Another round of "let's get this straight."

There's a lot of fuss here about military-knockoff weapons being "more powerful" than regular rifles, and I wanted to offer a little bit of an explanation for the people who don't understand the technical details.

First thing's first: a gun is primarily just a chunk of metal designed to channel the power of a bullet. The bullet itself--the type and weight of the round, and the quantity of propellant--is what determines power. You can have a single shot hunting rifle from a hundred years ago, or a semi-auto with a big magazine, and they're both going to put out around the same punch if they use the same round.

7.62x39mm rounds, the kind used by a normal AK-47 knockoff, deliver about 1,500 joules of impact energy. That's roughly the same as the 5.56x45mm rounds that are most popular with the AR-15. In the latter case it's a smaller, lighter bullet, but with more propellant behind it.

The only way that a gun affects the power of a shot is by the barrel length. A longer barrel means more time for the pressure to speed up the bullet. Actually, this works against military-style rifles. For instance, an AR-15 would likely have an 18 to 20 inch barrel, whereas a larger hunting rifle would likely be 24 inch or even 28 inch barrel.

Now, compare that 1,500 joule figure to other popular rounds. The .30-30 delivers 2,500 joules. The .308 Winchester round produces 3,500. And the .30-06, a classic hunting round, puts out around 4,000 joules of force per shot.

Modern military weapons were specifically designed to have LESS power per shot, so that they could still be controlled and aimed on full automatic firing. For knockoff versions which don't have automatic or select fire, what you're left with is simply a rifle of intermediate power.

that military rounds are generally designed to preferentially WOUND vs. kill, because that is preferable (ties up more of the enemy's resources).


not that i'd like to be wounded, but the ironic thing is that military grade rounds/weapons are LESS likely to kill you, ceteris paribus, than those DESIGNED for civilian use. civilian rounds are generally designed to "stop" not kill, but death is more likely with them (given relatively equal power) than military versions.

fwiw, hollow points are also banned (iirc the geneva convention) for military use

Military rounds are first and foremost designed to be non-frangible, meaning they don't explode, fragment, or deform on impact. Part of this is to defeat body armor, but mostly it's because expanding bullets are considered inhumane by the Geneva conventions. Thus, the rounds that they're already going to be using are naturally less likely to cause massive injury. Tying up enemy resources by protec

That said there are civilian equivalent rounds for the most popular calibers (.223 Remington is the civilian equivalent of 5.56mm) which are designed as "sporting rounds," which means they do deform.

Also on the subject of body armor: what most people don't know is that a powerful enough rifle bullet will go through soft body armor of the kind used by ordinary cops (as opposed to SWAT), whether the bullet is designed to be armor piercing or not. Those light vests are really only designed to stop handgun rounds, which are much lower energy. (500 joules at most.) So in fact, if you're a cop facing down somebody with a rifle, you'd much rather it was an AK than, say, something firing a .30-06 round. Much better chance of survival.

That said, most police groups support gun bans simply because any time there's less guns, it makes their day easier. Many police groups would probably be happy to support a complete ban on all civilian firearms ownership, or severe restriction and licensing ala the National Firearms Act.

most police GROUPS support gun bans because they are POLITICAL ENTITIES. Most cops do not support bans. Of course, that probably varies significantly depending on the geographical local and prevailing opinion therein.

when people say "police groups" they reference such groups as IACP which is a group of cop-o-crats, not real cops.

"That said, most police groups support gun bans simply because any time there's less guns, "

most "police groups" such as the IACP are not representative of COPS. they are representative of cop ADMINISTRATORs, e.g. political appointees like chiefs of police, etc.

i've been a cop a long time and i can tell you unequivocally, that most cops do NOT support gun bans. in fact, i have heard them ridiculed numerous times in roll call, etc.

DO NOT confuse what COPS think with what cop administrators think.

as a cop, i am no more represented by the IACP et al, than the average factory worker is represented by his CEO.

less guns do NOT make our day easier. less CRIMINALS using guns do.

i want people carrying lawfully. heck, one of my coworkers is alive because of a CCW'er who shot a robber in the head after he started fighting with her and got her gun out of the holster.

please, this is a big peeve of mine, do NOT confuse COPS (ie line cops ie real cops) with cop-o-crat administrators.

and most cops support concealed carry and would NOT support a complrete ban on civilian firearms.

sorry, just not true.

Have a wide variety of opinions on gun bans ranging from strongly opposed to strongly in favor. However as a rule, the police lobbying organizations go one way on the issue, which was my meaning.

what are you guys doing here?

Probably over simplifying, but most people here are part of that largely unknown, but actually great in numbers group known as Liberal Democrat Gun Owners. We are reviled by the Republicans for supporting Obama, and reviled by our own party leadership for not blindly toeing the party line. Yet, we find solace in the rich history of gun rights in the left (pre-1968), our understanding of the racist history of gun control, and our belief that to call yourself a liberal democrat without supporting ALL the Bill of Rights is hypocritical.

Welcome!!

Could not have said it better myself.

The .223 rem(5.56x45) and the 7.62x39 have about the same amount of propellant behind them. About 25 grains for max load reload for both.

Now I'm going to go read some responses

I was looking at power data for commercial .223 Remington rounds, which tend to use heavier bullets and thus produce more power for the same powder.

I just happened to have my trusty hornady reloading manual :P

in the weight of the bullet.

The 5.56 mm NATO has 55 or 62 grain bullets while the 7.62x39mm bullet is around 123 or 125 grain.

That is a significant size difference as shown in this picture:

Left to right. 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 7.62x54R.

So you end up with a higher velocity lighter projectile vs a lower velocity but much heavier bullet.

Note my Speer reloading manual is 14 years old. If I take up reloading again, I'll have to update it.

mmmmm 7.62x54r goodness... I still need to pickup a dragunov type rifle.... ammo's still cheap amazingly.

I'm having a hard time deciding between the 6.5X55mm Swedish Mauser and the 8mm Mauser. It looks like surplus ammo for the 8mm is still available but I can't find any for the 6.5 mm version.

Prices are still reasonable for these firearms and both would be adequate hunting rifles for the game I would hunt in Florida. The Swedish Mauser would be more fun to target shoot because of the lower recoil, but it looks like I might be wise to take up reloading again if I bought one.

I'd just pick up the caliber you want and reload. Get better ammo anyhow, cheap surplus is going to dry up eventually.

you're only going to scare people with that pic on this site. lol

in real life.

didn't sign the Gayneva convention, why does the military use FMJ's then when JHP's would work better?

I can't imagine that's a typo. Psst, your bigotry is showing.

Also of the Hague Convention of 1899, which is what originally banned bullets designed to expand in the human body.

Anyway, hollow-point bullets only "work better" if the target is unarmored. Military-grade body armor will stop even a high powered HP round, let along a weaker bullet from a mid-range rifle. It would hurt like a motherfucker, mind you, kind of like getting hit with a baseball bat, but you'd live.

Caliber/Weapon................................ Kinetic Energy
AR-15 (.223 Remington/5.56x45mm)................1,275 ft-lb
AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm).....................1,495 ft-lb
.30-30 Winchester (1800's design deer rifle)....1,902 ft-lb
.243 Winchester.................................1,946 ft-lb
.308 Winchester.................................2,670 ft-lb
.270 Winchester.................................2,702 ft-lb
.50 Beowulf.....................................2,878 ft-lb
.30-06 (most popular deer rifle)................2,900 ft-lb
.444 Marlin.....................................2,942 ft-lb
.300 Remington Ultra Mag........................3,682 ft-lb
.375 Holland & Holland..........................4,230 ft-lb
.338 Lapua......................................4,830 ft-lb
.375 Remington Ultra Mag........................5,073 ft-lb
.416 Remington Magnum...........................5,115 ft-lb
.408 CheyTac....................................8,298 ft-lb
.416 Barrett....................................9,380 ft-lb
.585 Nyati.....................................10,130 ft-lb
.700 Nitro Express.............................11,150 ft-lb
.50 BMG........................................13,971 ft-lb

Yes, civilian AK lookalikes, SKS's, and AR-15's do define one end of the centerfire rifle power spectrum. The low end.

I ask because .308 commerical hunting rounds can be fired through AK's and AK knock-offs (I've done it) and they are ballistically identical.

Other than that, the 30-30 is a "1800's design deer rifle"? What does that even mean?

The 30-06 is the most popular deer round (not rifle)? No, there's no way to differentiate between the popularity of .270 Win/30-06/30-30/etc...

Until this is clarified, and yes, I have a ballistics background, this seems very, very oddly phrased and presented.

Most calibers I looked up here: http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/

The obscure ones I looked up elsewhere.


Civilian AK-47 lookalikes and SKS's are 7.62x39mm, which is slightly less powerful than .30-30 Winchester. .308 Winchester is 7.62x51mm, and will not even come close to fitting into a 7.62x39mm chamber.

You probably handled a .308 Saiga, which is an AK derivative that has been upsized for .308/7.62x51mm, but the AK-47 round uses a much smaller case and is far less powerful, as I stated. You can also get AK derivatives chambered in .223 Remington, 5.45x39mm, .22LR, and 12-gauge, but the overwhelming majority of AK derivatives are 7.62x39mm.

Here's a photo illustrating the difference, if it helps:



Left to right, 7.62x39mm (AK-47 round), 5.56x45mm/.223 (AR-15), 6.5mm Grendel, 6.8x43mm (6.8mm Remington), 7.62x51mm/.308 Winchester.


It got garbled while shortening it to fit on the line. I meant to say that the cartridge and most of the rifle designs that fire it date from the late 1800's (it was originally a blackpowder round, IIRC).


Yes, there is, and that is annual sales of hunting ammunition, by caliber. When I last checked a few years ago, .30-06 Springfield was the #1 selling deer caliber, in terms of rounds sold per year.