Is there really any combat relevant disadvantages to using 7.62x39 over 5.56. Thinking about Finland as an example

Is there really any combat relevant disadvantages to using 7.62x39 over 5.56. Thinking about Finland as an example

Attached: 1529291073232.png (1007x1295, 81K)

X39 is heavier.
Alot. Heavier

A good x39 bullet will perform well at close range and drop off further out, as expected due to weight. Nothing wrong with x39, just don't expect it to be 5.56 and it's viable. Within 100 yards a modern x39 will penetrate barriers better and still kill your opponents just as dead as 5.56. Ammo will be a heavier for the same amount. More of an arc trying to shoot at range. More kick than 5.56.

dumb frogposter

No.
In fact, there's a lot of pros over 5.56. Especially with the Finnish match-grade Sako ammo they use. Literally good enough for 'em to use them for DMR purposes up to ~450 meters, using RK-95 + AGOC scope.

people really exaggerate the weight difference.

Attached: decf3c87.jpg (911x1201, 251K)

>really any combat relevant disadvantages
What sort of combat are you expecting to participate in? 7.62x39 is plenty accurate within 300m. On the other hand, if you're not in the military you can use whatever fancy expanding 5.56 you want, so there's no need to limit yourself to just miluhtareree ish-yew rounds. The 5.56 is appreciably easier to put more rounds on target faster, but it's not like that's difficult to do with the x39, it's just not as easy.

The Finns did test out rounds and found this out.
From best to worst.
>7.62x39mm
>5.56x45mm SS109/M855
>5.56x45mm M193
>5.45x39mm
The 5.45 preformed the worst due to its long bullet and it's habit to tumble. The M193 just didn't have the mass to punch through brush or cover.
The M855/SS109 did almost as well as the 7.62x39mm.

Isn't 5.56 better at armor penetration? Especially the M855A1?

M855A1 is STUPID GOOD at it, but any Lv IV plate is going to defeat any round currently fielded, the only way I could see this changing is some lightweight tungsten or wolfram bullet going 3500 fps.

>Isn't 5.56 better at armor penetration?
if it can't even punch through a brick, a pine tree, or slightly frozen snow, it's practically useless in Winland.

with 556 you get
less recoil
flater trajectory
better armor penetration

with 7.62 you get
better barrier penetration
more energy


556 requires a decent amount of barrel length to achieve quality wound channels.

762 requires a decent bullet design like 8m3 to achieve quality wound channels.

I'm personally a 7.62 guy, but both are fine and will kill effectively so long as your set up isn't retarded and the shooter knows what he's doing.

>5.56x45 FMJ fully penetrates 3/8" mild steel plate at 100 yards.
>7.62x39 FMJ leaves a dent in 3/8" mild steel plate at 100 yards.

That was a quality, well thought out post that looked at all sides of the issue fairly. I don't know what the fuck you think you're doing here, but you need to knock that shit off or leave. The only thing we do here is autistic screeching and name calling.

shut up, faggot reeeeeeeeeee

>double nigger spotted

for all reading, when people say X has better penetration, they can be referring to a number of things. So let me be clear:

556 is faster and smaller diameter, and is therefore better at penetrating armor, such as steel.

7.62x39 is fatter, slower, with more energy, and is better at penetrating walls, light barriers, brush, windshields, car doors, etc. This is because it doesn't fragment as easily.

556 is better at penetration, but is also worse at penetration. make sense?

We were taught in the british army 5.56 was more effective than 7.62 as its likely to wound the enemy rather than kill forcing another combatant to disengage and tend to the casualties allowing us better flanking and return fire opportunities.

Yet the medical photography of Vietnam war was classified at the time because the 5.56 wounds were deemed too devastating

Attached: 1365573656195.png (363x475, 89K)

>british army
theres your problem

Yeah, we were told it puts a spin on the round so that it turns when entering the target causing severe internal injury as opposed to a 7.62 with a straight exit point. I never paid much attention in the army though.

Better penetration, more useful in forest,
Heavier, carry amount little bit smaller.
Harsher recoil.
Neither russia or nato don't use it much anymore, both are considered threats for Finnish "independence" just like our retarded leaders

Wasn't it somewhat related to bullet ?

At least russians got tumbling after hit for 545x39 by leaving some air in jacket.

Attached: Finnish grunt.jpg (1199x676, 157K)

>Is
*are

worth considering is that birtbongs use different bullets for 5.56 than the US, or at least did for a while not 1000% sure what current issue is. Thicker jackets to prevent fragmentation means most wounding was caused by yawing.

It's literally a full third heavier, bullet for bullet any way you look at it.

no, except its already the main service rifle's caliber. And maybe sub sonic use for special forces

t. finn

>Heavier, carry amount little bit smaller.
Loaded 30 round mag weights are 0,51 kg to around 0,8 kg. Plus 5.56 mags are more compact and almost straight

7,62x39 by itself is still no brush caliber and suspensible to tumbling and changing direction upon hitting leaves, sprouts and so forth. If there is a measurable difference between it and 5.56 then AFAIK none have done such test.

30 rnds of 556 weighs under 1 pound, a loaded M-4 mag weighs 1.1 pound

So the UKs battle plan is to wound the BGs while the BGs murder the Tommys? Sounds like a win win to me!