I have no idea what is the difference and which is better, so can someone explain? Basically if I were offered an AK or some other gun that had both a 5 and 7mm version, which would give me a better chance to survive (I’d go with the 7mm because it sounds stronger, but I as I said I am a total amateur,so…) , would the 5mm be able to carry more rounds and also does the bigger call affect the precision a lot or not? Thanks.
I’m not a soldier, but I imagine it would depend on where and how you were fighting.
In broad strokes, the 5.45mm AK would put smaller holes in you, but with more potential for the round to tumble or become unstable (due to the lighter mass and corresponding velocity drop in the target). You’d also be able to carry more rounds. Your range would be lower though, I believe.
The 7.62x39 AK would put bigger holes in you, but the greater momentum would mean that the bullets would remain more stable (Google “Fackler 5.45 7.62” for more), and probably go straight through. Your range might be a little bit more, but you’d pay for that with greater kick, a heavier weapon and fewer rounds carried.
I’d personally go with the 5.45, but that’s me.
What situation are we trying to survive? Are we assuming that the gun in question is being shot at you from short range, or from long? What’s the skill level of the person with the gun? In any event, though, your best chance to survive would be if your attacker doesn’t have either of those guns, nor any other weapon.
Having a gun doesn’t make you bulletproof. Your personal skills in marksmanship, using cover/concealment, and situational awareness will all play a far greater role in you surviving armed combat than which of these cartridges your rifle uses. A particularly valuable skill is learning to recognize when winning consists of not engaging. For armed civilians, that is quite a lot of the time.
Diameter is only one number. For example there are both 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm rounds that fire different sized projectiles, from different size cartridges, with different ballistic characteriztics. The you have to take into effect that there’s different ammunition that fits the standard with different projectile weights, velocities, and total energy.
At a very, very general level all assault rifles fire intermediate power cartridges. They have more power than pistol ammo that was fired by submachineguns but less power than the battle rifles. Assault rifles replaced both to enable some automatic fire capability to all but still be able to have some control. Generally the 7.62x39mm Soviet round has more power than the 5.45 Soviet and 5.56 NATO rounds. That makes it slightly harder to control from shot to shot, other things being equal. The 7.62x39mm also weigh more meaning you can carry less for the same amount of load. The US and NATO leaned towards slightly less power and carrying more. The Soviets followed that lead when they replaced the AK-47 with the smaller caliber AK-74.
Which will help you “survive” better depends. For general military usage the major powerss of the last decades tended to vote for being able to shoot more. All intermediate rielf rounds will penetrate soft body armor. They won’t penetrate hard plates. They all inflict reasonably serious wounds but sacrifice some lethality versus full power rifle rounds.
Now since you are talking about different weapons along with the different cartridges you open up a huge other list of variations that can affect both the ability to hit and how serious the wound from that hit is. Gun obsessed can argue about that for hours, days, weeks…
Sorry, I don’t live in a English speaking country,so I’ll try to clear it up, I meant if you were the shooter and you just simply got in a battle in an urban environment (for example Russians in Donetsk being attacked by Ukrainians or Ukrainians in Mariupol by Russians) and you had to fight of ,a wave of enemies" (of course not you alone) , would you get a higher chance of more kills with the 5’ or 7’? Of course there are a lot of other factors, but I am talking purely about the weapon part. Basically 1.which one has more firepower? 2.What are some advantages and disadvantages of both of them? And 3.How do environments affect them, for example which one would be better for a rural hilly area, which one for urban,etc. and why?
Folks on gun boards have been debating .223 vs. .308 for decades.
Suffice to say, one round is not “better” than the other. Each has its pros and cons.
Be honest, this is about Call of Duty, right?
1- Firepower is often measured in the amount of ammo you have. So the nod goes to the 5.56 for that. If you’re talking about the ‘power’ of each individual round at the same distance, the 7.62 has more.
2 - If we compare your standard AK47 in 7.62 to the AR/M16-M4 in 5.56, it has been said that the AK47 is made with less tighter tolerances, and as such is less likely to jam/malfunction in dirty environments. As such is easier to use for your general smuck that just picks it up and starts firing. This though has changed over the years.
3-See #2 above. War is dirty. Either cartridge is going to cause serious problems to a soldier that is hit. The 7.62 does put out more energy. BUT… Most rounds fired never hit anything but dirt. IMHO, that gives the nod to the soldier that can carry more ammo.
And the debate will never end of course.
OK, now you’re redefining the problem. Do you want to maximize the number of kills you score, or do you want to maximize your own chances for survival? The two are very, very different.
Your ‘higher chance of more kills’ is going to come from your supporting arms, be they indirect fire, air, or your organic crew-served weapons, like your PKMs, NSVs, AGS-30s, and the like. Assuming no IEDs, mines, etc…
Rifles, while nice, are a rounding error, when looking at what causes casualties on the battlefield. So go with the one easier to supply and use. Now bullets are very lethal (1 in 5 of US personnel shot in Iraq with bullets died; which is still better than the WW2 1 in 3), but it’s machine guns shooting most of them, and they’re still a smaller proportion of wounds than explosions are (shells, mines, IEDs).
With the shorter distances typical in urban fighting, 5.5 mm will be just fine. It’s trivial either way.
I live in a region of europe that is called the ,powder keg" and in the country that has the most potential enemies of them all, so some knowledge isn’t a bad thing just in case.
Anyway thanks everyone.
Some good rationales here. Another factor in deciding which caliber is better for you is, can you get the ammo? Is it readily available? Can you buy enough to stockpile it?
OK nothing to do with effectiveness but if you can’t get the ammo you are hosed.
You will want a rifle using the same ammunition as your comrades use, at the very least. Ideally, you will all be using identical rifles for the sake of commonality of training, ammo, magazines, and parts. Whether the rifles are 5.45 or 7.62 is less important than that they are all the same. Machine guns and designated marksman rifles will, in your part of the world, often use the 7.62 x 54R cartridge. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to make sure that those weapons, if you have them, use the same ammo. The more you can streamline your logistics, the better off you will be. Ad hoc militias/irregulars/armed mobs typically perform poorly. They perform even more poorly when some portion of them run out of ammo and can’t resupply from their comrades.
That was my thought, as well. Actually, not only availability, but affordability. In the US, a 5.62 NATO sporting rifle can also fire .223 REM ammo, and both are generally cheaper than 7.62 mm ammo. And I also agree with Scumpup that you will want the same caliber as any comrades you might have.
The caliber is fairly meaningless. What matters is the man.
And the rifle.
You remind me of a quote from Jeff Cooper.
[QUOTE=Jeff Cooper]
There is hardly a rifled firearm that can be purchased over the counter today that is not more accurate than the shooter can appreciate.
[/QUOTE]
So just ask the Mossad.
The 7.62 X 39mm round originally developed in Russia for the AK or Kalashnikov, is today one of the most common rounds of ammo in the world. There are billions of rounds out there. You can buy 1000 rounds for under $300 easily.
If bad guys are shooting at you with an AK this is most likely the ammo they are shooting at you. All you have to do is shoot one, take his ammo, and repeat as long as you can, which probably wont be long. Game over, man! But, hey, in a fire fight there is likely to be plenty of this ammo around to pick up. Of course this depends upon the bad guys you are in a fight with, if it is NATO you will run out of ammo.
My wife bought me a Ruger model 77 bolt action hunting rifle for my birthday one year. She got it from her brother’s gunsmith father in law. I was surprised to find that it is chambered for 7.62x39mm. And they gave me a bunch of ammo.
If major hostilities with foreign insurgents happens during deer season, I am covered. Go! Wolverines!
As far as NATO rounds I would prefer the 7.62 overall as it has slightly better penetration characteristics and range. I was trained on the C7 and C1 (M16 and FN) when I was in the military and if it were me alone, I’d pick the FN every time. As noted above, there are a LOT of variables other than caliber to consider in your original question. YMMV…