5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, gonna buy a Ruger...

[Flying Crane]

Hi everyone,

So I've decided I'm going to purchase a Ruger, either the Mini-14 or the Mini-30. The 14 is chambered for the NATO 5.56mm round, the same as is fired in the AR and the M-16 rifles, and the 30 is chambered for the 7.62mm round, the same as is fired in the AK rifles.

What are people's thoughts on these different calibers? Honestly, I don't have a specific agenda regarding hunting or self defense. My primary interest is simply in target shooting, but it does occur to me that hunting could come into the picture at some point. I'm suspecting that for game such as deer, the 5.56 is probably too small and the 7.62 would be a good choice.

How about the difference in cost between the two? Easy availability?

Overall, what do people think of these calibers, in whatever way that matters to you?

Thanks.

 

[clfsean]

Hi everyone,

So I've decided I'm going to purchase a Ruger, either the Mini-14 or the Mini-30. The 14 is chambered for the NATO 5.56mm round, the same as is fired in the AR and the M-16 rifles, and the 30 is chambered for the 7.62mm round, the same as is fired in the AK rifles.

What are people's thoughts on these different calibers? Honestly, I don't have a specific agenda regarding hunting or self defense. My primary interest is simply in target shooting, but it does occur to me that hunting could come into the picture at some point. I'm suspecting that for game such as deer, the 5.56 is probably too small and the 7.62 would be a good choice.

How about the difference in cost between the two? Easy availability?

Overall, what do people think of these calibers, in whatever way that matters to you?

Thanks.

I used to own a Mini14. I was a turn in from the NC State Prison system. It was a great little rifle. I made a couple of minor tweaks to get it the way I wanted it.

The only thing I'll comment about 5.56 v 7.62x39 is 5.56 is cheaper to shoot & easier to shoot all day. 7.62x39 can wear on you after a little bit.

 

[Flying Crane]

I used to own a Mini14. I was a turn in from the NC State Prison system. It was a great little rifle. I made a couple of minor tweaks to get it the way I wanted it.

The only thing I'll comment about 5.56 v 7.62x39 is 5.56 is cheaper to shoot & easier to shoot all day. 7.62x39 can wear on you after a little bit.

7.62 kicks a bit? The only experience I have with 30 caliber is my dad's bolt action Enfield .30-06. that doesn't kick. It bucks like a maddened bull. Oh, I've also shot a friend's .30-30, that doesn't kick as much. I've read that the 7.62 AK round has similar ballistics to the .30-30 so I'm imagining a similar kick.

Sound right?

 

[Blindside]

7.62 kicks a bit? The only experience I have with 30 caliber is my dad's bolt action Enfield .30-06. that doesn't kick. It bucks like a maddened bull. Oh, I've also shot a friend's .30-30, that doesn't kick as much. I've read that the 7.62 AK round has similar ballistics to the .30-30 so I'm imagining a similar kick.

Sound right?

I haven't fired a Mini-30, but in an AK the 7.62x39 is easily managable.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

M1 Garand in 7.62 NATO.

 

[Flying Crane]

M1 Garand in 7.62 NATO.

I thought the Garand was .30-06?

 

[Sukerkin]

This link talks of the difference between the two:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331844

Here is one about the Garand Nato round conversion: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1-garand-development/navy-7-62mm-garand-conversion/

 

[Takai]

I thought the Garand was .30-06?

Early "production" models were 30-06. The 7.62X51 NATO was a later chambering in the Garand. Prototypes included the .256 Bang and the .276 if I remember correctly.

Back to the OP. The 5.56/.223 is a sufficient for deer if you are careful about shot placement. I have taken several over the years with an old Browning A-Bolt. The 7.62X39 has a bit more power and is a very capable round. I would have no concerns about hunting with either.

Some things to consider. Both of these rifles are a carbine thus they make a whole a lot of noise. As far as ammo cost, the 7.62 used be cheaper. Older military surplus ammo can still be found but the the days of the 800 rounds for $40 are long gone. If you do find a good deal on some old Berdan primed ammo clean your weapon thoroughly (including your internals) after firing or you will regret it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Back to the OP. The 5.56/.223 is a sufficient for deer if you are careful about shot placement. I have taken several over the years with an old Browning A-Bolt. The 7.62X39 has a bit more power and is a very capable round. I would have no concerns about hunting with either.

I'm guessing there are State laws that govern minimum caliber for hunting various game. I'm in California, I suppose I ought to just to a quick internet search to see what the laws are.

Some things to consider. Both of these rifles are a carbine thus they make a whole a lot of noise.

What is the definition of a Carbine, compared to a rifle? and what is it that makes them more noisy? I do see that these are available with a couple of barrel lengths, the short one around 16 inches, the longer one around 18 inches. Is that part of the difference?

I remember shooting my dad's .30-06 Enfield, that's very noisy, and my friends .30-30 lever action was quite loud as well. Not to mention the 12 gauge shotguns that I used when hunting ducks and geese with my dad. A good bark came out of those too.

 

[Flying Crane]

I should have posted this in the OP, but for anyone not familiar with these rifles, here's Ruger's website link for these rifles.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

I'm interested in the standard model, the Ranch Rifle. I don't care for the "tactical" rebuilt stocks and stuff. I prefer the standard wood stock and the blued barrel. Still sort of wavering between that and the Stainless model with synthetic stock, but will probably go with the wood. California law allows 10 round magazines, so the 20 round option that Ruger makes is not available to me. But that's OK, I don't want to turn it into something that looks more "military". I don't care for the look, and to be honest I think my wife would be less enthusiastic about this if I was getting "military" looking weapons. The closer it looks to a civilian sporting rifle, the better.

Interestingly, a week or so ago I was in a sporting goods store looking at these rifles. I also took a look at an AR rifle. I found that I really didn't care for it, the whole military look of it. Just not my thing. But what I was completely unaware of was a CA state law, that may also exist in other states, that governs "military" style weapons such as the AR and AK rifles. The law mandates what I believe the fellow called a "bullet button". This is a release mechanism that requires the use of a separate tool to swap magazines. So instead of just pushing a lever with your finger, you need to use a separate tool to release the magazine. This is designed to slow the rate of fire by slowing the ability to swap magazines. What I found really interesting is that "sporting" weapons like the Ruger Minis are exempt from this law because it only applies to "military" style weapons. Even tho the Ruger Minis are firing the same ammunition as the military style weapons, they can have the same 10-round capacity, and they are semi-automatic. So their performance in terms of firing is very similar, but they are exempt from the "bullet button" requirement.

Interesting.

 

[Blindside]

This is designed to slow the rate of fire by slowing the ability to swap magazines. What I found really interesting is that "sporting" weapons like the Ruger Minis are exempt from this law because it only applies to "military" style weapons. Even tho the Ruger Minis are firing the same ammunition as the military style weapons, they can have the same 10-round capacity, and they are semi-automatic. So their performance in terms of firing is very similar, but they are exempt from the "bullet button" requirement.

Interesting.

For California law it is basically the presence of "scary" assault weapon like features that cause the regular magazine restriction to go into place, scary things like pistol grips and flash-hiders, which shows you just how silly that particular law is.

 

[Flying Crane]

For California law it is basically the presence of "scary" assault weapon like features that cause the regular magazine restriction to go into place, scary things like pistol grips and flash-hiders, which shows you just how silly that particular law is.

yeah that was my take on it, sort of a "feel good" law that didn't really provide much extra security in the big picture of life.

 

[Takai]

What is the definition of a Carbine, compared to a rifle? and what is it that makes them more noisy? I do see that these are available with a couple of barrel lengths, the short one around 16 inches, the longer one around 18 inches. Is that part of the difference?

I remember shooting my dad's .30-06 Enfield, that's very noisy, and my friends .30-30 lever action was quite loud as well. Not to mention the 12 gauge shotguns that I used when hunting ducks and geese with my dad. A good bark came out of those too.

A carbine is a short rifle. It is a rather subjective term but, generally if the barrel length is less than 20 inches it would qualify as a carbine. That short barrel combined with supersonic rounds makes a much larger "crack" due to expansion of gases from the cartridge.

The 12 gauge is an entirely different animal. They are just plain loud (unless you buy one of the fancy "suppressed" versions). Suppressed they sound about as loud as a .223 unsuppressed.

 

[PoolMan]

5.56 NATO rounds are cheaper and easier to get. But if you plan to do any hunting I would go with 7.62. 5.56 was designed more to maim then to kill. 7.62 on the other hand...

 

[Grenadier]

What are people's thoughts on these different calibers? Honestly, I don't have a specific agenda regarding hunting or self defense. My primary interest is simply in target shooting, but it does occur to me that hunting could come into the picture at some point. I'm suspecting that for game such as deer, the 5.56 is probably too small and the 7.62 would be a good choice.

As an anti-personnel round, either does quite nicely, although I have more of a fondness for the thinly jacketed 55 grain Winchester Q3131A FMJ load, since it shoots dead on in my rifles, has very little muzzle flash, and burns exceptionally cleanly.

While many would say that the 5.56 / .223 uses too light of a bullet, I'd disagree with them, that with the correct load selection, this cartridge can work just fine for deer. As long as you use the heavier bullets, you should be just fine if your rifle has a faster twist to it (at least a 1 in 9).

Here's a good read on it:

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/223-for-deer-hunting/

I've used a 64 grain soft point, and it did the job quite nicely.

As always, good shot placement, and choosing the appropriate distances will be the key.

 

[chinto]

OK here is my 2 cents worth. I prefer the ballistics of the 7.62mm. more energy and things out to the distance I would engage with a 5.56/.223. That is my personal take on the cartridges. but then I prefer the full sized Rifle cartidges over the assault/intermediate cartridges.

 

[ballen0351]

I've owned both. Got rid of the 7.62 its so much cheaper to shoot the 5.56 so I never really took the 7.62 out of the case.

But I don't hunt with them so

 

[chinto]

if you want a plinker... get a .22 the .223/5.56mm is a lot more energy but I would not shoot at larger targets then a coyote with that cartridge myself. go with the 7.62X39 if you want some stopping power.. and either caliber if its over about 150M to 200M max get a bigger gun

 

[Tgace]

Better buy it soon.....

 

[Flying Crane]

Better buy it soon.....

yeah, the timing is a bit awkward.