.223 vs 7.62x39

[h8ns8n]

to keep this from becomng an AR vs AK discussion......let's say I wanted either a Ruger Mini 14 or a Ruger Mini 30. So from the same platform which round is best. I would love opinions on:
-ammo cost and availability
-noise and recoil
-pros and cons at different distances (which would be best at short and long distances)
-explain why side by side the 7.62 seems the obvious choice because of size and weight yet the U.S. forces go with .223
-best uses for each round (hunting,varmint,big game)
-and anything else you can think of

Thanks

 

[soonerwings]

I'll take a shot at it....

ammo cost/availability - I'd say this one's a wash. Both are easy to find and fairly inexpensive when there's not an ammo shortage.

noise/recoil - Technically the 7.62 is going to kick "harder" because you're talking about a heavier bullet with more charge from a rifles of similar weight. However, both are semi-auto so neither is going to kick "hard".

different distances - The .223 is a faster round with less bullet drop over distance a.k.a. "flatter shooting" but also carries less energy downrange than a 7.62. I guess you could say it would be easier to hit a target at a longer distance with a .223 but the 7.62 would provide much more knockdown at the same distance. The heavier weight of the 7.62 makes it a better "brush gun" than the .223 since there will be less deflection of a bullet by something like a twig or leaf.

Why the U.S. uses it - Who can say for certain why anything happens in a bureaucracy that wasn't there when the original decision is being made? I'd venture a guess that it had something to do with the fact that .223 is a more accurate round (it doesn't take as much ft/lb of energy to drop a human as certain types of wild game) and a lower recoil weapon would lend itself very well to rapid fire in a combat environment. Heck...maybe it's because 7.62 was originally a soviet produced round and we aren't soviets.

Best uses - Technically you can hunt deer with a .223 (55 grain or larger) but it's too small a caliber for my taste. That being said, it is an excellent varmint round. Prairie dogs and coyotes don't know what hit them. 7.62 would make a decent brush gun for deer hunting in a thickly wooded area and is ballistically similar to a 30-30.

Both are good rounds with different strengths and weaknesses. The thing you should ask yourself is what do you intend to use it for? If accuracy over a long distance is more important to you than energy carried downrange go with the .223 If it's the other way around go 7.62 That's just my .02

 

[ldp4570]

WOW, This gonna be a can of worm's.
I for one have little use for the 5.56/.223 cartridge. I spent 21+yrs with Uncle Sam, shot a bajillion rounds of it, and witnessed every possible failure you can think of. I never understood why they went to a varmint round as a manstopper. Yes it does some ugly things to flesh, but its still lacking at longer ranges, 150yds+, at short range its very lethal due to its ability to tumble, and with souped up varmint rifles it delivers the goods to those ground rats.
Now the 7.62X39 is a strange cartridge. It seems every firearm its chambered in has accuracy issues, even with a fairly tight platform as the SKS, the Rugers seem to be a hit or miss, and the few boltguns available are only really top performers if the shooter handloads. As a combat weapon/round inside 300yds its hard to beat, it may not be as accurate as the 5.56/.223, yet it is a heavier projectile, and delivers more punch to the target due to its size and mass. As a hunting caliber, with good expanding bullets its a decent deer size round.

 

[Perplexed]

Some excellent comments. The only thing I can add is that an AR-15 chambered for the 7.62x39 round is, in my experience, accurate and hard-hitting out to 300 meters. I'm not a hunter, so I can't say anything about this caliber's efficiency for hunting with the AR platform, but I can vouch for the combo's ability to knock over steel targets with monotonous regularity at 300 meters at Red Castle.

 

[Rob72]

Minis in either caliber aren't bad, but aren't exactly great, either. ldp pretty well adresses the accuracy issue with the 7.62x39, though I would add, with a decent barrel, and US made ammo, the difference is really far less significant. Com-bloc stuff just ain't that consistent.

I've had both calibers, a Mini-14 as one platform, and in summary, for a randomly selected budget of $1500, you'll get more for the 7.62x39.

I would not pay the price for the "new and improved" Mini-14. Improving your barrel production should not double the cost of every rifle sold. If I see the AC-556 getting contracted again, my opinion may change, otherwise, I just see Ruger trying to place themselves in the AR price bracket without a genuine quantum increase in quality.

Edit: this is not an AR vs. Mini comment, per-se. I believe you get a generally superior weapon in the Mini-30 than many imported 7.62x39 offerings.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Edit: this is not an AR vs. Mini comment, per-se. I believe you get a generally superior weapon in the Mini-30 than many imported 7.62x39 offerings.

Your mileage may vary. Had a Mini-30 years ago that I traded staight across for a Mini-14 (which is now in the classifieds). The -30 was terribly inaccurate. As far as the primary topic, good discussion so far.

 

[Teeeroy]

I think another reason the gubmint chose the 5.56 round was the ability of the soldier to carry more ammo also.

 

[ssgrock3]

I think another reason the gubmint chose the 5.56 round was the ability of the soldier to carry more ammo also.

thats it, right there. No other real reason. 5.56 gave satisfactory results and you could hump more.

 

[mr ed]

Unless Ruger changed their barrels recently, The mini 30 comes in a .308 bore diameter. Which means you need to use expensive American ammo.
Com-bloc guns and cheap foreign ammo is .311 diameter.
Which makes for excessive pressure and terrible accuracy when shot in the mini 30.

 

[Mitch Rapp]

thats it, right there. No other real reason. 5.56 gave satisfactory results and you could hump more.

The only other reason I can think of that the gov. went to it was training. During the time of its adoption there was a belief that soldiers should send massive numbers of rounds downrange, with little regard for practical accuracy, and that would create a big enough "saturated area" that nothing would survive. This idea is very similar to the one that led to the creation of the BAR. Neither really worked the way the "experts" intended in the real world. The "spray and pray" mentality was not something soldiers in the field came up with, it was a product of training. It does have some usefulness, most notably in the "mad minute" drills the army would do in Vietnam. These would serve to foil ambushes, or disrupt a planned attack, but usually just wasted ammo.

As to the comparison, both rounds are a compromise in many areas.

The platform that will be used to fire it makes a lot of the decision for me as to which I prefer. If it is out of a Mini, I would prefer the 7.62, out of a bolt gun, the .223, out of an AK variant (excluding the Galil) I prefer the 7.62 and out of an AR, I return to the .223. My reasoning is this, if I cannot be pin point accurate, then I want extra bullet mass, and energy, to make up for a lack of precision.