While 7.62×39 version is cute, tiny and pretty punchy, the .223 is more of an all-around fighting rifle. Using the same barrel blank as the 7.62, the 5.56mm version is more accurate, heats up slower and has less recoil. In fact, with the loud but effective muzzle brake, recoil is closer to a semi-auto 22wmr than to other centerfire rifles. I haven’t scopes this one yet (that would require a stock with a riser), but even irons provide less than 3MOA vs. 5MOA of the 7.62 variant (again, with iron sights). In the near future, I will have to compare the efficiency of the AR15 magazines vs. using the original rock and lock mags without the adapter.
This model is arresting. She should have a great career in advertising if she wants because I want to buy everything she models, even the Charter Arms snubbie. (Not saying anything against Charter Arms but I need another snubbie like I need more dust.)
I really like the vz58 as well as the vz2008 with a folding stock slapped together for export by Century. While .223 isn’t my first choice for knockdown rounds, your model is knockdown gorgeous, Mr. Volk. I would love to see more of both her and the Vz type rifles.
Here in the States, AR mag compatibility is a huge positive, for simple availability and price.
Well since my pre – Obama “Law Enforcement and Government use only” AR has an effective killing range of 300 meters and my Saiga AK-103 clone has the same effective range and since they both shoot about 2 MOA groups , I’ll take the better killing round. For me that’s the 7.62X39 M-68. But its really just opinion as both rounds are pretty useless above 300 M. and yeh its hard to beat anything that comes out of BRNO (The Vz. 58)
It’s real nice, but there’s no .177 airgun upper for it. A .22 trainer kit does exist.
Are there 5.56 mm laser cartridges?
I wonder what I’ll end up buying eventually.
Norinco AR-15’s and M1A cost the same here, and are apparently pretty good.
Exchange 7.62×39 punch for .223 range in a gun tha can’t easily mount an optic to take advantage of it? I’m not really seeing it.
Is there any actual evidence that 7.62×39 has noticeably more punch than 5.56×45? Seems the main evidence is anecdotes where when a soldier absorbs multiple 7.62 rounds and keeps fighting, he’s on our side and we think of his heroism, whereas when a terrorist absorbs multiple 5.56 rounds and keeps fighting, we think of it as a failure of the round. There’s a reason no military still uses 7.62×39, everybody uses 5.56 or 5.45 unless they’re poor and that’s what’s available. (Or if they want to suppress the sound, small calibers are lousy with subsonic loads.)
5.56 is good choice for the weight of the ammo load; if that’s not a consideration then forget the intermediate-power cartridges altogether and go for 7.62×51 (.308 Win).
Steel plate test, 7.62×39 and 7.6×51 both penetrate, 5.56 and 5.45 do not