... from Greg Ellifritz at Active Response Training. For those interested in firearms history and qualification courses/drills, Ellifritz has you covered with week with a link to an old timey FBI Submachine Qualification course of fire intended for the Thompson submachine gun. He also links to a couple other more modern drills. And in another for history buffs, he links to an article from Massad Ayoob examining Davy Crocket and his shootings, but, in the latter regard, mostly focusing on his end at the Battle of the Alamo. For those that work on their own firearms, Ellifritz shares an article with tips for loosening a locked up or frozen screw.
Another article I found intriguing was a field shooting accuracy study based on analysis of 149 shootings involving Dallas police officers. However, this is a bit alarming (although it probably confirms the opinions many of us have concerning government training):
In nearly half of these encounters, officers firing at a single suspect delivered “complete inaccuracy.” That is, they missed the target entirely. In 15 incidents, the total number of rounds fired could not be determined. But in the 134 cases where researchers could establish that figure, they calculated the hit rate, “incredibly,” at 35%. In other words, more than six out of 10 rounds fired were misses.
And there are a bunch more to check out.
However, I am going to comment on another of the articles to which Ellifritz links which purportedly examines the pros and cons of 7.62x39 versus 5.56 NATO and "what is best for you." This is a topic that I've studied quite a bit and I've also used both, so I feel I know enough to put in my two cents. And it is this: the article is too shallow to give any good advice on the topic. For instance, the author states: "For most hunters, especially here in the States, the 7.62×39 is going to be a better option due to its size and penetration at close to medium range. The humble 5.56 is great for taking out prairie dogs and the occasional coyote, but other than that, the .22-caliber projectile is a bit on the puny side." Sigh.
It really depends on the bullet. The velocity of the 7.62x39 is so low that it will not typically expand when firing standard open-tip cup and core bullets, resulting in a narrow wound channel. If we are talking about white tail deer, the 5.56 in a lighter 50 or 55 FMJ will be the better round. But we are not stuck with just these bullets and you can get bullets for 5.56/.223 that are designed for hunting deer sized game, and you can get better performing bullets for the 7.62x39.
The biggest problem for the hunter or shooter of the 7.62x39 is that the bore diameter varies so much between manufacturers of the firearms and bullet manufacturers that it can be challenging to find an accurate combination. Some of the Western manufactured barrels for the 7.62x39 use a .308 bore (e.g., the Ruger Mini-30), while those manufactured in Russia, the former Warsaw Bloc countries, and other allies can vary from .310 to .312 diameter, and I've read of some having greater variances. Similarly, the bullet diameters can vary. For instance, Hornady's bullets for the 7.62x39 are on the small size (.310). Other manufacturers seem to mostly use .311 (probably because it is the same diameter as those used in the .303 British).
Pros and cons of 7.62x39 versus 5.56 NATO? In a single word WEIGHT. My first semi-auto rifle was a .30 caliber and, although I sold it years ago, I still remember having to pick up and carry a 1,000 round case of the stuff. About two years ago I took the plunge and bought a couple AR's. When the first case of ammo I ordered showed up on my front porch I knew I had a winner. IIRC a 1,000 rd. case of 5.56 weighs about 30 pounds. Far better than the 50 or 60 pound cases of 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO ! I've also recently invested in a 5.7x28 and very much appreciate the weight difference compared to my 9mm ammo stash. In most cases the lighter, high velocity projectiles of 5.56 and 5.7 have slightly less muzzle energy than their 7.62x39 and 9mm Luger counterparts, but the difference in foot pounds is negligible while the benefits of greater portability, less recoil, and faster target re-acquisition...is well worth the trade off.
ReplyDeleteYes, that too. The reality is that the area where the 7.62x39 offers the greatest advantage over the 5.56 is barrier penetration and that the 7.62x39 is better optimized for feeding into and extraction from the chamber.
Delete