5.56 NATO vs 7.62x39: Unexpected Results - UBT 

Thank you gun Ray Romano

You're answering the important questions here. Awesome.

That's why we hide behind sand bags. Oh, one more thing. Having recently turned 54, I can tell you that sled is not going to get any lighter, ever. It's as light now as it's ever going to be.

Thank you for these types of comparisons. Very informative

It's not always the penetration that we are looking for, but rather the energy dump and projectile cavity as the round with the greater "plasmic shock" will win everytime.

Love the new sled! The testing is great too! Please keep up with the testing of new cartridges too!

It would be interesting to compare 62gr and 77gr on the same test... 300blk is also an interesting comparison

Congratulations on the 50k subscribers. It's a fun feeling!

It would be interesting on the last steel plate test to measure the volume of material removed. The 5.56 was deeper, but the 7.62 made a wider hole.

When shooting cinder blocks with 5.56 and 7.62x39 it was about a 3 to 1 ratio to do equivalent damage.

Paused, then wanted to say the 7.62×39 is my choice of winner, IMHO! Thank you!

I thoroughly enjoy these near real world testing of the penetrating ability of peer rounds but it would have been more interesting to test the 5.45X39 against the 5.56 NATO.

Pretty wild that the 7.62x39 didn't make it through the sand but the 300 Black Out made it through in the previous video. Seems like we need a 30 cal showdown.

Dude! Absolutely love your vids! Thanks so much for your time and effort!!

When I was in the service I started carrying the original M16. Maximum effective range=350 meters. AK47 maximum effective range =300 meters. Then we got the new M16A2. Maximum effective range 500 meters. Even if the AK had better penetration, it only matters if you can hit your target. Of course most combat takes place under 300 meters and both weapons have a long established effective killing ability. I still prefer the AR platforms.

Awesome video like the new objects. And the steal of course. Keep up the great work 👍

Very interesting results. These comparisons are awesome. Thanks

great setup for this test - excellent video 🔝💯

If both fail a test, they should get 0 points instead of 12.5

Love your videos! Thanks.

One of the 7.62x39 was dead center in line with the heart wood. That part of the tree is generally more dense. That makes it appear a little more impressive.

In the Cdn. Forces we did this kind of firing often but using NATO 7.62 and NATO 5.56. The Nato rounds out of the FNC1 rifle would heavily spall the 1/2" steel plates but the 5.56 would leave barely a noticeable dimple and powder mark, often even unable to make a standing plate fall over at 100metres. Our combat engagements for training are typically between 100 and 300 metres. The FN would penetrate sandbags and concrete cinder blocks. Rarely would sandbags be double layered depth. The move away from 7.62 was due to better magazine capacity not effectiveness of rounds. It was always re-assuring to know you could fire out to 800m accurately with an FNC1 but had to rely on your section MG weapons to do that after the C7 was the issue rifle. We did not like that at all. Now the movement back toward heavier barrelled C7 variants running 7.62 finally makes more sense. 41C

Your channel has really come along! The updated sleds / holders for steel, concrete, and wood blocks that you’ve come up with are fantastic, and the your content is terrific. Very entertaining. Congrats on passing 50,000 subscribers! A friendly suggestion to help gauge relative penetration performance on tests like these that have several non-definitive segments might be to simply add in a few more 1/2” or 3/4” plywood blocks behind the single block you used in this segment, since at some point the bullets will be stopped and a comparison can then be shown. In other words, if you had several of the smaller blocks behind either the large 6x6 block, or the concrete block, then perhaps those segments would have shown one round going deeper than the other. Just a thought . . . Thanks for making such fun-to-watch content. And +1 on the suggestion to see how 8MM Mauser performs. A comparison against 30-06 would be interesting. As would a comparison of 25-06 vs 270, or maybe 6.5x55 Swede vs 6.5CM?

I appreciate everything that goes into your ballistics tests..absolutely my favorite to watch bullet ballistics on you tube!🇺🇸🥓👍🏻🤘🏻

one of the best shows on the net. love your dry jokes.

I always look forward to Banana testing vids!

Another great presentation!

Very cool testing of these two rounds! 👍 Would be interesting to see how they handle 5/16" thick plate though since 1/4" isn't enough and 3/8" stops the rounds.

pretty cool presentation - well done!

You should make a steel core showdown between these two types of cartridges.

I love the thumbs up after you paint the steel. I don't know why...😂

These little tests are great. Seeing how mass vs.velocity go through stuff is interesting.

And this video just proves why sandbags are an effective barrier for use in combat. not to mention you can make quick and easy cover with just an entrenching tool and some bags.

First time on your channel. Interesting results, but there are so many other ways to test. Ballistic gel may be interesting, and I think the keyholing of the smaller caliber in one of the tests where the larger seemed to make a cleaner hole in the plywood somehow warrant more investigation. I think the 7.62 probably would fare better shooting through brush.

That was fun, thanks!

Green tips would be interesting to match up with the 30 cal bullets.

Rifling twist has a surprising influence on penetration. The faster the rifling twist, the further the projectile will penetrate. FN found both the SS109 & M193 penetrated much further with the 1-7 twist than the 1-10 & 1-12 twists. Of course, their testing was mostly on FRG helmets. The US Marines required any new 5.56 round penetrate the helmet further than 7.62 Ball. FN achieved this by using the 1-7 twist while the rest of NATO went 1-10. 🤠

It would be very interesting to do comparisons of the 5.7×28 used by the P90 and the Five-Seven, with the 5.56 and 7.62X39. The 5.7×28 has a myth surrounding it that it is highly penetrative, even armor piercing all by itself.

I like your channel, BUT the major flaw on your channel is not letting us know who makes the ammo you are shooting for all we know you could possibly be putting quality ammo up against some cheap brand, and that my friend matters. Let us know what you are shooting, not just the caliber.

Man I love RU-vid sometimes. Having just bought my first AK I wondered which round would win, and PRESTO an answer. It was close though, which tells me that whichever gun I can grab the soonest is the winner. Nice video baritone voice man!

Only judging depth and not width or energy might be misleading, both rounds made it through similar barriers, but the 7.62 made a bigger hole plus more damage.

Recently found your channel. I enjoy your content and the level of rigor you go through to ensure a fair assessment. I'm sure you have heard this before but you have a great "Radio" voice. Congratulations on 50K subscribers on your way to 100!!!

For those who might not know, the ballistics data for 7.62 x 39 is very similar to good ole 30-30. There is a reason this round has been so successful. See for yourself.

Great test...and thanks for the hard work...next time use 20 inch AR..... couldn't tell you might have used it on this one but not sure....

Just viewed… I worked with MOD Police who for some time used the Heckler & Koch MP7 which used a steel tip armour piercing round to defeat body armour but tumbled in soft tissue thus preventing collateral damage by round pass through in an urban policing environment

Incredible experiment/competition between bullets, with me being wrong on the expected winner. The 5.56 gave the 7.62 a run for its money. Many thanks for the scientific approach of setting up variables to measure velocity & impact - Consider me Subscribed + 'Thumbs' up.

Very very interesting results, mass isn't everything as it would appear to be. Also to whoever your editor is, I appreciate the fast cuts, very snappy, helps keeps thing going. That did not feel like a 10 minute video with how fast everything was

Excellent testing! ❤ This was a SMOKING video. No side affects. You are convincing me to get an AK tho. I don't know if that will be the big brother of my AR or what. 🤔

The first test made the 5.56 tumble and the 7.62 went straight through. I'd give that round to the 7.62. Also, the last test was skewed. The 7.62 was shot through the wood and the second was over the steel bracket. Not that I don't like the 5.56, but I don't think I agree with the test results.

I would like to see more precise data on the penetration. Maybe stack narrower boxes full of sand? The 'witness' boards could also be improved to show how much energy is left after penetrating the object.. Maybe alternating 1/8 or 1/4" ply and 20g steel sheeting? Space out a few 'witness' surfaces? Thanks!

Very interesting. I've read so many places that 5.56 won't penetrate as well as a heavier cartridge and will be less likely to make it through barriers. I understand bullet construction will make a big difference, but I was surprised at the results of this test.

It would be good to see 5/16 mild steel...that would be just in between the 2 plates tested so far, and might decide some contests. 8mm plate is also close to 5/16

Excellent video i was surprised

The 7.62 will have more momentum (Mass X Velocity), while the 5.56 will have more energy (1/2 Mass * v2)

Love the content. Think you need to double the thickness of the wood and concrete

First time watching one of your videos and man, you have on of the most radio voicey-est voices I ever heard lol

I enjoy these very much! Not too long and monotonous.

Looking forward to the testing on Green Tip 5.56?

Love the channel. Please use a smaller sandbox. 8 inches of sand equates to a sand bag, and sandbags stop all small arms, this has been known for generations.

Interesting comparison, but the tie scores - particularly the sand test - don't give a relative score; that is, the score is binary: did/didn't. If it were possible to dig into the sand and measure the depth of penetration of each, it would be somewhat more useful information regarding mass vs. velocity in sand. Also, the fact that the 3/4 ply was penetrated is less information than, say, how many 3/4 ply plates would be penetrated. Another thought is that their performance is shown relative to one another, but not to a reference round such as a .308 or .30-06 (both of which are also military rounds). That would be interesting to observe, as well. Your setup is very versatile for testing different obstacles. Great video.

Surprising. We used to shoot holes through thick steel railroad tie plates with the 7.62x39 and it always went through. I don't remember them being magnetic either. Hmmmm

Great video as always (even if I expected this result). Anyway if you can get your hand on one rifle chambered in 8mm Mauser I would be very curious to see its performance against the 7.62 Nato and the 7.62R!

Your voice is magnificent. You should have regular podcasts and be on radio full time.

Sand target - You really should reduce the thickness of the target incrementally till you get a winner.(I don't wanna tell you how to do your job, so I'll let you determine how this will be achieved.) Keep in mind that while the content you provide is free to viewers, the constructive criticism, critiques and insight from viewers like myself is also free.

When comparing two rounds it's always better if you carefully choose your targets in a way that would always result on one of the rounds pass and the other fail. I know that might take some time and effort finding the right thickness but it'd be more informative, when both fail or pass a test equally it tells us nothing, it's possible to set up a test where you end up with a draw between a 12.8x99 mm round and a 9x19 mm handgun round if the samples are either too thick for both or too easy.

@bananaballistics you should try ti and do a comparison using Liberty Ammunition's "Animal instinct" rounds. They're really nasty on soft targets. In handgun calibers, they're called "civil defense" rounds. In .40s&w its a zinc plated solid copper weighing 60 grains with an advertised velocity of 2000fps from a 4" barrel.

Would be great if you would show the exact ammo used in your testing. Also maybe barrel twist of each weapon fired. These would definitely help clarify the results better. 🤠

7.62 won the first round because although both made it through the plywood only one didn’t tumble. Also I think shot placement made the difference on the last one

The reason thry gave in army for 7.62 was that it doesnt deflect as much in forest where branched get in line of fire. Also, you can just resupply from fallen enemies which is nice plus. Ofc they can do the same, but they can also produce them more.

During the pandemic, I stock piled .224 Valkyrie, mainly because it was the only round available at stores and online. I’d be curious to see you test it against 5.56 or 300 blackout. Great videos by the way. And yes, you must be that good of a shot 😂

There are so many very abilities with regard to ammo, all things considered. The 7.62x39 is regarded as having more penetration than 5.56

I like your channel and am now a subscriber. Funny though, my 5.56 using the M855 cartridge (green tips) always penetrates 3/8's steel even at 100 yards. Would you please show the back of the plywood and steel even if the bullet hasn't penetrated fully. Also, the sand box is not equal when the bullet strikes lower or higher because the bullets are under different external pressures. Another problem is that I don't think that you are removing the previous bullet from the sand box which may create a potential impact of bullets which could greatly impact the results of your tests. Rate of twist on the firearms should be noted.

I think that It's safe to say that in terms of drilling of the first target that is hit the 5.56 win, but in terms of penetration 7.62 takes it, I say that because 7.62 didn't keyhole like 5.56 right here: 2:00

I just recently stumbled on Ur channel by accident and I am already a big fan. You have great content. What I would like to see is 50/75/100/200yd etc. Test. Just my curiocity. Maybe other viewers would like that also. Thanks for all that you do.😁

That pun was amazing.

Very interesting, thank you. Have you tried 7.62 x 51 versus 7.62 x 39? (I had a look at your videos but did not notice one.)

Bro, keymo, seriously? Hahaha just kidding great vid as always

Cool vid! Try to list/mention barrel length in the future it looked to me the AK is 16" & the AR was 20" that would be an advantage for the AR.

Do you like that brass catcher? I had an Omaha outdoors one and the damn pic rail mount broke. Does yours attach by using Velcro straps or does it click onto a small Picatinny mount?

There's a reason they use sand bags in the military. They also help support your rifle while firing.

It’s a difference of philosophy, and is why I have an AR in 556 and a M1A in 308

One of my younger brothers fun guns was a Mini 14 , with a 30 round mag .Consequently even though we used to roll our own, it was cheaper to buy this Korean military ammo from our local sports store . Some people here may know the stuff . Came in a plain white 25 round box with an orange lable for $5 .Geneva conventions , eh !? . This was a full nickle jacket round with a hole drilled in the tip and from memory were around 70 gr weight . Long story short they would drill a perfect hole in 10 mm boiler plate at 100 meters .

Maybe next time 308 vs 30.06 barrier test 😊? Thx for the video👍🏻

Wonder about a UBT match between 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 (the round the AK-74 uses)? Seems like that would be an interesting match, a more "apples to apples" comparison since the calibers are almost identical and the overall case dimensions are also largely similar.

Those wood keyholes from the 556 would do more damage entering your body I'd assume.. And who would really be shooting at someone through a sand wall barrier lol.. You should test armor piercing rounds in a verity of cartridges

Given the weight of ammo, always a factor in actual warfare, the light NATO round seems to be much better. A complete test would compare the two on typical infantry body armour.

Drinking game: take a shot every time he says “3/4 inch piece of plywood”

You really should do lap on the 7.62x39 and 77 gr otms for 556 55 grain is not really a fair shot on barrier testing.

Perhaps use the same brand and type of projectiles. Prob green tips for the steel, then see how thick you can go then. Bullets are fragmenting and perhaps are not able to dump full load of energy

I’m about to try reloading 7.62x39 for accuracy. Found out last night making my jam bullet that there isn’t a lot of room to play with seating depth. Should be interesting to see what results I get.

This is like watching a professional powerlifter and a CrossFit expert move the same amount of weight in the same amount of time. One is gonna be heavier and do it all at once, the other is gonna be really fast but take a couple trips, but they both get it done at the same time.

The 7.62 won against concrete, and probably against sand too. You need smaller boxes of sand to differentiate the performance of rounds, maybe 4", 5", 6" and 8" cubes filled with sand would all be useful depending on the rounds you're comparing.

Its nice to see Ray Romano doing something worthwhile with his time.

Well, I've been fired at with thousands of rounds. I want hurt but others of people were. 7.63x39 is vicious and will shoot through things the 5.56 will not.

Not really surprising considering these two rounds were direct competitors on the battlefield for so long.

Thats probably why the army uses sandbags as barriers Im assuming?? I didn’t realize they stop a bullet so well that’s crazy

Which is why nato shifted to 5.56 way back. ... You can also carry more of them. Sent 100's through the R4 in the army days.. Great cartridge.

According to FBI Ballistics the 7.62x39 leaves a 2.8 times larger wound channel than 5.56 !!

A lighter faster bullet is generally going to penetrate deeper than a heavier. And a heavier slower bullet is generally going to have more impact damage affecting a larger area.

I have some of the Chinese copper washed stuff, maybe steel core, but it punches through my steel targets.