7.62 NATO thru wall at 250 yds
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
I would like to have seen the little camera shown at 12:15 placed on the opposite side of the wall. I wasn't clear on whether the rounds passed through both sides of the wall or if he just fired so many rounds it got chewed through.
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Good illustration of what a full power rifle cartridge can do.
What would a less than "full power" rifle cartridge be?
Good illustration of what a full power rifle cartridge can do.
What would a less than "full power" rifle cartridge be?
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
I would like to have seen the little camera shown at 12:15 placed on the opposite side of the wall. I wasn't clear on whether the rounds passed through both sides of the wall or if he just fired so many rounds it got chewed through.
Every round went through.
I would like to have seen the little camera shown at 12:15 placed on the opposite side of the wall. I wasn't clear on whether the rounds passed through both sides of the wall or if he just fired so many rounds it got chewed through.
Every round went through.
When I was in the Air Training Corps, and we were learning about the SLR L1A1 (built just down the road from where I live, and probably BY some of my current workmates), we were told that if building a bunker, you needed 7' of packed earth to reliably stop the 7.62 FMJ.
Even 7.62x39 does a pretty good job of going through cinder block at most battlefield ranges. 5.56x45 has some issues in this respect and is probably one of the biggest downsides of this cartridge in an urban combat situation (as is common in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan). Given what I've seen 7.62x39 can do to a cinder block wall I would imagine that 7.62x51 would cut through it like butter.
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Good illustration of what a full power rifle cartridge can do.
What would a less than "full power" rifle cartridge be?
5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39 are the common "intermediate power" cartridges in common use today. They reside in between sub-machine gun rounds like the 9mm and full power cartridges like 7.62x51, .30-06, 7.62x54r, and 8x57. The intermediate cartridges were found to be the best compromise in terms of range, power, automatic fire control-ability, carry weight and the number of rounds the average soldier could carry. But, there are times when you need to shoot through cover or structure where the full power rounds really shine. I believe that some old M-14s were dusted off and issued to squads in Iraq for just such a purpose. Of course, if you really need to reach out and touch someone the .50 BMG is the ultimate "full power round".
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Good illustration of what a full power rifle cartridge can do.
What would a less than "full power" rifle cartridge be?
5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39 are the common "intermediate power" cartridges in common use today. They reside in between sub-machine gun rounds like the 9mm and full power cartridges like 7.62x51, .30-06, 7.62x54r, and 8x57. The intermediate cartridges were found to be the best compromise in terms of range, power, automatic fire control-ability, carry weight and the number of rounds the average soldier could carry. But, there are times when you need to shoot through cover or structure where the full power rounds really shine. I believe that some old M-14s were dusted off and issued to squads in Iraq for just such a purpose. Of course, if you really need to reach out and touch someone the .50 BMG is the ultimate "full power round".
Thanks! I hadn't heard the "full power" or "intermediate power" nomenclature before.
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Thanks! I hadn't heard the "full power" or "intermediate power" nomenclature before.
What I probably should have added was that the full power rounds were all pretty much developed for bolt action battle rifles which became the mainstay of Western infantry starting just around the turn of the 20th century. These rounds were developed in an era where accuracy, range and power were primary and rate of fire was somewhat secondary. Later on these rounds were carried forward to semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand. The Germans and slightly later the Russians discovered that these full power rounds were not completely appropriate for fully automatic weapons like the StG 44 and the AK-47 so they developed lower power versions from the full power rounds they were using at the time (the StG 44 got the 7.92x33 and the AK-47 got the 7.62x39). This resolved issued with excessive muzzle climb, ammo weight and limited number of rounds that the soldier could carry. The U.S. carried forward with the full power 7.62x51 in the M14 full auto rifle for sometime though. Eventually studies showed that the range soldiers were actually engaging at were less than what the military was training for and they also highlighted the importance of the sheer number of rounds fired as being decisive in a firefight. The M14 was a heck of a rifle, but with the average solider firing in full auto mode only the first three rounds would stay on a man sized target with the 4th flying over his head in most cases. So, in the 1960's with the M16 firing the 5.56x45 the U.S. eventually also adopted the fully automatic intermediate power philosophy the Germans and the Russians had adopted decades earlier, though some maintain that they went too far with the smaller .22 caliber projectile. Ironically, the Russians eventually copied the American 5.56x45 philosophy by moving from the AK-47 (7.62x39) to the AK-74 which fired a 5.45x39 cartridge (much to Mikhail Kalashnikov's dismay).
Thanks! I hadn't heard the "full power" or "intermediate power" nomenclature before.
What I probably should have added was that the full power rounds were all pretty much developed for bolt action battle rifles which became the mainstay of Western infantry starting just around the turn of the 20th century. These rounds were developed in an era where accuracy, range and power were primary and rate of fire was somewhat secondary. Later on these rounds were carried forward to semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand. The Germans and slightly later the Russians discovered that these full power rounds were not completely appropriate for fully automatic weapons like the StG 44 and the AK-47 so they developed lower power versions from the full power rounds they were using at the time (the StG 44 got the 7.92x33 and the AK-47 got the 7.62x39). This resolved issued with excessive muzzle climb, ammo weight and limited number of rounds that the soldier could carry. The U.S. carried forward with the full power 7.62x51 in the M14 full auto rifle for sometime though. Eventually studies showed that the range soldiers were actually engaging at were less than what the military was training for and they also highlighted the importance of the sheer number of rounds fired as being decisive in a firefight. The M14 was a heck of a rifle, but with the average solider firing in full auto mode only the first three rounds would stay on a man sized target with the 4th flying over his head in most cases. So, in the 1960's with the M16 firing the 5.56x45 the U.S. eventually also adopted the fully automatic intermediate power philosophy the Germans and the Russians had adopted decades earlier, though some maintain that they went too far with the smaller .22 caliber projectile. Ironically, the Russians eventually copied the American 5.56x45 philosophy by moving from the AK-47 (7.62x39) to the AK-74 which fired a 5.45x39 cartridge (much to Mikhail Kalashnikov's dismay).
Last edited:
Russians are going back to 7.62x39, after experiences in Chechnya. Red Berets and Spetznaz are using only 7.62x39 AKs.
Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
Russians are going back to 7.62x39, after experiences in Chechnya. Red Berets and Spetznaz are using only 7.62x39 AKs.
I'm not surprised. Since most of the combat that any major power can imagine itself in is almost certain to be urban combat the 7.62x39 makes a lot of sense. The biggest complaint you hear against the 5.56x45 is that it can't penetrate masonry walls while their adversary's 7.62x39 can. Now the 5.56 and the rifles that shoot it are definitely more accurate and our troops better trained, but this is offset in many cases by the fact that the engagement ranges in an urban battlefield tend to be somewhat shorter.
I'd like to see a study on how 6.8 SPC does against masonry walls. That might be the way to go or perhaps something even closer to the 7.62x39. The higher mass larger diameter rounds just seem to do better in an urban setting but you will trade a little range for it.
Russians are going back to 7.62x39, after experiences in Chechnya. Red Berets and Spetznaz are using only 7.62x39 AKs.
I'm not surprised. Since most of the combat that any major power can imagine itself in is almost certain to be urban combat the 7.62x39 makes a lot of sense. The biggest complaint you hear against the 5.56x45 is that it can't penetrate masonry walls while their adversary's 7.62x39 can. Now the 5.56 and the rifles that shoot it are definitely more accurate and our troops better trained, but this is offset in many cases by the fact that the engagement ranges in an urban battlefield tend to be somewhat shorter.
I'd like to see a study on how 6.8 SPC does against masonry walls. That might be the way to go or perhaps something even closer to the 7.62x39. The higher mass larger diameter rounds just seem to do better in an urban setting but you will trade a little range for it.
My buddy did a tour in ME. Apparently 5.56 does not do well against windshields, especially when fired out of M4.
Shorter barrel robs the projectile of too much energy.
Shorter barrel robs the projectile of too much energy.
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I think the point is that most buildings made from concrete blocks don't have any reinforcement or fill in those blocks. Hence, they offer little protection from high power rifle fire.
Also, a 357 magnum or 44 magnum at 15 to 20 yards would have the same effect on a concrete block wall as the 7.62 at 250 yards.
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I think the point is that most buildings made from concrete blocks don't have any reinforcement or fill in those blocks. Hence, they offer little protection from high power rifle fire.
Also, a 357 magnum or 44 magnum at 15 to 20 yards would have the same effect on a concrete block wall as the 7.62 at 250 yards.
Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
My buddy did a tour in ME. Apparently 5.56 does not do well against windshields, especially when fired out of M4.
Shorter barrel robs the projectile of too much energy.
Wow, hadn't heard that but if so that's a major problem. I have heard that the standard 5.56 ammunition out of a M4 has a very narrow range where the bullet will actually fragment as designed and deliver a good knock down.
The Russian 5.45x39 is actually a very interesting round. That round is not designed to break up like the 5.56, but instead it has a hollow air pocket in the nose. On impact with tissue the nose deforms (usually bend left or right) and shifts the center of mass, causing the bullet to yaw violently. Think of it has a little buzz saw spinning about it's vertical axis at a pretty high rate after the first inch or two of tissue. I've seen it shot into ballistics gelatin and it makes an amazing cavity. To boot, it's not as dependent on velocity at impact as the 5.56 is so it delivers it's lethal effect over a wider range of distance. Of course, it has the same issues as the 5.56 with respect to shooting through masonry cover or other hard structure.
My buddy did a tour in ME. Apparently 5.56 does not do well against windshields, especially when fired out of M4.
Shorter barrel robs the projectile of too much energy.
Wow, hadn't heard that but if so that's a major problem. I have heard that the standard 5.56 ammunition out of a M4 has a very narrow range where the bullet will actually fragment as designed and deliver a good knock down.
The Russian 5.45x39 is actually a very interesting round. That round is not designed to break up like the 5.56, but instead it has a hollow air pocket in the nose. On impact with tissue the nose deforms (usually bend left or right) and shifts the center of mass, causing the bullet to yaw violently. Think of it has a little buzz saw spinning about it's vertical axis at a pretty high rate after the first inch or two of tissue. I've seen it shot into ballistics gelatin and it makes an amazing cavity. To boot, it's not as dependent on velocity at impact as the 5.56 is so it delivers it's lethal effect over a wider range of distance. Of course, it has the same issues as the 5.56 with respect to shooting through masonry cover or other hard structure.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I suspect that 7.62x51 would shoot through a reinforced back filled cinder block wall, but maybe not out to 250 years. A plain poured reinforced concrete wall of equivalent thickness would probably go a long way towards stopping it though. Poured concrete is much denser than cinder block.
If course, the issue in my mind isn't can you build a wall that will stop a particular round (clearly you can), but will a round penetrate the kind of structures that a soldier is likely to see in combat. I think the ~.22 caliber rounds (5.56x45 and 5.45x39) mostly fail this test.
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I suspect that 7.62x51 would shoot through a reinforced back filled cinder block wall, but maybe not out to 250 years. A plain poured reinforced concrete wall of equivalent thickness would probably go a long way towards stopping it though. Poured concrete is much denser than cinder block.
If course, the issue in my mind isn't can you build a wall that will stop a particular round (clearly you can), but will a round penetrate the kind of structures that a soldier is likely to see in combat. I think the ~.22 caliber rounds (5.56x45 and 5.45x39) mostly fail this test.
Sectional density combined with energy is what provides good penetration of cover. The 5.56 was designed to increase the combat troop with maximum amount man portable ammunition. In todays(US) infantry most 7.62 is considered heavy weapons and is not carried by the standard light infantry squad. To gain this firepower the squad must be reinforced with a heavy machin gunner or a specialist or sniper .
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I think the point is that most buildings made from concrete blocks don't have any reinforcement or fill in those blocks. Hence, they offer little protection from high power rifle fire.
Also, a 357 magnum or 44 magnum at 15 to 20 yards would have the same effect on a concrete block wall as the 7.62 at 250 yards.
I typically carry a .357. I'm not up to snuff as to what it can penetrate, but you've peaked my interest.
If encountered in a situation, what is suitable then for cover purposes during a gun fight? I'd hope to assume I won't be in one in my lifetime, but just out of curiosity...
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Reinforce and fill that wall with good concrete and see what happens. I'm actually curious.
I think the point is that most buildings made from concrete blocks don't have any reinforcement or fill in those blocks. Hence, they offer little protection from high power rifle fire.
Also, a 357 magnum or 44 magnum at 15 to 20 yards would have the same effect on a concrete block wall as the 7.62 at 250 yards.
I typically carry a .357. I'm not up to snuff as to what it can penetrate, but you've peaked my interest.
If encountered in a situation, what is suitable then for cover purposes during a gun fight? I'd hope to assume I won't be in one in my lifetime, but just out of curiosity...
Google box of truth, its very interesting reading.
- Status
Similar threads
