5.56×45 vs 7.62×39 – Cartridge Comparison

For rifles used for home defense or out on the range in competitions, the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39 is a common argument among shooters and a common decision made by potential buyers.

Both cartridges have a rich history of military and civilian uses and also have their loyal followings.

It’s an interesting comparison with the backdrop of these two rounds often being utilized by different forces that were often pitted against one another as well.

A Brief History

5.56x45mm NATO

5.56 NATO is the son of the .223 Remington, .223 Rem was developed by Eugene Stoner with help from Remington, Winchester, and the US Army.

The Army looking for a new flat shooting, high velocity, small caliber combat cartridge was in need of some brand new thinking. Stoner having just designed the AR-10 saw that his rifle in a smaller caliber would be perfect for this new role.

And so in the late 1950s Stoner got to work.

Just a few short years later, the .223 Remington and AR-15 were born.

However, it wouldn’t be until 1980 that NATO would standardize on the cartridge. By then, the cartridge and more importantly the chamber design had changed very slightly in dimensions resulting in the 5.56 NATO.

Generally speaking, while 5.56 NATO chambers can safely fire both 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington, .223 Remington chambers should only fire .223 Remington cartridges.

7.62x39mm

The 7.62×39 is one of the most used cartridges throughout the world.

It was designed in the 1940s in the Soviet Union to produce an intermediate cartridge that could be used in a variety of military settings.

In short, an all-purpose cartridge.

Development started in 1943 but was not finalized until 1947, since then it has remained unchanged.

Designed to use a steel case, brass-cased ammo is actually somewhat rare to find even in the USA. This can cause some issues with extraction since AKs are normally built for steel case ammo and ARs built for brass.

Both issues are easy to overcome with quality parts.

Love Ammo? Get My Cartridge Comparison Handbook!

Get my premium 550+ pages handbook that compares all cartridges, for free (worth $199!) only today !

Click here to download

Your e-mail address:

This e-mail address seems incorrect...

Success! Check your mailbox.

This e-mail address is already subscribed.

Loading ...

Specs

While not fundamentally critical, the specs of each cartridge will help give you an idea of exactly what we’re looking at here. This might not be entirely needed if you’ve handled both cartridges before, but for those of you that haven’t we think this is helpful.

The 5.56×45 casing and overall cartridge are skinnier and longer than the 7.62×39. Even so, with the length of the bullets and the way they sit in the casing, the overall length between the two cartridges comes to within six-hundredths of an inch.

While the 7.62×39 round can be packed with more powder than the 5.56×45 NATO, it cannot hold up to the same amount of pressure.

To compare these two popular semi-automatic cartridges, we have selected five rounds for each cartridge that encompasses a wide range of bullet types and weights for an honest evaluation of how these two cartridges stack up to each other.

We are also aware that this is still a small sample size for the number of options that are available. You might have a round you are partial to and just because it is not on this list does not mean we think it doesn’t belong or is inferior in any way. We just simply had to take into account space and clarity.

To maybe be a little more comprehensive, we actually looked at a lot of different ammunition and compiled the data. While we will not look at all of the individual rounds, because that would be a mess in graph form, we have calculated the averages from all of those rounds and will present them in each section.

This increases the sample size and will also allow you to see for yourself if the rounds we have selected for comparison give a good picture of how these two cartridges stack up to each other.

We have the full list of rounds used for this article at the end of the comparison. Hopefully, your favorite round is in there and you won’t leave us a nasty email about leaving it out.

Below is a list of the selected rounds.

Before we get into comparing these two cartridges, we want to briefly discuss the data we are using and where it was obtained. All data within this article are computer-generated.

It was generated either by the manufacturer or by us through the use of ballistic calculators. When we have used a ballistic calculator, we will be sure to make clear the variables we have used.

Because it is computer-generated data, the numbers might fluctuate slightly if compared to the same rounds being measured directly from firing a rifle.

This is because each rifle has its shooting profile. In fact, the data might fluctuate with the same round from rifle to rifle. Because of this, computer-generated data has an advantage that it negates these small differences between rifle platforms and it also takes environmental factors out of play.

So, in the next few sections, we will look at the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39 through several different ballistic and performance categories including the recoil, velocity, ballistic coefficients, trajectory, energy, and sectional densities.

Recoil

Though these cartridges are becoming more prevalent in the hunting world, their main application is still in close to medium-range situations.

These are two of the favorite cartridges used in shooting competitions as well, and recoil plays a major role in being able to fire off successive shots accurately.

To compare recoil, we will look at the actual recoil force that is generated when firing a round (ft.lb).

While this is not quite the “felt recoil” or the kick as it is often called, it still gives us an idea of what you will have to deal with in the field.

Before we look at the recoil energy from our ten selected rounds, we want to look at a general comparison in recoil energy between the two cartridges with data provided by the ballistic calculator (Graph 1).

To calculate recoil energy, there are several variables that are needed. These include the muzzle velocity of the round, the powder charge, and the weight of the rifle.

So we obviously have some quite a bit of influence over what the numbers are. It’s a drawback of the computer generated data route, but it also gives a good method of really comparing cartridges rather than just individual rounds.

From the first graph, we see that the 7.62×39 cartridge has a few more pounds of force generated than the 5.56×45 NATO.

While this is only a small difference in recoil, it adds up when trying to put multiple shots on target quickly.

For single shots, neither of these cartridges are going to produce enough kick to cause flinching, at least for experienced shooters. Both of these cartridges are generating recoil less than 10ft.lb of energy.

Let’s take a look at the recoil energy that is generated from our ten selected rounds and see if this trend holds up or if we see a little more variability.

This data was generated using each round’s bullet weight, muzzle velocity, gun weight (7lbs), and the powder charge. For the powder charge, we averaged several common powder loads from Nosler’s load data and kept that charge constant for each round of the same cartridge.

These numbers might fluctuate slightly depending on the actual powder charge used by the manufacturer, but the trends between the cartridges should remain (Graph 2).

We do see a little variability in the amount of energy generated from round to round within the same cartridge, but overall, the trend holds up. You are going to be dealing with a few extra ft.lb of force when firing a 7.62×39 compared to a 5.56 NATO.

None of the 5.56×45 rounds break the 6.2ft.lb mark while all of the 7.62×39 rounds fall within the 8-8.2ft.lb mark. Which are all numbers that we would expect from rounds that were designed to be used in semi-automatic mode.

In the table below, we have listed the recoil averages of our full list of rounds that are listed at the end of the article. We calculated this data in the exact manner that we described earlier.

From the table, you can see that we are still seeing the same trends that we saw in the graphs above.

There is a difference of about three and a half pounds of force between the two cartridges, which is almost exactly what we saw when looking at our selected rounds for comparison.

There is definitely a difference in the amount of recoil energy between these two cartridges, and from the specs we looked at earlier, it’s a difference we all could have guessed would be present.

All of this said it’s important to remember that recoil can be further controlled and manipulated with things like muzzle brakes, buffer weights, the weight of the rifle, and the exact ammo you use.

All in all — felt recoil is practically speaking about equal between the two cartridges.

Average Recoil (ft/lb)

Love Ammo? Get My Cartridge Comparison Handbook!

Get my premium 550+ pages handbook that compares all cartridges, for free (worth $199!) only today !

Click here to download

Your e-mail address:

This e-mail address seems incorrect...

Success! Check your mailbox.

This e-mail address is already subscribed.

Loading ...

Ballistics

In this section, we will take a look at these two cartridges in the context of several ballistic categories.

While ballistics alone will not tell us which cartridge performs best in specific hunting, tactical, or general shooting situations, they are a huge component.

We will look at ballistic coefficients, velocity, and trajectory and use this data at the conclusion of the article to draw some conclusions for the applications of the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39.

We think that it is also important to note that though we are looking at each of these sections individually to better compare the two cartridges, you do not get the full story from one individual category.

To have a basis for your decision you have to bring all of this information together to understand which situations one cartridge or the other would be better suited. We will do our best at the end of the article to bring all this together for you.

Velocity

One of the main reasons that velocity is an important category for comparison when comparing two cartridges is because it is intricately linked to just about every other ballistic and performance spec we have and will look at.

Faster rounds not only get to the target quicker, but they are also less prone to environmental factors that can slow down and throw off the trajectory and flight path of the bullet.

Velocity is also critical in terminal ballistics, especially for bullet expansion and penetration.

Let’s take a look at our ten rounds and see if we can make any conclusions between these two cartridges.

We will be looking at the velocity (ft/s) from the muzzle out to 500 yards. This data was compiled from the manufacturer or from ballistic calculators if the data was not present (Graph 3).

When looking at the velocity for the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39, we see a distinct difference between the two cartridges. All rounds from the 5.56 rounds and the 7.62 rounds group together and there is a large gap between the two cartridges.

The 5.56×45, with its much lighter bullet weights and similar powder loads, gives you a much faster bullet from the muzzle out to 500 yards.

These rounds have an average muzzle velocity of 3,038ft.sec and end at the 500-yard mark with an average of 1,645ft.sec.

All of the 5.56×45 rounds remain at supersonic speeds throughout the 500-yard range. The 7.62×39 rounds have an average muzzle velocity of 2,352ft.sec and end at the 500-yard mark with an average of 1,123ft.sec.

While the 7.62×39 rounds have an overall lower velocity from the muzzle out to 500 yards, they do tend to hold onto their velocity better than the 5.56 where velocity bleeds off rapidly. The 7.62×39 rounds do fall below supersonic speeds at the 500-yard mark.

Let’s bring some more rounds for each cartridge into the mix and see if we see if the trend remains the same or if we see the gap close or widen.

Average Velocity (ft/sec)

We do all of the averages drop just a little when we bring in more rounds, but the trends that we saw all hold up. The 5.56×45 cartridge brings several hundred more ft/s of velocity than the 7.62×39 throughout the bullets flight. We also see the same trend of the 7.62×39 rounds maintaining their velocity at a better rate than the 5.56×45 rounds.

Ballistic Coefficient (BC)

The ballistic coefficient is a number that is generated from several variables related to bullet design. What this number is going to tell us is how well a bullet is streamlined.

The more streamlined, the better the bullet will resist air drag and the less prone it is to wind drift. So, bullets with higher BCs maintain their velocity, force, and trajectory much better than a bullet with a lower BC.

And well it doesn’t necessarily mean a more accurate bullet; it does make it easier to become accurate with it at extended distances. The BC doesn’t replace skill by any means and a high BC is not going to turn you into a Marine sniper, but it can make adjusting for long range shots a little more manageable.

However, the ballistic coefficient really only matters for long range shooting. Practically speaking, muzzle velocity will make a much bigger difference at shorter ranges than the shape of the bullet.

Let’s compare the BCs of our ten rounds and see how these two cartridges differ (Graph 4).

All of these numbers were compiled from the manufacturer of the various rounds.

Overall, we see very similar ballistic coefficients between these two cartridges. All of them hover around the .25-.30 range.

We do see that the most variability within the 5.56×45 rounds where we see two rounds with excellent BCs, a .342 and a .395, while at the same time we have the lowest BC round within the same cartridge type (.246).

And this makes sense given the popularity of the 5.56×45 rounds and the more options you have with bullet types that we would see some variation in the ballistic coefficients.

When we look at the average BC when including more rounds, we still see that the 5.56×45 still has the slightest of advantages, but in real applications, not just looking at data, we doubt the difference would be very noticeable.

Average Ballistic Coefficient

Trajectory

Regardless of the shooting application, the trajectory of 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39 is one of the first traits of a round that is examined.

What you want to look for is a flat trajectory where the bullet will travel a significant distance without losing too much elevation, which we will measure in bullet drop (inches).

The more the bullet drops, the bigger the adjustments will need to be made to make an effective shot and the harder it is to be accurate on a consistent basis without a lot of od practice.

Before getting into the short and long-range trajectory, we wanted to present a graph that gives you a clear picture of how flat the trajectories of these two cartridges are (Graph 5).

To do this, we selected a round for each cartridge that is made by the same manufacturer and uses the same bullet design with similar weights and ballistic coefficients.

Selecting rounds of similar weight is near impossible with these two cartridges as we have discussed before, the 7.62 uses a higher caliber bullet than the 5.56 which often means heavier bullets.

Assuming a 100 yard zero, both of these cartridges maintain nearly the same trajectory out to the 180-yard mark.

From here, we begin to see the differences between these two cartridges. The much lighter 5.56 round can maintain a much flatter trajectory than the 7.62 round and as the yardage increases so does the difference in bullet drop.

By the 500 yard mark, the 7.62×39 round has dropped nearly 50 more inches than the 5.56×45 NATO round.

Let’s zoom in and look at sections of these range in more detail and see if the above trend continues.

Short Range Trajectory

For a 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39 debate, the short-range trajectory is probably a little more relevant than the long-range trajectory given the applications of these cartridges.

For short-range trajectory, we are going to compare our selected rounds out to a distance of 300 yards with the test firearms zeroed in at 100 yards.

We are measuring bullet drop in inches. Data was generated by compiling the numbers from the manufacturer or by a ballistics calculator. With the ballistics calculator, we determined the short range trajectory by using each rounds bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and ballistic coefficient (Graph 6).

Leading up to the 100-yard mark we do not see any noticeable difference between these two cartridges worth mentioning.

From the 100 to 200 mark, the gap does widen pretty significantly with around three inches difference between the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds averages at this range. We also see that the rounds from the two cartridges group with their respective cartridge type.

The difference between the averages would be more pronounced, but you can see that the 77gr Magtech 5.56×45 round is a little steeper than the other 5.56 rounds.

The difference widens even further as the rounds move out to 300 yards. At this point, there is around 12-inch difference between the averages of the two cartridges.

It is pretty clear that the 5.56×45 NATO rounds show flatter trajectories than the 7.62×39 rounds at short range. And while there is a difference, we still think both of these cartridges are effective at these ranges; you will just be adjusting more for shots taken with a 7.62×39.

Let’s take a look at the averages of these two cartridges when we use a larger sample size in the table below. The trajectories were calculated for the other rounds in the same manner that we previously stated.

Average Bullet Drop (Inches) at Short Range

We see that the larger sample size still shows the same trends as our smaller, graphed selection.

All of this should make sense to us given that we are looking at two cartridges that have close to the same capacity though the 7.62×39 can hold around 7 grains more at max capacity, but with the 5.56×45 rounds having higher overall velocities, lighter bullets, and mainly higher ballistic coefficients.

All of that influences the less severe bullet drop of the 5.56×45 when compared to the 7.62×39 rounds.

While this trend will continue at long range trajectories, we will still take a look to see how drastic a difference it is.

Long Range Trajectory

The 7.62×39 cartridge has a bad rap when it comes to long-range shooting ability, especially when compared to the lighter 5.56×45 rounds. In this section, we will use out ten selected rounds for our 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39 comparison and see if its reputation is supported by the data.

As with the short range trajectory, we are still measuring the bullet drop in inches of our eight rounds. In this section, firearms are zeroed in at 200 yards and data points taken at 100-yard intervals out to the 500-yard mark. Data was collected and generated in the same manner as the short range trajectory (Graph 7).

Like the short range trajectory, we again see a significant difference between cartridges with each round grouping tightly with their cartridge type.

Even out to 300 yards there is a 15″ difference in the average bullet drop favoring the 5.56 NATO. As the range increases so does the difference between the two cartridges. Out at 500 yards, there is at most 50″ of difference between the two.

The 5.56 NATO rounds lose between 40-50″ while the 7.62×39 rounds drop 90-100″. This is a significant bullet drop for both rounds, but the 7.62×39 is much more pronounced and will be a major factor in applications for these two cartridges.

Like we have been doing, let’s take a quick look at the averages for our full selection of rounds and see if the trend holds up.

In the table below, we have listed the same yard markers and also concluded more exreme distances that are hardly ever attempted seriously with these two cartridges, yet it does highlight the differences between these two cartridges well.

Average Bullet Drop (Inches) at Long Range

Again, even with more samples available, the trend remains the same. The 7.62×39 rounds, on average, have about twice the amount of bullet drop than the 5.56×45 rounds. The 7.62×39 rounds also are at least or more than twice the weight of the 5.56×45 rounds so it is not very surprising.

Stopping Power

Before someone yells at us in the comments, let’s take a moment to define what we mean by “stopping power”.

First of all, there is no such thing as “stopping power”. This is not an objectively measurable fact. Two guns don’t do 5 health points of damage vs. 8 health points.

What we mean by “stopping power” is a wide mix of factors such as penetration, wound cavity, hydrostatic shock, kinetic energy, and energy transfer.

All of this put together with some educated conclusions results in “stopping power” or the ability of the cartridge to kill whatever it is you’re trying to kill be it man or beast.

There is a lot that goes into the stopping power of a specific round. In this section, we are going to focus on three factors; the kinetic energy of the bullet, the sectional density, and the bullet momentum. While there are other components such as bullet type, it doesn’t give us any useful information for comparing two cartridge types.

The three components we will discuss, all influence how a projectile will behave when it strikes a target. If you search around, you will often find a lot of arguments taking place on which

Energy

In this section, we will take a look at the energy that is associated with these rounds as they are carried down range. The force exerted on the bullet by the ignited powder and the mass of the bullet generate this kinetic energy. Once the bullets make contact with the target, this energy is transferred to the target and can cause trauma to the target’s tissues and organs.

So, let’s take a look at the kinetic energy of the ten rounds we have been examining so far. This data was compiled from the manufacturer (Graph 8).

The muzzle energy shows a distinct advantage for the 7.62×39 cartridge. The 7.62×39 has an average kinetic energy of 1,525ft.lb while the 5.56×45 rounds have an average energy of 1,311ft.lb.

However, keep in mind that while those numbers might seem largely different — it’s only about 15%.

We also see that the rounds for each cartridge groups fairly tight.

Out to the first 100 yards, the 7.62×39 rounds still have an advantage in kinetic energy (ft.lb) over the 5.56 NATO rounds though the gap between the two cartridges shrinks considerably.

The heavier 75gr 5.56 round performs nearly as well, and we will see that it maintains this force much better than the 7.62 rounds.

At 200+ yards, the 7.62×39 rounds begin to bleed off their energy and are very similar to the 5.56 NATO rounds, with rounds of both cartridges falling below the 1,000ft.lb mark.

Another interesting point is that from this yard marker to 500 yards, the two best performing rounds are 5.56×45 rounds.

Beyond the 300 yard mark, we no longer see the distinct trends between 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39. At this point, it depends on the individual round to determine the best performance. We do still see a slight increase in the amount of energy for the 7.62 rounds at these ranges, but the difference between the two is less than 100ft.lbs.

Now again we are looking at the averages for all of our compiled rounds to see if these same trends continue.

Average Kinetic Energy (ft/lb)

Again, we see the same trend between these two cartridges when we bring in more samples. From the muzzle too 100 yards, the 7.62×39 brings a pretty significant more amount of kinetic energy than the 5.56×45 rounds.

And again, it is interesting to compare these two cartridges as the rounds move past the 100 yard mark. As they continue, the 7.62×39 rounds tend to lose energy at a much higher rate than the 5.56×45 rounds.

From 200 yards out to 1,000 yards, there is less than 100ft.lbs difference between 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39 averages.

Penetration

Penetration is another factor that goes into a bullet’s stopping power. In this section, we will compare penetration from the two cartridges by looking at the sectional densities of the bullets.

The sectional density is derived from a calculation using the bullet’s weight and diameter. The jacketing and design of the bullet are also going to affect the penetration of a bullet.

An example is a hollow point. An HP bullet expands rapidly which is going to reduce the amount of penetration. Whereas a full metal jacket will tend to slip through deeper and more cleanly.

For comparison’s sake, we are going to limit our comparison and discussion to sectional density. We generated the sectional densities for each round using a ballistic calculator (Graph 9).

Interestingly, the sectional densities are pretty similar between these two cartridges.

Even though the 7.62×39 rounds use much heavier bullets, we do not see an increase in sectional densities for these rounds.

On the other hand, the 5.56×45 uses much lighter bullets, but the small diameter focuses all of the force in a smaller area giving it a sectional density and similar penetration profiles to the 7.62×39 rounds.

Because of these similarities, you can’t only rely on the sectional density to give an advantage to one cartridge or the other. It’s going to depend more on individual rounds and their bullet type.

Below, we have listed the averages for the entire list of rounds we have compiled.

Average Sectional Density

When we add in more rounds, we still see that the sectional densities between these two cartridges are almost identical.

Momentum

The final component to stopping power that we will examine in this article is bullet momentum. Momentum, as it related to a round’s terminal ballistics, is the ability of a round to overcome resistance.

From high school or college, you probably heard the definition of momentum which is the ability of an object in motion to stay in motion.

Simply put, a bullet’s momentum is a good number to help understand how well it will be able to push through obstacles such as a big feral hog’s thick hide and dense shoulder bones.

There are of course other aspects of a round that plays a major role in the bullet’s performance when it comes to punching through materials, but for a discussion using computer-generated data, momentum is a good indicator.

And of course, more momentum is not always needed and a decision shouldn’t be made based on what has the higher momentum.

We generated all of the data below, utilizing the mass of the bullet, in grains, and the velocity of the round at a given yard marker. Below is the graphed data.

You can see from the start that the majority of the rounds from each cartridge group together with the 7.62 rounds show quite a bit more momentum than the 5.56×45 rounds from the muzzle out to 200 yards.

It is especially significant when comparing the 7.62×39 rounds to the lighter 5.56 rounds. The heavier 5.56×45 rounds (70+ grains) still show less bullet momentum, but the difference is quite a bit less.

With these heavier rounds, we even see them match or even outperform (have higher) the 7.62×39 rounds once the bullets reach the more limiting distances of these rounds at 400 and 500 yards.

Let’s take a look at the average momentum for these two cartridges in the table below.

Average Bullet Momentum (lb/ft.s)

Just like in our previous discussion, we still see a much greater advantage for the 7.62×39 in bullet momentum.

While the velocities are on average higher for the 5.56×45, the heavier bullet weights of the 7.62 rounds generate higher bullet momentum.

And again, this alone does not mean that the 7.62×39 will be better suited for dealing with thicker protection at every occasion. While the sectional densities of the two cartridges were near identical, bullet design also has a big role to play.

And as we saw when looking at the smaller selection of rounds, there are 5.56×45 rounds that do not show as large a difference from some 7.62×39 rounds as the averages would suggest, especially the heavier 5.56×45 rounds.

Accuracy

Accuracy is a tough category for trying to compare 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39. The best method is to take firearms chambered for either cartridge, have several different rounds, and measure groupings at certain distances.

The problem with doing this for an article is that a lot of other variables are in play including environmental and the skill of the one pulling the trigger. Even with skilled marksmen, the numbers can vary from day to day.

Still, with the categories we have covered so far, we can draw a couple of conclusions when it comes to accuracy when comparing the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39.

When looking at the velocities, the 5.56 NATO rounds show a clear advantage over the 7.62x39mm cartridge. This increased velocity, as we mentioned briefly will help keep the 5.56 rounds on path.

When we look at the trajectory, especially out past 200 yards, the 5.56 is much flatter than the 7.62×39 rounds.

While the stopping power is significantly different, we are just sticking with accuracy, and less bullet drop is going to make putting a bullet on target all the easier.

We see a lot of similarities with the ballistic coefficients of these two cartridges though, at least for these rounds, the 5.56×45 has rounds with higher BCs and an overall slightly higher average than the 7.62×39 rounds.

With all of that, both of these cartridges can be accurate rounds within 100 yards. Just taking a position from the numbers we have, there is not going to be any significant advantages or disadvantages between these cartridges at close range.

The 7.62×39 does have slightly more recoil energy than the 5.56×45, and this could impact quick shots in succession being accurate.

Price and Availability

Both cartridges are readily available from many retailers that carry ammunition and are also available in bulk.

We have listed the prices of the ten rounds we have used in our comparisons. We listed a price for 20 rounds, but you can save some money when buying these cartridges in bulk.

In today’s market, 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39 are going to be around the same price. One or the other might be slightly more or less, but it will be close. Normally within about 5 cents per round when comparing ammo types of similar quality.

As far as options go for specific rounds of both cartridges, you will have a much wider selection of 5.56x45mm ammunition than the 7.62×39. This goes for jackets and bullet weights, and bullet designs.

Applications

From our experience and research, the 7.62x39mm offers a lot more options when it comes to hunting more medium-sized game.

The increase in bullet energy for these rounds within 100 yards is much better suited for medium-sized game.

But there is an issue with the range of the cartridge. For shots within 200 yards, you have a fair shot at good bullet placement, and with the stopping power of the heavier bullets, you should be able to make a clean kill.

These same reasons also make it a popular cartridge for close-quarters combat. If you pair the correct bullet design, you can easily punch through cover with this cartridge with power to spare.

The 5.56×45 NATO can also be used in some hunting situations for smaller game up to whitetail deer, but it has a pretty limited range because of its loss of energy downrange. With its trajectory, it is a perfect rifle for small game being taken at increased distances.

For longer range shooting with 5.56×45 Vs 7.62×39, the 5.56×45 NATO offers a much flatter trajectory than the 7.62×39.

For target shooting, 5.56 NATO has a huge advantage as fewer adjustments, which gives you less chance of miscalculation, means a greater chance of landing successive shots on target.

The 7.62×39 cartridge just shows too much bullet drop to be an effective round out past the 300-yard mark.

For ranges out to 200 yards, both of these cartridges have flat trajectories and do not need heavy adjustments for shot placement. At shorter ranges, it comes down to other performance specs when trying to select the best cartridge for you.

Best Rounds

Before we wrap up this article, we want to take the ten rounds we have been using for this cartridge comparison and pick a few of them that we think are well suited for specific shooting applications.

Top Hunting Round

For hunting, we like the 123gr Fusion SP round as our pick for the 7.62×39 rounds.

Like all of the 7.62×39 rounds, you are not dealing with a lot of recoil, but the main reason we have selected it for hunting is the bullet energy.

Even at 200 yards, it is still carrying 907ft.lbs of energy. It also has the flattest trajectory of all the 7.62×39 rounds we examined in this article. With its energy and trajectory, it is the only round we have looked at that we would feel comfortable making a 250-yard shot.

Top Range Round

In this section, we want to pick a single round from each cartridge type that belongs on the range.

For the 7.62×39 we like the 123gr TulAmmo FMJ. It’s not expensive and makes it a little easier to burn through a lot of rounds without wiping out your bank account.

The trajectory of this round isn’t the best, and we didn’t pick it to enter into long range competitions. Mainly, we chose it for the price.

For the 5.56×45 cartridge, we like anything made by Black Hills in the 62-77gr range. Black Hills makes amazing ammo and is the only source the Military uses for precision ammo. The 77gr TMK from Black Hills is an amazing round that is wonderful to use at very long ranges.

I’ve shot the 77gr TMK out to 900 yards accurately and have watched better shooters reach past 1,200 yards.

The drawback is that everything Black Hills makes is expensive and hard to find in stock.

Conclusion

When comparing the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39, it’s too often we see two sides of the argument unwilling to be swayed or be open to the benefits of the other cartridge.

Both of these cartridges are steeped in history, and both of them offer numerous advantages.

Too often shooters neglect a cartridge out of some form of loyalty to what they normally shoot. We hope that this article has made clear that both of these cartridges can be effective when used in the correct situation.

There is no law to having rifles chambered for both and in doing so, you greatly open up your shooting world to new opportunities.

Ammunition List