Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
5.56 Or 7.62 X 51?  
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6129 times:

After reading the post about the M240 and the M249, what do the firearm aficionados here prefer?

I have both, and each have their pros and cons:
5.56
PRO:
Cheap
Readily available
Accurate

CON:
Not as effective as 7.62


7.62
PRO
Accurate
Readily available
Good Performance/Range

CON
Heavier than 5.56
More expensive than 5.56

Throw in your two cents.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6123 times:

In order of preferance:

7.62x51mm
7.62x39mm





5.56mm

Personally I find it funny that the 7.62x51mm battle rifles were phased out because they were uncontrollable under automatic fire. Then the 5.56mm rifles that replaced them were modified to not shoot automatic because of ammo waste.


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

Since you brought the 7.62 X 39 into the mix, it is cheap and available. I can't say about the accuracy as I have a folding stock AK and just use it to plink cans; never tried it for accuracy.

User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12281 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6090 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

7.62x51mm.

First caliber I ever shot, using one of these babies:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y84/kaigywer/g3.jpg



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Have one, but this is my favorite:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/M1A.jpg


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6046 times:

5.56 only sounds cheaper and lighter.
You need more of them for the same effect (unless you get extremely lucky) so in the end it costs more and weighs more as well.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5995 times:

Dude...the main issue, as you know is shot placement, seconded by bullet throw weight.

The 7.62 is a much better round than the 5.56 as long as you can comfortably lug the bullet launcher around with sufficient ammo to do the necessary damage if everything else is equal. Problem is that it's generally not.

If you are an expert marksman and don't mind the couple of extra pounds that a 7.62 carbine weighs then by all means use that....it holds 10 fewer rounds than the usual 5.56 magazine, and is more difficult to shoot accurately from the smaller rifles, but it's more effective as long as you are strong enough to hold it steady (two pounds may not make much difference unless you are winded from having run and jumped).

If you have difficulty with that then remember that the 5.56 is easier to carry, shoot and recover from for a second shot when fired from a similar sized weapon. I can make double taps more easily with the carbine I have than I can with the M1A (which is my favorite rifle, albeit large and heavy) but I can't hit squat with the carbine from beyond 200 meters. So it's a tradeoff.

BTW...I'm probably getting a 7.62 carbine in the next month or so.

Just for shits and grins.....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5971 times:

Quoting Miamiair (Thread starter):
5.56 Or 7.62 X 51?

Neither. 12.7 × 99 (aka .50BMG).



http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/photos/thunder50bmg-3.jpg


User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5959 times:

Quoting Miamiair (Thread starter):
what do the firearm aficionados here prefer

I'm not an aficionado or gun person whatsoever so please forgive my ignorance.

What do you use the above for? Those are some mean looking firearms.

Hunting, target practice, collecting all the above?



I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5946 times:

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 8):
Hunting, target practice, collecting all the above?

YooYoo....the main purpose for firearms is shooting. Whether it's at paper targets, game animals or self defence they are designed for that.

There is also the collectibility issue for the firearms, just as with any other item out there produced in limited or known quantities.

Different people have different reasons for ownership of firearms and it's relatively difficult to put them all in one category...some people have multiple reasons for owning their firearms and that makes it even more difficult.

As far as looks go, it's a statistical fact that most firearms related deaths in North America come from .22 to .38 caliber firearms and the ones generally used in the commission of crimes aren't the "mean" looking ones that collectors like, but the ordinary looking cheap ones that sell for less than $200 retail.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
The 7.62 is a much better round than the 5.56 as long as you can comfortably lug the bullet launcher around with sufficient ammo to do the necessary damage if everything else is equal. Problem is that it's generally not.

You know, the M-14 system itself is actually not that much longer or heavier than an AR-15 (depends on the barrel, of course), it's the ammo that weighs so much more and takes up a lot more space.

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 8):
What do you use the above for? Those are some mean looking firearms.

The gun above your post looks pretty expensive, so it would most likely on used by people who can afford it (and the ammo), and they're usually fairly responsible. Most likely for shooting a targets, and just as a cool gun to have in the collection. There are a lot of guns I'd rather have than a .50BMG handgun, but that's just me. A .50 rifle would be fun, because you can use those on the long ranges....like 1000 yards and up! (those are also only used for target shooting).


User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
As far as looks go, it's a statistical fact that most firearms related deaths in North America come from .22 to .38 caliber firearms and the ones generally used in the commission of crimes aren't the "mean" looking ones that collectors like, but the ordinary looking cheap ones that sell for less than $200 retail.

Nope, i don't want to get into a debate about crime, murder with regards to firearms. I'm genuinely curious as to what they are used for.

My use of the word "mean" was not meant in a negative way but used as a "wow" description.

I've not fired many guns, but i do enjoy the target shooting and skill associated with it.



I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5902 times:

I actually prefer 7.62x63 (.30-06) because it knocks down full-size metallic silhouette rams at 200 yards with no problem. You have to hit them in just the right spot to knock them over with a .223, and even then it's iffy as to whether they'll go over or not.

The ballistics of the 7.62x63 and the 7.62x51 are similar, they can use the same projectiles but the x63 is slightly more powerful.

Here are a couple of pics of my 7.62x63 handgun:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/kmaf/Light%20Tent/IM001302-2.jpg



User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5892 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 10):
You know, the M-14 system itself is actually not that much longer or heavier than an AR-15 (depends on the barrel, of course), it's the ammo that weighs so much more and takes up a lot more space.

I'd have to disagree....it's alot heavier. Speaking as one who has humped both the M-16 and and M-21 system...it's a big difference to the man who has to carry it for a long distance. With equal amount of ammo and the extra wood/metal you've got a noticeable difference. Carry them both on separate 20 click road marches and then tell me it's not that much heavier.

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 11):
Nope, i don't want to get into a debate about crime, murder with regards to firearms. I'm genuinely curious as to what they are used for.

My use of the word "mean" was not meant in a negative way but used as a "wow" description.

Sorry if my answer seemed to take your question negatively. I was just trying to cover all the bases. It does look fairly mean.

Quoting Queso (Reply 12):
You have to hit them in just the right spot to knock them over with a .223,

you mean, like, in the middle?  Wink



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5888 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 13):
I'd have to disagree....it's alot heavier. Speaking as one who has humped both the M-16 and and M-21 system...

Now now, that's not really fair. The scope on the M-21 by itself probably weighs half of an M-16.  duck 


I find the M-14 to be a heavier rifle, and much more cumbersome, than the M-16. Only with a great deal of aftermarket work does the M-14 (at the very least a replacement for the stock) approach being a fieldable piece of infantry equipment. I've always thought that the FAL was a much better combat rifle.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5886 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 13):
you mean, like, in the middle?

No, at the top. It gives it more leverage. A bottom or middle shot will just push it back a little, not knock it down.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Area 51:Fact Or Fiction? posted Thu Jan 3 2002 18:44:24 by Arsenal@LHR
Hanoi Or Ho Chi Minh City? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 22:33:07 by B742
Are You With Sirius Or XM? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 20:57:03 by STLGph
Kid Rock Divorces Pamela (or Vice Versa) posted Tue Nov 28 2006 09:24:19 by TWISTEDWHISPER
2007 Wrangler (unlimited), Hardtop Or Canvas? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 04:12:15 by Thomasphoto60
Is "Stupid Indian" Racist Or Not? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 06:01:30 by Don
Who Used Viagra Or Cialis Without Needed It? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 00:45:34 by Bongo
Spamalot Or The Producers? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 00:29:53 by SW733
Peace Or Justice In Uganda: Choose One posted Mon Nov 13 2006 20:53:11 by MaverickM11
HD Video Cam Or Nikon D-80? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 15:36:28 by TedTAce
Best Cookbook\s\ You Have Or Want To Have posted Sat Feb 1 2014 14:12:22 by bjorn14
This Or That Thread posted Fri Jan 31 2014 02:53:35 by SA7700