Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
.223 vs 7.62x39
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soonerwings" data-source="post: 842972" data-attributes="member: 8035"><p>I'll take a shot at it....</p><p></p><p><u>ammo cost/availabilit</u>y - I'd say this one's a wash. Both are easy to find and fairly inexpensive when there's not an ammo shortage.</p><p></p><p><u>noise/recoil </u>- 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".</p><p></p><p><u>different distances</u> - 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. </p><p></p><p><u>Why the U.S. uses it </u>- 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.</p><p></p><p><u>Best uses</u> - 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. </p><p></p><p>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</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soonerwings, post: 842972, member: 8035"] I'll take a shot at it.... [U]ammo cost/availabilit[/U]y - I'd say this one's a wash. Both are easy to find and fairly inexpensive when there's not an ammo shortage. [U]noise/recoil [/U]- 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". [U]different distances[/U] - 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. [U]Why the U.S. uses it [/U]- 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. [U]Best uses[/U] - 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
.223 vs 7.62x39
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom