Page 1 of 4
5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:06 am
by froggy
Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:47 am
by 25Pdr
Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:51 am
by froggy
excellent

Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:39 pm
by Angelfire
Coming from the back of my brain, isn't the 5.56 a bit of a bugger to reload due to it's thick case. Or was it just a bad dream I had.
Phil*
Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:57 pm
by DW58
.308 all the way.
Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:03 pm
by saddler
Nah...
6.8SPC =
WINNING

Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:36 pm
by snayperskaya
The M43 7.62x39 round is near perfect at what it was designed for which is to kill at 3-400m, it wasn't designed to be lighter so an infantryman could carry more or to be a long range round.If you want a round to drop an enemy at average battlefield ranges and keep him down its near perfect.
Further out 7.62x54r is a good round with plenty of stopping power, for an old round it still packs a punch.
Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:45 pm
by saddler
See your M43 round, & raise you the .280 round....designed to perforate Russkies & send them back to Uncle Joe in a box

Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:17 pm
by snayperskaya
saddler wrote:See your M43 round, & raise you the .280 round....designed to perforate Russkies & send them back to Uncle Joe in a box

That may have been what it was designed for but it didn't.Experimental and not considered powerful enough spring to mind.The AK/M43 combo have been the worlds biggest WMD in terms of casualties since 1948!!!

Re: 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 ?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:34 pm
by tackb
I may stand to be corrected but I don't think the M43 has ever won in a fight against British soldiers expressing their feelings with 5.56 ammo !