Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=331439)

Twisted Avatar | 12-15-2008 06:55 PM
Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States, by Kyrottimus Since there are probably many folks new to firearms in the recent months, it may help to convey a sense of awe and respect for the power which they possess. I intend to use practical examples to give the average person a relative understanding of firearm ballistics; dealing primarily in the overall energy they are capable of unleashing at varying ranges. I will focus on the three most common military-spec cartridge calibers found in semi-automatic battle rifles in the U.S.: 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Win), 7.62x39mm Soviet/Russian and 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 Rem). I will also address some comparisons with handgun ammunition and even the .30 Carbine round. Note: This article make fair use quotes and cites data from a variety of references. See the References list at the end of the article for links. The author thanks the writers of these fine references for their many hours of research. It is my hope that people who read this will not only further their knowledge about firearms, but find that it may aid them in their quest for wisdom when it comes to knowing the limitations of their weapons. The statistics used herein are averaged and aggregated from various sources, primarily focusing on military-spec ammunition (what most civilians wind up buying as "military surplus" ammunition from various nations). Since most NATO nations comply with similar cartridge standards, comparing their attributes is easy. When it comes to the 7.62x39mm Soviet cartridge, I averaged Tula, Vympel and Barnaul munitions factories from Russia, since Russia is the home where the 7.62x39mm cartridge was born and standardized. While most of us know these brands by their commercial names: Wolf Military Classic, Golden Tiger and Brown Bear, the ammunition itself is made to Russian military specifications. .30 Caliber Carbine (aka US .30 Carbine) is added to the analysis of modern military cartridges to give those people who use it a realistic idea of its limitations. Not to detract from the merits of a compact, lightweight, easy-to-carry carbine or its light ammunition, but to compare it apples-to-apples when it comes to net power. All rifle cartridges used in these statistics were Full-Metal Jacket (FMJ--meaning the entire lead bullet is encased in a cupronickel metal covering). The .30 Carbine ammunition statistics can be applied to either FMJ or JSP because both projectile types are the same mass, with the same velocity and with almost identical sectional density. As we all know, mass x velocity = energy. But it's not so simple. Let's visit some popular mathematic formulas: F = ma Force equals mass times acceleration. P = Fv Power equals force times the constant velocity. KE = 1/2m v2 Kinetic energy equals one half of mass times velocity squared. So a bullet's speed (velocity) means nothing to us unless we know its mass. Coupled together we get: Caliber, Bullet Weight, Muzzle Energy and Muzzle Velocity 7.62x51mm NATO 147 grain (gr)~2,550 ft/lbs (3,457 joules) @ 2,700 fps (FMJ) 7.62x39mm Soviet 123 gr ~1,525 ft/lbs (2,067 joules) @ 2,360 fps (FMJ) 5.56x45mm NATO 62 gr ~1,250 ft/lbs (1,694 joules) @ 3,050 fps (FMJ) .30 Caliber Carbine 110gr ~965 ft/lbs (1,308 joules) @ 1,995 fps (FMJ and JSP) .45 ACP 230 gr ~390 ft/lbs (528 joules) @ 875 fps (JHP) 9x19mm Luger/Parabellum 115 gr ~385 ft/lbs (521 joules) @ 1,225 fps (JHP) The .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) and 9x19mm pistol cartridges were added as a comparison for those familiar with handguns and their energy at point-blank range. At 50 yards, both standard .45 ACP and 9x19mm defense loads are roughly equal in net energy (~350 ft/lbs or 475 joules each). When measuring both energy and velocity at the "muzzle" of a firearm, it is basically "point-blank range" which when describing firearms [versus artillery] means within a few yards of the muzzle. Now these figures are measured within a few feet of the muzzle (hence the term "muzzle energy" or "muzzle velocity"), which is the most powerful the projectiles will be throughout their ballistic path. Because of wind resistance, they will decelerate (and thus lose energy) at varying distances. This is why we get the term "effective range," as beyond a certain point the energy is too low to be expected to be nominally effective. Also, keep in mind some projectiles will drop rapidly as their ballistic arc terminates (and is pulled down by gravity). The energy and velocity at ranges listed below are assuming the shooter is holding the sights high enough to get the projectile there before it hits the ground...at a certain point this practice becomes futile and borders on indirect fire, going back to the concept of "effective range." Remember; so long as the air resistance remains constant, so too will the rate of deceleration of the projectile. Also, bear in mind that while some bullets travel slower than others, if they are heavier they can have a net force which is more than the other (e.g. 7.62x39 has a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2,360 fps and the 5.56 NATO has a MV of 3,050. While the 5.56 NATO is roughly 700 fps faster at the muzzle than the 7.62x39 projectile, the 7.62x39 is almost exactly twice the mass of the 5.56 NATO). The statistics shown here of muzzle velocity and energy are all given through 20" rifle barrels (though not certain on the .30 Carbine figures, though since there is primarily only one common firearm which fires the cartridge, the M1 Carbine which has an 18" barrel, it is assumed all statistics for that cartridge are applied for a 18" barrel). The shorter a rifle barrel is, the less time the expanding gasses from the compressed burning powder have to accelerate the projectile before it exits the barrel (which ends acceleration and begins deceleration due to air resistance). A 20" barreled AR-15 will generate faster projectile velocity and higher net bullet energy (using identical ammunition) than a 16" barreled AR-15 Carbine [such as an M4gery or a typical civilian CAR-15]. To compare accordingly, an AK rifle and a civilian AR-15 carbine both have 16.25" barrels and thus would have roughly the same ratio of velocity and energy (though at lower values). If one wanted to compare 20" to 20" inch, maybe a standard length AR-15 and a Russian SKS (or even Romanian RPK) would be a fair comparison (either may be slightly over 20" but would be a closer comparison than a full-length AR-15 to a 16" bbl AK). Probably the fairest means of comparison using statistics below is to assume the cartridges were fired from the following 20" barreled rifles: 7.62x51mm NATO : FN-FAL (most have 21" barrels but many can be found with ~20" barrels) 7.62x39mm Soviet : SKS (most have ~20" barrels) 5.56x45mm NATO : AR-15 (standard size has ~20" barrel) The measure of mass used for firearm projectiles (bullets) is grains. A grain is a unit of lead mass measurement, roughly equal to 1/3 of a carat or 65mg. 16 grains is roughly equal to 1 gram. Note that grains in bullet mass differ from from " grains" of smokeless powder (nitro-cellulose) propellant, which is not used in this article. A hard baseball is about 5-1/8 ounces or 149 grams. This equates to 2,300 grains in mass. The energy being used is in foot-pounds of force and in joules. The best way to describe a single foot-pound of force, "is the amount of energy expended when a force of one pound acts through a distance of 1 foot along the direction of the force." While not scientifically "correct," the terms "force" and "energy" are used interchangeably in this article. Also, keep in mind that if a bullet does not release all of its energy into a single target, it will go through it while retaining the remainder of its force while coming out the other side. This is why most modern handgun projectiles are Jacketed-Hollow Points (JHPs), so they mushroom in deformation to a larger diameter (usually ~0.72" regardless of what caliber it started out as), thus increasing surface area and resistance in the target medium and will then release more energy over shorter distance (basically to prevent over-penetration at close range). Over penetration of a target means that not all of the kinetic energy in the projectile winds up being released in that target. From the target's perspective, that means less overall damage. Rifle cartridges are also designed to deposit as much energy as possible in a target in a relatively short distance. The 5.56mm NATO projectile, if within 200 yards, will often critically destabilize while acutely decelerating in a soft target medium and fragment into many pieces; releasing its energy all at once in a very small distance. The 7.62x39mm Soviet will usually tumble a few times (yaw/pitch) in a soft target medium and in doing so release a spike of its remaining energy in each tumble (and if it stops in the medium, will wind up facing backwards). The 7.62mm NATO projectile will usually tumble once and if it does not exit the other side of the target medium (which it usually does at closer ranges), it will expend all of its energy into the target and end up facing backwards--this is due to the projectile's point of balance being closer to the rear, as the back half of most rifle projectiles are heavier than the front. Once any of the Big Three cartridge projectiles begin rapid deceleration in a target medium, their centrifugal spin-stabilization (caused by the rifling in the rifle barrel--similar to a nicely thrown "spiral" pass of an American football) usually fails and the laws of physics continue with inertia, resistance, velocity and mass in the target medium. Now, let's get into the meat and potatoes of mass, velocity and energy: A 90 mph (132 feet per second, or fps) fastball (major league baseball is 149 grams, 1/3 of a pound or 2,300 grains) exerts approximately 60 ft/lbs of force as the pitcher releases it: Baseball (Fastball) 2,300 grains ~60 ft/lbs (81 joules) @ 132 fps (90mph) This may not be really easy to envision in any practical sense of energy when thinking of foot-pounds of force, so joules are also included. 1 joule of energy is equal to the force required for an average adult human to pick up an apple from the ground to their waist (~1m). Conversely, 1 joule is the amount of force released when that same human drops that same apple from that height. Since an apple weighs about the same as a baseball, a person must exert 81 times the force needed to pick up an apple to pitch a 90mph fastball. Now that a few rough practical examples of applied force have been given, let us now examine the Big Three military-surplus cartridge calibers' energy at varying distances (.30 Caliber Carbine and two pistol calibers are thrown in as a comparison to more modern military cartridges): Caliber, Bullet Weight, Muzzle Energy and Muzzle Velocity 7.62x51mm NATO 147 gr ~2,550 ft/lbs (3,457 joules) @ 2,700 fps (FMJ) 7.62x39mm Soviet 123 gr ~1,525 ft/lbs (2,067 joules) @ 2,360 fps (FMJ) 5.56x45mm NATO 62 gr ~1,250 ft/lbs (1,694 joules) @ 3,050 fps (FMJ) .30 Caliber Carbine 110 gr ~965 ft/lbs (1,308 joules) @ 1,995 fps (FMJ and JSP) .45 ACP 230 gr ~390 ft/lbs (528 joules) @ 875 fps (JHP) 9x19mm Luger/Parabellum 115 gr ~385 ft/lbs (521 joules) @ 1,225 fps (JHP) Energy at 100 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~2,100 ft/lbs (2,847 joules) @ 2,550 fps 7.62x39mm Soviet ~1,200 ft/lbs (1,626 joules) @ 2,104 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~970 ft/lbs (1,315 joules) @ 2,650 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~600 ft/lbs (813 joules) @ 1,570 fps Energy at 200 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~1,750 ft/lbs (2,374 joules) @ 2,331 fps (now moving faster than 62 gr 5.56NATO) 7.62x39mm Soviet ~915 ft/lbs (1,240 joules) @ 1,825 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~735 ft/lbs (995 joules) @ 2,310 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~375 ft/lbs (508 joules) @ 1,240 fps (equal in force to 230 gr .45ACP @ ~10 yards) Energy at 300 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~1,450 ft/lbs (1,965 joules) @ 2,125 fps 7.62x39mm Soviet ~690 ft/lbs (935 joules) @ 1,585 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~550 ft/lbs (745 joules) @ 2,000 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~265 ft/lbs (359 joules) @ 1,040 fps Energy at 400 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~1,200 ft/lbs (1,625 joules) @ 1,931 fps (equal in force to 5.56NATO @ ~15 yards) 7.62x39mm Soviet ~515 ft/lbs (700 joules) @ 1,370 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~405 ft/lbs (550 joules) @ 1,718 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~210 ft/lbs (284 joules) @ 930 fps Energy at 500 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~1,000 ft/lbs (1,355 joules) @ 1,750 fps 7.62x39mm Soviet ~395 ft/lbs (535 joules) @ 1,200 fps (equal in force to 230gr .45ACP @ ~2 yards) 5.56x45mm NATO ~290 ft/lbs (393 joules) @ 1,460 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~175 ft/lbs (237 joules) @ 850 fps Energy at 600 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~810 ft/lbs (1,100 joules) @ 1,560 fps (equal in force to 5.56NATO @ ~150 yards) 7.62x39mm Soviet ~280 ft/lbs (379 joules) @ 1,030 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~172 ft/lbs (233 joules) @ 1,122 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~135 ft/lbs (183 joules) @ 760 fps It is plainly obvious why so many recommend a 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Win) chambered rifle as a primary defense rifle. It clearly overpowers all other modern, common military battle rifle calibers at all ranges and maintains a further effective range. The few negative aspects are the relatively higher recoil, louder report and heavier cartridge weight. Keeping in mind the power of the aforementioned rifle calibers, and that the more powerful cartridges weigh more, and thus the shooter would be able to carry less ammunition when comparing a like weight (e.g. 25lbs) of ammunition. An average adult human male can only comfortably carry about a 65 lb load on their shoulders. An average adult human female can only comfortably carry about a 40 lb load on their shoulders. Keep that in mind when selecting a primary defense rifle. Penetration is another important thing to consider. So is effective range and accuracy. Determine which pros outweigh the cons and pick your rifle(s) accordingly. By comparing the Big Three military calibers most commonly found in semi-automatic "battle" rifles in the U.S., I hope you have expanded your understanding a little bit on the amount of power they each bring to bear. If possible, I recommend getting at least one rifle in 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Win) and another in either 7.62x39mm Soviet or 5.56x45mm NATO (or both if you can afford it). Heck, two of each is good too. When it comes to the .30 Carbine cartridge and the M1 Carbine which fires it, many will pooh-pooh its lack of "stopping" power. Many of these same individuals will champion the .45 ACP as a great handgun cartridge. I know one is a pistol and one is a carbine, but the M1 Carbine more or less bridges the gap between a handgun and a battle rifle. At 200 yards, the M1 Carbine hits with the same power as the .45ACP does at nearly point-blank range. While the .30 Carbine cartridge in military configuration is FMJ (to abide to the Hague Convention of War [that restricts military use of expanding bullets], which at closer ranges can over penetrate a target and thus not release all of its kinetic energy, there are many commercially available sources which are loaded with JSP (Jacketed Soft Point) projectiles. These deforming bullets are essentially the same as most hunting bullets, though would be better as a personal defense weapon than a hunting one. Within the effective range, they will deform and ensure that most or all of the energy of the bullet is released in the target. For defensive purposes, an M1 Carbine is still viable as a PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) in your battery--especially for small-statured women and adolescent children. A Ruger 10/22 (or Marlin 60/795) with Tech-Sights installed has a very similar length of pull, sight picture, and balance as an M1 Carbine. It can easily be used to train a person unfamiliar with firearms using the inexpensive .22LR cartridge until they prove proficient enough to graduate to a centerfire weapon--the M1 Carbine is the perfect transition weapon from the 10/22. It is more powerful and easier to control and has a greater effective range than most modern semi-auto handguns. While both the .30 Carbine cartridge and the M1 Carbine firearm are both fairly outdated, and there are better choices for a defensive rifle and cartridge, they are still better and more versatile than any semi-auto handgun, in my opinion. If you wind up seeing a WWII or Korean War era M1 Carbine from the CMP, at a gun show, pawn shop or from a personal seller and it is a reasonable price, I suggest looking into getting one. Also, a few modern reproductions are floating around out there by IAI (Israeli Aerospace Industries) and Auto-Ordnance (Both are good quality and American made). [JWR Adds: The Plainfield and Iver Johnson clones were also quite well made. The M1 Carbine reproductions to avoid were those made by Universal Industries. Few of their parts interchange with original GI M1 Carbine parts, and their trigger groups could best be descibed as "pot metal". They were in fact more "look-alikes" than they were M1 Carbine clones.] But when building your survival battery, make certain you can afford the necessary accoutrements for each rifle; such as magazines, spare parts, web gear/LBE, ammunition, lubricant/rust preventative, cleaning accessories, and most of all--training. Get familiar with safety first and foremost, and move your way into nomenclature and eventually to close, intermediate and long range shooting with each caliber in various shooting positions to broaden your horizons further. I also suggest that you pick up some grocery-store throw-away produce and line them up at varying ranges to see what kind of hydrostatic shock your rifle can produce at 400+ yards. Melons, pumpkins and coconuts are fun to shoot. They also put all the numbers above in perspective to what 1,000+ joules of force can do to soft tissue. Let is all hope and pray that no one reading this will ever need to use any firearm in their battery against another human being. But if one day we find ourselves forced to defend our lives, family and property, then let us be prepared to stand and fight! References: Chuck Hawks' Ballistics Page (Rifle Shooter magazine) .308 Winchester Ballistics (Rifle Shooter magazine) 7.62x39 Ballistics (Rifle Shooter magazine) .223 Ballistics (Rifle Shooter magazine) .30 US Carbine Ballistics (Rifle Shooter magazine) Wikipedia Page: Joule Answers.com: Foot/Pounds Baseball Pitching Facts and Fallacies Rifle Shooter Magazine's Ballistics Page TKD Tutor: The Concept of Force The cited energy and mass conversions done using Microsoft "Convert" utility program http://www.survivalblog.com/

NOOB | 12-15-2008 07:09 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States If I could only have one of my rifles it would be a 308. A little heavier to carry but I am confident in the outcome if I should have to use it.

electric-amish | 12-15-2008 09:09 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Interesting how the Ar bullet pull ahead at three hundred yards over the AK round. Longer shots AR has accuracy and hitting advantage. E-A

Twisted Avatar | 12-15-2008 10:19 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by electric-amish (Post 1467621) Interesting how the Ar bullet pull ahead at three hundred yards over the AK round. Longer shots AR has accuracy and hitting advantage. E-A
If they just worked on the jamming problem everything would be gravy.:ok: T

platinumdude | 12-15-2008 10:21 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by electric-amish (Post 1467621) Interesting how the Ar bullet pull ahead at three hundred yards over the AK round. Longer shots AR has accuracy and hitting advantage. E-A
Where do you see that? Energy at 300 yards 7.62x51mm NATO ~1,450 ft/lbs (1,965 joules) @ 2,125 fps 7.62x39mm Soviet ~690 ft/lbs (935 joules) @ 1,585 fps 5.56x45mm NATO ~550 ft/lbs (745 joules) @ 2,000 fps .30 Caliber Carbine ~265 ft/lbs (359 joules) @ 1,040 fps

eat_beef | 12-15-2008 11:52 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Numbers don't mean that much, esp. a random one like "energy". There is a whole lot more to "stopping power" than m(V squared). Frontal area and moment of impact come to mind. BTW, the author should really look up what a "Battle Rifle" is. Hint: He only lists one chambering for a battle rifle. The others are an intermediate cartridge and a varmint cartridge, respectively.:no_ma:

G.Gordon | 12-16-2008 12:41 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States :smile:M-1 Garand with A.P. is my idea of a "Battle Rifle". Handles anything up to and including armored vehicles at extened ranges where lighter cartridges just won't cut it. (I'm not picking on AR's or AK's), I love my AK. Just love my Garand more.

buff01 | 12-16-2008 12:51 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States It's all about the energy and whether the bullet stays in the target or not. The "stopping power" arguments are generally full of crap if you look at the energies.

eat_beef | 12-16-2008 10:19 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States How many living organisms have you killed with a firearm? 'Energy' is an arbitrary number. It cannot tell you the amount of damage the projectile will do in flesh. The advantages of frontal area and BMBs are well documented. The following is data taken from Remington's website: Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington� Express�240 SP 1650 1015 661 501 411 346 Remington� Express�275 JHP CL 1524 1020 730 582 490 422 UMC�123 MC 1527 1159 865 Remington� Express�130 PSP CL 2702 2225 1818 1472 1180 936 The top two are 44mag, the UMC is 7.62x39, and the last one is a 270Win. Notice that the 'energy' of the x39 and 44 are very close to the same, while the 270 is massively higher. But which does a more effective job of putting down an animal at close range? The 44 mag, with it's lesser 'energy', is by far the best 'Dead Right There' choice, with the 270 a distant second and the x39 a VERY distant third. Here's another example: Energy (ft-lbs) Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington� Express�250 PSP CL 4540 3888 3314 2807 2363 1977 Premier� A-Frame250 AF PSP 4540 3882 3303 2794 2347 1960 Remington� Express�270 SP 4337 3510 2812 2228 1747 1361 Premier� A-Frame300 AF PSP 4262 3357 2608 2001 1523 1163 The top two are 338 Rem Ultra mags, the bottom two are 375 H&H mags. The 338 RUM has a marked advantage in 'energy', especially at distance. But which one would be used to take a large animal like a Cape Buffalo? While 'energy' is a good 'at a glance' measure of a cartridge's effectiveness, there is a whole lot more to ballistics than one arbitrary measure.

The Argent Dragon | 12-16-2008 09:44 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States These type of debates remind me of the Performance Car forums...... Horsepower vs. Torque The right combination is the winner...... Thus, if you do Energy vs. Velocity the same applies ~ the most effective combination wins. That said, the 308 or 7.62x51mm is damn hard to beat in performance, price, and effectiveness. I like my FAL hands down........everything else is just a close 2nd. :wink:

buff01 | 12-17-2008 01:31 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by eat_beef (Post 1468360) While 'energy' is a good 'at a glance' measure of a cartridge's effectiveness, there is a whole lot more to ballistics than one arbitrary measure.
Obviously the bullet's tumble/expansion characteristics play a part in the damage done, and it's something you have to take into consideration. As I stated before, the stopping power argument is BS. I'd rather have a 7.62x39 round tumble and stay in the target than a higher energy round like .308 punch through and keep going. Not that it really makes that much of a difference. More important is hitting the target.

eat_beef | 12-17-2008 08:54 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States That is an absurd arguement/statement. What is your data to back up your hypothesis? First you say you're all about 'energy' (the problem with energy as a be all end all is that it relies too heavily on velocity), then you say you'd rather have a x39 than a 308, which is VASTLY superior in both 'energy' and real killing power. And where do you get the tumbling effect of x39? It is well known for 'ice pick' through and through wounds. IE: no tumbling, expansion, or fragmentation. Finally, despite all the hype of 'energy' and hydrostatic shock, most bullets kill via insanguination. They do a massive amount of damage, which causes massive amounts of blood loss. An animal that recieves a large exit wound will bleed out faster than one which has only the entrance wound, all things being equal. Blood fills the cavity surrounding the wound and actually causes pressure which slows bloodflow if the blood is trapped in the body cavity, whereas with a good exit wound pressure can't build up.

platinumdude | 12-17-2008 10:33 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States For hunting medium size game I would use a .308. For people at shorter distances I would probably use an Ak47.

Abouthadit | 12-17-2008 10:36 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States 1 Attachment(s) Need pics, more pics. My new 308

The Argent Dragon | 12-17-2008 10:38 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by Abouthadit (Post 1470260) Need pics, more pics. My new 308
Whoa, that's very nice.........Saiga w/wood furniture ?

Abouthadit | 12-17-2008 10:49 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by The Argent Dragon (Post 1470265) Whoa, that's very nice.........Saiga w/wood furniture ?
Yeah, baby. I picked up a black one with 22in barrel at the same time in case I need to arm someone else. Had been stacking 308 ammo for a while saving up for a good deal. The Saiga was about half price of a M1A and a lot less than a FAL.

Twisted Avatar | 12-17-2008 11:49 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by Abouthadit (Post 1470260) Need pics, more pics. My new 308
I got the Exact same is 7.62 That is my most prized rifle. I plan on getting the furntinure inscribed one day with the following. OATH OF A SOVEREIGN: REMAIN ARMED, REMAIN FREE. T

buff01 | 12-17-2008 04:23 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by eat_beef (Post 1470089) That is an absurd arguement/statement. What is your data to back up your hypothesis? First you say you're all about 'energy' (the problem with energy as a be all end all is that it relies too heavily on velocity), then you say you'd rather have a x39 than a 308, which is VASTLY superior in both 'energy' and real killing power. And where do you get the tumbling effect of x39? It is well known for 'ice pick' through and through wounds. IE: no tumbling, expansion, or fragmentation.
It's not absurd in the least. If a bullet exits the target, it is taking energy with it, which is undesirable. If it "sticks" in the target, it imparts 100% of its momentum to the target. I clarified my statement to include that while energy is the primary characteristic I look for, expansion/tumble is also important. As to the x39, you are the first person I've ever heard say that they don't tumble. .308 is very powerful, but it's just too much for close range. I like being able to have higher capacity and do just as much damage for a cheaper price with x39. But then my goal is short to mid range. I have no illusions that I am a sniper and will always get the drop on the bad guy.

Fullpower | 12-17-2008 04:57 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Argent Dragon says: "That said, the 308 or 7.62x51mm is damn hard to beat in performance, price, and effectiveness. I like my FAL hands down........everything else is just a close 2nd" There ya go. There is only ONE Battle rifle cartridge currently in common use: 7.62 x 51 NATO, aka .308 winchester. 7.92 mauser, 7.5 swiss, 7.62x54R, and the .30-06 are very fine, effective cartridges, but no longer in current mass production under military contract, and so can for our purpose in describing "battle rifle" cartridges, be considered obsolete. There are available any number of carbines, poodle shooters, target rifles, and black rifled-barrel toys chambered in lesser cartridges.

Abouthadit | 12-17-2008 04:58 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1470421) I plan on getting the furntinure inscribed one day with the following. OATH OF A SOVEREIGN: REMAIN ARMED, REMAIN FREE. T
:applause_:coolbeer::RockOn::ARMS1:

platinumdude | 12-17-2008 05:52 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States You need the 50 BMG for the ultimate thrill.

Twisted Avatar | 12-17-2008 05:55 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by Abouthadit (Post 1470975) :applause_:coolbeer::RockOn::ARMS1:
Might be Tattoo worthy as well.:ok: T

____hoot____ | 12-17-2008 06:27 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States The soviet military 7.62x39 bullet was designed to tumble with a hollow cavity under the point. On impact the point would flap over and by the rudder effect start the tumbleing and dumping of energy. One should always remember that the USA was won from England with long rifles fireing round lead balls of between 90 and 110 grains at 1900-2000 fps[about the same initial ballistics as a 30 carbine]. These 'squirrel rifles' were usually .39-.41 caliber and in good hands could do head shots out to 200 yards. They decimated the English officer corp in every engagement allowing Washington to engage and retreat over a score of times while still doing critical damage.

tulsamal | 12-17-2008 08:15 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States I just disagree with the opening arguments. 7.62x39 started being superseded by "the new round" back in 1974. It isn't even close to a front line round anymore. Doesn't mean it isn't useful but I don't understand how you can write a lengthy post like that and not even MENTION 5.45x39?! A whole lot of soldiers turned in their .30 caliber AK's for the 5.45 so it seems worth a bit of discussion! The other thing about caliber discussions is that they tend to be discussed without also comparing the weapons which chamber them. No doubt 7.62 NATO hits harder at the receiving end. But the rifles are generally heavier. The ammo is heavier. And they are mostly uncontrollable by average soldiers on full auto. Even short bursts. 5.56mm has to be considered with the M16/AR-15 in mind. As a civilian firearm, the AR-15 is the most versatile military style rifle you can own. I own three AK's, a couple of FAL's, a CETME, and many various older military guns. They all have their place but the AR can be easily and quickly changed into a firearm that can handle nearly every situation. You can go full auto and it will be controllable. You can go short barrel upper with a heavy caliber like .458 SOCOM or whatever and have amazing short range power. You can have a standard M4 style. Or A2 style. Or a flat top with a high powered scope. A DMR style. A scope and .204 Ruger. A .22 LR conversion kit. Heck, if you built a rifle AR on a pistol receiver, you could always turn it back into a pistol if you wanted to do so. If I'm going to go crawl around in the mud and have no supply chain to provide me with cleaning equipment, I'll take an AK. If the rifle will be used mainly in defense and therefore weight of ammo and rifle doesn't matter so much, I'll be happy with a FAL. But for a do it all gun, the AR-15 is the sweet spot. Learn to take care of it and it will take care of you! Gregg

RiverRat | 12-17-2008 08:24 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States :553: Quote:
7.62x51mm NATO 147 gr ~2,550 ft/lbs (3,457 joules) @ 2,700 fps (FMJ)
Quote:
7.62x54R Cartridge : 148gr Czech FMJ (silver painted tip) Firearm : M44 Mosin-Nagant carbine with 20.5" barrel length Block calibration : 8.8cm @ 579 ft/sec (Within ideal block tolerances) Single shot fired at 10' distance. Impacted block at 2676 ft/sec, penetrated nose-forward to 5.6", at which point the bullet turned on its side. The bullet continued on in this orientation until 10.0" depth, when it righted itself and continued to travel axially out of the rear of the block at 16.0" depth. Bullet was not recovered. The bullets path through the block deviated significantly from the initial line of impact, due to yawing. This yawing also spun the block ~ 180 degrees - the initial line of impact of the bullet was almost centered on the block... at the time of significant yawing (energy/momentum transfer), the bullet had traveled off to one side of the center of the block, thus creating a torque on the block and spinning it like a rag doll. Link: http://www.brassfetcher.com/148gr%20...ed%20tip).html Military 7.62x54R is still being produced by quite a few countries including Russia and China. The demand for Russian machine gun and rifle ammo in 7.62x54R is staggering considering how wide the global demographic and distribution of firearms chambered for this caliber are. It may not be a modern battle caliber by today's standards but I'd put it up against a .308 head to head any day for killing effectiveness and range in a real life battle situation. No arguments here...I own a Winchester Model 70 XTR in .308 and it's accurate and deadly. I also own a half dozen Mosin's in 7.62x54R. Which one would I choose to grab first if I had to engage in a firefight under real life severe weather and battle conditions ? Give me a Mosin...I doubt the Winchester could survive mud,ice,sand,and abuse like a dedicated military weapon. If it won't fire...it's just a big expensive club. You'd be dead. :bear_w00t::bear_w00t::bear_w00t:

Curtman | 12-17-2008 10:33 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat (Post 1471336) :553: 7.62x54R Cartridge : 148gr Czech FMJ (silver painted tip) Firearm : M44 Mosin-Nagant carbine with 20.5" barrel length
Agreed but tell me. Where can I order some bent bolts and how did you resolve the fixed bayonet mount. I hate that part and wish it was clean. I would hot wrench it off but think it would warp the barrel, Hack saw still would require some grinding and heat so? I don't want the mount on there nor do I like the straight bolt.

Fullpower | 12-18-2008 01:06 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsamal (Post 1471323) No doubt 7.62 NATO hits harder at the receiving end. But the rifles are generally heavier. The ammo is heavier. Gregg
There it is: 7.62x51 is the answer... now we go on to THE Rifle. FAL G3/HK91 M14 AR10 Galil/Valmet/Saiga

platinumdude | 12-18-2008 05:25 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States 50 BMG Barett.

RiverRat | 12-18-2008 06:29 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States :553: Saw off the M44 bayonet mount Curtman ? Easier to just buy a M38 which has no bayonet mount...they look sleek and clean. Besides...the M44 looks pretty mean with the bad boy bayonet extended...the intimidation factor counts for something. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: I like both...but I do prefer the M38's overall looks. They are getting very hard to find...I have 3 so far. Quite a few specialty gunsmith guys do the curved bolt modification thing...search the web. Used to be a couple guys on eBay that would swap bolts with you or modify your bolt for a price. I personally like the straight bolts...no mods here. All my Mosin's (M38's / M44's) are pure Russian...no reworked Finns so far...they are out of sight price wise for a nice one...I have never saw one ( Finn) at a gun show for sale. BTW: I've shot about a dozen deer over the years with one shot kills at anywhere from 50 yards to 200 yards with iron sights...the M38 is a jewel to carry in the woods,a pretty mean looking gun for $69.00...beats a 30-30 any day for stopping power. The M44's stay in the gun cabinet most of the time...they are front heavy with the bayonet and not a sporting weapon of choice by any means. I would not be afraid to run up on a nasty bear with a Mosin and heavy ammo...the light loads are OK for deer,but I prefer the heavy ammo out to 200 yards. Here's a link for ya' on the M38... http://www.mosinnagant.net/USSR/Model-1938-Carbine.asp :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

eat_beef | 12-18-2008 11:42 PM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by buff01 (Post 1470908) It's not absurd in the least. If a bullet exits the target, it is taking energy with it, which is undesirable. If it "sticks" in the target, it imparts 100% of its momentum to the target. I clarified my statement to include that while energy is the primary characteristic I look for, expansion/tumble is also important. As to the x39, you are the first person I've ever heard say that they don't tumble. .308 is very powerful, but it's just too much for close range. I like being able to have higher capacity and do just as much damage for a cheaper price with x39. But then my goal is short to mid range. I have no illusions that I am a sniper and will always get the drop on the bad guy.
Sorry, I can't help that you've never 'heard anyone say' the truth about x39 FMJ. It stinks for terminal performance. In the real world, you get about as many through and throughs with x 39 FMJ as with 308, which is to say A LOT! Where do you get off with the 'energy' kills arguement? Energy doesn't kill, blood loss kills. About the only place 'energy' or hydrostatic shock kills is in the head. Guess what? Even a .22 cal hole straight through the head with no energy at all... still kills. Now, energy does do damage, which causes blood loss, which kills. Of course, you're ragging 308 for over penetrating, without considering that with the proper bullet, you can pull even a 308 down to only a few inches of penetration. But back to your original (absurd) arguement. What if a x39 stopped in the body of your target (it rarely will), expending all it's potential energy. Now what if you had identical bullet placement with a 308, with similar bullet construction. Say you got a through and through. But the 308 still lost energy passing through the body. Say it expended 75% of it's potential energy. Guess what? That's still a lot more energy than the x39 ever had to start with! What if it only expended 50% of it's energy? It now only has slightly less energy than the x39. We won't even take into account that the 308's 150gr bullet is about 50% longer than the x39, which means it does 3x more damage (which causes blood loss, which kills) than the x 39 as it travels sideways through the body. [As an aside, the main reason the 308 destabilizes/tumbles more than the x39 in flesh is the fact that the bullet is longer and sharper, and is travelling at a vastly higher velocity. 308 almost always tumbles in my experience, the only exceptions being when bone is not hit/clipped, and when passing through a very small body (6" or less).] But back to the point. Where is your data? How many rounds, of how many calibers, with what types of bullet construction, have you examined? Where do you get your information? Or are we just supposed to believe you because you wish it to be so?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM. |
Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States

Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=331439)

buff01 | 12-19-2008 02:31 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by eat_beef (Post 1473389) Or are we just supposed to believe you because you wish it to be so?
You don't have to believe me. You obviously know everything that can possibly be known about guns, ammo, shooting, ballistics, and physics, so I'll just take a hike. :bear_w00t:

AurumAg | 12-19-2008 03:06 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Like every single thread with this title, we have digressed into the "polarized penis measurement phase." I'll throw in: For just about every scenario, there is an appropriate tool. Personally I like .308 and .223, in that order, but my "go-to" rifle is a .223. Anything in 7.62x39 is for hasty team-equipping, back-up, or barter.

eat_beef | 12-19-2008 08:36 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by buff01 (Post 1473514) You don't have to believe me. You obviously know everything that can possibly be known about guns, ammo, shooting, ballistics, and physics, so I'll just take a hike. :bear_w00t:
I'm not asking you to take a hike, just back up something...anything...you say with reason.

platinumdude | 12-19-2008 09:29 AM
Re: Comparing the Big Three Battle Rifle Chamberings in the United States Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsamal (Post 1471323) I just disagree with the opening arguments. 7.62x39 started being superseded by "the new round" back in 1974. It isn't even close to a front line round anymore. Doesn't mean it isn't useful but I don't understand how you can write a lengthy post like that and not even MENTION 5.45x39?! A whole lot of soldiers turned in their .30 caliber AK's for the 5.45 so it seems worth a bit of discussion! The other thing about caliber discussions is that they tend to be discussed without also comparing the weapons which chamber them. No doubt 7.62 NATO hits harder at the receiving end. But the rifles are generally heavier. The ammo is heavier. And they are mostly uncontrollable by average soldiers on full auto. Even short bursts. 5.56mm has to be considered with the M16/AR-15 in mind. As a civilian firearm, the AR-15 is the most versatile military style rifle you can own. I own three AK's, a couple of FAL's, a CETME, and many various older military guns. They all have their place but the AR can be easily and quickly changed into a firearm that can handle nearly every situation. You can go full auto and it will be controllable. You can go short barrel upper with a heavy caliber like .458 SOCOM or whatever and have amazing short range power. You can have a standard M4 style. Or A2 style. Or a flat top with a high powered scope. A DMR style. A scope and .204 Ruger. A .22 LR conversion kit. Heck, if you built a rifle AR on a pistol receiver, you could always turn it back into a pistol if you wanted to do so. If I'm going to go crawl around in the mud and have no supply chain to provide me with cleaning equipment, I'll take an AK. If the rifle will be used mainly in defense and therefore weight of ammo and rifle doesn't matter so much, I'll be happy with a FAL. But for a do it all gun, the AR-15 is the sweet spot. Learn to take care of it and it will take care of you! Gregg
This post deserves a bump.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM. |
Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM