5.56 NATO or 7.62 Russian?

File: image.jpg (32KB, 262x351px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 262x351px

556 only has availability in the US Mind you.
And I dont know if you mean 7.62x39 or x54 R

SO For my response ill just assume you meant the 39.

556 in my opinion is a shitshoot. Everybody relies on its "fragmentation" which is usually hit or miss. However, ive heard of people telling stories of the 39 ice picking as well. Ive personally seen hollowpoints run through ballistics gel without so much as even a deformation, but that doesnt mean theyll all do that.

If you truly want to be dangerous, use soft points.
Its retarded that most of the 556 ammo out there is fmj. With a 16 inch barrel, you can reliably drop things at 150 yards.
The 556 will also give you much more control than the 762

However, 762 is nearly perfect in every way. Love the caliber, and love it well.
Until the russian sanctions come in, that is.

>>34751304
5.56 all the way. there is a reason the soviets switched to 5.45, and that is that 7.62 is more challenging to shoot than it needs to be- it has higher recoil (still tiny, but still a factor) and worse ballistics than the smaller caliber, high velocity cartridges.

There is nothing inherent which makes either more reliable, but there is a lot of shoddy 7.62 soviet surplus around.

Also, for what it's worth, the AK's legendary reliability is a half truth at best- they are very durable and will outlive their users nine times out of ten, but they are as easy to gunk up as any rifle, and have lots of open spaces. Usually the Isrealis do make them better in that respect though.

>>34751433
I would be very surprised if the ACE came chambered for 54R. Also, I've never heard people making a big thing of 5.56 fragmenting, but of it tumbling and causing a shockwave within the body.

>>34751490
Worse ballistics? Please explain

And ak reliability is true - but only if you have the fuckin thing built correctly. They talked about vietnamese rifles being dropped in jungle mud for weeks, then some soldiers founf them, picked them out, and shot them. Ive seen wasrs run over by soviet flatbeds, bent to shit, then picked up to fire a full mag.

Yet I see countless reports and videos of people attempting this ith c39s, npaps, zastavas, and almost every other shit tier remake, and they fail miserably. They dont even make it past the shoulder level drop test. Also, the ak can work better in the land of sand because its a very open construction. Sand and grime dont hurt as much on these as a heavily engineered rifle with nearly paper wide gaps in metal.

The 556 will fragment out to 100, this is a bonus if you can get them to yaw. (You should see what soft poit 556 does. This is a truly terrifying explosion of meat and metal.) regardless, the 223 is basiaclly a glorified 22. And if you know about 22s, you know they like to ride bones, or do other horrid shit.

And if its actually a 54R Here, that would just be flat out hilarious. A nearly perfect round in every single way, except for its import.

>>34751433
I live in the U.S. and will never live anywhere else.
I meant 7.62x39, ACE doesn't come in mmR.
When I said reliable, I meant in functionality (not concerned with ballistics too much). The tapered shape of the 7.62x39 cartridge is supposed to prevent jamming isn't it?

>>34751576
7.62x39 has pretty poor external and terminal ballistics. It has a significant arc, making it harder to zero a rifle for all common combat ranges. Also, the low velocity makes it more unforgiving for trying to hit moving targets. Terminally it tends to, as you said, ice-pick, limiting the damage it can do.

These are all relative terms of course, it's a perfectly capable round.
>And ak reliability is true - but only if you have the fuckin thing built correctly. They talked about vietnamese rifles being dropped in jungle mud for weeks, then some soldiers founf them, picked them out, and shot them. Ive seen wasrs run over by soviet flatbeds, bent to shit, then picked up to fire a full mag.
These stories tend to get thrown around a lot, and yes, they are durable rifles. Durability and reliability are different facotrs. If you want a rifle that will still work after being treated like crap for years without maintenance, an AK is your best bet. If you want a weapon that you can drop in the mud or sand and still expect to fire immediately, you might be better off with well maintained AR.

By that logic too, 7.62 soviet is glorified 7.62x25.

54R is a great support weapon round, but it's outdated as a general issue round.

coming from an AK guy, go with the 5.56. So much better ammo choice out there and 7.62 is shit to shoot in comparison. Ever since I got an AK74 that shoots 5.45 I haven't touched a 7.62 rifle, it's just leagues better and 5.56 is close to it.

7.62x39
>slightly more powerful
>better vs brush and cover
>slightly more reliable due to tapered casing
>sexy curved magazines
5.56
>much flatter shooting
>lighter recoil
>ammo is more common

Since you're looking for a weapon to depend your life on in a shtf scenario, get the 5.56. If shit goes sideways that stuff will be everywhere.

>>34751304

Get 300 Black? It just needs a barrel swap for any AR to shoot it. It's ballistically better than the 762x39 and the price isn't that bad either.

Plus, you can have one AR that does double duty but having a complete upper for 223 and a different upper for 300 B.