That's why we hide behind sand bags. Oh, one more thing. Having recently turned 54, I can tell you that sled is not going to get any lighter, ever. It's as light now as it's ever going to be.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 I remember the day in college after I played the first game of tackle football I'd played in maybe 5 years. I barely could get out of bed and the distinct feeling that something horrible had happened to my body; I was no longer invulnerable.
I like your channel, BUT the major flaw on your channel is not letting us know who makes the ammo you are shooting for all we know you could possibly be putting quality ammo up against some cheap brand, and that my friend matters. Let us know what you are shooting, not just the caliber.
By the looks of it miltary ammo. All military ammo are loaded to pretty much the same specifications. 7.62x39 looks like it could be Russian and the 5.56x45 probably American. Manufacturers try to keep it pretty much standard in order to get the same results with military weapons across the board. I have personally found that 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 performed to witin moa grouping regardless of source in my 7.62 Musgrave riifle as well as the Sako .223 Win. Both bolt action rifles. In the Denel manufactured R4 and R5 (5.56x 45 caibre Galil clones of the AK action) as well as the Mini14 in .223 Win. calibre I found the same results. With South African and Finnish mil. ammo the groupings were fractionally tighter than with Portugeuse ammo but on the whole quite constant enough for hunting and military application. Maybe not quite good enough for competition shooting though. IMHO close enough results for all practical purposes.
@@daanwessels4781Нет, это не военные боеприпасы. Я стрелял военным патроном 7.62×39 по металлической плите 16мм, с расстояния 60м. Пробивает очень легко...
@@dylanandmolly3739 yeah it should be calibre or caliber, but interestingly, a tool for measuring the diameter of drilled oil wells is called "caliper", which obviously related
It's not always the penetration that we are looking for, but rather the energy dump and projectile cavity as the round with the greater "plasmic shock" will win everytime.
@@iroekyjHD5.56 doesn’t always “tumble or explode”…especially at close range. 7.62 performs better closer range. That’s why you can get away with a short barrel AK vs a shorty AR
@@MRDonWick2 M855 5.56 is a 62 gr projectile with a steel core penetrator. Mk262 5.56 is a 77 gr OTM projectile with a longer body designed for longer range shots.
The 5.56 nato round was designed to keyhole after hitting the enemy. It creates a horrible wound channel and the bullet will splinter if it hits bone. Countries complained to Geneva about the bullet requesting it become against the law of war to use, like exploding rounds and hollow points. The reason we went away from the M16A1 to the M16A2 was because the US decided to build a better bullet that was slower than the 55 grain M198 rounds by going with the M855 62 grain steel core rounds which required a change from the 1 in 13 inch twist rate to a 1 in 7 twist in order to spin the heavier bullet to be stable.
Nope just check out why every soldier complains about lethality of 5.56 everywhere,it can and will kill if shots land right,but it doesn't do huge shit if it doesn't hit bone or vital organs(kill switches)...
Similar to your idea, a lot of tests, dwell on penetration depth, but of course, this comes at the expense of damage along the way. Always a trade-off.
@@grayamdelaney7044 I'm saying that as a hunter, where bullet pentation isn't everything, what's more important is energy delivered and the size of the wound.
When I was in the service I started carrying the original M16. Maximum effective range=350 meters. AK47 maximum effective range =300 meters. Then we got the new M16A2. Maximum effective range 500 meters. Even if the AK had better penetration, it only matters if you can hit your target. Of course most combat takes place under 300 meters and both weapons have a long established effective killing ability. I still prefer the AR platforms.
5.56 always had better penetration than 7.62x39, especially against steel. The 7.62x39 is better only at soft barrier penetration because it suffers from less upset than the 5.56 when passing through shit like shrubs. 7.62x39 exists because of two reasons - one is big-hole mentality, the other is it allowed to use existing tooling for manufacture. Russians did actually experiment with deer rounds for military use before the US did, commonly known as the .220 Russian. But the aforementioned two reasons put a stop to that until the M16 in Vietnam proved them wrong.
Take a look at jell block testing with x39 and 556. Specially from shorter barrels. The x39 doesn’t fall off as much going from 16” to 10.5” like the 556.. The cavitation and wound track is significantly more violent with the x39 when using short barrels. The penetrating ability of 556 falls off quickly when the barrel gets below 16”..
When I was in the reserves we were just transitioning out of the c1 to the c7. 7.62 to 5.56. Some of us talked about power. What was consistently put to us was do you want to carry 5 mags and a 200 round battle pack of 5.56 or 7.62? Realistically at battlesight 200, a bullet in the enemy is a bullet. Bullets downrange are bullets down range. We both know that most will never hit their target. For every 30 fired 4 will hit something. There is a solid argument for making the most out of those 4, however the other 26 matter too. Keeping heads down, throwing spatter. 5.56 is for the lowest common denominator. Your average soldier will carry more. Your average citizen will carry alot more. Anyone who thinks that they will carry extra lbs has never been on a long trek. The first miles are littered with discarded extras that over confident people needed to have but parted with once reality started pounding up their shins knees and down onto their shoulders.
@@gotanon9659 True to some extent, but the .276 is pretty bad example of that given its size. Its even bigger than Arisaka and people count that as a full size rifle round when russkies try to claim the invention of the assault rifle with Federov.
In the Cdn. Forces we did this kind of firing often but using NATO 7.62 and NATO 5.56. The Nato rounds out of the FNC1 rifle would heavily spall the 1/2" steel plates but the 5.56 would leave barely a noticeable dimple and powder mark, often even unable to make a standing plate fall over at 100metres. Our combat engagements for training are typically between 100 and 300 metres. The FN would penetrate sandbags and concrete cinder blocks. Rarely would sandbags be double layered depth. The move away from 7.62 was due to better magazine capacity not effectiveness of rounds. It was always re-assuring to know you could fire out to 800m accurately with an FNC1 but had to rely on your section MG weapons to do that after the C7 was the issue rifle. We did not like that at all. Now the movement back toward heavier barrelled C7 variants running 7.62 finally makes more sense. 41C
The 7.62 won against concrete, and probably against sand too. You need smaller boxes of sand to differentiate the performance of rounds, maybe 4", 5", 6" and 8" cubes filled with sand would all be useful depending on the rounds you're comparing.
Pretty wild that the 7.62x39 didn't make it through the sand but the 300 Black Out made it through in the previous video. Seems like we need a 30 cal showdown.
@@Paralyzed-rm6vcI was referring to 5.56 vs 300 video, you're talking about the 7.62 vs 300 video. In the 5.56 vs 300 video the 300 blackout went through the sand with the top sealed so their was no sand launching. He actually tested the 300 twice through sand in that video and it went through twice.
@timrobinson6573 due to bullet shape. Also 7.63x39 has more energy than 300 blackout but it's actually slightly bigger than 30 Caliber. It's more like 31. But that can Make all the difference. 300 blackout is a better design. Just wish it had a little more energy
I've got some surplus Tula 7.62x39 tungsten core that might do a wee better on penetration. Be neat to see a contest between armor piercing 5.56 and 7.62.
I thoroughly enjoy these near real world testing of the penetrating ability of peer rounds but it would have been more interesting to test the 5.45X39 against the 5.56 NATO.
I would find a comparison of the new ammunition, the 6 mm ARC (Advanced Rifle Cartridge) and the 6.8 mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) from Sig Sauer, both cartridges developed for modern self-loading rifles, interesting.
Rifling twist has a surprising influence on penetration. The faster the rifling twist, the further the projectile will penetrate. FN found both the SS109 & M193 penetrated much further with the 1-7 twist than the 1-10 & 1-12 twists. Of course, their testing was mostly on FRG helmets. The US Marines required any new 5.56 round penetrate the helmet further than 7.62 Ball. FN achieved this by using the 1-7 twist while the rest of NATO went 1-10. 🤠
That's part of what can make bullet impart more energy. An over stabilized projectile has a tendency to just drive strait when it hits something. A bullet that is just stabilized will yaw and and usually flip backwards.
Finally, someone just did what he said he would do in a easy non technically oriented video.Thank you for making it as simple,fast and effective information that you articulated.We are all tired of clickbait,but ALMOST getting used to it.Good test,got my answers,THANKS,LOADS.
Only judging depth and not width or energy might be misleading, both rounds made it through similar barriers, but the 7.62 made a bigger hole plus more damage.
@@dwayne7356 Yes but a slightly larger hole is all you’d get in terms of a difference both rounds will require specific velocity to do anything else and if the velocity is lower it will just pass strait though 5.56 is over 1,000 fps faster at the muzzle
@@kevinbietry7527 No, it's not over 1000 fps faster unless your comparing cheap Russian ammo vs hand loaded 5.56. Get off the AR high horse and except the fact that there are other cartridges that are just as capable as your beloved 5.56. I'm a fan of both, but if I'm choosing stopping power at typical ranges, the 7.62 is my choice. I also hand load both and get much better speed out of the 7.62 than Russian steel case ammo.
For those who might not know, the ballistics data for 7.62 x 39 is very similar to good ole 30-30. There is a reason this round has been so successful. See for yourself.
There are many reports that during the Somalia crisis (black hawk down), Rangers mostly didn't know, if the hit the target with 5,56 rounds. Only a few SEALs with 7,62 M14 saw that they hit because targets had fallen. 7,62 have clearly more stopping power. Captain obvious over and out.
One of the 7.62x39 was dead center in line with the heart wood. That part of the tree is generally more dense. That makes it appear a little more impressive.
not only that but it wasn't key-holing on its way out the back like the 5.56 was, so if it were up to me I'd have given it the points for that round. Based on my own experience putting holes in random broken junk 7.62x39 always seemed to do more damage when shooting from anywhere from 50 to 150 yards but once you take it out to longer ranges I find it's much easier to get hits on target with 5.56 than 7.62. comes down to use and preference, and for me I'm gonna prefer the ar-15 over the ak most days of the week.
The 5.56x41 would have made it through the center as well, easily. Both would have made it through even thicker lumber. These tests are kinda poorly picked, resulting in lots of less meaningful draws. The easier objects are too easy and the harder objects too hard. Like that big block of sand. That's either close to or actual sandbag thickness, of course no common small arms round will go through there.
THANKS, that´s why sandbags are the most common pieces of fortification, Worldwide!! In my humble opinion, the 7,62 is still the winner, Paul, 68, retired military& of the Eastern armed forces!
Jup besonders wenn man bedenkt das alte NATO Kaliber war 7,62x51mm , mit dieser Munition wäre ein Vergleich sinnvoller . 7,62x39mm vers 7,62x51mm ist wie ein Vergleich Ochse vers Stier.😂
Sand target - You really should reduce the thickness of the target incrementally till you get a winner.(I don't wanna tell you how to do your job, so I'll let you determine how this will be achieved.) Keep in mind that while the content you provide is free to viewers, the constructive criticism, critiques and insight from viewers like myself is also free.
Yeah, I really didn’t think that 8” was going to be so much of an issue. Already filmed the last several videos but I will look into getting a thinner one
The 7.62x39 is 124 grain with speed around 2 400 fps, and 5.56x45 is 60 grain with some 3200 fps. I always wondered if they dropped the weight of 7.62x39 to a 90 or 100 grain, it would probably make round go some 3000 fps similar to 5.56 but it would still have 50% or more weight. It would probably be an excellent round surpassing both previous rounds.
7.62 won the first round because although both made it through the plywood only one didn’t tumble. Also I think shot placement made the difference on the last one
Just viewed… I worked with MOD Police who for some time used the Heckler & Koch MP7 which used a steel tip armour piercing round to defeat body armour but tumbled in soft tissue thus preventing collateral damage by round pass through in an urban policing environment
An advantage of the 7.62 over 5.56 is that you get maximum performance at a barrel length of 16 inches, while you need a 20 inches barrel (or even longer) to get the full potential out of a 5.56. Plus, if you use a 16 inch barrel for both, then the 5.56 weapon will be louder and more concussive than the one firing 7.62. So the cartridge is heavier, and the bullet is slower, but the weapon, as a whole, will be more compact, with comparable terminal ballistics on target.
Mass x velocity is momentum, and that is what hits the target. The kinetic energy formula doesn't tell the full story. Of penetration of a hard barrier is different than a soft barrier, adding another angle.
@@nickma71no, the density of the material isnt the important thing here, the thing here is the girth of the target, a larger sandbox will be defeated by a bullet of higher linear momentum and wont be defeated by one of less linear momentum, because the one with more momentum decelerates at a slower speed, but it is not the density of the material, only the time that the bullet is decelerated. But it depends on linear momentum, not in mass, the thing is that usually mass difference is bigger than velocity difference, so the heavier bullet normally has the greater momentum. But the lighter bullet usually tends to have more energy because even though the mass difference is bigger than the velocity, in the formula the velocity is squared
@@nickma71yes, the kinetic energy formula tells the full story, the proyectile with greater kinetic energy will have greater energy regardless of the target density, if you make a thin sand target, the bullet with more kinetic energy will also do it better than the one with more linear momentum. But it is decelerated more with time, thats why bullets with higher muzzle velocities are slower at very long distances than otherones slower at muzzle.
@@frooskys22 If only you knew what you typed. .45 auto is great against a soft target (flesh) and terrible against armor. The opposite of a faster moving and slower 9mm. But carry on.
Incredible experiment/competition between bullets, with me being wrong on the expected winner. The 5.56 gave the 7.62 a run for its money. Many thanks for the scientific approach of setting up variables to measure velocity & impact - Consider me Subscribed + 'Thumbs' up.
If you're using the 5.56 NATO round, why not use the 7.62 NATO round as its opponent? The SLR/L1A1/C1A1 used 7.62 x 51 rounds, and had way more stopping power than the current 5.56.
I’m about to try reloading 7.62x39 for accuracy. Found out last night making my jam bullet that there isn’t a lot of room to play with seating depth. Should be interesting to see what results I get.
@@madride858585 ak 103 and yugo m70 underfolder. Doing it mostly for the challenge and to see how accurate it can be. Hopefully it goes well because I estimate $.80 a round.
@@albundy7459yikes, that's a bit. Still far cheaper than buying match in that caliber though, if you can find it that is. Good luck on that. I was looking for large rifle primers in my area the other day, starting to think that they are a myth created by the big oil companies to keep me driving around seeking this mythical object.
@@saskafrass1985 I’m kind of in the same boat. I’ve got a ton of br2 primers that I’m unfortunately going to have to use. If any aren’t available at a brick and mortar place by next year I might have to just bite the bullet and pay the extra $40 in shipping and hazmat and get them online.
One thing to get a more accurate test, don't reuse the same block of wood for all 4 shots. The first shot that hits the block has 100% structural integrity. After that round hits the block is developing cracks and fractures and is getting weaker. Every additional shot will do more damage because the block is becoming weaker. Oh and another fun idea do a comparison between a 20" and 16" barrel for 5.56 to show how much more spicy the 20 is
I think that It's safe to say that in terms of drilling of the first target that is hit the 5.56 win, but in terms of penetration 7.62 takes it, I say that because 7.62 didn't keyhole like 5.56 right here: 2:00
The reason thry gave in army for 7.62 was that it doesnt deflect as much in forest where branched get in line of fire. Also, you can just resupply from fallen enemies which is nice plus. Ofc they can do the same, but they can also produce them more.
I would like to see more precise data on the penetration. Maybe stack narrower boxes full of sand? The 'witness' boards could also be improved to show how much energy is left after penetrating the object.. Maybe alternating 1/8 or 1/4" ply and 20g steel sheeting? Space out a few 'witness' surfaces? Thanks!
I like that idea. I was thinking of a wooden trough with lined up plastic bags of playground dry sand. Easily made with plastic bag- drum liners over a wood form, taped to hold shape, form removed and filled with sand. I'm afraid you only get one shot through each bag before repair and refill. A lot of work....How about multiple small postal flat rate sized boxes of sand?
I like 5.56 more than 7.62 . I used to use M16 A1 in Vietnam war it was very comfortable for me to move in the jungle,AK 47 is too heavy and one more thing that very important .If you have a 16-inch barrel with a 1:8 twist rate ,the bullet will complete a spin twice before exiting the muzzle.An 18-inch barrel with a 1:6twist rate will cause a bullet to spin three before leaving the gun.The more twists a bullet can complete before leaving the barrel,the more stable the slug will be when it exits the muzzle.
It would be very interesting to do comparisons of the 5.7×28 used by the P90 and the Five-Seven, with the 5.56 and 7.62X39. The 5.7×28 has a myth surrounding it that it is highly penetrative, even armor piercing all by itself.
It would be good to see 5/16 mild steel...that would be just in between the 2 plates tested so far, and might decide some contests. 8mm plate is also close to 5/16
When comparing two rounds it's always better if you carefully choose your targets in a way that would always result on one of the rounds pass and the other fail. I know that might take some time and effort finding the right thickness but it'd be more informative, when both fail or pass a test equally it tells us nothing, it's possible to set up a test where you end up with a draw between a 12.8x99 mm round and a 9x19 mm handgun round if the samples are either too thick for both or too easy.
kinetik energy: 5.56 NATO ~1300 kj, 7.62x39 ~1500 kj. The stopping force of the7.62x39 is a lot more, because more kinetik energy and bigger impact. However 7.62 nato is stronger ~2500kj
I think that you will find that the NATO 7.62 round is a 7.62x51. The 7.62x39 is a russian round (.30 russian short). The shift to the 5.56 is nothing to do with the baby round test that you are doing here - real men shot the 7.62x51.
Yeah same here. I’ve watched almost all of his veg and they are outstanding. The newer ones are better because the sled he uses is better. You get much better results when that Steele is tighten down and doesn’t move. Very interesting stuff.
A lighter faster bullet is generally going to penetrate deeper than a heavier. And a heavier slower bullet is generally going to have more impact damage affecting a larger area.
bullet performance is largely what it's designed for and what velocity the manufacturer says to load it to. Momentum is what delivers knock down power. Nobody talks about momentum. @@stevenschwarz8871
Man I love UA-cam sometimes. Having just bought my first AK I wondered which round would win, and PRESTO an answer. It was close though, which tells me that whichever gun I can grab the soonest is the winner. Nice video baritone voice man!
This is why we here in Finland with thick pine and Spruce trees chose 7.62 cal for our main assault rifle... Nato rounds are known to start tumble for slightest reason and loses accuracy and penetration.
Against Body Armor and Metals = 5.56 due to higher velocity. Better against softer barriers like Wood, Concrete, Glass, brush (lmao), etc = 7.62 x 39. Overall, I'm more of 7.62 x 39 guy due to it's better barrier penetrating capabilities and higher energy. Not to mention being an objectively better round for hunting animals like Hogs and White Tail Deer among other medium game. But 5.56 is also an exceptional cartridge and has it's own roles and advantages. I wouldn't say either one is truly better than the other, they've both crossed paths and both have dropped plenty of combants on either side.
Talk about a massive *gimme* for the 556 fanbois. The 7.62 *plainly* won on the 6x6 - by not keyholing on the plywood - *AND* won on the concrete by doing more damage behind it. Im always amazed by just how many mental gymnastics the 556 fanbois do to put their precious overpriced underperforming round above the most produced round in history.
Love the channel. Please use a smaller sandbox. 8 inches of sand equates to a sand bag, and sandbags stop all small arms, this has been known for generations.
Very interesting. I've read so many places that 5.56 won't penetrate as well as a heavier cartridge and will be less likely to make it through barriers. I understand bullet construction will make a big difference, but I was surprised at the results of this test.
One of my younger brothers fun guns was a Mini 14 , with a 30 round mag .Consequently even though we used to roll our own, it was cheaper to buy this Korean military ammo from our local sports store . Some people here may know the stuff . Came in a plain white 25 round box with an orange lable for $5 .Geneva conventions , eh !? . This was a full nickle jacket round with a hole drilled in the tip and from memory were around 70 gr weight . Long story short they would drill a perfect hole in 10 mm boiler plate at 100 meters .
Surprising. We used to shoot holes through thick steel railroad tie plates with the 7.62x39 and it always went through. I don't remember them being magnetic either. Hmmmm
Those wood keyholes from the 556 would do more damage entering your body I'd assume.. And who would really be shooting at someone through a sand wall barrier lol.. You should test armor piercing rounds in a verity of cartridges
To answer your question, pretty much anyone in a static military combat situation. There is a reason that the military uses sand bags to build gun emplacements, fox holes and such. They are kinda tough to get a small arms bullet through.
First time on your channel. Interesting results, but there are so many other ways to test. Ballistic gel may be interesting, and I think the keyholing of the smaller caliber in one of the tests where the larger seemed to make a cleaner hole in the plywood somehow warrant more investigation. I think the 7.62 probably would fare better shooting through brush.
Very cool testing of these two rounds! 👍 Would be interesting to see how they handle 5/16" thick plate though since 1/4" isn't enough and 3/8" stops the rounds.
Just for penetration comparison. My .357 magnum Thompson Contender pistol penetrates 6mm. mild steel plate at 10 paces with a 178gn. cast lead bullet. However it does not penetrate 150mm ( 6 inch) pine at the same distance with the same load (powder and bullet).
When measuring the damage in the ⅜" steel plate, both the depth as well as diameter of the cavity should be considered. Also in a duct seal or gel target, the shocking/stopping power would be proportional to the total volume of maximum expansion of the medium, easily measurable with duct seal as it is not elastic and stops at maximum deflection.
Wonder about a UBT match between 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 (the round the AK-74 uses)? Seems like that would be an interesting match, a more "apples to apples" comparison since the calibers are almost identical and the overall case dimensions are also largely similar.
The first test made the 5.56 tumble and the 7.62 went straight through. I'd give that round to the 7.62. Also, the last test was skewed. The 7.62 was shot through the wood and the second was over the steel bracket. Not that I don't like the 5.56, but I don't think I agree with the test results.
Your channel has really come along! The updated sleds / holders for steel, concrete, and wood blocks that you’ve come up with are fantastic, and the your content is terrific. Very entertaining. Congrats on passing 50,000 subscribers! A friendly suggestion to help gauge relative penetration performance on tests like these that have several non-definitive segments might be to simply add in a few more 1/2” or 3/4” plywood blocks behind the single block you used in this segment, since at some point the bullets will be stopped and a comparison can then be shown. In other words, if you had several of the smaller blocks behind either the large 6x6 block, or the concrete block, then perhaps those segments would have shown one round going deeper than the other. Just a thought . . . Thanks for making such fun-to-watch content. And +1 on the suggestion to see how 8MM Mauser performs. A comparison against 30-06 would be interesting. As would a comparison of 25-06 vs 270, or maybe 6.5x55 Swede vs 6.5CM?
For the last test, I think it would have been pertinent to compare the length of each projectile. If the 7.62 is longer by the same difference in the penetration, then it would again be a tie. If they are the same length, then naturally, the 5.56 wins.
It’s the speed of the bullet more then anything,,out of 16 inch an AK is going around what 2300-2350 fps,,, out of a 16 inch AR15 barrel you can get speeds around 3000fps give or take..
@bananaballistics you should try ti and do a comparison using Liberty Ammunition's "Animal instinct" rounds. They're really nasty on soft targets. In handgun calibers, they're called "civil defense" rounds. In .40s&w its a zinc plated solid copper weighing 60 grains with an advertised velocity of 2000fps from a 4" barrel.
This video presents some very good facts; and I want to throw a fact out there for everyone as well, pertianing to 7.62x39mm Soviet: The Russians abandoned it as fast as they could in favor of 5.45x39, which was developed to replicate 5.56x45 as closely as possible while still claiming "russia stronk"
Interesting comparison, but the tie scores - particularly the sand test - don't give a relative score; that is, the score is binary: did/didn't. If it were possible to dig into the sand and measure the depth of penetration of each, it would be somewhat more useful information regarding mass vs. velocity in sand. Also, the fact that the 3/4 ply was penetrated is less information than, say, how many 3/4 ply plates would be penetrated. Another thought is that their performance is shown relative to one another, but not to a reference round such as a .308 or .30-06 (both of which are also military rounds). That would be interesting to observe, as well. Your setup is very versatile for testing different obstacles. Great video.
Excellent testing! ❤ This was a SMOKING video. No side affects. You are convincing me to get an AK tho. I don't know if that will be the big brother of my AR or what. 🤔
As an Engineer I love your assessment and the fact that you let the cartridge defend itself HOWEVER Bruh, no disrespect but you need a crap ton of practice. You hit the upper left corner repeatedly and clip the metal. Hopefully Santa gives you some FMJ to practice.
Very very interesting results, mass isn't everything as it would appear to be. Also to whoever your editor is, I appreciate the fast cuts, very snappy, helps keeps thing going. That did not feel like a 10 minute video with how fast everything was
Well mass plus velocity is. Milsurp 7.62 is usually loaded pretty conservatively but people have gotten about 2800fps out of 17.5 inch yugo ak barrels I think that would’ve been a clear winner here that extra 350fps
SS109 is the NATO standard projectile -- a 62 gr steel core penetrator -- which is used in the M855 round marked with a green tip. In other words, he tested the same round twice, though maybe from different manufacturers.
@@brianw3415 wow your a genius! there is no reason for him to make that scene so short. you shouldn't have to pause a video to see the content. there isnt a time limit
This is fun for gun nerds, but as the owner of a gun shop in the town where I grew up (in the 60s) used to say when my friend and I would ask him about various calibers, "How dead can you die?"
That is ball ammo. There is a reason armour piercing ammo was developed and is in use. Better penetration for ball ammo just means greater chance of shoot through wounds. Less penetration on a human body means more damage to that body and better lethality. Also the 7.62x39mm is an obsolete cartridge that has been replaced by the 5.45 x 39mm round for almost 50 years, and it seems they have a new cartridge in the 6.04 x 41mm that they are experimenting with. Declaring the 5.56mm winner is biased since both rounds penetrated the targets they penetrated and the targets one failed to penetrate they both failed to penetrate, which makes it a draw in my books.
Penetration is not a good measure of lethality or effectiveness, only penetration. The 9 mm is a higher velocity round and a better penetrating round than the .45. But the reason the US preferred the .45 was because of the stopping power and lethality of the round. The 9 mm tended to over penetrate and therefore did not depart its full energy into a target, but the .45 moving at a slower mussel velocity would not over penetrated as frequently as the 9 mm and therefore all of the kinetic energy of the heavier round was deposited in the target causing more damage. This is also seen by the type of ammunition issued to US law enforcement, some of which is illegal to carry in certain states for civilians, do to its lethality. Except for penetration body armor, most US law enforcement are issued hollow point round. Hollow point rounds do two things , one they more easily deposit all of the energy of the round in the target, and often fragment. As they enter a target the shape of the hollow point causes the round to flatten and widen causing far more damage than a solid round of the same caliber. Secondly do to this the round does not over penetrate as often, meaning it will be less likely to pass trough a target or a a back stop and continue on to harm another individual. Both the ability to penetrate a target and the ability of the round to deposit the maximum energy, resulting in a proportional amount of maximum damage, are important when considering the ballistic properties of a round. The main advantage of the 5.56 round was that ammunition for the round was lighter and yet preformed well, therefore troops could carry more 5.56 rounds than 7.62 rounds which is an advantage.
That's why we hide behind sand bags. Oh, one more thing. Having recently turned 54, I can tell you that sled is not going to get any lighter, ever. It's as light now as it's ever going to be.
At 53, I'd suggest that it was as light as it was ever going to be 20-30 years ago.
i don't know, atomic decay has to factor in somewhere about 50 thousand years from now, it might have lost a few electrons by then. 🤷♂
Disagree. Constant weight training to make sure that sled WILL get lighter. I bet it’s light to Mark Felix and he is 58 now.
@@juanc5149 Exactly. After consistent weight training, everything feels "lighter."
@@davidbrayshaw3529 I remember the day in college after I played the first game of tackle football I'd played in maybe 5 years. I barely could get out of bed and the distinct feeling that something horrible had happened to my body; I was no longer invulnerable.
Thank you gun Ray Romano
i was thinking of this as well 🤣
2A RAY
I read this as Ray Gun Romano the first three times
Didnt age well..
I like your channel, BUT the major flaw on your channel is not letting us know who makes the ammo you are shooting for all we know you could possibly be putting quality ammo up against some cheap brand, and that my friend matters. Let us know what you are shooting, not just the caliber.
By the looks of it miltary ammo. All military ammo are loaded to pretty much the same specifications.
7.62x39 looks like it could be Russian and the 5.56x45 probably American.
Manufacturers try to keep it pretty much standard in order to get the same results with military weapons across the board.
I have personally found that 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 performed to witin moa grouping regardless of source in my 7.62 Musgrave riifle as well as the Sako .223 Win. Both bolt action rifles.
In the Denel manufactured R4 and R5 (5.56x 45 caibre Galil clones of the AK action) as well as the Mini14 in .223 Win. calibre I found the same results. With South African and Finnish mil. ammo the groupings were fractionally tighter than with Portugeuse ammo but on the whole quite constant enough for hunting and military application. Maybe not quite good enough for competition shooting though.
IMHO close enough results for all practical purposes.
@daanwessels4781 All good points, but letting us know the manufacturers doesn't hurt at all.
@@daanwessels4781Нет, это не военные боеприпасы.
Я стрелял военным патроном 7.62×39 по металлической плите 16мм, с расстояния 60м. Пробивает очень легко...
Calibre
@@dylanandmolly3739 yeah it should be calibre or caliber, but interestingly, a tool for measuring the diameter of drilled oil wells is called "caliper", which obviously related
It's not always the penetration that we are looking for, but rather the energy dump and projectile cavity as the round with the greater "plasmic shock" will win everytime.
...aka, "the motion in the ocean." 😂
Yea 7.62 acts like a pistol caliber in the way that it just punches a clean hole, meanwhile 5.56 will tumble or even explode
@@iroekyjHDyou’re clueless
@@iroekyjHD5.56 doesn’t always “tumble or explode”…especially at close range. 7.62 performs better closer range. That’s why you can get away with a short barrel AK vs a shorty AR
Agreed
You're answering the important questions here. Awesome.
It would be interesting to compare 62gr and 77gr on the same test... 300blk is also an interesting comparison
@willyberg123 What?
@willyberg123 what? 77 gr is what the military used?
@@MRDonWick2 M855 5.56 is a 62 gr projectile with a steel core penetrator. Mk262 5.56 is a 77 gr OTM projectile with a longer body designed for longer range shots.
The 5.56 nato round was designed to keyhole after hitting the enemy. It creates a horrible wound channel and the bullet will splinter if it hits bone. Countries complained to Geneva about the bullet requesting it become against the law of war to use, like exploding rounds and hollow points. The reason we went away from the M16A1 to the M16A2 was because the US decided to build a better bullet that was slower than the 55 grain M198 rounds by going with the M855 62 grain steel core rounds which required a change from the 1 in 13 inch twist rate to a 1 in 7 twist in order to spin the heavier bullet to be stable.
Nope just check out why every soldier complains about lethality of 5.56 everywhere,it can and will kill if shots land right,but it doesn't do huge shit if it doesn't hit bone or vital organs(kill switches)...
@@stip3m4m1c8 Can that be said for all bullets. if they miss they wont do shit.
It would be interesting on the last steel plate test to measure the volume of material removed. The 5.56 was deeper, but the 7.62 made a wider hole.
Similar to your idea, a lot of tests, dwell on penetration depth, but of course, this comes at the expense of damage along the way. Always a trade-off.
Why ??
@@grayamdelaney7044 I'm saying that as a hunter, where bullet pentation isn't everything, what's more important is energy delivered and the size of the wound.
When I was in the service I started carrying the original M16. Maximum effective range=350 meters. AK47 maximum effective range =300 meters. Then we got the new M16A2. Maximum effective range 500 meters. Even if the AK had better penetration, it only matters if you can hit your target. Of course most combat takes place under 300 meters and both weapons have a long established effective killing ability. I still prefer the AR platforms.
5.56 always had better penetration than 7.62x39, especially against steel. The 7.62x39 is better only at soft barrier penetration because it suffers from less upset than the 5.56 when passing through shit like shrubs.
7.62x39 exists because of two reasons - one is big-hole mentality, the other is it allowed to use existing tooling for manufacture. Russians did actually experiment with deer rounds for military use before the US did, commonly known as the .220 Russian. But the aforementioned two reasons put a stop to that until the M16 in Vietnam proved them wrong.
Take a look at jell block testing with x39 and 556. Specially from shorter barrels.
The x39 doesn’t fall off as much going from 16” to 10.5” like the 556..
The cavitation and wound track is significantly more violent with the x39 when using short barrels.
The penetrating ability of 556 falls off quickly when the barrel gets below 16”..
When I was in the reserves we were just transitioning out of the c1 to the c7. 7.62 to 5.56. Some of us talked about power.
What was consistently put to us was do you want to carry 5 mags and a 200 round battle pack of 5.56 or 7.62?
Realistically at battlesight 200, a bullet in the enemy is a bullet.
Bullets downrange are bullets down range. We both know that most will never hit their target.
For every 30 fired 4 will hit something. There is a solid argument for making the most out of those 4, however the other 26 matter too. Keeping heads down, throwing spatter.
5.56 is for the lowest common denominator. Your average soldier will carry more. Your average citizen will carry alot more.
Anyone who thinks that they will carry extra lbs has never been on a long trek. The first miles are littered with discarded extras that over confident people needed to have but parted with once reality started pounding up their shins knees and down onto their shoulders.
@@rolandlee6898 The americans have been testing them long before the russians. And nearly adopted the .276 paderson half a decade before ww2.
@@gotanon9659 True to some extent, but the .276 is pretty bad example of that given its size. Its even bigger than Arisaka and people count that as a full size rifle round when russkies try to claim the invention of the assault rifle with Federov.
In the Cdn. Forces we did this kind of firing often but using NATO 7.62 and NATO 5.56. The Nato rounds out of the FNC1 rifle would heavily spall the 1/2" steel plates but the 5.56 would leave barely a noticeable dimple and powder mark, often even unable to make a standing plate fall over at 100metres. Our combat engagements for training are typically between 100 and 300 metres. The FN would penetrate sandbags and concrete cinder blocks. Rarely would sandbags be double layered depth. The move away from 7.62 was due to better magazine capacity not effectiveness of rounds. It was always re-assuring to know you could fire out to 800m accurately with an FNC1 but had to rely on your section MG weapons to do that after the C7 was the issue rifle. We did not like that at all. Now the movement back toward heavier barrelled C7 variants running 7.62 finally makes more sense. 41C
Let me know how far you can hump 600 rounds plus 80lbs of gear. Thats why. 556... 16 pounds or so
The 7.62 won against concrete, and probably against sand too. You need smaller boxes of sand to differentiate the performance of rounds, maybe 4", 5", 6" and 8" cubes filled with sand would all be useful depending on the rounds you're comparing.
If both fail a test, they should get 0 points instead of 12.5
The result will be the same anyway.
That's always felt like it would be a more appropriate result, if not impacting the outcome.
#spoiler alert
When shooting cinder blocks with 5.56 and 7.62x39 it was about a 3 to 1 ratio to do equivalent damage.
Pretty wild that the 7.62x39 didn't make it through the sand but the 300 Black Out made it through in the previous video. Seems like we need a 30 cal showdown.
Agreed
The 300 didn't though. It launched the sand upwards which didn't count the second he retested it didn't go through
@@Paralyzed-rm6vcI was referring to 5.56 vs 300 video, you're talking about the 7.62 vs 300 video. In the 5.56 vs 300 video the 300 blackout went through the sand with the top sealed so their was no sand launching. He actually tested the 300 twice through sand in that video and it went through twice.
@timrobinson6573 due to bullet shape. Also 7.63x39 has more energy than 300 blackout but it's actually slightly bigger than 30 Caliber. It's more like 31. But that can Make all the difference. 300 blackout is a better design. Just wish it had a little more energy
I've got some surplus Tula 7.62x39 tungsten core that might do a wee better on penetration. Be neat to see a contest between armor piercing 5.56 and 7.62.
I thoroughly enjoy these near real world testing of the penetrating ability of peer rounds but it would have been more interesting to test the 5.45X39 against the 5.56 NATO.
I would find a comparison of the new ammunition, the 6 mm ARC (Advanced Rifle Cartridge) and the 6.8 mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) from Sig Sauer, both cartridges developed for modern self-loading rifles, interesting.
Rifling twist has a surprising influence on penetration. The faster the rifling twist, the further the projectile will penetrate.
FN found both the SS109 & M193 penetrated much further with the 1-7 twist than the 1-10 & 1-12 twists. Of course, their testing was mostly on FRG helmets. The US Marines required any new 5.56 round penetrate the helmet further than 7.62 Ball. FN achieved this by using the 1-7 twist while the rest of NATO went 1-10. 🤠
That's part of what can make bullet impart more energy. An over stabilized projectile has a tendency to just drive strait when it hits something. A bullet that is just stabilized will yaw and and usually flip backwards.
Too much rifling twist causes wear a lot faster, reducing overall barrel life. Everything has an advantage and a shortcoming
@@tullo5564it also causes barrels to get hotter under automatic fire
A low twist long barrel with a bigger bullet is good in a machine gun
According to FBI Ballistics the 7.62x39 leaves a 2.8 times larger wound channel than 5.56 !!
Finally, someone just did what he said he would do in a easy non technically oriented video.Thank you for making it as simple,fast and effective information that you articulated.We are all tired of clickbait,but ALMOST getting used to it.Good test,got my answers,THANKS,LOADS.
Only judging depth and not width or energy might be misleading, both rounds made it through similar barriers, but the 7.62 made a bigger hole plus more damage.
More damage?
@@kevinbietry7527 if that was a wound cavity, the diameter would have been larger, maybe causing more bleeding, which is the goal.
LOL
@@dwayne7356 Yes but a slightly larger hole is all you’d get in terms of a difference both rounds will require specific velocity to do anything else and if the velocity is lower it will just pass strait though 5.56 is over 1,000 fps faster at the muzzle
@@kevinbietry7527 No, it's not over 1000 fps faster unless your comparing cheap Russian ammo vs hand loaded 5.56. Get off the AR high horse and except the fact that there are other cartridges that are just as capable as your beloved 5.56. I'm a fan of both, but if I'm choosing stopping power at typical ranges, the 7.62 is my choice. I also hand load both and get much better speed out of the 7.62 than Russian steel case ammo.
For those who might not know, the ballistics data for 7.62 x 39 is very similar to good ole 30-30. There is a reason this round has been so successful. See for yourself.
Nato uses 7.62 x 51
I don't see it. The 30-30 shoots bigger grain bullets and has a lot more stopping power.
There are many reports that during the Somalia crisis (black hawk down), Rangers mostly didn't know, if the hit the target with 5,56 rounds. Only a few SEALs with 7,62 M14 saw that they hit because targets had fallen. 7,62 have clearly more stopping power. Captain obvious over and out.
One of the 7.62x39 was dead center in line with the heart wood. That part of the tree is generally more dense. That makes it appear a little more impressive.
Nit picking
not only that but it wasn't key-holing on its way out the back like the 5.56 was, so if it were up to me I'd have given it the points for that round.
Based on my own experience putting holes in random broken junk 7.62x39 always seemed to do more damage when shooting from anywhere from 50 to 150 yards but once you take it out to longer ranges I find it's much easier to get hits on target with 5.56 than 7.62.
comes down to use and preference, and for me I'm gonna prefer the ar-15 over the ak most days of the week.
The 5.56x41 would have made it through the center as well, easily.
Both would have made it through even thicker lumber.
These tests are kinda poorly picked, resulting in lots of less meaningful draws. The easier objects are too easy and the harder objects too hard.
Like that big block of sand. That's either close to or actual sandbag thickness, of course no common small arms round will go through there.
Max Cope
THANKS, that´s why sandbags are the most common pieces of fortification, Worldwide!! In my humble opinion, the 7,62 is still the winner, Paul, 68, retired military& of the Eastern armed forces!
Jup besonders wenn man bedenkt das alte NATO Kaliber war 7,62x51mm , mit dieser Munition wäre ein Vergleich sinnvoller .
7,62x39mm vers 7,62x51mm ist wie ein Vergleich Ochse vers Stier.😂
Sand target - You really should reduce the thickness of the target incrementally till you get a winner.(I don't wanna tell you how to do your job, so I'll let you determine how this will be achieved.) Keep in mind that while the content you provide is free to viewers, the constructive criticism, critiques and insight from viewers like myself is also free.
Sorry dude. I must be bored and you seem to have a pretty good sense of humor so....
I do hope you took it seriously at first. Obviously I was joking.
Yeah, I really didn’t think that 8” was going to be so much of an issue. Already filmed the last several videos but I will look into getting a thinner one
The 7.62 will have more momentum (Mass X Velocity), while the 5.56 will have more energy (1/2 Mass * v2)
The 7.62x39 is 124 grain with speed around 2 400 fps, and 5.56x45 is 60 grain with some 3200 fps. I always wondered if they dropped the weight of 7.62x39 to a 90 or 100 grain, it would probably make round go some 3000 fps similar to 5.56 but it would still have 50% or more weight. It would probably be an excellent round surpassing both previous rounds.
7.62 won the first round because although both made it through the plywood only one didn’t tumble. Also I think shot placement made the difference on the last one
Just viewed… I worked with MOD Police who for some time used the Heckler & Koch MP7 which used a steel tip armour piercing round to defeat body armour but tumbled in soft tissue thus preventing collateral damage by round pass through in an urban policing environment
Green tips would be interesting to match up with the 30 cal bullets.
Green M855 vs M43
An advantage of the 7.62 over 5.56 is that you get maximum performance at a barrel length of 16 inches, while you need a 20 inches barrel (or even longer) to get the full potential out of a 5.56.
Plus, if you use a 16 inch barrel for both, then the 5.56 weapon will be louder and more concussive than the one firing 7.62.
So the cartridge is heavier, and the bullet is slower, but the weapon, as a whole, will be more compact, with comparable terminal ballistics on target.
I'm guessing that you own an AK or SKS 🙃
@@B.Schmidt-c9v No way, brother. I'll admit, I'm just reading shit off Wikipedia.
There are so many very abilities with regard to ammo, all things considered. The 7.62x39 is regarded as having more penetration than 5.56
These little tests are great. Seeing how mass vs.velocity go through stuff is interesting.
Mass x velocity is momentum, and that is what hits the target. The kinetic energy formula doesn't tell the full story. Of penetration of a hard barrier is different than a soft barrier, adding another angle.
@@nickma71no, the density of the material isnt the important thing here, the thing here is the girth of the target, a larger sandbox will be defeated by a bullet of higher linear momentum and wont be defeated by one of less linear momentum, because the one with more momentum decelerates at a slower speed, but it is not the density of the material, only the time that the bullet is decelerated. But it depends on linear momentum, not in mass, the thing is that usually mass difference is bigger than velocity difference, so the heavier bullet normally has the greater momentum. But the lighter bullet usually tends to have more energy because even though the mass difference is bigger than the velocity, in the formula the velocity is squared
@@nickma71yes, the kinetic energy formula tells the full story, the proyectile with greater kinetic energy will have greater energy regardless of the target density, if you make a thin sand target, the bullet with more kinetic energy will also do it better than the one with more linear momentum. But it is decelerated more with time, thats why bullets with higher muzzle velocities are slower at very long distances than otherones slower at muzzle.
@@frooskys22 If only you knew what you typed. .45 auto is great against a soft target (flesh) and terrible against armor. The opposite of a faster moving and slower 9mm. But carry on.
Incredible experiment/competition between bullets, with me being wrong on the expected winner. The 5.56 gave the 7.62 a run for its money. Many thanks for the scientific approach of setting up variables to measure velocity & impact -
Consider me Subscribed + 'Thumbs' up.
If you're using the 5.56 NATO round, why not use the 7.62 NATO round as its opponent? The SLR/L1A1/C1A1 used 7.62 x 51 rounds, and had way more stopping power than the current 5.56.
True, but different tool. One wouldn't compare it to the 9mm NATO
@@michaelbullock7747 Not really - the SA80, using the 5.56 NATO round replaced the SLR in UK military service, which used the 7.62 NATO round.
@@gargk999 The 5.56 fit somewhere between the 7.62x51 and the submachine guns of the past, replacing both in most cases.
Thank you for these types of comparisons. Very informative
I’m about to try reloading 7.62x39 for accuracy. Found out last night making my jam bullet that there isn’t a lot of room to play with seating depth. Should be interesting to see what results I get.
What rifle are you reloading for?
@@madride858585 ak 103 and yugo m70 underfolder. Doing it mostly for the challenge and to see how accurate it can be. Hopefully it goes well because I estimate $.80 a round.
make sure your barrel size and bullet size are good @@albundy7459
@@albundy7459yikes, that's a bit. Still far cheaper than buying match in that caliber though, if you can find it that is.
Good luck on that. I was looking for large rifle primers in my area the other day, starting to think that they are a myth created by the big oil companies to keep me driving around seeking this mythical object.
@@saskafrass1985 I’m kind of in the same boat. I’ve got a ton of br2 primers that I’m unfortunately going to have to use. If any aren’t available at a brick and mortar place by next year I might have to just bite the bullet and pay the extra $40 in shipping and hazmat and get them online.
It’s a difference of philosophy, and is why I have an AR in 556 and a M1A in 308
Love the new sled! The testing is great too! Please keep up with the testing of new cartridges too!
People are tired of forcefully trying to make NATO a big deal, while on the open scene theu are literally a paper tiger army.
One thing to get a more accurate test, don't reuse the same block of wood for all 4 shots. The first shot that hits the block has 100% structural integrity. After that round hits the block is developing cracks and fractures and is getting weaker. Every additional shot will do more damage because the block is becoming weaker.
Oh and another fun idea do a comparison between a 20" and 16" barrel for 5.56 to show how much more spicy the 20 is
I think that It's safe to say that in terms of drilling of the first target that is hit the 5.56 win, but in terms of penetration 7.62 takes it, I say that because 7.62 didn't keyhole like 5.56 right here: 2:00
The reason thry gave in army for 7.62 was that it doesnt deflect as much in forest where branched get in line of fire. Also, you can just resupply from fallen enemies which is nice plus. Ofc they can do the same, but they can also produce them more.
They nicknamed them brush cutters
I would like to see more precise data on the penetration. Maybe stack narrower boxes full of sand? The 'witness' boards could also be improved to show how much energy is left after penetrating the object.. Maybe alternating 1/8 or 1/4" ply and 20g steel sheeting? Space out a few 'witness' surfaces? Thanks!
I like that idea. I was thinking of a wooden trough with lined up plastic bags of playground dry sand. Easily made with plastic bag- drum liners over a wood form, taped to hold shape, form removed and filled with sand. I'm afraid you only get one shot through each bag before repair and refill. A lot of work....How about multiple small postal flat rate sized boxes of sand?
Need other factors as well like how 5.56 changes its direction from bushes, sticks and snow. 7.62 don't give a, just continues to push through.
5.56 NATO has a green tip!!!
7.62×54r❤ test
That's a hell of a round my mosin nagant was a beast just don't like bolt action rifles but that round is a devastating one
I like 5.56 more than 7.62 . I used to use M16 A1 in Vietnam war it was very comfortable for me to move in the jungle,AK 47 is too heavy and one more thing that very important .If you have a 16-inch barrel with a 1:8 twist rate ,the bullet will complete a spin twice before exiting the muzzle.An 18-inch barrel with a 1:6twist rate will cause a bullet to spin three before leaving the gun.The more twists a bullet can complete before leaving the barrel,the more stable the slug will be when it exits the muzzle.
It would be very interesting to do comparisons of the 5.7×28 used by the P90 and the Five-Seven, with the 5.56 and 7.62X39. The 5.7×28 has a myth surrounding it that it is highly penetrative, even armor piercing all by itself.
It would be good to see 5/16 mild steel...that would be just in between the 2 plates tested so far, and might decide some contests. 8mm plate is also close to 5/16
When comparing two rounds it's always better if you carefully choose your targets in a way that would always result on one of the rounds pass and the other fail. I know that might take some time and effort finding the right thickness but it'd be more informative, when both fail or pass a test equally it tells us nothing, it's possible to set up a test where you end up with a draw between a 12.8x99 mm round and a 9x19 mm handgun round if the samples are either too thick for both or too easy.
kinetik energy: 5.56 NATO ~1300 kj, 7.62x39 ~1500 kj. The stopping force of the7.62x39 is a lot more, because more kinetik energy and bigger impact. However 7.62 nato is stronger ~2500kj
Which is why nato shifted to 5.56 way back. ...
You can also carry more of them. Sent 100's through the R4 in the army days.. Great cartridge.
I think that you will find that the NATO 7.62 round is a 7.62x51. The 7.62x39 is a russian round (.30 russian short). The shift to the 5.56 is nothing to do with the baby round test that you are doing here - real men shot the 7.62x51.
I always look forward to Banana testing vids!
Yeah same here. I’ve watched almost all of his veg and they are outstanding. The newer ones are better because the sled he uses is better. You get much better results when that Steele is tighten down and doesn’t move. Very interesting stuff.
A lighter faster bullet is generally going to penetrate deeper than a heavier. And a heavier slower bullet is generally going to have more impact damage affecting a larger area.
Wrong. It’s the energy created by bullet weight and velocity. You got it backwards
bullet performance is largely what it's designed for and what velocity the manufacturer says to load it to. Momentum is what delivers knock down power. Nobody talks about momentum. @@stevenschwarz8871
You should make a steel core showdown between these two types of cartridges.
Man I love UA-cam sometimes. Having just bought my first AK I wondered which round would win, and PRESTO an answer. It was close though, which tells me that whichever gun I can grab the soonest is the winner. Nice video baritone voice man!
This is why we here in Finland with thick pine and Spruce trees chose 7.62 cal for our main assault rifle... Nato rounds are known to start tumble for slightest reason and loses accuracy and penetration.
Against Body Armor and Metals = 5.56 due to higher velocity.
Better against softer barriers like Wood, Concrete, Glass, brush (lmao), etc = 7.62 x 39.
Overall, I'm more of 7.62 x 39 guy due to it's better barrier penetrating capabilities and higher energy. Not to mention being an objectively better round for hunting animals like Hogs and White Tail Deer among other medium game. But 5.56 is also an exceptional cartridge and has it's own roles and advantages. I wouldn't say either one is truly better than the other, they've both crossed paths and both have dropped plenty of combants on either side.
Talk about a massive *gimme* for the 556 fanbois. The 7.62 *plainly* won on the 6x6 - by not keyholing on the plywood - *AND* won on the concrete by doing more damage behind it. Im always amazed by just how many mental gymnastics the 556 fanbois do to put their precious overpriced underperforming round above the most produced round in history.
Love the channel. Please use a smaller sandbox. 8 inches of sand equates to a sand bag, and sandbags stop all small arms, this has been known for generations.
Very interesting. I've read so many places that 5.56 won't penetrate as well as a heavier cartridge and will be less likely to make it through barriers. I understand bullet construction will make a big difference, but I was surprised at the results of this test.
One of my younger brothers fun guns was a Mini 14 , with a 30 round mag .Consequently even though we used to roll our own, it was cheaper to buy this Korean military ammo from our local sports store . Some people here may know the stuff . Came in a plain white 25 round box with an orange lable for $5 .Geneva conventions , eh !? . This was a full nickle jacket round with a hole drilled in the tip and from memory were around 70 gr weight . Long story short they would drill a perfect hole in 10 mm boiler plate at 100 meters .
Surprising. We used to shoot holes through thick steel railroad tie plates with the 7.62x39 and it always went through. I don't remember them being magnetic either. Hmmmm
You really should do lap on the 7.62x39 and 77 gr otms for 556 55 grain is not really a fair shot on barrier testing.
one of the best shows on the net. love your dry jokes.
Those wood keyholes from the 556 would do more damage entering your body I'd assume.. And who would really be shooting at someone through a sand wall barrier lol.. You should test armor piercing rounds in a verity of cartridges
To answer your question, pretty much anyone in a static military combat situation. There is a reason that the military uses sand bags to build gun emplacements, fox holes and such. They are kinda tough to get a small arms bullet through.
First time on your channel. Interesting results, but there are so many other ways to test. Ballistic gel may be interesting, and I think the keyholing of the smaller caliber in one of the tests where the larger seemed to make a cleaner hole in the plywood somehow warrant more investigation.
I think the 7.62 probably would fare better shooting through brush.
Very cool testing of these two rounds! 👍
Would be interesting to see how they handle 5/16" thick plate though since 1/4" isn't enough and 3/8" stops the rounds.
Just for penetration comparison. My .357 magnum Thompson Contender pistol penetrates 6mm. mild steel plate at 10 paces with a 178gn. cast lead bullet. However it does not penetrate 150mm ( 6 inch) pine at the same distance with the same load (powder and bullet).
Turkish army uses 7,62 always. Only police use 5.56 and special forces in urban area
When measuring the damage in the ⅜" steel plate, both the depth as well as diameter of the cavity should be considered. Also in a duct seal or gel target, the shocking/stopping power would be proportional to the total volume of maximum expansion of the medium, easily measurable with duct seal as it is not elastic and stops at maximum deflection.
Its nice to see Ray Romano doing something worthwhile with his time.
Wonder about a UBT match between 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 (the round the AK-74 uses)?
Seems like that would be an interesting match, a more "apples to apples" comparison since the calibers are almost identical and the overall case dimensions are also largely similar.
Paused, then wanted to say the 7.62×39 is my choice of winner, IMHO! Thank you!
🇺🇸
Drinking game: take a shot every time he says “3/4 inch piece of plywood”
The first test made the 5.56 tumble and the 7.62 went straight through. I'd give that round to the 7.62. Also, the last test was skewed. The 7.62 was shot through the wood and the second was over the steel bracket. Not that I don't like the 5.56, but I don't think I agree with the test results.
I agree. The last test was flawed.
Agreed
Your channel has really come along! The updated sleds / holders for steel, concrete, and wood blocks that you’ve come up with are fantastic, and the your content is terrific. Very entertaining. Congrats on passing 50,000 subscribers! A friendly suggestion to help gauge relative penetration performance on tests like these that have several non-definitive segments might be to simply add in a few more 1/2” or 3/4” plywood blocks behind the single block you used in this segment, since at some point the bullets will be stopped and a comparison can then be shown. In other words, if you had several of the smaller blocks behind either the large 6x6 block, or the concrete block, then perhaps those segments would have shown one round going deeper than the other. Just a thought . . . Thanks for making such fun-to-watch content. And +1 on the suggestion to see how 8MM Mauser performs. A comparison against 30-06 would be interesting. As would a comparison of 25-06 vs 270, or maybe 6.5x55 Swede vs 6.5CM?
762 hits harder. End of discussion
That's what I'd expect a communist to say
For the last test, I think it would have been pertinent to compare the length of each projectile. If the 7.62 is longer by the same difference in the penetration, then it would again be a tie. If they are the same length, then naturally, the 5.56 wins.
5.56x45 definetly pushes above its weight.
Not to mention target reacquisition when putting round after round after round
It’s the speed of the bullet more then anything,,out of 16 inch an AK is going around what 2300-2350 fps,,, out of a 16 inch AR15 barrel you can get speeds around 3000fps give or take..
@@Jrh-rp7np20 inch M16A1 is all you need, puts any rifle besides the FAL to shame.
@bananaballistics you should try ti and do a comparison using Liberty Ammunition's "Animal instinct" rounds. They're really nasty on soft targets. In handgun calibers, they're called "civil defense" rounds. In .40s&w its a zinc plated solid copper weighing 60 grains with an advertised velocity of 2000fps from a 4" barrel.
This video presents some very good facts; and I want to throw a fact out there for everyone as well, pertianing to 7.62x39mm Soviet: The Russians abandoned it as fast as they could in favor of 5.45x39, which was developed to replicate 5.56x45 as closely as possible while still claiming "russia stronk"
Interesting comparison, but the tie scores - particularly the sand test - don't give a relative score; that is, the score is binary: did/didn't. If it were possible to dig into the sand and measure the depth of penetration of each, it would be somewhat more useful information regarding mass vs. velocity in sand. Also, the fact that the 3/4 ply was penetrated is less information than, say, how many 3/4 ply plates would be penetrated. Another thought is that their performance is shown relative to one another, but not to a reference round such as a .308 or .30-06 (both of which are also military rounds). That would be interesting to observe, as well. Your setup is very versatile for testing different obstacles. Great video.
Congratulations on the 50k subscribers. It's a fun feeling!
Excellent testing! ❤ This was a SMOKING video. No side affects.
You are convincing me to get an AK tho. I don't know if that will be the big brother of my AR or what. 🤔
they are more like cousins.
@@mtnbound2764 - Yeah but who has the biggest banana? 🍌 🤔
@@redfaux74idk i tend not to look at my family members banana's
Apenas comenzó el video, lo corté y menos aún me suscribí porque NO ESTÁ EN ESPAÑOL....NI SIQUIERA SUBTITULADO !!!!!!
As an Engineer I love your assessment and the fact that you let the cartridge defend itself HOWEVER Bruh, no disrespect but you need a crap ton of practice. You hit the upper left corner repeatedly and clip the metal.
Hopefully Santa gives you some FMJ to practice.
Very nice video was not expecting those results
I have to say I am not disappointed now that I went with the .556 platform over the 7.6 millimeter
Very interesting results. These comparisons are awesome. Thanks
You made a mistake! The FN FAL Rifle is 7.62 X 51 mm
Far more kinetic energy - 2,800 FPS. Range 1,800 m Best Battle Rifle sold in 90 Countrys.
The sand performed exactly as it should as it has always been a barrier in modern warfare, you know, sandbags.
Looking forward to the testing on Green Tip 5.56?
Very very interesting results, mass isn't everything as it would appear to be.
Also to whoever your editor is, I appreciate the fast cuts, very snappy, helps keeps thing going. That did not feel like a 10 minute video with how fast everything was
Well mass plus velocity is. Milsurp 7.62 is usually loaded pretty conservatively but people have gotten about 2800fps out of 17.5 inch yugo ak barrels
I think that would’ve been a clear winner here that extra 350fps
Military uses a 62 grain steel rod core in 5.56. To increase the penetration.
They have a green tip.
SS109 is the NATO standard projectile -- a 62 gr steel core penetrator -- which is used in the M855 round marked with a green tip. In other words, he tested the same round twice, though maybe from different manufacturers.
one suggestion, you could give little more time to the velocity data for each round, its hard to catch it. lie maybe give it 3 seconds instead of 1
For things like charts on UA-cam, you can pause the video.
@@brianw3415 wow your a genius! there is no reason for him to make that scene so short. you shouldn't have to pause a video to see the content. there isnt a time limit
This is fun for gun nerds, but as the owner of a gun shop in the town where I grew up (in the 60s) used to say when my friend and I would ask him about various calibers, "How dead can you die?"
That is ball ammo. There is a reason armour piercing ammo was developed and is in use. Better penetration for ball ammo just means greater chance of shoot through wounds. Less penetration on a human body means more damage to that body and better lethality. Also the 7.62x39mm is an obsolete cartridge that has been replaced by the 5.45 x 39mm round for almost 50 years, and it seems they have a new cartridge in the 6.04 x 41mm that they are experimenting with. Declaring the 5.56mm winner is biased since both rounds penetrated the targets they penetrated and the targets one failed to penetrate they both failed to penetrate, which makes it a draw in my books.
Penetration is not a good measure of lethality or effectiveness, only penetration. The 9 mm is a higher velocity round and a better penetrating round than the .45. But the reason the US preferred the .45 was because of the stopping power and lethality of the round. The 9 mm tended to over penetrate and therefore did not depart its full energy into a target, but the .45 moving at a slower mussel velocity would not over penetrated as frequently as the 9 mm and therefore all of the kinetic energy of the heavier round was deposited in the target causing more damage. This is also seen by the type of ammunition issued to US law enforcement, some of which is illegal to carry in certain states for civilians, do to its lethality. Except for penetration body armor, most US law enforcement are issued hollow point round. Hollow point rounds do two things , one they more easily deposit all of the energy of the round in the target, and often fragment. As they enter a target the shape of the hollow point causes the round to flatten and widen causing far more damage than a solid round of the same caliber. Secondly do to this the round does not over penetrate as often, meaning it will be less likely to pass trough a target or a a back stop and continue on to harm another individual. Both the ability to penetrate a target and the ability of the round to deposit the maximum energy, resulting in a proportional amount of maximum damage, are important when considering the ballistic properties of a round. The main advantage of the 5.56 round was that ammunition for the round was lighter and yet preformed well, therefore troops could carry more 5.56 rounds than 7.62 rounds which is an advantage.
You should do regular 308 ball vs 5.56 green tip
18 inch barrels
There is a reason why we use packed sand in bags for fortifications.
Other than half an inch of steel nothing will stop bullets.
Haven't watched yet.
But I learned 30 years ago that Ballistically these rounds are almost the same...