Technically, it’s an autocannon.
Wait - 7.62x51 or 7.62x39? Because if you meant the latter, then yes, absolutely.
I actually had to look up the spelling to see if we had a truly epic screen name/post combination going here.
Close, but no cigar.
Which one fits into the “Russian Small Penis” AK…?
You are obviously not a hunter. .224" bullet rounds are pretty useful for small game and small deer hunting. The .222 is sort of the classic, but the .223 (the civilian version of the 5.56x45 NATO) has some advantages. Particularly if you load it with 62-75 grains bullets. It’s also a fairly cheap round for target shooting, needing only some 20-23 grains of powder.
The 5.56x45 is a very good round for legitimate, civilian use.
Two of the three most popular rounds for deer and moose hunting in Scandinavia are 7.62. 7.62x51 (or .308 Win) and 7.62x63 (AKA .30-06). The third is 6.5x55.
All three are very good rounds for big game hunting. Moderate recoil, enough punch for anything walking on four legs.
I’m not a hunter. A soldier, on occasion, but never a hunter (hunting isn’t done where I live). And I’d like to know what advantage the 5.56 has over the 7.62x51, other than price. The 7.62 has better range, better accuracy and better stopping power. On the other hand, the 5.56 and similar rounds have three advantages:
- They’re lighter, meaning a soldier can carry 240 rounds instead of 100;
- They’re smaller, meaning you can fit 30 in a magazine instead of 20 at most;
- They have less recoil, meaning that they’re more controllable in short bursts of rapid fire.
That’s all well and good for soldiers, but pointless for hunters, who usually won’t be asked to lay suppressing fire on deer. For every other purpose, especially in bolt-action rifles, the 7.62 is a better round.
Do guys who deer hunt with a semi-auto fire a single round, or do they rapid fire at the deer?
Smaller hole in the food. Less food to throw away, which makes a difference when you’re hunting small game. Lighter recoil. Put on a suppressor, and the recoil from a .223 is almost down to .22LR level. You get too keep your sights on the game to see if the shot was a good one. Better suited for short action lighweight guns. When you schlep that gun some 10-20 km in steep terrain you really notice that one kg difference in weight.
And when you burn a hundred or so rounds on one single day at the range, both lighter recoil and lower price are definite advantages. Burn 100 or more 7.62 rounds in a bolt-action, and your shoulder will be pretty sore. And it’ll cost you at least double compared to if you’re shooting a .223
Besides, the .222 (5.56x43) has been a very popular round for small game hunting for, idk, maybe 50-70 years. For a reason. The .223 (5.56x45) is almost the same round, just a little bit better. Which 5.56 are you suggesting to outlaw?
Around these parts, some folks hunt coyotes with .223. However, the couple I’ve known use the bolt-action format rather than AR. Inexpensive and accurate. I’m guessing some also use the AR format.
Not defending the AR, but saying the .223 might have some legit hunting uses.
I think this goes here,
Finally someone speaks truth to power about Wayne LaPierre,
The Uvalde shooter “bought” his weapons on spec: the gun dealer fronted them to the guy with a morsel of earnest money. When a person can kit up and stroll on out with an arsenal that wipes out 21 lives in a few moments, the cost of the product seems irrelevant.
I saw that clip elsewhere. It seems like it totally went over the heads of everyone there. Even got some scattered applause.
I am not a hunter, and I don’t know shit about guns. I used shotguns for trap shooting twice. That said, I have seen this question discussed elsewhere and the people who hunt and know about guns seem to feel that if a hunter has to use rapid-fire to take a deer, they are a pretty shitty hunter.
“An armed society is a civil society.”
Uhmmm. No.
Major Ron Martin with the North County Police Cooperative said that moments before the shooting, a man with a rifle had entered the grocery store.
Martin said he was “open carrying” the rifle in a sleeve underneath his shirt and did not threaten anyone while inside the store.
…
The man who was robbed of his rifle fled the scene.
Wait, you’re doubting that this was a “good guy” with a gun?
ESH. [and some extra letters, because Discourse apparently doesn’t recognize that short and pithy is better.]
Yep. I can’t imagine any hunting situation where a semi-auto with a high-capacity mag is necessary. Unless you buy a customised racing gun for competition, a stock bolt action rifle outperforms an AR-15 type rifle in nearly every department except rapid-fire capabilities. Rapid-fire is a lot less accurate than single shot fire, and if you can’t down a deer in one, maybe two shots you shouldn’t be hunting. And a bolt action is a lot less work to clean.
The round isn’t the problem. Rapid-fire and high-cap mags are.
Preaching to the choir. I’m just reporting my experience from knowing others that use that round for hunting, but in a bolt-action format. Others above were saying it wasn’t a useful hunting round and I know people that do use it.
I think we need a lot more regulation against all guns including upping the age limit.
I’d be happy with a minimum age of 87 to purchase a firearm or ammunition.