5.56 NATO VS 7.62 NATO

The 5.56x45mm (5.56 NATO) and the 7.62x51mm (7.62 NATO) are both over half a century old, but are still popular. Both have qualities worthy of praise, but also have drawbacks that warrant critique. I have used both a good amount in various types of rifles, so I am going to compare the two based on my experience and certain considerations. Deciding on a caliber should not be as simple as what makes you look cooler.

ANIMALS

​Not all threats will fall to a properly placed 5.56, and some threats don’t need to be shot with something as powerful as a .308/7.62 NATO. For instance, in my neighborhood, there are a lot of feral dogs that run around and attack livestock, people, and other dogs. For this type of threat, I am not going to use a .308 since that would have a high likelihood of going through and still being very lethal for quite a long distance. For dogs a 5.56 out of my AUG is a good idea since flesh tends to disrupt the bullets path and absorb a high amount of the round’s velocity. The 5.56 is often referred to as a varmint round as a slur, but in these scenarios, I consider it to be an accurate description.

​How about the other part of that when I am about 50 miles away from even having a bar of cell service in bear country? In this situation, a 5.56 is not going to be sufficient for the job of bear defense. In this case, I would opt for the 7.62x51 in my lovely Tavor 7 rifle. It is not too uncommon here in Alaska to see two big cuddly Whiney the Pooh Griz boys having it out over bitches and honey. You don’t want to be stuck with a varmint round, having to “make it work” in this situation.

HUMAN THREATS

​When it comes to engaging a human threat, both bullets were designed for this. The problem is that these rounds do not behave the same when they make contact with tissue, and they do not have the same effect on tissue at range. And this is where this article is going to get a bit muddy. Now we have to look at variables that make the decision more complicated.

​I hear about weight being an issue all the time with lots of people. They use weight as an excuse for only wanting to ever use 5.56/.223 to defend against people. Whether it is weight of the gun or weight of the ammo, this is a tiresome excuse that I feel is more often overplayed than objectively decided. After all the accessories and modifications, many people end up with a 5.56 rifle that is well over the weight of a bare bones 7.62 rifle but still way under the terminal effectiveness, effectively nullifying their weight argument.

​As far as the weight of ammo, there is no argument that 5.56 NATO is lighter. But hey, I can carry thousands of rounds of .22LR in my battle rattle, so why not just switch to .22LR? I’m not saying that weight does not matter, but I will say that trading off your primary weapons’ effectiveness for a couple of pounds is a terrible plan. You can carry more rounds for the 5.56, but you will end up NEEDING those extra rounds to actually stop a threat. Consider the mission, and let the mission drive the gear.

​I am not encouraging people to only ever use 7.62 NATO, but rather I am saying that weight should not be a dictating factor since the difference is a mere couple pounds. If you have any understanding of history, you will remember the lesson of the Rhodesian SAS and Light Infantry where they used cover shooting with their FAL to spray methodically the most likely areas of cover. This had a great effect and often led to many casualties due to the penetration power of the 7.62 NATO against trees and foliage.

BARRIERS AND ENVIRONMENT

​If your engagements are consistently outside of 200m or within trees/barriers, wouldn’t you want a heavy hitter that can travel that distance or slice STRAIGHT through barriers and still deliver that knockout punch? Some 5.56 loads can penetrate light barriers, but the power coming out the other side is a gamble as well as it staying on course. Also keep in mind that vegetation like bushes can easily cause a 5.56 NATO to deviate from its original trajectory and take a different path. I call this Deviation from the Intended Trajectory, which renders your aimed shot useless.

​For the 7.62 NATO you will not defeat every barrier or tree out there, but rest assured that the trajectory is largely undisturbed by things like vegetation and light cover that would challenge the 5.56 NATO. Also be aware that proximity to the threat will be a big factor in what round to use. If I am going to be fighting indoors, a 5.56 NATO won’t be as harsh on your dome when fired indoors and should adequately penetrate walls and still deliver a lethal blow, if placed properly. You can use 7.62 NATO indoors if you have a can or something like the PWS CQB Comp without risking too much returned concussion to your ear drums.

WRAPUP

​I could go over a bunch of different scenarios and mission orders to demonstrate how complicated it can be to determine if full power 7.62 is needed or if you can get away with 5.56 NATO. I think I already gave important points of consideration that are often disregarded as it pertains to comparing the two rounds. From here you have to make your own judgement.