ammo question for vets and leo's

[jumpluff]

I would like to pose two questions to our members who are vetrans....or in law enforcement, or or ER doctors, or in some other way have REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL, FIRST PERSON EXPERIENCE on which to base their answers.

I am not looking for theoretical data....I am already a "brilliant armchair general" :lol:

(Boogy...I am counting on you to weigh in on this topic!)

What would you least like to be shot with.....5.56X45 or 7.62X39? I am being serious....based on real world wounding effects that you have seen...what is the more effective round?

Second question....can I then assume that your choice in question one.....is the round you would want to carry in a "real bacon on the line" situation?....or would you choose the other round.....and why?

For example....a hypothetical answer might me "the M43 has greater wounding potential....but is heavier...and thus I would carry the 556)

For this question...please base your answer on CARTRIDGE ONLY...assume that they are fired from some hypothetical common rifle....this is not a Mini-14/AR versus Mini-30/AK question.

[Boogyman]

Dang, JP, that's a painful question! I don't wanna be shot by anything, thank you! :blink:

It's hard to tell which round did the most damage, there were so many ways to get killed over there. Grenades, booby traps, mines, mortars, rockets, artillery, bombs, machine gun fire.... I didn't go around examining wounds, y'know?

Many VC and NVA carried captured M-16's and other caliber weapons, they had quite a mix. Even old Mosin-Nagants and old french stuff. It was hard to tell what we got hit with.

I will tell you this, and you can take it to the bank... I would much rather carry the AK-47 if I ever had to go back into combat. I don't care about the extra weight, accuracy, bullet damage, range, or anything else except RELIABILITY. If it doesn't fire when you pull the trigger, it's just a stick.

Sure, the other factors are important...

WEIGHT - I don't mind humpin' a little extra if I can depend on it

ACCURACY - good enough to hit a head poking up at 300 yards... the AK qualifies

BULLET DAMAGE - if it tears a hole in your enemy, he is most likely not going to shoot at you anymore

RANGE - you can only shoot as far as you can see.... the 7.62x39 carries a heavier punch farther than the 5.56

Sorry, JP, but it's difficult to stay within your "cartridge only" criteria in this case. For what it's worth, either Mini's or the AR doesn't matter to me as much as the ruggedness of the AK. I guess my second choice would be an AK chambered in 5.56... :rolleyes:

Just my opinion, I'm sure there will be a lot of good discussion on this subject, so I'll step aside now. That's all I got, hope it helps... ;)

[jumpluff]

Thanks much Boogy....that is exactly what I was looking for. Ballistics tables don't always tell the real story....I understand that "actual results will vary"! :lol:

So...let me take my own topic off thread for a moment....on the subject reliability....wait....I will start a new thread....I hope you will take the time to weigh in....pretty please? :rolleyes:

[bubbagump]

Well I have been shot at with 7.26X39. And I have returned fire with 5.56X45. I agree with boog on this one. I would rather carry a lil extra weight knowing that the enemy is gonna go down when shot. Perfect example is Afganistan. A Taliban soldier wearing heavy clothes will not go down when shot with a 5.56 or 5.54 round at any kind of distance. When I was in Iraq back in 91, my commander tried making me carry a M9. :wacko: I had to respectfully tell him that since I was a M60 gunner that I wanted to keep carrying my 1911 pistol. Hell I would rather carry a M3 grease gun than the Beretta M9. Alot of the troops in Iraq are actually using captured AK's when they can because of the knock down power and for the reliability. The theory behind the 5.56 round is to wound an enemy so that two more have to carry him. Well it doesn't do any good if they can still fire back at you.:rapid:

[Boogyman]

Hey Bubba, I like your sig line: "When in doubt, use C-4 to fix it"... :lol:

We used to use it to heat our C-Rats and boil water for coffee and chocolate. Just tear off a piece and light it, burns like a flare... ;)

[bubbagump]

Yup ya gotta love C4. I had a brand new butter bar that was gonna stomp on our fire.:wacko: Luckly we were able to stop him before he stomped on the lit C4. dumb officers. :mad: We got in big trouble on the demo range when I was stationed at Ft Devens. There was a big boulder on the range and we were told to make it disapear. We did and in the process set off a **** load of car alarms on base. Needless to say, they put a limit on how much we could set off at one time. ya gotta love gettin payed to play with explosives. :D

[jumpluff]

So Bubba....dumb civilian question.....stomping on C-4 would cause it to explode? Or stomping on a burning piece of C-4 would cause it to explode?

[bubbagump]

It takes two things to set C4 off: heat and pressure. So to answer your question, if C4 is lit and then pressure added (some one stomping on it) it could set off an explosion. We didn't want to take the chance of the luey's big foot setting it off.

[Dorkface]

I thought it took and electrical charge to set off C4.

[bubbagump]

Nope, you have to use a blasting cap and detination cord to set C4 off. You can't always beleave what you see on TV. You light the det cord and when it reaches the blasting cap, the cap explodes and sets the C4 off. The blasting cap provides both heat and pressure. Hope this clears up any questions.

[Boogyman]

Bubba is right, as far as how we used it in the infantry. They gave us C-4 and blasting caps, we used it for blowing tunnels, holes, bunkers, all kinds of sh*t. Light the fuse and run! :blink:

Now the demolition guys also had electrical detonators, but they were the same as a blasting cap except it had wires instead of a fuse. It still took the cap going off imbedded in the plastic to cause the C-4 to explode, but they could set it off from a distance. It was used for the big stuff, like bridges and buildings and such.

Inquiring minds want to know... :lol:

[Dorkface]

Cool thanks.

[Boogyman]

I thought det cord needed a blasting cap too ?

I didn't say anything about det cord, Bubba did. I think he meant to say fuse cord.

I had planned to bring some C-4 back with me, I was gonna mold it into the shape of an idol statue and smuggle it back in my barracks bag, but instead I got medevaced. Oh well... :rolleyes:

[bubbagump]

Yes I was talking about "fuse" cord. In the military it's called detination cord or det cord for short.

[jumpluff]

but instead I got medevaced. Oh well... :rolleyes:

Now there is a story I would like to hear. How about it Boogy....give a poor kid from a small town a thrill....pretty please? :)

[Boogyman]

This thread is off-topic enough already, dontcha think? Maybe another time.

What about the 5.56 vs. 7.62x39mm? I'm sure there's a lot of other folks out there with some input on this... ;)

[LAFOYJL]

Petn is the high explosive material used in military detonators. It is set off by a spark, either electrical or conventional fuse. It creates a high order explosion, which in turn sets off the larger main charge which is much more stable. I learned this amazing fact a Camp Lejeune in 1964, and this is the first time I have been able to use it. Now, after all that, I hope I'm right.

[josh]

Thanks guys. I found this very interesting. I had been told c4 is nothing like they show on tv.

[jwp]

This thread is off-topic enough already, dontcha think? Maybe another time.

What about the 5.56 vs. 7.62x39mm? I'm sure there's a lot of other folks out there with some input on this... ;)


http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

real world discussion by real expert

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

all are nasty, i'd not like any hits

btw there are many more on the site including pistol/shotgun

:blink: :rapid: :cannon: :ar15:

[gunrun45]

I like the penetration and take down power of the 7.62x39. Lets face it, it leaves a biger hole and goes deeper. In fact, that's why I bought a mini-30, an AK and several SKS's. I have shot the 223 cartridge at several live targets and did not feel comfortable with its take down abilities using soft point modern rounds. I was not impressed. I am required to carry 223 ammo but I would prefer the 7.62x39 or larger 308 round out of simple take down power. Then we get into the arguement of over-penetration though...

[dchi]

Seems like no one here has really seen evidence of wounds or have made confirmed hits on live targets with either round. All this talk of shooting people with heavy clothes and them not falling down goes all the way back to Korea. I think the truth may lie in Full auto fire. Im a expert rifleman trained in the discplines of marksmanship. I practice a lot not just bullseye or slow fire but also 3 guns matches. I have several full auto fire arms and can tell you even with practice solid hits beyond 25 yards is hard. I've let many of friends try them and the do lousy even though they are good shots. At 50 yards most people cant hit the target on full auto. You would think at least the 1st round would hit centered and all other rounds go high, but often there are no hits on the target or just a small nick. Often because the recoil is so different people ajust their shooting style to compensate for the constant push and miss with the 1st round too. I've seen it happen over and over. Also too even good level headed shooters flip their selectors from semi to full or burst when they are anticipating real life and death trouble. So our guys use .223 shoot at the enemy all the time and the don't go down. I suspect alot of misses especially at close range. The word is out that the .223 is eneffective. Our guys get hit with a 7.62x39 and go down right away. Must be an effective calibure. Maybe its was a lucky hit as the enemy doesn't really aim and just sprays bullets. Im sure they are emptying the 30 round 7.62X39 mags say those americans are tough. I just hit hit with 30 rounds and he's still comming! Really think about it, a .223, 7.62X39, .30 carbine can easily go through 10" of pine at 150 yards. No heavy field jacket, wool sweater, 3 layers of clothing under that is going to stop a rifle bullet. All that together only makes up about 4" clothing and that still softer than 4" of pine. Even a .22LR rifle with shoot thru 6" of pine easily

[Marlin 45 carbine]

U know of course that combat conditions bullets are FMJ. any of 'em is gonna pass thru. the 30 cal does more damage on bone. by the way I carried a pump 12 ga. and sometimes .45 colt and sometimes a grenade launcher. I was on a riverboat. we had M-16's generally the Marines had 'em. Navy guys had an assortment - shotguns, .45's, M1 carbines, Garands, some M-14, some grenade launchers. wet conditions were bad for any of 'em.

[2rangers]

Hey Bubba, I like your sig line: "When in doubt, use C-4 to fix it"... :lol:

We used to use it to heat our C-Rats and boil water for coffee and chocolate. Just tear off a piece and light it, burns like a flare... ;)
Just don't stomp on it to put it out!!!