7.62x39 vs 7.6251


May 5, 2007, 09:57 AM
I'm a bit confused..... I gather they're both the same caliber diamater.... but different lengths is it?

comparing the bullets... and another one comparing the cartridges (or whatever combination of that) - it would be great.

Also, if anybody has any links or info on ballistics comparison of the two - I'd appreciate it.

This is just for my own personal usage as I have the money now for my 2 Colt AR's..... but I'm starting to seriously doubt whether or not I want to go with 5.56 for my defense long-gun.

I don't think there's anything wrong with 5.56x45 ..... but I do have to wonder if there might be something with a little more marginal effectiveness worth looking at. I wouldn't go above 7.62..... so it's either 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 or 7.62x51.

And I'm having cold feet about the AR platform and am starting to think about FAL and AK.

If you enjoyed reading about "7.62x39 vs 7.6251" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 5, 2007, 10:00 AM
The longer the case, the more powder you can put in it, which means you can push a heavier bullet faster - which translates to doing more damage to whatever is hit, by going deeper and causing a stronger shockwave.

El Tejon
May 5, 2007, 10:02 AM
x39, x51 refers to the case length in millimeters.

The answer to your concern about "effectiveness" is what do you intend to use the weapon for?

Ben Shepherd
May 5, 2007, 10:06 AM
A rough comparison:
7.62X39=30-30 roughly powerwise. But with a little better balistics due to a spire point slug.

7.62X51= 308 winchester.

As for exact diameters: A 7.62X39 uses a .311 or.312 diameter slug, while a 7.62X51 uses a .308 diameter slug.

May 5, 2007, 10:14 AM
ballistic tables : http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ballistics/?url=%2Fballistics%2F762_39mm_russian.html&x=10&y=6

stopping power : .308/7.62 x 51mm > 7.62 x 39mm > .223/5.56 x 45mm

edited to add sentence on stopping power.

Mr White
May 5, 2007, 10:17 AM
x39 shoots a 125 grain bullet @~ 2400 fps
x54R shoots a 150 grain bullet @~2800 fps.

www.wolfammo.com shows muzzle velocities and energies but not much else as far as ballistics.

May 5, 2007, 10:17 AM
One little known aspect is that the 7.62X39 bullet itself measures .310 while the 7.62X51 (.308) is an actual .308. I have reloaded for .303 (actual .311) British using the X39 bullet, but it is NOT recomended for reloading in a .308.

May 5, 2007, 10:47 AM
Of the three, and I own a number of all three, I like the 7.62x39 the best for a combative type rifle. I like to call it a .308K. Its got more punch on heavier things than the 5.56, and works as well out to 300 yards. I consider both rifles to be 300 yard guns.

Compared to most .308 rifles, the 7.62x39's come in a much handier package, and usually carry 1/3 more ammo in the mag. They are generally easier to shoot well with, especially quickly at close range.

The .308 is a great round too, but the rifles for it are generally larger and heavier, and realistically, anything past 300 yards is a stretch, especially for open sights on realistic targets.( bullseyes on a nice opaque background at a known distance dont qualify as "realistic" ;) ) For longer range, more precision shooting, I personally prefer a bolt gun. But if you just have to have an auto, I'll take an HK91/G3 for an overall gun, or the M1A's for a target rifle. I've had FAL's, and I'll just leave it at that, I had them. :)

Contrary to what you usually hear,(although thats changing somewhat) the AK's are actually a great little rifle. Some schools are even now beginning to accept them as so and promoting them, which I think is a good thing. I think most of the bad mouthing comes from those who never actually used one, or really spent any quality time with one to learn it. For the most part, leave it as it comes and play with it awhile and you'll understand. The only thing that really is worth adding is an Ultimak mount and an Aimpoint. In that configuration, they are every bit as fast and easy to shoot with as a dot sighted AR, or anything else for that matter.

May 5, 2007, 10:52 AM
good info guys.... keep it coming.... I have a feeling a mod will come along and see that I accidentally posted this in GGD and move it to Rifle Country, which is where this was meant to be..... but in the meantime great info. :)

as for intended usage.... as with most of my guns, aside from .22's, they're for HM/SD, but I want them to be powerful enough and usable enough for a SHTF situation (I haven't a clue what that would be.... but it never hurts to be prepared). However, assuming that never happens, they'll probably be used at the range and eventually passed down to my children should I have some in the future so that they could protect themselves.

I'm just looking for a good defensive rifle for just-in-case, and if it's fun at the range, that's an added bonus.

Something around the lines of either an AR, AK, FAL, etc...... I figure I have until probably the end of this year to buy them.... because I think AWB's are going to start becoming a real possibility soon.

May 5, 2007, 10:53 AM
AK103K - that's more or less what I've been hearing....

btw - what is the availability of 7.62x39 ammo both now and forecasted long-term?

May 5, 2007, 10:56 AM
I'm in the 30 caliber club. I use 7.62x39 for a general purpose round/brush gun/home defense/etc. I use a 308 for heavy hitting/hunting/etc.

I have to agree with AK103K. Aks have a strong, loyal following that is rightly deserved. I even use the AK platform for my .308 choice-- the .308 Saiga.

I'm not trying to go down the road of a AR vs. AK debate, or even a 5.56 vs 7.62x39 vs .308 debate. That is like trying to nail jello to the wall-- a lot of hammering, but no getting anywhere. The choices of my calibers/platforms are based on personal preference and work for me.

All the best!


May 5, 2007, 10:58 AM
nope.... I'm not even really wanting to compare 5.56 to 7.72 right now.

I was more interested in the difference between the two 7.62's.... seems that's been covered, and actually for the most part, my question has been answered.

btw - anybody have both 7.62's and can take a photo of them side by side for me?

May 5, 2007, 10:59 AM

Is this it? The caption on the site says:

Left to right: The 7.62mm NATO round, the 7.62 Intermediate, and the 5.56mm.

is the 7.62 "intermediate" the 7.62x39?

May 5, 2007, 11:03 AM
I think you just nailed it with the photo, TheEconomist.

is the 7.62 "intermediate" the 7.62x39?

That's actually a pretty good description, in my opinion. That has always been the mindset I've used in applying the 7.62x39 round to my needs/wants.

-- John

May 5, 2007, 11:47 AM
Personally, if you have the money, I'd go with an AR in .223.

More accurate, less recoil, and a good FLAT shooting cartridge - you don't have to consider bullet drop as much - a lot of folks leave that out when talking about the AK...

Probably cheaper to shoot than a .308, but more expensive than an AK, at least as long as we have cheapo comblock ammo.

You could ALSO get an AR-15 with two uppers - one for .223 and one for 7.62x39... You're probably not going to fit a .308 in a (standard construction) AR very easily... And when you get into non-standard construction, you get into some expensive magazines, etc., etc.

I have the money now for my 2 Colt AR's

Why Colt?

Suggestion: Save a LITTLE bit more, and buy one Bushy AR-15 with both .223 and 7.62x39 uppers, AND a Savage 110-variant bolt action in .308.

May 5, 2007, 12:16 PM
this may sound stupid, but when factoring ammo costs, keep in mind I only buy brand new factory-fresh ammo if possible.

If I went with an AR, I'd probably stock up on Hornady TAP 60 or 75 grain.

Same for .308

for 7.62x39 though.... I have no idea where to look. The only stuff I see is that Federal produces it in their American Eagle line.

May 5, 2007, 12:18 PM
bogie - originally I was saving up for Colts for two reasons:

1) I've heard they're fairly reliable.
2) At some point they'll have collector's value.

although, I have to admit, lately, if I was to go with .223, I'd probably go with the new Sig 556 if it's available yet. I haven't seen it in any store so far. The gas-piston was the deal-breaker.

May 5, 2007, 12:21 PM
Economist, the pictures are OK, but you have to hold the cartridges in your hands to feel it. Ok that's how I learn, others might have better imaginations.

I tell you, there's nothing so humbling as the other day when I was pulling 210gr Swedish 7.92mm bullets out of old cartridges, and picked up a 55gr 5.56 for comparison. I attached a 5.56 ballistic chart, but don't have an M43 one.

That said, imo the benefits of 5.56 are that you zero once and you're good to 300+m (350 with a 20" barrel), never worry about it again. Likewise you can go farther ranges than M43 (7.62x39) before it becomes a problem. For SHTF fragmenting distances are 100 or 150m (20" barrel), and past that the bullets, in theory, make small wounds. But I sort of figure that if you were deterring looters or something, a little hole would still do it. If you were in the mountains and stranded, and had to use the rifle to hunt, I guess the 5.56 might give some problems at close range by maybe not penetrating enough. And if you saw a deer through some bushes, the bullet would fragment in mid-air if it hits a twig, so that's a bad aspect too.

M43 has better terminal ballistics once 5.56 passes fragmenting range, and almost always penetrates deeper. So in bushes and the 'bear defence' threads you'd be better off.

On AKs and SKS in general, I like the feel of the SKS, but I don't like the open sights, I'm not old but my eyes aren't perfect, and the SKS open sights are unforgiving if you can't see clearly.

May 5, 2007, 12:22 PM
I agree pretty much entirely with AK103K (down to the G3 as my overall choice in 7.62x51).

When using my AK in a carbine course, I noticed a couple of things that put it below the AR-15 platform. The sights on mine are standard iron, I really need an aimpoint or cobra or some such. The mag reloads are slower, they just are. Yes, I know you can pick up the speed with practice, but I don't think it'll ever be to the speed of the AR. Then the bolt hold open/release of the AR. Finally, the recoil on the 7.62x39 (I didn't have enough ammo for my 5.45 variants that day) was significant. Or more accurately, the muzzle climb was noticable. That ak had no muzzle device at all, not even a slant break--i'd like to see that caliber running with a sail brake of the '74 style. Oh, and the safety manipulation was a PIA. I'm going to order one of those fancy blackjack extended safeties soon, I swear (but that's not the caliber, that's the platform).

Now, all that is just off of a carbine course with a long shot being 40 meters, if that. One guy was running a FAL carbine, and that little boomer was a hoot to watch. We both trailed in the times, but it was my first time, and um, i got some sand in my eyes and my shoes wouldn't stay tied...

A FAL or a G3 isnt as handy and the ergo's on a G3 leave a lot to be desired.

I take deer with all three calibers and and the consistent "drop 'em where they stand" rifle is the 308.

May 5, 2007, 12:51 PM
Ok, so far I've found that ammo availability for 7.62x39 is:

Federal American Eagle


Wolf Ammunition (they make two variants actually - a 122 grain HP and a 154 grain SP) - although with all the problems I've heard about steel-case damaging pistol extractors.... how does this work with rifles? Same issues?

and here is Wolf's side by side of 7.62x51 and 7.62x39


obviously on the right it looks bigger because the pic is closer up.

May 5, 2007, 01:01 PM
I'm pretty sure there's WWB 7.62x39. I seem to recall seeing some at the local Wally-World.

May 5, 2007, 01:02 PM
I resized the individual pics to make it a level playing field for comparison:


Jorg Nysgerrig
May 5, 2007, 01:03 PM
There are a couple of schools of thought regarding the proponents of using steel-caseed ammo.

One is "commie ammo for commie guns". This camps believes that the Eastern Bloc weapons were designed for steel cased ammo and therefore it runs fine in them.

The other is the one that may appeal more to you. I would call them the "cost/benefit crowd". This group figures that if you should enough steel-cased ammo to damage your gun, you've saved enough on ammo that you can have the gun repaired/replaced and still be ahead over brass-cased ammo.

May 5, 2007, 01:04 PM
quote : Ok, so far I've found that ammo availability for 7.62x39 is:

Federal American Eagle and Wolf Ammunition.

7.62 x 39mm at cheaperthan dirt.com : http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ammowizard.asp



May 5, 2007, 01:10 PM
The reason I like the HK91/G3's is, they are the most versatile as they come and have what I think are the best "combat" iron sights going. Accuracy wise, they will hold there own with all but the match grade M1A's, and even there they arent all that far off. They are readily scoped or red doted with a claw mount and have a sling system most everyone else tries to copy. Everything has something that isnt great, and the HK's are no different, the charging handle being probably the biggest annoyance for most. They can be modified with a winter knob to make them a little easier.

A couple of things on the AK's. With familiarization and use, 99.9% of the complaints go away.( unless of course, you just want to bitch. :) ) The stock is not to short, and the safety and mag release can be manipulated with your hand still on the grip. The iron sights are really not all that bad, and I actually prefer them for fast, close shooting. They can be a little tedious for longer range precision shooting, but they will still hit what your shooting at if your up to it.

Two things you will most likely want to do right off when you get your rifle is take five minutes with a jewelers file. The safety and mag release are your victims. The mag release is a stamping, and every AK I've owned, and most of the new guns I've handled, have this problem. The edges are sharp from the stamping process and due to this, tend to "grab" the mag at the contact point, making it hard to release the mag. If you lightly "break" the edges of the release, the problem goes away.
The safety also can be stiff and/or feel hard to sweep off. They all have a little, pointy nub that makes the "arc" in the finish on the receiver. This nub usually rests in some sort of detent in the receiver. This can differ from maker to maker and can be more of an issue with some rifles. If you flatten the nub with a file, and sometimes relieve the detent a little at the bottom, where the nub leaves it, so the nub doesnt hold on to it as tight, the safety should smooth right up. I dont recommend bending the safety, it shouldnt be necessary.

Doing those two little things, all my AK's safeties are easily swept off using the middle finger of my hand on the grip (I dont have big hands) if I want it off in a hurry. I can also release the mag the same way using the same finger, and most all my mags will drop free (especially from standing) if I want to do that type of reload.

The bolt hold open thing is also really a non issue. When the AK stops going bang, you reload. How simple is that? Every time you reload, be it an empty mag, or a tactical type reload, you ALWAYS work the charging handle at the end. That way, the rifle is ALWAYS loaded after a mag change. As for speed of doing a change, no, it will never be as quick as an AR in a race, but its really not all that much slower, and I think to much is really made about the speed thing anyway. If the target is close, thats what your pistol is for, if its farther away, I'd be worrying about getting somewhere there was cover first.


I still have a decent supply of 7.62x39 I bought when it was cheap. It has gone up a good bit of late, but then again, so has everything. If your going that route, I'd buy as much as you can afford. Personally, I wouldnt waste my money on Federal or any of the American makers stuff. I like Barnaul (Silver and Brown Bears now) the best, as its always been the most consistent of the Russian stuff. The soft points are my favorite. Wolf works, but its quality can vary and I usually get one or two "fail to fires" per case. The last couple of cases of Wolf 154 grain SP's I bought was very good, both in accuracy and reliability. Using open sights from my old SAR, I was getting about fist size groups from a rest at 200 yards with it. If you find a lot of ammo that shoots good in your gun, buy as much as you can and squirrel it away. Shoot everything else for fun.

May 5, 2007, 03:57 PM
1) If you're looking for accuracy, reload.

2) If you're looking for volume of shooting, buy surplus.

3) If you're looking to shoot Bambi's mama and/or daddy once a year, buy the $1/round stuff.

Seriously - There's basically no difference between a Colt AR and a Bushy AR. The lower receiver can work fine with several different uppers. You could have one lower, and a .223 upper, a 7.62x39 upper, and a .50 Beowulf upper.

I do recommend putting in a good aftermarket trigger (even if you buy the "premium" Colt). I like Arnold Jewell's.

May 5, 2007, 04:16 PM
I used to have three 7.62x39 guns but I sold them because I am not convinced that Wolf,Silver Bear, etc will deliver the same performance as an actual military surplus 7.62x39 round. I don't want a 30 caliber ice pick any more than I want a .223 ice pick. With nato headstamped 5.56, I know I will get decent terminal performance at the ranges I would take shots. If I need more than that I have 7.62x51 to fall back on.

May 5, 2007, 04:20 PM
Economist, the pictures are OK, but you have to hold the cartridges in your hands to feel it. Ok that's how I learn, others might have better imaginations.

That, and hold the RIFLES in your hands as well. The AR or AK platform for an intermediate chambering such as 7.62x39 or 5.56 will be considerably lighter and easier to tote than the CETME, FN-FAL or M1A platform for a high power chambering such as .308.

because I am not convinced that Wolf,Silver Bear, etc will deliver the same performance as an actual military surplus 7.62x39 round.

?? That's kind of strange. Where did you get the notion that the commercial sellers downloaded their x39? The Cor-Bon commercial loads are in fact considerably hotter and more effective than any ball loads. Besides, you know you can buy surplus ball x39, right?

May 5, 2007, 04:31 PM
If you want fragmentation, the Wolf 123 grain JHP tends to explode in stuff pretty well.

I use 150 grain soft points in my .308 for making big holes in stuff. I'm going to try out some 150 Power Points from Georgia Arms this summer.

May 6, 2007, 02:03 AM
7.62x39 and 5.56x45 are roughly comparable. They are "short" rounds, in a different power class than "full" battle rifle rounds.

.308 Winchester chambers can shoot .308 Winchester (duh) and 7.62x51, also known as 7.62 NATO. These almost identical rounds are full-power battle rifle rounds and are a class above the "short" rounds mentioned above. These are also comparable to (although less flexible than) the .30-06 rifle round.

Decide on your rifle's primary application to decide which caliber to pick. If you desire to do shorter-range work with minimal recoil, then pick a "short" rifle round. If you wish to have the option to take longer shots *and* have those shots be able to hit harder and penetrate much more cover than any of the "short" rifle rounds, then consider the .308/7.62x51.

Once you pick the cartridge you want, then start looking at specific platforms, such as the AR-15 or the AK-47. For any rifle which may one day be used in a self-defence scenario, I would personally place heavy emphasis on reliability over any other aspect of a platform.
I would encourage a person not to get hung up on ergonomics and features over reliability - if both can be found in a particular platform, great. If not, go with the most reliable design.
AR platforms are one of the most featureful designs out there, some of which I think make good combat sense (the last-round bolt hold-open device, for example), but most AK-derived designs are unquestionably more reliable.

So, in summary:
1. pick the application
2. pick the cartridge
3. pick the specific platform/rifle
... for best results.

May 6, 2007, 03:15 AM
Out of my M1A I shoot NATO stamped 7.62 147 grain. I can hit targets all day long @ 400 yards I haven't tried a longer shot but with my mil dot 6-24x40 scope I'm sure I can go much further and still hit a 18" target. I expect my max range to be 800 yards although it is possible to reach 1,000. I have an AR-15 and shoot 5.56 to a range of no more than 300 yards effectively I'm not sure the round has much velocity further than that. My mini-14 shoots .223 and I'm not sure it will be acurate over 200-300 yards.

When in doubt I'll use the largest caliber for the job. Wrong tool = wrong results.

Long range: 300-1,000 Yards
Remington 700 in .30-06
M1A in .762
Medium Range: 100 - 300 Yards
AR-15 in 5.65
Mini-14 in .223
Short range: 25-100 yards
870 12 Gague with #00 or slugs
or AR-15, Mini-14, or .45, 357, 9mm
Up close & Personal: 0-25 yards
9mm, .38

May 6, 2007, 09:40 AM
because I am not convinced that Wolf,Silver Bear, etc will deliver the same performance as an actual military surplus 7.62x39 round.

?? That's kind of strange. Where did you get the notion that the commercial sellers downloaded their x39? The Cor-Bon commercial loads are in fact considerably hotter and more effective than any ball loads. Besides, you know you can buy surplus ball x39, right?

Shooting it back to back with surplus ammo gave me that notion. Milsurp may still be available but in my area it is not, where as I can buy ammo with an animal in the name all day. Besides, 5.56 performs better on living creatures than M43. If I need to shoot through something that M855 cannot penetrate I have 7.62x51. I have shot the Corbon 7.62x39 too but it is too expensive to stock pile.

May 6, 2007, 04:39 PM
how much recoil are we talking about when we talk about 7.62x51?

More recoil than most handguns?

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 6, 2007, 04:58 PM
how much recoil are we talking about when we talk about 7.62x51?

It's a full-power rifle round. I'm not sure how one would compare it to a handgun as the perceived recoil of a rifle is much different than that out of a handgun. The kick is going to be much closer to a .30-06 than a .223.

May 6, 2007, 05:06 PM
Yup, more than most handguns.

Of the three rounds being discussed, it usually has the most felt recoil. Most of the 7.62x51 military rifles run in the 9-10 pound range and that, and the fact that most are gas operated, soaks up a little of it. Some complain the HK's kick harder, but I never really noticed it. Shoot the same round out of a light weight bolt and you will notice a difference.

I wouldnt really call the 7.62x51 a "kicker", but you may if you didnt learn to shoot with one, or any of the larger rifle calibers. Most of the older boys who learned to shoot on the 30/06, 7.62x51, 8mm, etc, learned to shoot them properly and generally dont notice. If you learned on a M16 and try to hold the rifle like one, you will most likely notice a difference. :)

May 6, 2007, 05:25 PM
no.... only M16 I've used is CRKT's M16.

My rifle experience is very limited. I only own .22's right now for rifles. I don't care if I jump right in recoil-wise, afterall, I learned how to shoot a handgun on a Smith 340PD with .357 mag rounds.

I just have to make up my mind so I know what to buy.

May 6, 2007, 08:58 PM

If we knew your general location, some THR members might offer to let you test out some of their rifles.

May 6, 2007, 09:16 PM
This is just for my own personal usage as I have the money now for my 2 Colt AR's..... but I'm starting to seriously doubt whether or not I want to go with 5.56 for my defense long-gun.

Defense from what? If you're out in the boonies, it's probably no big deal if you use a .308 or 7.62x39 for self defense. In apartments or even suburban houses, 5.56x45 has the least risk of severe overpenetration. I'm pretty sure a .308 can go through a bad guy, through walls into the apartment/house next door, and kill/wound the neighbors.

And I'm having cold feet about the AR platform and am starting to think about FAL and AK.

heh, the AR vs AK debate. They both work, so I say buy both and then duct tape them together to have the ULTIMATE WEAPON(S)! :neener:

May 7, 2007, 01:07 AM
As AK103K mentioned, the type of platform used can make a big difference in felt or perceived recoil.

I use a .308 Galil with a flash suppressor, which is a heavy beast, and the lack of a muzzle break means I still get a "fair" amount of recoil. That said, however, the first time I went out to the range with it, I blasted 400 rounds out of it while wearing just a single T-shirt and with the "stock" hard plastic folding stock. I will admit to having a bit of a sore spot on my shoulder for the next two days. By contrast, I use two recoil pads when shooting a 12-gauge.

End result: get a gas-operated .308 and one generic recoil pad and you'll be set, even if you're a recoil wimp like me. :)

May 7, 2007, 01:44 AM
My rifle experience is very limited. I only own .22's right now for rifles. I don't care if I jump right in recoil-wise, afterall, I learned how to shoot a handgun on a Smith 340PD with .357 mag rounds.

Recoil is between the ears, not between the hands. If you are disciplined enough to shoot a 340PD you will have no trouble with any of the military rifle rounds.

May 7, 2007, 07:32 AM
CZ makes a sweet little bolt action carbine in 7.62x39. Just so you know... :D

May 7, 2007, 05:01 PM
My .02 is stick with 7.62x51. Nato round that does most
everything, in use, mostly brass cased. Still get grade one
cases from Midway and others. Suspect once conflict is over
Milsurp will be available again. Even though some will load the
steel cases none are offered for that purpose. The reloading
will get ya through until mgf. catches up. Most likely the demand
will keep high, until until availabity returns.

May 7, 2007, 06:41 PM
Agreed that recoil is mostly between the ears.

Just getting used to it is one thing. If you can, to your bones, know it's gonna happen and that's OK, you'll hardly notice it.
The other thing is mounting it properly. There's a huge difference between recoiling onto muscle vs. bone. Get the body mechanics down right, with a thick cushion of muscle in the right place, and pain will be minimized. Put that stock square on your collarbone, and it's gonna HURT.

April 13, 2008, 04:25 PM
Always remember to factor in the terrain you might be using the rifle in during a home defense situation. If you might have to shoot through windows, light brush, or are in an area where overpenetration isn't a problem, then the 7.62x39 is a good bet.

If you're in an area where you probably won't have to fire through anything but air, and where overpenetration is a major concern, then 5.56x45 is a good idea.

If you're planning on using the rifle for long range hunting or long range target shooting, along with home defense that may require glass penetration and brush penetration, and no problems with overpenetration... then 7.62x51 is a good cartridge.

Platforms are a personal thing, you should really try them out to get a feel for which one fits you best. Listen to other people's opinions about them, but don't use opinions as a deciding factor.

Personally, I prefer the feel of my SKS-M over all of my other rifles. It's fitted with a tapco T6 stock with a forward vertical grip and a red dot mounted on a siderail AK type scope mount. The SKS-M is designed to use 30rd AK magazines, so it isn't limited to 10rds like most SKS's. It also has a 16" barrel, which is shorter than the usual 20" SKS. It costs about the same as a basic AK ($350). The recoil is more than an AR or AK, but this rifle is unbraked (which may change soon).

April 13, 2008, 08:54 PM
The big problem with recoil isn't it beating the snot out of you, (at least not with the cartridges we're talking about), but rather it's effect on your speed and followup shots. The harder the kick, the longer it will take you to get back on target and fire your next shot.

If you enjoyed reading about "7.62x39 vs 7.6251" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!