AK47 vs AR15: CRAZY Difference In Steel Penetration
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2022
- In today's video, we will see whether the 7.62x39 has what it takes to penetrate deeper into mild steel than the 5.56. All of the testing was done at 50 yards using a529 grade 55 mild steel. Thanks for watching!
I hope to have a steel holder to keep the plates at the same angle soon (not for the next couple videos though).
Brass Catcher: amzn.to/3O1ZHm6
These tests are meant for educational and entertainment purposes only. Shooting steel can be dangerous so do not try any of these tests at home. Contains affiliate link to amazon. 
Спорт
If you get a chance a good comparison would be 5.56 vs 5.45x39 😉
I like demonstrating this myself. 5.45x39 vs 5.56 is a more Apples to Apples test.
@@TheRealMrBlackCat i did 5.45 in some wooden blocks, the round exits sideways lol 🤣
@@tullo5564 Dang... you might need a good barrel! :D
i agree, i wanna see a 5.45 comparison
@@tullo5564 that’s the poison bullet bro 😂
You're the 'Project Farm' of ballistics! And I like it!
I love watching Project Farm and really appreciate it!
@@bananaballistics he hit the nail on the head with that comparison, keep these videos coming, im subscribed!
test 5.45 against 5.56 next time since theyre more similar
Zach S. And we want to see military loading results. Ultra-Mega-MAGA
Besides anti-personnel and tracer bullets, AK 47 has special, armour-piercing cartridges too. It would be interesting to test their piercing capabilities as well.
but it is not AK47
5.56 also has m855a1 for penetration
@@VoukVoukVoukHe’s just referring to an Ak that fires 7.62x39
Nobody cares that you watch Michaco and forgotten weapons and know the difference an ak 47 and akm
@@HookLine48 many different weapons shoot ammo 7.62x39 .
Of course, the AK-47 and AKM are just different models of the same machine gun, but if someone does not see the difference, then there are doubts that the person understands something about this. Very few people held AK-47s in their hands, because few were produced, while AKMs were produced in the millions. I held both in my hands, I can tell them apart.
@@user-pn4co3bj4c It's common to use the term AK47 even for AKM specifically because there were very few actual 47's. It's not being knowledgeable to point out the difference, it's just pretentious nitpicking.
A smaller bullet will have the upper hand in penetration, but when it comes to knocking people down, the 7.62 simply has more energy.
It is also affected less by foliage.
Better bullet > more energy
762x39 tends to make clean holes, right through. The bullet looks like you could reload it.
5,56x45 tends to fragment and dump ALL of it's energy into the target, making some really nasty wounds.
@@castanza128 And yet, Iraqis would stand up after getting shot with the 5.56 (walking dead basically), but they would never stand up after the 7.62. Reality is often not what you think.
@@snookiewozo I think you're talking about 7.62x51 nato, the us military never used 7.62x39. You're still right though.
@@fortnite.burger The US military has used 7.62x39 quite extensively since vietnam. It was simply never standard or issued. For example the navy seals loved the RPD. The US also used to contract companies for massive 7.62x39 orders for their "allies" in the middle east.
@@snookiewozo I didn't know that. I've never heard of 7.62x39 being used
The 7.62x39 hole is obviously wider. Would be interesting to see which hole has more volume... i.e. how much water can it hold?
Aw-Dumb Flagrant: Tru-dat. Zack Lee! Amen...👐🏼 Just playing' Respect.
And that's likely also why it's shallower. Tank rounds designed for kinetic penetration are basically long, thin rods, ideally from tungsten. So it's no good to compare those two rounds and ignore the diameter itself.
volumetric displacement....
7.62 = .25 cm3
5.56 = .24 cm3
Odd that the 7.62x39 went through the quarter inch plate but only .216 on the 3/8 plate
Shooting 5.56 green tip vs. standard 55 grain 5.56 vs. the AK against steel plates might make for an interesting and informative video.
Agreed.... I was just going to comment and ask the same thing... Green-Tip 5.56's vs 7.62x39's
Green tips will penetrate 3/8 plate. They won't make it thru 1/2" . Mild steel of course.
I just shot some quarter inch steel and 556 didnt go thru it just buldged it out big time....the 762×39 fmj went right thru....
So im confused on his results
@@TheGor54 my 762 went right thru these steel beems and 556 did not .
Ill choose the ak all day its better at penetration
@@TheGor54 did he shoot them at the same distance?
I can legally take deer with a 7.62x39 not so with the 5.56 NATO. The 7.62 x 39 is ballistically close to the 30-30
Here in Ohio you can't use either of them to hunt deer, its the 350 legend smooth wall or similar
@@bryanrocker5033 that is odd as the Russian round is almost the same out to 100 yards as a 30-30
350 Legend is a potent little round!
@@bananaballistics Yes its basically a 357 magnum on steroids :)
@@bananaballistics yes it is. I hunt a lot with 44-40 out of a rifle. It does a great job at 100 yards and under
A comparison between 5.56 Penetrators and Chinese Steel Core 7.62x39 would be interesting...
The cross section of the bullet is what's key here. The 5.56 is concentrating that force into a smaller area. So it's going to penetrate further. The AK bullet has more force behind it. But it impacts a much larger area relative to the 5.56. The amount of area is important. For example your shoulder experienced the same amount of force imparted on the bullet being shot out of the barrel. Being on the business end of that round means getting a brand new hole in your body. Having the force spread out over the gun and through the stock means just feeling some pressure. If your stock was the diameter of a bullet... you'd have a very bad day.
That’s why a a steel bolt will bunch right thru armor and steel lots of mass in a small diameter with a lotta ass into one point
Next video
"Volume of penetrated area"
Clear winner 7.62
To be more precise Sir, the speed of the projectile is a more critical factor because from basic physics (F = m x a) - meaning velocity gets a power squared effect, while mass is only a 1:1 proportional ratio to Force.
In other words, to double the (penetrative) force, you just need to increase speed of projectile by about 41% more, but to have the equivalent increase in Force via mass, you'd need a doubling (ie. 200% increase) on the mass of the projectile.
The cross-section isn't nearly that great a factor here as both projectiles are shaped & tapered to a point, and small arms bullets are anyway designed to deform upon impact.
Thus, its more important to be able to penetrate (whatever plate armor or cover) first & foremost, and THEN cause bodily damage, so 5.56 makes more sense to me.
Besides, I prefer the 5.56 because its much lighter which means you can carry more rounds, and ballistics tests shows its more accurate too.
@@markaspen Yup
the heavier bullet was not at sharp the other one
Bad day but not terrible day, as the gun is much heavier than the bullet so it will recoil far slower.
did you account for the extra bullet material the 7.62x39 left in the bottom of the hole compared to the 5.56? I would have like to see a measurement comparison of the bulges on the rear of the plate
good point
I didn't think about it until you said it.
You're right. That extra 70 grains of lead is in the hole.
My thoughts exactly. Get a pick and pull that debris out of there and then compare the depth
Absolutely. It looks like most of the lead from the 7.62 was left behind in the pocket. Clean that our and see how deep it is.
You should run the exact same tests but put the steel further away. The 5.56 round's ballistics stay fairly consistent at longer ranges, due to the slow speed of the 7.62X39 it's performance on steel goes down at longer range
In that case you should also bring out some ballistic gel to show the difference in energy impact on target.
A more good intro it but what your implying is incorrect as (all else being equal) heavier bullets stay more "consistent" at longer ranges which is why a lot of long range guys generally use heavy per caliber pills.
I wonder what the difference in displaced volume was. Also, even slight differences in the angle of the steel can significantly effect penetration.
the 556 has more energy per square inch
I shoot 7.62x39 out of a Ruger American and have found a wide range of velocities. My favorite is Red Army Standard AM2423. It’s a boat tail bullet made for RPK/RPD rifles at comes smoking at 2450fps. One of the hottest I have found.
Is that the average that you calculated or peak that you've seen?
That was the average.
Just a small correction. You indicated the 7.62 has more energy because of higher mass. Remember that the energy is proportional to mass times the *square* of the speed. Therefore energy is much more affected by speed than by mass. The reason the smaller cartridge penetrates so much deeper is because it picks up more energy from the increased speed than it loses from the decreased mass.
Except that energy is irrelevant to penetration. Pen is a function of momentum, which is mass x velocity.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No, when objects collide the kinetic energy is transferred into heat, sound, or deformation energy. Momentum is conserved, so change of velocity of the bullet results in change in velocity of the plate, conserving momentum overall. It is the transfer of kinetic energy, not momentum, that explains deformation of the plate. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 That does not make any sense . Mass x velocity = kinetic energy... you cannot state that energy is irrelevant to penetration and then go on to state momentum is, and momentum has the same definition as kinetic energy. You are cutting corners to produce conflicting logic
Momentum btw, is p * v indeed, But that only applies if it is a SINGLE particle.
if there are groups of particles that no longer adds up and the correct representation for TOTAL momentum would take much more calc
@@stijnvandamme76 Wrong.
kE = MV^2
m = MV
Momentum (m) is the tendency of a body in motion to keep moving forward. It applies to every moving object.
@@persistentone3448 I think you misunderstand me. Energy exists and is useful in making other calculations but it has no direct value in ballistics. Recoil is a function of acceleration, penetration is a function of momentum, etc...
Knowing the initial kE of a projectile will allow you to calculate things like friction loss leading to drop in V. Momentum, being the tendency of a body to stay in motion, governs thing like penetration. However, that is mediated by deformation, which is a matter of plate sheer strength, bullet compression strength, and the friction of target material.
The frontal area of the 5.56 is smaller so in that space (size?) it packs a stronger punch than this particular 7.62, which has a larger frontal area and therefore the energy it brings is spread out more so than the 5.56.
"Basically the cleanest hole I have ever seen....which is shocking."
Quote of the year.
Apparently you've lived a sheltered life, if you believe _that_ to be the "quote of the year".
@@Embrachu Got a better quote of the year? Better be some Ghandi Mark Twain type shit. 🤣
“Whichever one penetrates the deepest will be crowned the winner.”
His runner-up quote of the year.
The equation for kinetic energy is 0.5 x Mass x (Velocity)^2. Increasing the velocity significantly increases the energy of the round while reducing the mass of the round does not affect kinetic energy as much. You could you this to estimate other rounds for penetration tests.
this is the correct answer ! the energy is increasing with Velocity^2 ! the analysis should also consider the cross section of the bullet. assuming the bullets have the same initial energy (it is not the case - the 5.56 has a higher one) the energy is dissipated on a smaller surface in the case of the 5.56 bullet, resulting a deeper penetration for the 5.56. Confirmed by real life ! But when we speak about stopping power, the 7.62 is the winner. in this case Mass x Velocity for 7.62 is bigger than the one for 5.56. This is life - it is important to know why and what for are you shooting for.
I knew 5.56 would perform better solely because of it's velocity
Speed and bullet construction are the key for punching holes in steel. I have never gotten 7.62×39 through level III steel plates, but I have some 55 grain handloads for 5.5.56 that will punch holes in them at 20 yards with a 16 inch barrel. If you told me I was gonna need a rifle for bears I would take an AK over an AR, but for human size animals I would prefer an AR.
You should ask a combat veteran what they prefer in battle
You mention energy as if it is separate from velocity. Energy is a combination of mass and velocity. None-the-less, I loved your video.
I'd like to know which displaced more steel. That would be a better comparison of power. Tula isn't the fastest brand of 7.62x39 either. Barnaul or Golden Tiger would have done more.
As a long time shooter, both in civilian and military settings, I find the flaw in your testing is in keeping at a set short distance. While I understand this was probably done for safety (as you said in the video, shooting steel plate is not exactly safe), as well as what area you had available, the 7.62 doesn't show full potential until @150m or so.
Originally, the heavier cartridge was designed to be used, not only in close quarters combat, but as a fair use sniper round. It's a balance between weight, distance, and ballistic level.
The 5.56, on the other hand, was designed to reduce weight to the bare minimum while keeping adequate impact at target. The smaller round allows for higher penetration at short distances, simply due to it's smaller footprint. Like a sabot round vs a regular round of the same caliber. At longer distances (@100m+), the penetration aspect falls off greatly.
The 5.56 has become the standard "combat round" due to the fact that most firefights are at ranges less than 50m. In which case, your testing proves exactly why it was chosen. That, combined with it's lower weight, smaller size for more magazine capacity for less volume, and keeping it's lethality for the ranges it was designed for, put it in the front of almost every other caliber.
However, if you push that testing out to 200m and 300m, you will find that the 7.62 far exceeds the 5.56. I do not believe you will get actual penetration of the 1/2 plate, but the deformation will be far greater for the 7.62. In fact, at 300m+, I would theorize that a 5.56 would be hard pressed to do more than mark the plate.
Also, the plates being "free standing" degraded the testing. The shock wave, as well as the impact push/bounce will have various effects that will greatly effect penetration results. The impact at target is substantially different between a 5.56 and 7.62 at 50m. While testing that difference was the point of the testing, allowing the testing matter to react differently should be eliminated, if at all possible.
Final comment: I'm not downing your video, nor your testing. I'm simply pointing out aspects that were not covered, and may lead to differing results. In short, distance plays a larger role than most consider in choosing what caliber they will use.
the point of using autom. rifle at 200-300m?
Fair points. The video is hardly scientific. This video is more like what we would do with friends over some beers to see which penetrates more. OP needs to make sure that everything is a perfect constant except for the round he is using for a fair experiment. And he needs to do it at different ranges. Like you said, 50m is not the same as 150m or 300m.
@@ivok9846 Semi-auto. I don't find a reason for full-auto outside the military without logistical supply. To answer your question though: To be at sufficient range. As a hunter, a good number of my shots are at 200m+. One, because the game doesn't run scared, and Two, because I'm that good to make that shot.
My summary wasn't to pinpoint any shot, however. It was to point out a wider set of parameters in order to determine a personal preference. My personal preference is distance. If I want both impact and distance, I'd go with the 30-06 over the 7.62 anyway, but again, that's preference. Or if I really want to reach out and delete something, I'll pull out the .50 BMG. The 300H&H if I want to stay in legal hunting rounds.
The testing was of the rounds, not the actual rifle in any case. Only single shots were fired, not full-auto, nor 3-round burst. So being even semi-auto is irrelevant. I could have went on with what the rifle twist was, and what bolt carrier was in each, so forth and so on. I kept to the testing range itself to preclude bias on the riles themselves.
Any other questions?
Honestly I would like to see lethality after the plate with a block of ballistics gel behind the plate, to see what the bullet is doing, and capable of.
Also is this standard ball ammo? What about M855 or M855A1?
Also have you thought about getting a small tabletop/bench Mill, and using a shell cutter to level off the steel? if its setup flat, then you won't have to worry about going deeper than the steel surface.
Good channel, man! Appreciate what you're doing to keep the avid, and casual shooters informed! Keep doing what you're doing and you'll get far! ;)
I really appreciate it! Thanks for watching!
Would like to see .300 blackout vs 7.62x39 and .300 blackout vs .556...
I was thinking the same... 300vs762... but the 300 has 2 basic flavors... supers and subs... 2 very diff setups.
300 super vs 762 would be my only interest.
I agree! I am looking to get a 16" 300 blackout to make the test as fair as possible.
@@bananaballistics "to make the test as fair as possible" 😆 its def cool to just HAVE one also. Trust me. Theyre a lot of fun. Esp subs. They really thump.
You should take into account the diameter of the deformation as well as depth.
I think you'll find given the larger diameter the 7.62x39 actually displaced more material.
This is certainly a consideration but not for AP. It could hint at hollowpoint and softpoint ammo being superior for the AK.
@@Bramswarr Very True, an AP comparison would be interesting.
But it's a penetration test, not a displacement test
@@TTime685 Yes, but perhaps this would explain his observation that the lower energy bullet penetrated further, which he did not expect. His conclusion that velocity is key is not quite correct, it is energy per unit area that matters, and the impact area of the 7.62 is almost twice as large as that of the 5.56.
Now try it again with soft hard targets like wood or thin metal like car doors. Then put your target behind that. I garrantee the 7.62 will win in most other types of cover.
"The question today is whether energy beats out velocity"
Lmao.
This makes sense. The 7.62x39 is both slower and wider. To penetrate hard materials, you want high velocity and a narrow cross section. Against soft targets (like people and animals) the 7.62's characteristics would tend to even out.
NO WAY....the 7.62x39 will always do better on steel plate.....I think we need to know more about this 556 ammo he was using........something not right here..
@@chadhaire1711 Looks like mil spec M196 ball. That Winchester uses Lake City GI brass. I have some.
@@kimness7796 I have been doing steel plate tests for ages....even did articles for national gun publications.....NO WAY 223 ball will penetrate better than 7.62x39....even the green tip.
@@chadhaire1711 my thoughts exactly...
The 556 has a smaller contact area hence the force per square mm is higher just as a woman's stiletto heel that easily penetrates aircraft flooring and is why they are banned. The 762 has a larger area thus distributing it's force and as someone mentioned below, actually displaces a larger volume of metal.
It's the velocity. Shoot a 7.62 123 grain bullets at the same velocity and it'll penetrate about the same
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity ^2
And increase in velocity = square yield of kinetic energy .
It is the speed that rule the kinetic energy .
Steel penetration? Let's face it, the real world application of that is shooting into/out of vehicles. I did a "Guns and Vehicles" shooting course courtesy of 360 Tactical in Houston a while back. The instructor demonstrated penetration using a whole range of pistol, rifle and shotgun calibers. For common rifle rounds, standard steel case/steel core 7.62x39 makes some seriously IMPRESSIVE penetration through vehicles compared to 5.56 M193 or even M855 Green Tip, especially through "hardened" areas like door reinforcements and frames. Making me seriously consider a PSA-AK as a future purchase. I know that's kind of reversed compared to results here but in vehicles you don't have those sorts of steel thicknesses. You have multiple tubular and box sections to provide strength and rigidity and the 7.62x39 PLOWS through multiple of them because of the big steel core where Green Tip fragments and leaves much smaller holes because its steel core is tiny in comparison.
Don't forget, the propellant has to overcome the inertia of the projectile. The bigger the projectile, the greater the inertia. I'm guessing, a longer barrel would have imparted more kinetic energy into the 7.62 resulting in greater penetration.
I’d like to see the difference between a Barrett .50 cal with a 20” barrel compared to one with a 29” barrel my calculations show you’re sacrificing 9% power based on the specs behind the Hornady 750 gr match ammo, but I’d like to see the difference on metal.
Only time you will see a noticeable difference there would be at distance. A shorter Barrel length only will show a penetration difference noticeable in either a REALLY thick flexible medium OR at close to max cartridge range. The test of M955 vs AR500 steel chest plate and in a Kevlar carrier, passes through both from an AR with a 7.5" barrel. Kind of the same principal, out to 500yards I would bet money that the round would not pass through, But move to a 20" AR with the same round. Bet would be a pass through. Ya know what I mean? .50 is so hard to penetration test, once you go BMG Midas well penetration test an RPG-7 lol. Novelty, but AWESOME!
7.62x39mm is better at "taking care" of a human. Thats all that really matters in my eyes, however I love and have both and would feel comfortable with either in that situation.
Not really. The 5.56 beats the 7.62 any day of the week.
@@bruceli9094 not really! Use Barnes bullets and you'll kill more wild hogs with the Kalashnikov!
How so 5.56 clearly was the victor in penetration !
@@ojpaige3873 I don't buy that! If bear hunting, the aforementioned barnes in 7.62x39 would be much better. So would .300BLK be!
Shooting a 7.62 with a steel jacket, and a 55gr 5.56 with an all copper jacket is not "apples to apples".
7.62x39 has more barrier penetration and more penetration on game as well
I've got the same muzzle brake on my AR, I love that thing. It reduces recoil and muzzle rise like a mofo without blasting you in the face like most other brakes or comps. Though it does seem to make the gun louder in general, minus the concussion. The fireball at night is pretty cool too lol.
Nice video, but I suggest you try shooting angled steel plates - like 30 deg, 45 deg etc. You will be shocked how ineffective these rifles are against sloped plates.
lol. Someone always says pretty much the opposite of what you said, e.g., the plates are angled, or, the plates need to be on something more solid than a log, etc. Remember, it's a penetration test, not a test to see what deflects (cuz everyone already knows that sloped armor deflects bullets)
With all due respect I’m sure viewers are all very aware of that fact.
I’m far more interested in 90 degree penetration as the standard.
Isn't this a test to see how effective the bullets are? Not how ineffective? Notice that heavy battle tanks have pointed hulls and turrets, horizontally.
Sloped plates basically just act as thicker plates, although there is some small amount of deflection.
@@Kriss_L That is absolutely incorrect. A lighter round will deflect farm more than a heavier round. A deflecting round will tumble and massively hinder its penetration.
AK's are known for their stopping power, not penetration. Devastating to get hit by a 7.62 round. 5.56 was implemented (I've heard) because more pentration causes less damage... which is good because injuring the enemy is more of a drain on their medical and personnel resources in the thick of battle.
Russian Army uses 5.45 ammunition. 7.62 is outdated not just because the less penetration, it's mainly because the less weight. So 5.45 is cheaper, lighter, so a soldier can carry more of them.
its top secret info
Definitely an interesting video. I can imagine the penetration was worse on the 7.62x39 round because it was a larger round, and had to spread apart more material than the 5.56 round. While it wasn't in the video, a volume test at the end would have been a nice detail to have added to see which one spread apart more material.
AADK W Y CANDYMAN MUAY pistol for your email address
I didn't have to think about liking this video. I didn't have to aim either.
It was a hip shot and dead on bullseye.
I would like to know the diff between how the green tip affects this test in 556.
Excellent video. ❤️ I'm a beginner and eager to learn.
I really appreciate it and glad to have you in the community. I did a test with the green tip in a previous video (not directly compared to 7.62x39) ruclips.net/video/T9qyoivkeEU/видео.html
Thank you. I'll watch it now.
Subbed! 😀
I once witnessed an 85 gr 243 poke a clean hole through AR550 steel because it was shot from 35 yards. Like a paper punch!
I wonder how 77 match grain 556 would do in this test. Great video!
Do it again. Identical to that last plate with both rifles. But do the shot at 100 , 200, and 300. How much does the 556 drop off in penetration as the distance gets farther and do the AK ft-lbs of energy ever catch up to the 556? (I ask this because I know the real-world versions of these 2 didn't stack up as your test did. Just curious to see this in real-world testing.)
Intersting video series. Subscribed...
FYI, you are likely aware that kinetic energy is related to speed by the equation
KE = (1/2) * mass * velocity^2
Since KE increases as the square of the velocity, the 5.56 round's higher velocity gave it a significant advantage over the slower 7.62
Perhaps a KE calculation for both rounds would be helpful.
Naaa, 556 has less energy at the muzzle already
You sure that bullets are strictly KE calculated? 7.62x39 always is listed at 20% more energy than 556.
@@kimness7796 what method would you suggest? What method of energy calculation shows 7.62x39 has 20% more energy than 5.56?
@@jacktrout5807 I didn't calculate it myself, but a quick search told me the 7.62x39 has 1525 ft-lbs and the 5.56x45 has 1311 ft-lbs. I assume that is at the muzzle, if it's true. But it still makes sense that the 5.56 has better penetration because there are two other factors affecting penetration in this test; velocity drop over distance and cross-sectional area of the round. The 5.56 has a significantly smaller cross-sectional area (24.28 mm^2) than the 7.62 (45.6 mm^2). That means the energy of the 7.62 is spread out over almost twice the area. That larger cross section also means more drag so it will lose velocity faster.
@@angryginger791 in the same spirit a 45-70 has more energy than either but penetration maybe questionable 🤔 kinda the different between getting hit with a brick a 50mph or a pencil at 1000mph.
Scenario 1) man shot in chest by AK... drops dead. Scenario 2) Man shot in chest by AR drops to ground, his buddy runs to help him and gets shot as well, both are incapacitated. Then if no one else gets shot trying to help, four of their buddies carry the other two out of harms way. Six soldiers out of the fight with two shots from an AR. And the winner is... the 5.56 AR.
You forgot to measure the width of the holes. The 7.62 is a heavy bullet from the WWI and WWII eras. High power for long-range shots and high Knockdown. That is, there is a LOT of kinetic energy following in the draft (or wake) of the bullet drilling through the air. When a 7.62 bullet hits a target its draft/wake dumps that stored kinetic energy into the object, like a miniature explosion. The bullet itself continues on using the potential energy stored in its mass, but at a slower rate, thus causing it to start to tumble. Small hole in, big hole after entry, bigger hole going out.
The 5.56 came about because of several factors. Combat situations in Vietnam found that the AKs could throw more lead than the US's M14 (.308) and US soldiers could not carry as much ammo as their counterparts. The US needed a lighter bullet for a higher volume of lead spitting. The 5.56, having a smaller draft/wake does not have as large a volume of stored kinetic energy as the 7.62 bullet does. Therefore its knockdown is also smaller, but this reduction causes the bullet to retain a higher kinetic potential in its mass. Small hole going in, a small-ish long hole after entry, small hole exiting.
In summary, the 7.62 is superior against soft, unarmored bodies, while the 5.56 is superior against lightly armored bodies. As we can see in the video the metal plates show the effect of the difference in kinetic dumping.
I'd be interested to see this test with 300 blackout
I should be able to test the 300 blackout and 7.62x39 with 16" barrels in the future
Do they make FMJ bullets for the .300 BO?
@@kimness7796 🤡
Didn't go as deep but is spread out more. Translates into more psi, I do believe.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I'm on the other side of the plate and have a choice between an AK or AR unloading on me, I know which one I'd pick.
@@Mr_Eyeholes Shot a real meat target and then you might reconsider.
@@Mr_Eyeholes if both dont penetrate then 7.62 would hurt a lot more than 5.56
@Shinshocks plate need to transfer energy somewhere, usualy its your ribs. And since 7.62 have x1.5 more energy it could hurt quite a bit, might break a couple of ribs
@Shinshocks ruclips.net/video/pRRr-DGmg-o/видео.html
Its true about force but there more things to consider
Till now I always think that the more enery, the deeper the penetration.
But this video has just made me rethinking about it.
Now I understand why the missile,.... can fly with a hypervelocity (Mach 5,...) which don´t need actually carry any explosive payload more ! Just an impact at very very high speed can cause tremendous devastation ! A very convincing video, Mr. BB ! Good job ! 👍👍👍
While the 5.56 x 45 has impressive singe layer mild steel penetration, the 7.62 x 39 does better when shooting through multiple layers of thin steel sheet, such as car doors. It might be interesting to arrange a target that has ten well supported 1 mm thick sheets, spaced 120 mm apart. Here, the AK47 is expected to beat the AR15 solidly.
it would be more correct 5.56x45 vs 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 vs 7.62x51. that's how they should be compared. so it would be in the same category.
The 7.62 x 39 vs 308 is like 6.5cm vs 6.5 Grendel. You are comparing 2 different sized cases. Ak vs ar is just for fun. Let the battle rage. But also just buy both.
5.56 vs 5.45 would be a good one
@@ryanwalker3509 you are right, but I consider that they are in the same class because Development of the 5.45x39mm
The inspiration for the 5.45x39mm Soviet didn’t start in the Soviet Union, but in the United States, when the Armed Forces adopted the M16 in 1964. Introduced to the world during the Vietnam War, the M16 automatic rifle shot the 5.56x45mm NATO 1 cartridge and, due to its small size, was both effective and deadly.
The Soviet Union experienced the receiving end of the M16 and 5.56x45mm during the Vietnam War and could easily see the damage the ammunition could create. They set out to create their own smaller-caliber firearm.
I enjoy your interesting videos on ballistics. In my mind, distance and bullet construction are critical to the outcome. Penetration aside, the 7.62 will leave a larger wound cavity and will certainly be more lethal at reasonable ranges. MAGA
Given that the 5.56 FMJ tumbles upon entry would make a wound channel comparison interesting
the AR may penetrate more than the AK, but I do know the AK will fire every time and keep on firing, dry,dirty,wet or frozen. I've hear the AR's can jam,so I have stayed away from the AR for that reason. It jams and you die.
Energy is a linear function of mass but it’s a function of velocity squared (2E= m*v^2) , i.e. you double the mass you double the energy, but if you double the velocity you quadruple the energy!
Guy must be a process engineer. Able to sum up an entire study and hypothesis based on a single data point.
The faster the rifling twist, the more the bullet will penetrate. FN published some very interesting 5.56 testing in the 80s during development of the SS109.
Exactly why if I'm shooting 7.62 it's not a 7.62 short (39) but a 762 long (51) or NATO as some say
It's not about velocity, 5.56 diameter is smaller, so it creates greater pressure in the hit point. Nails penetrate better than hammers, and it also has nothing to do with velocity.
I am not a gun owner etc (but have a medical background so have had to be familiar with the results of firearms use), but I understand that much of the damage done to people is due to the shock waves that firearm injuries cause as the projectile enters the body. Thus a larger hole (as in volume of metal moved rather than just depth of hole) will represent more energy transferred into the target and more damage done other than immediately locally. Also, having the target 'metal sheet' firmly held, and with another sheet (eg of wax or paper) behind it to check on damage caused by spalling from the bulged but not perforated target would be interesting.
I’d bet someone has already said this somewhere way down in the thread. But arbitrarily saying the 7.62 has more “energy” because it’s bigger is incorrect… without math to back it up. The 7.62 travels at a slower velocity than the 5.56. But more importantly it’s velocity is slow enough that it’s kinetic energy (KE = .5mv^2) is less than the 5.56. Also being larger diameter means it’s energy is spread over a larger surface when it deforms on impact. Thus it has less penetration.
All that said getting shot by either round is a very bad day. And as much as I appreciate the platforms that use the 5.56 the AK-47 and it’s 7.62 is quite possibly the most success firearm in history. More units have been produced than any other weapon, EVER. It’s a very low maintenance weapon and is ridiculously rugged when subjected to abuse. It is the 80’s Toyota pickup of assault rifles. Hard to kill.
"Separating the men from the boys" suggests that men would fly right through 1/4 mild steel, while small boys would not. 😬
Better bc on the 5.56 helped it alot there.
Penetrating steel has little to do with taking game or stopping an attacker. I'd be shooting a 7.62x51mm NATO round anyway, instead, so it matters little to me.
The 5.56x45 was made to be a soft target anti-personnel round, not a hard target anti-material round. Speed kills so higher velocity can have better target penetration. It is moving at higher velocity than 7.62x39 however higher energy goes to the 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has a heavier bullet and larger case capacity. More rounds or lighter load of 5.56 can be carried because of smaller case and bullet size than 7.62x39.
This heavily depends on the bullet material for both rounds. Very hard to find other "hardened" alloys for 7.62x39 in US other than typical lead projectiles. The results will fluctuate wildly based on material and it's expansion rate during plastic deformation. For this to be any type of "apples-to-apples" one will have to make material of bullets the same, and do multiple passes.
Keep in mind partial penetration in solid metal doesn't matter. What matters is penetrating thin plates all the way through and having enough energy left to incapacitate (usually equals kill) a person behind that plate. So the actual difference in penetration here is not 90% more in favor of the 5.56. Maybe 20%. Still, I would feel an awful lot more confident in a 3/8 plate to defend me against the AK than the AR.
E=MC2. At same mass the fastest object has more energy. But at high speed bullets tend to wobble, so for accuracy at long range you would prefer a higher mass lower speed projectile. At closer range a high speed one. I don't have any knowledge of firearms or bullets, only basic physics.
What a crazy video turned out, these bullets have a completely different purpose. 7.62 has a greater stopping effect, 5.56 has a penetrating one. The experience of the war has shown that in close combat with 5.56 or 5.45 you can land the entire clip on the enemy and if the head is not hit, the enemy will have time to land the entire clip on you on adrenaline, standing still, before the brain stops receiving oxygen and the light goes out. idea 7.62 is just that after the burst hits, the enemy would fly out of his slippers. Russian 7.62 is used in close combat, during the battle in cities. Narrow specialization decides.
Good old physics suggests that for a smaller surface, less pressure(force) is needed to compress the material.
7.62 creates a much wider hit surface than 5.56 and from energy graphs, kinetic energy is not that much higher. For the holes to be the same depth, meaning the bullet compressed the material equally, same energy is required, but because this is not a single point interaction, but surface pressure, and hit surface is much larger for 7.62, the energy difference is not enough to create equal penetration.
Basic physics is in order here:
Force = Mass x acceleration;
So, the mass of the bullet is just one member of the equation, thus the idea that the bigger bullet has more energy is misplaced.
A grain of salt going at the speed of light will have more energy than a M110 155mm projectile.
would be interesting to see these rounds shot out of bolt action rifles with the same barrel length. So much energy goes into cycling the rounds, it would be interesting to see what 100% of the energy going down the barrel would do.
5.56 was meant to tumble I side the target's body. 7.62 was designed to go through as many enemy soldiers as possible. Wounding them took them out of the battle as well as if they had been killed.
No surprise that the 556 wins. The 7.62x39 was adopted by the soviet military because it was easy to manufacture. They basically just took a 7.62x54 and shortened it. Same story with the WWII German 7.92 kurz. The 5.56 on the other hand was chosen precisely because of its ballistic capabilities during testing. Of course it would win.
If you ever looked at WWII tank and anti-tank guns none of this is surprising.
Penetrating steel (in this case not mild steel, but same difference) with AP shells is affected by mass of the projectile, impact velocity (summed up as kinetic energy) and the diameter/caliber of the shell (i.e. how big of an area that kinetic energy is spread out on to make a hole). Mass and caliber are obviously somewhat linked with some exceptions, and there are other factors involved, like composition of the shell (AP, APC, APCBC, APBC, presence of explosive fillers) and composition of the armor (RHA, FHA or composite if youre post-war), but generally these three factors do the heavy lifting and should be whats looked in the absence of actual design changes to the shell.
If you want a close equivalent to the 7.62x39 vs. 5.56 NATO comparison look at the US 75mm gun used on Shermans and the UK-made 6-pounder and US copy named the 57mm M1, which differed only in barrel length. The 75mm has more shell diameter, but also more propellant. The shell is still overall much slower though and an APCBC round of the same design will go through 88mm of RHA at 100m. The 6 pounder fires a smaller shell at a higher velocity, giving it 110mm under the same conditions with US APCBC rounds. Using plain AP rounds the 57mm gun actually will develop an even greater lead of 135mm vs the 75s 109mm, though that should be taken with a grain of salt as uncapped AP on both guns had significant shattering issues, so despite nominally higher penetration it generally performed worse.
Its as close to an apples-to-apples comparison you can get as both guns are even nearly equal in barrel length (75mm is 3m flat vs 2.964m) to the point that the British even bored out their 6 pounder guns on tanks to 75mm to accept US-made 75mm ammo in order to give their tanks HE capability at a minor loss in AP performance (essentially both US 75mm guns and British conversions performed identically), as domestic British tank guns at the time simply did not have HE. At all. And in 1944 they finally figure that from the M3 Lee and Grant, and their own Shermans they operated in 1942, that had HE rounds, that maybe HE rounds on tanks are fairly useful after all.
Green tip ... freeze the plate ... compare hot sun heated to frozen steel.
Do you have any mil spec (red sealed) AK ammo ... maybe that "little rod" in the center matters. My 8mm LPS had them inside the projectile.
I enjoyed this enough to keep watching more.
were the same type bullets used??? as most of the 5.56 bullets are green tip having better metal piercing abilities.
.216 is less than .25 which says it should not have penetrated the 1/4 steel for the 7.62. You have other variables that are not being taken into account. Angle of plate along with it should maybe secured tightly for more uniform application of the kinetic energy. A quick lookup of the kinetic energy from each round is as follows. 5.56 have 1755J and 7.62x39 have 2108J. Kinetic energy is .5 x mv2. (m=mass and v=velocity being squared in the instance.) It is the added mass of the 7.62 that actually gives it the higher kinetic energy. Maybe try on target held firmly and as close to 90degrees to the ground as possible. Regardless real world conditions would always effect the outcome.
My conclusion was that both rounds have same penetration as both of them failed to penetrated the plate.
5.56 have higher velocity so in this test it was expected to penetrate more. But if you put some obstacle in front of the target, like brick or wood (wall or fence simulation) 7.62 would perform better.
The short answer in my opinion is to buy both for different situations.. I got the AK first but will still purchase a Ar -15 someday soon!👍🏾
It all in the cartridge !
I joined the military in 1986 and we had the FN-C1 (7.62 mm), once we had what you call (Full Metal jacket) rounds and Sgt shows us that we could get perforated a frak vest armour plate 1/2 inch thickness.
7.62x39 is pretty much a throwaway round, it's "good enough" which is what is what it was made for. 5.56 has more energy anyway, I don't know how you tried to calculate this but you're wrong.
However 5.56 NATO has a feature just like 9mm parabellum has a feature that is kind of unexpected. Anyone who has actually seen the exit wound or why 9mm parabellum does more damage than .45 hollow points knows this.
When it comes to the 7.62 NATO it does less damage than 5.56 NATO to the human body and when it comes to AP rounds, it's about equal.
There is a reason why 5.56 has the "one shot, one kill" idea among us who have used it in combat, it fucks people up immensely because it really does flip on impact and it is very fast, the exit wound is something you'd expect from a hollow point shotgun slug.
I can say I put an SKS I had up against a friend's AR 15 at shooting a phone book. The SKS won for having more penetration. It also won in shooting cinder blocks.
Both will give a nasty wound.
.556 is a speedy round and speed defeats armour. it also tends not to tumble when going through squishy things. the 7.62x39 on the other hand has a handy trait of tumbling when it hits something creating a brutal wound channel. the .556 is an easier round to shoot and stay on target to follow up. both rounds are accurate (with decent ammo) at typical combat ranges 150-300m using iron sights.
I think you confused the two cartridges here...
you got them mixed up lmao
if you wanna give your target a recovery chance, use 5.56 if you wanna see what is behind the target, use 7.62
The 5.56 penetrates better and travels further with more precision but the 7.62 will incapacitate a person way more effectively.
Assuming the same energy: When it comes to penetration through a hard medium, meaning it tries to defeat the bullet by its hardness, a faster and lighter bullet will always do better, because the power output and contact forces are higher. The higher contact force helps defeating the hardness. When it comes to penetration into a softer medium, the heavier and slower bullet will penetrate deeper, for the exact same reason. The lower power output will use up the bullet's kinetic energy slower, making it last longer, and deeper. A harder bullet will help both cases.
For this reason, it's also crucial to use big, heavy bullets when hunting big animals.
Always check who manufactured the munition for your AK47 . These cartridges are manufactured around the world and have wide range of quality, usually the original Russian made cartridges are the best and pack the most power.
Which round can displace the most fluid, though? That is arguably a much better metric to measure lethality, as that's where most damage come from rather than strictly rip-and-tear penetration. Something tells me a 7.62x39 would win that competition hands down.
Excellent demonstration of Force = mv², where m is mass and v is velocity. So even a minute increase in velocity (speed) increases the Force much more than a higher mass. Conversely increasing the mass (bullet) with the same amount of gun powder decreases the velocity, hence greatly reducing the force. Not to be confused with "stopping power". A bigger bullet has more stopping power because it has a greater contact area with the target than a smaller bullet. A smaller bullet has greater "penetrating power" because force is more concentrated in a smaller area.🙂
Force = mass x acceleration, Pressure = force / area. In other words I don't think there is much of a difference in energy, but there is a geometrical difference: area of impact is larger for 7.62mm, therefore P will be lower. AK47 will cause more damage to your body, and AR15 will cause more damage to your vehicle.
Velocity penetrates. 7.62 wasn't designed (thought there are AP cartridges) for armor. It's a great round for dumping energy into a target, as most 30cal projectiles are. Small and fast is for armor, which is a good reason why 5.7mm exists.
The 5.7mm exists to penetrate 1980s era soft armor, which you will never encounter in the first place. There's a reason why nobody actually fields 5.7 weapons beyond parade troops. The entire cartridge was intended for compact weapons to be carried by tank and vehicle crews, which is totally a nothingburger in the age of actual short barrel rifles.
5.7 is a pistol cartridge. It's nothing compared to rifle rounds.
Energy is E = m * v²
m = mass
v = velocity
so the velocity have a much higher impact on the total energy than the mass.
If you double the mass at the same velocity you double the energy, but if you double the speed at the same mass you quadruple the energy.
I tried multiple layers of 1/8" steel spaced 1" apart and 556 penitrated one and buck shoted the second with no dent..7.62x39 penitrated 2 and made a buldge on the third nearly as big as .762 NATO.When .556 penitrates anything it desinigrates and can't penitrate anything else.where 7.62x39 does not.You should try this test.I have realy enjoyed your vidios and wish you the best.Kurt...
i just looking on YT for some Videos that will demonstrate what caliber penetrates better. and this video was the best i found! Thank you
Your conclusion that velocity beats out mass is misleading, I think. 5.56mm has less overall energy than the 7.62mm. But, it was applying that energy against a smaller area of steel. The 7.62mm was penetrating less, but deforming a greater surface area.
So, if you're into penetration into mild steel, go smaller. If you want to knock it over, go bigger. 👍
The 5.56 does have a penetration disadvantage which is why the military uses depleted uranium rounds.
It's also not just velocity but also energy density. .223^2*pi/4 is smaller than .300^2*pi/4.
E = 1/2 * m * v², means energy equals mass times velocity SQUARED divided by 2. And squared part is very important. Because increasing velocity a little bit, will increase energy drastically. In contrary increasing mass will add lesser energy because energy depends linearly on mass. So velocity is more important, and since 5.56 is much faster, it has more energy, despite the size of 7.62
I expected the 5.56 do more as double the steel than the Kalashnikov. Like 5.56 1 inch and Kalashnikov 1\4 inch. Velocity allways wins over mass since E = 0.5 x M x V^2. V is squared and M is not. So the velocity has an exponential effect on energy and the mass only an linear effect on energy. Important is that the velocity is squared so that is the determining factor of the energy. Try to do this with an 5.56 from an 24" barrel since the cartridge is originally made for that lenght of an barrel.