Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i want an AK but im conflicted as to which i want between the 47 and 74.ive heard the 5.45 is more accurate but not as reliable feeding as the 7.62 i know both are very rugged and reliable they're the same except for the chambering. Ive shot both and love them both, its a very tough decision. ive pretty much made up my mind on going with an Arsenal SGL. Any thoughts on the AK 74 vs 47?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,234 Posts
I've done a bit of research and found a few things that may be of help..The AK74 round is much lighter, therefore makes carrying large quantities easier. The round is much flatter shooting. The damage done by the round is quite devestating (nicknamed the 'poison bullet') due to the way it 'yaws'..Creates nasty wounds..Greater range than the AK47..Less recoil, and used to be cheaper ammo, that has changed a bit tho'..Once I can find one that widens my eyes it's what I'll be purchasing...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,788 Posts
7.62, Ba-by!

Poodles have enough issues these days!

The SGL would be a good choice. Always liked the Saigas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,680 Posts
I prefer 7.62 when given a choice.

It will put people down with 1 round center mass more often than any .22 caliber rifle round.

I don't need to carry 60 rounds of .22 to be assured I have enough to put 20 people down. All I need carry is 20 30cal's to put 20 people down.

More "effective" range in the 30 cals, more punch when it gets there. In both platforms discussed here, neither is good past 300 yrds in reality based solely on the platforms used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
my thoughts..

if shooting through barriers are a concern 7.62 ALL the way
if its for shooting"soft " targets then 5.45
the 5.45 is the Russian "improvement" of the 5.56 is about 30% longer (projectile) and is absolutely DEVASTATING on flesh (just ask the afghani's), but fails in comparison to 7.62 when barriers are present. 5.45 also has about double the effective range of the 7.62 round, but will suffer from more wind drift, due to a lighter projectile.
Kalashnikov stated something like the 5.45 caliber was the greatest DISSERVICE ever done to his rifle.
i own a 7.62AK (doesn't everybody?:)) and plan on owning a 5.45 variant as well
i say get them both, eventually
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,680 Posts
if shooting through barriers are a concern 7.62 ALL the way
if its for shooting"soft " targets then 5.45
the 5.45 is the Russian "improvement" of the 5.56 is about 30% longer (projectile) and is absolutely DEVASTATING on flesh (just ask the afghani's), but fails in comparison to 7.62 when barriers are present. 5.45 also has about double the effective range of the 7.62 round, but will suffer from more wind drift, due to a lighter projectile.
Kalashnikov stated something like the 5.45 caliber was the greatest DISSERVICE ever done to his rifle.
i own a 7.62AK (doesn't everybody?:)) and plan on owning a 5.45 variant as well
i say get them both, eventually
What? I've never seen ANY 22 caliber bullet be able to travel 800 yds and kill. In the two platforms being discussed here, 300 yrds is max for both, and the 30 cal will kill more effectively every time at that range. :drinks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
what??!!

who said 800 yards? not me!
the effective range of the 7.62 is closer to 200 yards!
the 5.45 is closer to 350-400yards (on soft targets)
the 7.62x39 was based Heavily on the German 7.62x33 due to studies after WWII that showed most infantry would not engage targets beyond 200 yards. therefore the need for a full power cartridge wasn't there. hence the "medium" power cartridge.
with a muzzle velocity of less than 2400 fps and a 124 gr projectile, the 7.62 quickly runs out of "steam" beyond 200 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
what about...

What? I've never seen ANY 22 caliber bullet be able to travel 800 yds and kill. In the two platforms being discussed here, 300 yrds is max for both, and the 30 cal will kill more effectively every time at that range. :drinks
the 22-250 or the .221fireball for long range .22 caliber killing power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
I have an AK. 7.62X39. I never considered any other. It's an AK. If I wanted to shoot smaller ammo with accuracy I'd shoot my AR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
thanks.

Thanks for all the advice and good opinions. I decided to go with the arsenal sgl 21 with od green furniture(7.62) because of the heavier round, despite the 5.45's slightly better accuracy im not going to be shooting anything at 500 yards. if i was i would get a AR. but i just like the the looks of the AK, arsenal does make a 223 ak! but id rather have the 7.62.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,680 Posts
who said 800 yards? not me!
the effective range of the 7.62 is closer to 200 yards!
the 5.45 is closer to 350-400yards (on soft targets)
the 7.62x39 was based Heavily on the German 7.62x33 due to studies after WWII that showed most infantry would not engage targets beyond 200 yards. therefore the need for a full power cartridge wasn't there. hence the "medium" power cartridge.
with a muzzle velocity of less than 2400 fps and a 124 gr projectile, the 7.62 quickly runs out of "steam" beyond 200 yards.
400 yrds with the 762x39 in the SKS will put you down all day long with one shot. I've run that round out to 500 yrds in my SKS training rifle quite often on steel. Not much there at 5, but I can still hear it hit the steel at 350 yrds, hard enough to be effective on "soft targets". The 5.45 at that range [ 350 ] is just a bee sting like the 223 [ both are nothing more than 22 bullets and run out of "steam" [ shed speed ] more rapidly than the 30 cals.

pileofbrass,

the 22-250 or the .221fireball for long range .22 caliber killing power?


On varmits sure, if the shot is perfect and that's using a very specialized rifle, but on people? No more effective than any 22 cal bullet at that range. :thumsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,569 Posts
Thanks for all the advice and good opinions. I decided to go with the arsenal sgl 21 with od green furniture(7.62) because of the heavier round, despite the 5.45's slightly better accuracy im not going to be shooting anything at 500 yards. if i was i would get a AR. but i just like the the looks of the AK, arsenal does make a 223 ak! but id rather have the 7.62.
I have a Yugo M70AB2 in 7.62, cranks em out like crazy. If you want effective soft tissue impact, use the HP Wolf. For barrier penetration I can PM you with details.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
ever use a ballistics calculator?

400 yrds with the 762x39 in the SKS will put you down all day long with one shot. I've run that round out to 500 yrds in my SKS training rifle quite often on steel. Not much there at 5, but I can still hear it hit the steel at 350 yrds, hard enough to be effective on "soft targets". The 5.45 at that range [ 350 ] is just a bee sting like the 223 [ both are nothing more than 22 bullets and run out of "steam" [ shed speed ] more rapidly than the 30 cals.

pileofbrass,

the 22-250 or the .221fireball for long range .22 caliber killing power?


On varmits sure, if the shot is perfect and that's using a very specialized rifle, but on people? No more effective than any 22 cal bullet at that range. :thumsup
they may shed speed faster, yes....BUT they start out faster!

according to the ballistic calculators i've found, the 5.45 is around 235 fps faster than the 7.62! at 400 YARDS!!:deadhorse
not much, agreed. still more though.:)
add to this the well known tumbling characteristics and superior accuracy of the 5.45, and i believe it is the victor (soft targets-not steel plates!!), if only slightly.
this being said: i still love my 7.62x39 AK clone, and would be my choice if I could only have one.
but it's America! own both:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,680 Posts
they may shed speed faster, yes....BUT they start out faster!

according to the ballistic calculators i've found, the 5.45 is around 235 fps faster than the 7.62! at 400 YARDS!!:deadhorse
not much, agreed. still more though.:)
add to this the well known tumbling characteristics and superior accuracy of the 5.45, and i believe it is the victor (soft targets-not steel plates!!), if only slightly.
this being said: i still love my 7.62x39 AK clone, and would be my choice if I could only have one.
but it's America! own both:)
Do you believe a faster lighter bullet at 400 yrds is a better man stopper? The military has found it's not, the insurgents in Iraq have found it's not. Not sure if you'd heard about the insurgents who would stand off 300 with their AK's as the AR's weren't penetrating or doing much damage at all at that range against double goat skins.

Then the Marines played their own game and brought in 7.62 nato rifles for every squad. Took the insurgents a matter of a couple of firefights to not want to play any longer since they weren't shooting at them with the poodle shooters anymore :rolf

The 7.62 mid in the AK was beating the 22 at 300. The 7.62 nato is beating the 7.62 mid at that range. The ones kicking butt at longer ranges in both scenarios is the heavier bullet, not the faster bullet.

Speed has little effect at 300 yds, it's mass [ weight ] at distance that has the advantage. Which rd has more punch at 500? A very slow to start and slower at 500 45-70 or a 22 cal bullet still traveling hundreds of feet faster a that range? Speed is not the deciding factor at range, speed's advantage is in less drop/flatter trajectory to get there.

Get both, but when it's time to "go", and you can only take one, don't take the 22 but take the 30 cal. It has the better track record at "range" over the lighter faster bullets for stopping people. :thumsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,569 Posts
I have to agree with Brownie on this one, U.S. troops are scrambling to find a more effective round than the 5.56 for long range engagements. Hence the dusting off of M14s and the development of FN's 7.62 http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?...6&categorySelector=2&detail=&cHash=6e4d7bb3fc. They are even dumping off the M-193 and M-855 and bumping up to a OT Mk 262 to try find a more effective round. The 5.56 is however very effective for CQB within structures where over penetration is not desirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
it's not..

necessarily the mass or the speed as much as the PLACEMENT and the DAMAGE caused by the projectile.PERIOD!:banghead2
a non-lethal hit with a"heavy slower" projectile is no more of a "stopper" than a non-lethal hit with a "lighter faster" one.

remember, when a supersonic projectile breaks through the sound barrier, the second time (deceleration) accuracy goes to pooh pooh.(technical term)
the 7.62x39 at 400 yards would be less effective(smaller diameter) than a 124gr fmj 9mm at close range. we're all familiar with the super effective fmj 9mm<-sarcasm!)

for the record i am a 7.62x51(NATO) JUNKIE!! more rifles in that caliber than any other, and if i ever needed (hope not) a rifle, this would be my choice (at any distance).

too bad the Marines (mentioned earlier) didn't have the A.C.O.G.,and 20" or longer barrels. a head shot would have solved the goat skin issues. something the AK can't do consistently at that distance (head shots).

i did mention in my first post, that if BARRIERS were an issue that the 7.62x39 was the better option.

i think alot people misunderstand .22 caliber rifle projectiles. all they consider is a .22 caliber hole. this is not the case with the 5.56NATO or the 5.45.
the 5.56 tends to yaw and fragment upon impact with flesh=severe trauma.
the 5.45 is designed with an "air pocket" in the nose to allow it to yaw and tumble when impacting flesh=severe trauma.

this design was basically stolen from the WWII British .303, which used a wooden insert (in the nose) under the metal jacket to cause yaw and tumble. which equals?....
yep, you guessed it, severe trauma...
so, the wound track/cavity, (temporary as well as permanent) is much, much greater, than .22 caliber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
I'm gonna take this a different direction...

If you want a PLINKER and not a SD rifle, then get the 5.45x39mm. Ammunition is a lot cheaper and it is available by the ton if you want it. I am consiering getting an AK in 5.54x39mm as a cheap-to-shoot plinker.

-Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,680 Posts
pileofbrass,

it's not..necessarily the mass or the speed as much as the PLACEMENT and the DAMAGE caused by the projectile.PERIOD!

A 30 to the chest will usually do more damage than a 22 to the chest at 400 yrds.

remember, when a supersonic projectile breaks through the sound barrier, the second time (deceleration) accuracy goes to pooh pooh.(technical term)

the 7.62x39 at 400 yards would be less effective(smaller diameter) than a 124gr fmj 9mm at close range. we're all familiar with the super effective fmj 9mm


Underlined:
Interesting statement. I wonder how my 30 cal subsonic [ on it's second entry below the barrier ] can get 1 MOA or less from the right rifle? Seems the snipers 30's of various flavors are favored for accuracy at range even though they've dropped below the sound barrier?

Second underlined:
Could you provide the documentation you're citing on this? I'd be very interested in the test results that prove that in the real world.

too bad the Marines (mentioned earlier) didn't have the A.C.O.G.,and 20" or longer barrels. a head shot would have solved the goat skin issues. something the AK can't do consistently at that distance (head shots).

Ever tried head shots at 300 in a firefight with returning incoming?

i think alot people misunderstand .22 caliber rifle projectiles. all they consider is a .22 caliber hole. this is not the case with the 5.56NATO or the 5.45.
the 5.56 tends to yaw and fragment upon impact with flesh=severe trauma.


12 months in country between 69-70 watching the 22 cal's out of M16's vs the 7.62x39's gave me plenty of understanding, thanks :drinks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
I have to agree with Brownie on this one, U.S. troops are scrambling to find a more effective round than the 5.56 for long range engagements. Hence the dusting off of M14s and the development of FN's 7.62 http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?...6&categorySelector=2&detail=&cHash=6e4d7bb3fc. They are even dumping off the M-193 and M-855 and bumping up to a OT Mk 262 to try find a more effective round. The 5.56 is however very effective for CQB within structures where over penetration is not desirable.
I think finding a suitable way to get 70gr .224" bullets to shoot at 3000 fps would be a nice replacement. But I think truthfully as a weight/cost savings over 7.62x51, they need an intermediate 6mm or 6.5mm round to do the work.

Not to highjack the thread, but I have conceived in my mind for years that an intermediate round between 5.56 and 7.62 was the answer to the supposed lacking nature of 5.56mm. 7.62 is great but falls like a ton of lead past 400 yards and 5.56 lacks in the energy department after 400 yards as well but shoots a little flatter out to 500 yards...so an intermdiate caliber is the obvious compromise.

If remington would neck down their new .30 Remington AR (or, AKA .30RAR) to 6.5 or even 7mm and thin out the case fatness slightly, they would be on to something. If I had the cash, I would gladly wildcat this in a T/C encore to see what she is capable of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
remember, when a supersonic projectile breaks through the sound barrier, the second time (deceleration) accuracy goes to pooh pooh.(technical term)
I am gonna stop you there...

A bullets transition from super-sonic to sonic, trans-sonic then to sub-sonic has little to no effect on the bullets inherent accuracy. The only effect on accuracy is the fact that the bullet is SLOWING. This dramatically alters the bullets ballistic coefficient and the trajectory goes south very fast after sonic, then sub-sonic velocities are reached.

As the velocity scrubs off, flight times of the bullet between distance markers increases, allowing a longer time between two points of travel for weather like the wind and heated updrafts to affect bullet flight.

Furthermore, the spin of the bullet induced by the rifling remains far more constant throughout its total flight than the velocity does, meaning that as the velocity scrubs off, the rotational stabilization of the bullet becomes GREATER for a given velocity as time passes.

So the actual nature of its velocity, be it super-sonic or sub-sonic air flow around the bullet, has little to no effect on accuracy...it is the fact the bullet is simply slowing down and the elements around it can act on it over a longer period of time. It's why a 10mph cross wind moves a 7.62x51mm round about 1/4" at 100 yards but upwards of 150 inches at 1000 yards. And the bullet didn't go subsonic until it reached about 950 yards.

-Jason
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top