M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anyone out there have 2 Cents on the effectiveness of the 7.62x51 round as an anti-personnel round? To be more specific, other than making
a larger hole than 5.56 what makes the round more effective? I am not referring to distance capability but more the behavior of the round at
short to medium range distances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Does anyone out there have 2 Cents on the effectiveness of the 7.62x51 round as an anti-personnel round? To be more specific, other than making
a larger hole than 5.56 what makes the round more effective? I am not referring to distance capability but more the behavior of the round at
short to medium range distances.
Simple physics. Mass and energy expended. It's a bigger bullet therefore does more damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
I am no ballistics expert and don't have 1st hand combat experience, but here are my two cents. 5.56 is very accurate and flat shooting, but when you use a 55gr .224 caliber FMJ round you are relying on the bullet to do something it was not designed to do necessarily. Tumble and fragment. This is what causes the terminal performance of M193. When it does this I understand it's very effective, but this relies on the construction on the individual round. Some times M193 does not fragment well, and it needs to hit it's target at something like over 2700fps to fragment. Out of the shorter (16 and 14.5") barrels and velocity can drop below this threshold at under 400 yards. If it does not fragment all you get is a .22 cal hole.

M80 (7.62) on the other hand has a lot more energy as the bullet is almost 3 times the weight and travels only about 400fps slower. M80 has about 2400 ft-lbs of energy as compared to M193s under 1300 ft-lbs.

Think of it, would you rather be hit with a whiffle bat slightly faster, or a Louisville slugger a bit slower.

7.62 just works, 5.56 is usually ok but add distance and it's no contest.

Where 5.56 is better is for ammo capacity (standard 30 rounds vs 20), and weight. Soldiers can carry more 5.56 vs 7.62.

As I said just my .02.

Justin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
Also when the 5.56 was developed, and we were planning to fight the commies, there was some thinking that if I wound a soldier, I take him out of the fight and 2 of his Comrades to carry him off the field, burden his doctors, and society of caring for him for the rest of his life, ect.

That doesn't hold true for the likes of the Viet Cong, ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ect. It's better to shoot them dead before they can push the button on their suicide vest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
My daughter used to attend Kent State and I've seen the site of the shooting many times where the 7.62x51 round performed all too well. Even punching cleanly through a 1/4" steel plate sculpture there with no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesPOSTLEwade

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,679 Posts
NATO/U.S. M80 ball 7.62 x 51 gives you ballistics and lethality on a par with U.S. M2 ball .30-06, which the M1 rifle fires. And you know what Gen. Patton said about the M1 rifle's service in WW II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
I too choose 7.62 over 5.56 from practical military use. 5.56 can be used effectively but the 7.62 is just more effective.

That said I don't think the 9mm vs 45 debate is in the same ballpark because 45 acp does not have twice the power and range of the 9mm like .308 does when compared to the .223.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,992 Posts
Ultimately bullet wounds kill by allowing the red stuff to leak out, bigger holes let it leak out quicker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
"Antipersonnel" includes body armor and improvised cover.

Does that help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTinMan

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
Read this. Its a little old, and some of the pics have been removed. But the info is still there.
http://forum.snipershide.com/sniper...6-killin-science-bullet-selection-layman.html

7.62 is bigger which equals more mass. More mass equals more surface area traveling through material (or flesh). This transfers more energy from the bullet into the material and which creates a bigger temporary expanding wound cavity. The temporary wound cavity can disrupt or destroy surrounding organs and nervous systems from the hydrostatic shock. (Remember liquid doesnt compress, and the body has a very high percentage of water). The permanent wound channel is obviously bigger as well because the diameter bullet will bore a bigger hole into the flesh. This is good for creating more blood loss.

Of course many of these details could change with different bullet constructions. So to keep things comparable you need to compare a FMJ to another FMJ, and not begin using hollow points, or complex hunting bullet constructions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
I am no ballistics expert and don't have 1st hand combat experience, but here are my two cents. 5.56 is very accurate and flat shooting, but when you use a 55gr .224 caliber FMJ round you are relying on the bullet to do something it was not designed to do necessarily. Tumble and fragment. This is what causes the terminal performance of M193. When it does this I understand it's very effective, but this relies on the construction on the individual round. Some times M193 does not fragment well, and it needs to hit it's target at something like over 2700fps to fragment. Out of the shorter (16 and 14.5") barrels and velocity can drop below this threshold at under 400 yards. If it does not fragment all you get is a .22 cal hole.

M80 (7.62) on the other hand has a lot more energy as the bullet is almost 3 times the weight and travels only about 400fps slower. M80 has about 2400 ft-lbs of energy as compared to M193s under 1300 ft-lbs.

Think of it, would you rather be hit with a whiffle bat slightly faster, or a Louisville slugger a bit slower.

7.62 just works, 5.56 is usually ok but add distance and it's no contest.

Where 5.56 is better is for ammo capacity (standard 30 rounds vs 20), and weight. Soldiers can carry more 5.56 vs 7.62.

As I said just my .02.

Justin
The fragment part is more fantasy than anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
Also when the 5.56 was developed, and we were planning to fight the commies, there was some thinking that if I wound a soldier, I take him out of the fight and 2 of his Comrades to carry him off the field, burden his doctors, and society of caring for him for the rest of his life, ect.

That doesn't hold true for the likes of the Viet Cong, ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ect. It's better to shoot them dead before they can push the button on their suicide vest.
When McNamara forced the M16 on us it was intended only for use in SE Asia. It was much later when it was adopted for widespread use. That story about wounding someone and it would take two others to carry him off the battlefield, burden his doctors, society caring for him ..... Jeez, where are you getting this nonsense?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,566 Posts
My daughter used to attend Kent State and I've seen the site of the shooting many times where the 7.62x51 round performed all too well. Even punching cleanly through a 1/4" steel plate sculpture there with no problem.
A very sad event at Kent State, but you didn't see how well 7.62 performed. Those were National Guard troops that fired on the students at Kent State and they were armed with M1 rifles firing .30 cal ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
A very sad event at Kent State, but you didn't see how well 7.62 performed. Those were National Guard troops that fired on the students at Kent State and they were armed with M1 rifles firing .30 cal ammo.
M2 ball and M80 ball are so close in weight and velocity that it really doesn't make much difference which one hits the target. Terminal ballistics are going to be the same.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top