I got a question, well several.
Which round do you prefer? And what are the pros and cons of each.
I've got both. I like both.
I do use my AR for precision shooting over my AK, but that is simply because it's easier to mount a scope on my AR.
They're completely different rounds.
Different strokes for different folks.
Although .223 has it's merits, I find 7.62x39 more useful for my purposes. I can legally hunt deer with it (loads such as PPU SP's have excellent terminal performance), great barrier penetration, cheap surplus is available (Canada). There's all sorts of other nitpicky arguments one could make, but they both do roughly the same job. They kill stuff with supersonic projectiles. That said, they both have their own niche, and it's up to you to see which one fits your uses better.
> more energy at the muzzle
> excellent for SBRs
> great barrier penetration
> legal for CPX2 game
> cheap ammo
>only good for <300m
> flatter shooting, longer range
> light recoil
> wide range of loads to choose from
> legal for varmints only (in Canada anyway)
literally a 50+ year old argument
you really think another discussion is needed? you have half a century of arguments to read over. there are probably 100,000 threads across various forums and websites dedicated to this topic, and that's just with the advent of the internet. go read some cold war bullshit research on them, i'm sure there are 10,000 books that cover it since you aren't the first person to ask and sadly you won't be the last. i mean really, just think about it. do you honestly even fucking care what the responses are? if you did you could just google it and spend the rest of your life reading both sides. do you just want to make a thread you know will get replies? i just don't fucking get these faggot ass threads. it's not even just on /k/. you see it on every board, every website, every discussion ever anywhere it's always someone asking some inane bullshit that's been asked 10000000000 times that is literally just a waste of time and breath to even discuss again. there aren't any new responses. no one /k/ has the holy grail answer that settles this once and for all, so why make A N O T H E R thread about it H O L Y F U C K
Only shot 7.62x39 so I'm a bit biased but I like it, it's got a nice umf to it without being too recoil heavy.
Though considering like 95% of the world has switched over to 5.56 and most countries that used 7.62x39 went over to 5.45 which basically is a mimic it's a bit obvious which round is better.
>no resupply ever
It's still produced today
So was your mom but I don't see you complaining about her.
You can get an M44 for $140 and 54R for under $10/box. It's a pretty wise decision
>It's still produced today
So is 45-90 sharps but I dont suggest that at all.
>You can get an M44 for $140 and 54R for under $10/box. It's a pretty wise decision
No its not, if your only gun or even your goto gun is a bolt action rifle from the 2nd world war you need to reconsider your decisions.
90% of militaries that aren't brown people fighting over drugs and god use 5.56. The country that invented 7.62x39 gave it up and made their own copy of 5.56. Obviously the people who made these decisions just did it because they're dumber than slavaboo's on /k/
>Not shooting .45-70
>if your only gun or even your goto gun is a bolt action rifle from the 2nd world war you need to reconsider your decisions.
Newfags don't know about my 1903 Springfield
Get on youtube and watch some of the Nugget torture tests. They're like shoe leather
I got my second M44 with sling and a box of ammo minus two shells for $140 off facebook just before Christmas
>just before Christmas
unfortunately, idiots who dont know how to save money arent strapped for just a few hundred dollars all year long. nost of the year they want well above market price.
Well, consider I can drive tacks with my PU Mosin Nagant at little over 500m, I prefer 7.62.54r. Cheap as fuck. For hunting I custom order Hornady SST's from the Cabelas website. Even those are only 22$. The non-corrosive FMJ buy locally are only 6$.
>both intermediate rifles for standard infantry use
Different designs for the SAME purpose, hence the constant arguments. I hate when people do this gay argument to moderation shit just so you can feel superior to both sides.
7.62 was developed with the idea that it will tumble when it hits a body, causing more damage, but its so heavy its a through and through 90% of the time.
.223 does what the 7.62 was designed to do.
i prefer .25-06 as an intermediate round
>PLEBS, ALL OF YOU
Thou art my negro.
7.62 was designed with the idea that a smaller bullet in a semiautomatic firearm is superior to a full sized rifle round in close quarters. it was basically a russian version of 8 kurz on short notice.
.223 was originally never designed to tumble but due to a few deviations from the original intent of stoner, it did, and gained a reputation for ripping off limbs in vietnam
5.45 was designed to yaw on impact and does so quite effectively
ayyy dis nigga knows whats good
fudd calibers for life
>5.45 was designed to yaw on impact and does so quite effectively
This is why its the best intermediate round. That being said, I don't own any guns chambered in it and probably not gonna get one anytime soon. 5.56 and 7.62x39 fit my needs at the moment. Both are good and prevalent in the states.
For general purposes there's 3 calibers you want to look at
Weak but shoots straight at range
Powerful but drops down at range
Powerful and shoots straight, but more expensive and heavier
*powerful mostly concerns barrier penetration, consider whether or not your enemies will be hiding behind cover. For forests and urban areas I'd go with an AK, for open desert and prairies I'd go AR. Also bear in mind you aren't going to be in a unit using group tactics and you have no support, nor do you always have the means to keep your rifle clean, just saying. All that considered since I don't plan on carrying enough to fight in a war, because I'm not going to play soldier, might as well go .308 and get the best of both worlds. I've opted to skip .223 in my arsenal altogether for now and just go x39 for close range and .308 for anything long.
Those people fight with entire militaries backing them and tons of support, and bases to fall back to so they can regularly clean and maintain their guns. Their strategy is to lay suppressive fire until support can come in and mop the mess, or SPOILER ALERT the marksmen using calibers like .308 can get the kills. You are not in a military anon, you're not going to be using military tactics. You certainly don't want to waste what you managed to carry laying suppressive fire. If the fucker is behind a car or wall, you better be able to turn it into concealment to gain the upper hand, and I don't think he'll be standing out in the open.
Also 5.45 was a good compromise, 5.55 was just picking up an old varmint caliber. They've had to redesign the round, bullet weight, and load so many times and they still haven't gotten it to kill humans good.
>Thinking that cars are made out of hardware tool grade steel and can stop a bullet like an unarmored HUMVEE.
>Thinking that cinder block is hard cover.
This is not Call of Duty kid.
Uh, what? It's a well known fact that even cheap surplus 7.62x39 is better than .223 at turning cover into concealment. Not sure why that's "hurr CODlogic". The ability to penetrate cover is certainly a consideration in a heavily forested or urban environment.
I would trust a 7.62x39 to go straight through a wall at 100m MUCH better than I would a 5.56. 7.62 has more energy and is a heavier, bigger bullet and can fuck shit up pretty good within its range.
5.56 is designed to be light, flat shooting and fucking fast. It is a well known fact that it's garbage for shooting through heavy brush because the lighter round can veer off target more easily than a 7.62 will
>This is not Call of Duty kid.
youre right, this is serious business, this is /k/