is not legal for hunting of deer in most states of the USA. IMHO it is not very reliable as far as lethality goes in animals of a size larger than about 25kg.

As a defensive round, the 5.56 does not even come close to a 7.62 (and that includes recoil too!).

The 7.62x51 is a far more lethal and accurate cartridge than the 5.56/.223 round. However it is easier to make the average soldier accurate with the 5.56 due to lowered recoil, especially in the burst, full auto scenarios.

The adoption of the 5.56 as a war caliber was dependent on several factors not the least of which is that an average person can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for a given wieght. Additionally conventional war theory is based more on the ability to wound rather than kill, since that puts more pressure on the enemy infrastructure and has more demoralising effect than simply killing the enemy.
That was the theory.

In the scenarios of Insurgency, one would rather kill than wound, since the latter puts more pressure on your infrastructure et al.

Shot placement will always count more than caliber, and most engagements occur at ranges of 100 meters or less.

Most 7.62x39 chambered weapons were designed as suppressive fire weapons rather than for accuracy.

The only army that had its weapons designed with accuracy specifically in mind are the Swiss. The case point being the K-31, STGW 57, and Sig 550. The difference between the standard weapon and the sniper versions is a scope. Then again the Swiss war doctorine is quite different than those of other armies.

not having fought for over 500 years. dress in tights outside the Vatican with funny head gear

nagarifle wrote:not having fought for over 500 years. dress in tights outside the Vatican with funny head gear

The reason for that being whenever they did fight someone, they won.

Switzerland suffered a defeat in 1515. In 1512 Swiss troops occupied Lombardy but in 1515 the French and Venetians defeated them at the battle of Marignano. Afterwards Switzerland began to adopt a policy of neutrality.

so they did not always won then

not having fought for over 500 years.

The swiss have been famous mercenaries throughout the middle ages. Faught in crusades, 100 years' war and all other famour wars in history.

dress in tights outside the Vatican with funny head gear

The Vaticanguards are one of the best in Christiandom. Hang on... they are supposed to be The best. But naga, you already know that you rouge.

Additionally conventional war theory is based more on the ability to wound rather than kill, since that puts more pressure on the enemy infrastructure and has more demoralising effect than simply killing the enemy.
That was the theory.

In the scenarios of Insurgency, one would rather kill than wound, since the latter puts more pressure on your infrastructure et al.

Wounding has a very detrimental effect on the enemy during war. Psychologically and also, one needs a man/men to look after/carry away the wounded also once in the hospital, a wounded requires more resources than the dead. A wounded soldier still fighting happens in bollywood or in PVC scenarios. Its rare, thats why they get the PVC. I was shooting with a major of the British army at the ranges some times ago. He told me UN dictates a soldier MUST have a properly zeroed rifle to prevent wounding. UN has had to dictate that soldiers be rather killed than wounded.

also 7.62 X 39 has accounted for more elephants (at the hands of poachers; example veerapan) than other calibres esp 223.

It is interesting to note that the 5.56 round, AKA 223, is not legal for hunting of deer in most states of the USA.

Ditto for the UK.

Most 7.62x39 chambered weapons were designed as suppressive fire weapons rather than for accuracy.

Regarding 'stopper' one usually refers to self defence. The point being once the person is hit, he crumples. Anyone will crumple/stop if hit in the head/brain or the engine room. The point is that if the person cant be hit in the absolute vital zone, he should still go down.

Thos will be achieved b hydrostatic shock and the secondary wound channel.

Think of it this way. Why are indian NPB calibres called 'pea shooters'? Not because they are less accurate. Hit a person in the head with a .32 or even a .25,and he will 'stop' all right.

But hewont 'stop' if hit in the shoulder.

Now take a 416 rigby and hit a person on the shoulder see if he stops or not.

The physics of stopping power and the arguments go on for ever. I am not in SWAT or police etc to have tried both on a man charging me with a knife and compare the effect.

The argument can be that a certain smaller calibre can be devastating than a certain other larger calibre but i dont think anyone will deny that generally spoeaking, bigger calibre= bigger stopping power.

If in doubt, i would stick to a bigger calibre.

as they say past reputation is no guarantee of the future performance.