5.56 or 7.62

its a necked-down pistol round you absolute girly man

correct

just because you can make a pistol in 45-70, doesn't mean you should.

300 grain @ 1900 fps... no pistol does that. 45's do 1080 fps @ 150 gr.

That the USSR and/or Russia moved to the 5.35x39 should clue you into the program.

5.56 for shooting targets. 7.62x39 for shooting people. If you actually think that 5.56 is anywhere near as deadly, you're legitimately retarded.

but it would be fucking cool, imagine the fireball

You're a literal brainlet.
Do your research, dunce. 7.62x39 is a garbage terminal performer. This reinforces my position that 7.62x39 is for faggot autists.

What is it the 1960s again?

Get_A_Load_Of_This_Guy.gif

Attached: Untitled.jpg (1600x1200, 139K)

545

Both because I'm not a poor

Why would you the 200-300 meter range matter that much? At that point, you're better off just getting a completely different class of round or something updated like the .224 Valkyrie. The 7.62 has impact performance, as mentioned by someone here:The impact difference between the two is a bigger deal than eeking out a few inches of drop between a narrow band of 200-300 meters anyways. That just seems like an awfully particular need to fill. Also, the 7.62 is easier to suppress since it's mass reliant rather than velocity. The only reason to get 5.56 is because the government will be using it along with NATO, so for SHTF replenishing for people who can't pack or forge their own rounds(I sure can't, no shame there).

Unless you're in an actual war, you're going to be shooting within 100yds so terminal ballistics don't mean shit. A higher velocity doesn't create a larger wound channel, a bigger bullet does.
Physics, bitches.

Attached: cool_doggo.jpg (987x768, 199K)

I've shot one. Magnum research bfr shooting Hornady vmax or somethjbg 45-70. Awesome but painful.

Need and not have bby. What's the average range of a DShK again?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to your videogames - although you should pay more attention in school; you're not very bright.
This is a literal schizo post. You make absolutely no sense. Stay in school, kids.

This is wrong. My 45-70 is fun for blowing up sodas

Are you retarded?

Attached: Sponge Squint.jpg (1383x916, 126K)

A surefire way to achieve early hearing loss. Based.
Absolutely based, and the correct answer to the 9 vs 45 debate, too.

What doesn't make sense? Both calibers are going to regularly be fired up to 300 meters. The 5.56 round only has a sheer advantage between 200-300, while the impact damage by the 7.62 is higher along with penetration(using standard round comp for both). So does that 200-300 range matter? Not really. Then it comes down to utility, which the 7.62 wins because it's easier to suppress, and availability, which the 5.56 has through government backing.

Yes.

how does vmax 7.62x39 perform?

Let's end this debate once and for all k.
Experts from this point only

7.62x51
/thread

7.62 is a bigger number and therefore better

>impact performance
>impact damage

Out of curiosity, how are you defining this, exactly?

It’s not that bad

Attached: 31C82888-2638-49F4-8759-D56DE584CB85.jpg (4032x3024, 2.88M)

7.62x39 has better penetration of common urban barriers, taper for super reliable extraction, and plenty of power. 5.56x45 has flatter trajectory, less recoil, and lighter load for more ammunition carried at the same weight. Consider what it is you need your rifle cartridge to do, then buy both because dirty poors get the fuck off my board.

Penetration capability, kilojoules delivered,and mean entrance and exit wound sizes.

What about damage to internal tissue? Granted, this can vary heavily from one type of bullet to another. My point is that, from what I've seen and read, there are 5.56mm bullets and loads which can cause a surprising amount of internal damage for such a small bullet. Of course I wouldn't be surprised if the most lethal 5.56 bullet still can't quite match the most lethal 7.62x39 bullet, but it's all about tradeoffs and what's most important to you, as pointed out.

6.5

Attached: 6-5-Grendel-vs-6-5-Creedmoor-feat-img.jpg (770x523, 133K)

7.62x39
It's easier to get materials for and it can be in an AR and AK platform.

Why not both?

Attached: Choices.jpg (282x278, 23K)

>cartridge matters more than bullet used
are we being trolled? have you done any prior research and looked at animals that died by both or do you just think bullets go straight through people and there is no other wounding mechanisms?

>Penetration capability
penetration between commonly used bullet types is only relevant when barriers are being discussed
>kilojoules delivered
7.62x39 fmj or even the cheap hp does not deliver more kj than say a 77gr tmk out of a 5.56 does. The energy continues with the bullet as it leaves the body. Theres only one fragmenting round I can think of in 7.62x39 that would transfer that energy and youre probably not using it.
>mean entrance
probably, this is before the bullet has time to fragment/expqnd/yaw
>exit wound sizes
no.

.298

6.5 Grendel.

>c39
>carbine gas and 16" bbl
>what the fuck is up with that optic

Attached: 1441150087252.jpg (1800x1325, 480K)

Literally both. Same answer for the "AR-15 or AK-47" question. 5.56 and 7.62 are perhaps the two most important/wide spread assault rifle rounds used in the modern world. Why would you limit yourself to just one caliber or one platform?

Attached: 2n3lx2ylkwmz.jpg (800x566, 68K)

>so terminal ballistics don't mean shit

Neither do bullets not hitting the target. Honestly if .22lr was not unreliable I would just have it as my carry. If you believe everything is less than 100 meters then what is the point of rifles anyway? I guess we are all getting 9mm carbines in the future.

Correction; You are wrong on so many levels it makes me wonder how retards like you think a bigger bullet actually does anything at a terminal level from a lower velocity or the fact that only morons prioritize Terminal over External. People die from 5.56 all the time, and in most cases of both they bleed out internally before anything. If the man is still standing then the shot was obviously not in a terminal zone, I.E. areas of irreversible internal damage. People in war zones die from artillery fragmentation that is smaller than any bullet. The only way anyone dies is though time and state of mind, only multiple bullets do it faster instead of one single bullet.

Attached: 1421829452454.jpg (521x579, 31K)

For range queens who treat their shit like they’re made of prop-glass 5.56.
For when you’re in some SHTF situation or your life is in danger anything that you have an abundance of.