Search Results
7/17/2025, 2:54:53 AM
I disagree with 7.62x54r
Their users were generally horrible, and were more likely to lose the rifle than kill someone - or get killed themselves in droves.
Inversely - users of 8x57mm were arguably more effective soldiers. In WW2 alone, their enemies suffered over 12 million military deaths and over 30 million civilian deaths - not all were killed by 8x57mm, but even if the number was 10% - then it still far out paces other calibers.
For the same reason, .30-06 users were also more skillful. While not as long in use as 7.62x54r, it had been in use since WW1 up to the present day. However the main user has generally been late to the parties, other than the Korean War. I would still put the.30-06 behind 8x57mm because their users generally did not use them against civilians.
7.62x54r generally faded from mainstream rifle use in the 50s other than machine guns. So it's kill count would have fallen off a cliff compared to WW2 highs.
Regarding 7.62x39mm one can argue the prolification of AK-47s that it would have killed a lot of people... But the AK-47 itself was superceded by 5.45x39mm rifles so the line blurs.
However we have not had the same levels of deaths compared to WW1 and WW2 so the scale is off for 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm compared full power calibers. You can throw in Africa or the middle east, but a lot of deaths there could be attributed to other calibers too, or just plain starvation.
Same reason with 7.62x51 NATO as above.
Now if you say 5.56x45mm - you gotta keep in mind that it took on average about 45,000 bullets to kill an enemy soldier in Vietnam, and an estimated 300,000 bullets spent to kill in Afghanistan. That said I dont think 5.56 killed more than .30 calibers.
Their users were generally horrible, and were more likely to lose the rifle than kill someone - or get killed themselves in droves.
Inversely - users of 8x57mm were arguably more effective soldiers. In WW2 alone, their enemies suffered over 12 million military deaths and over 30 million civilian deaths - not all were killed by 8x57mm, but even if the number was 10% - then it still far out paces other calibers.
For the same reason, .30-06 users were also more skillful. While not as long in use as 7.62x54r, it had been in use since WW1 up to the present day. However the main user has generally been late to the parties, other than the Korean War. I would still put the.30-06 behind 8x57mm because their users generally did not use them against civilians.
7.62x54r generally faded from mainstream rifle use in the 50s other than machine guns. So it's kill count would have fallen off a cliff compared to WW2 highs.
Regarding 7.62x39mm one can argue the prolification of AK-47s that it would have killed a lot of people... But the AK-47 itself was superceded by 5.45x39mm rifles so the line blurs.
However we have not had the same levels of deaths compared to WW1 and WW2 so the scale is off for 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm compared full power calibers. You can throw in Africa or the middle east, but a lot of deaths there could be attributed to other calibers too, or just plain starvation.
Same reason with 7.62x51 NATO as above.
Now if you say 5.56x45mm - you gotta keep in mind that it took on average about 45,000 bullets to kill an enemy soldier in Vietnam, and an estimated 300,000 bullets spent to kill in Afghanistan. That said I dont think 5.56 killed more than .30 calibers.
Page 1