.223 vs 7.62x39

[mmchambers06]

I like the above comment about the cartridges & platforms.

In the aftermath of WWII, the DoD correlated casualties with number of rounds fired, hence the smaller, faster round in the Armalite design. They also came to the conclusion that there was no need for a cartridge that could reach out beyond a typical soldier's ability to aim. Their concerns should have been addressed with better training rather than gear, but that's another thread.

I like .223 a whole lot. For a small, lightweight, short range semi like a Mini or a AR-15, it fits the bill quite well.

Both are abysmal as far as suitability for 'big game.'

My choice would be based on the intended use of the rifle.

For *potential* home defense situations, some varmints, & a whole lot of fun at the range, I'll take the .223....'cause I love the AR platform.

 

[Hooker]

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.

Not true the 7.62 x 39 is not a very high pressure round. Firing .311 bullets through a .308 bore will not cause an dangerous pressures. I have shot plenty of .311s through my Mini 30 with only a slight affect on accuracy.
I also had a Ruger 77 mkII also with .308 bore that had a steady diet of Norinco ammo with no signs pressure.

Pat

 

[mmchambers06]

Interesting...Pat, is there any excessive copper fouling? What's the difference in accuracy like?

 

[MoBoost]

7.62x39 - deer round, aka 4" at 150 yards on 150lb game
.223 - prairie dog round, aka .5" at 150 yards on 1lb game

THE END

 

[mmchambers06]

So much for constructive discussion...

If that's the case, why did the Soviet Union switch to the 5.45x39?

 

[Horty]

From what I understand 7.62 is a machine gun round (big heavy, high damage round) while the .223 is a rifle round (fast, accurate precision round)

 

[KurtM]

I always thought a rifle round fit in a rifle and a "carbine round" fit in a carbine. To call the .223 or a 7.62X39 a "rifle round" is an insult to rifle rounds. (ie, 270, 30-06, 300 mags of any type, 7mm mags, .338 mags of any type, 45-70 45-90, all the way up to 50-140 etc.), but machinegun rounds..well that is something different all together

 

[MoBoost]

So much for constructive discussion...

If that's the case, why did the Soviet Union switch to the 5.45x39?

Controlled full auto. Same reason for 223 - they figured 3 50gn projectiles is better than one 150gn, they even tried stuffing multiple projectiles in 308 case before adapting varmint round.

 

[rmark]

Studies at the end of WW2 showed that few soldiers in battle fired at targets past about 150 yards, making the power of the 30-06 and 7.62 x 54R cartidges unnecessary - why have a soldier carry a rifle and ammo effective to 500 yards when few ever fired a shot at that distance. The US originally downsized to the .308 Winchester in the M14, but that was a halfway measure at best. The Russians kept the .311 bullet, somewhat lightened, in the 7.62 x 39. As I recall, the .223 was decided upon due to the Air Force looking for a multipurpose rifle, and it was decided everyone would get an M-16 - probably a logical choice given the typical ranges in a jungle setting. So in total you got a lighter rifle with higher magazine capacity and selective fire that was effective out to the ranges that soldiers typically fired at.

 

[udiablo]

I'd rather shoot any of my ARs than my Mini-14 ranch rifle, and I'd rather have a good arsenal AK than a Mini-30 (yes, I've had both).

What you should do depends on what you need, and what you intend to do with it.

Plenty of deer have been killed with the 5.56.

And you could also deer hunt with the 7.62x39.

Expect any perceived problems have more to do with the person, not with either cartridge.

Just my 2cents worth.