The 7.62x39 vs. the .223 Rem?


PDA






DennisE
July 24, 2007, 10:26 AM
Assuming similar Ruger carbines to shoot them in, how do the 7.62x39 and the .223 compare in terms of reliability, accuracy and performance? Thanks, Dennis

If you enjoyed reading about "The 7.62x39 vs. the .223 Rem?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
countryrebel
July 24, 2007, 01:43 PM
I have both an ar in 223 and an ak in 7.62x39.Both rounds are fun to shoot,the 223 does have better long range trajectory and accuracy imo.But ak's are not known to have as good accuracy as ar's.As far as performance,
I have used them both on big game at short and long range and never had any problems.I had a mini 14 and it was a fun gun,regret selling it,accuracy was not as good as my ar but my bushmaster costs twice as much.Both should be reliable in the mini's although mine ran better on factory mags.

woof
July 24, 2007, 01:54 PM
Accuracy, reliability and performance. With the two Rugers, if you sought out the best rounds for each, I doubt is there would be much difference in either accuracy or reliability. No fair comparing the best .223 factory loads to cheap 7.62 though. So I guess it comes down to performance, and that is pretty vague without knowing what the intended use is. I suppose the .223 will shoot further and flatter, but the 7.62x39 will do a better job of killing things over about 50lb. I personally find the 7.62x39 more versatile, but then if I were planning to shoot more than 100 yds I'd be using something different altogether.

GunTech
July 24, 2007, 02:30 PM
With non-military ammunition, the 7.62x39 is very close to the 30-30. Bullet weight is limited to about 150g. In in the 7.62x39, with the standard ball around 123 grains, versus the surrent 5.56x45 standard ball of 62gn making the AK rounmd only twice the weight and about 600 fpd slower than the 5.56 (2400 vs 3000 fps).

For a sort range deer rifle, the 7.62x39 loaded with good ammunition is a reasonable choive out to about 250 yards or so. My own pick is the CZ-527 carbine, which is a light and accurate little rifle built for the small cartridge. Give it a look oif you want a bolt gun.

CZ-527 carbine compared to Remington Model 7

http://guntech.com/cz/cz527.jpg

DennisE
July 24, 2007, 03:29 PM
Thanks folks! How do ammo costs and availability compare? Dennis

Werewolf
July 24, 2007, 03:38 PM
Another vote for the CZ-527 over a Ruger Mini-14! And it comes in .223 and 7.62X39. Even cheap Wolf shoots well out of a CZ-527 though to really get the benefit of CZ's excellent out of the box accuracy in 7.62X39 you'll need to handload or buy quality, commercial ammo (not Wolf - Wolf is great for plinking but that's about it).

Wolf 7.62X39 is cheap - compared to .223.
Quality 7.62X39 - i.e. factory ammo made in the USA (Winchester makes it and I think Remington does too) is more expensive and a bit harder to find than .223.

You can handload 7.62X39 for about 1/3 to 1/2 what a good US manufactured load would cost you.

7.62X39 is very close ballisticly to a 30-30. It's a bit slower but the spitzer style bullet the 7.62X39 uses vice the round nose the 30-30 uses provides IMO better external ballistics in the same weight bullet.

If you can hunt it with a 30-30 you can hunt it with equal results with a 7.62X39 (well almost).

woof
July 24, 2007, 05:02 PM
If you decide you want a cz carbine in .223, I can point you to a new in box for $450 shipped. The guy had one in .223 and one in 7.62, I bought the latter and it is pristine.

woof
July 24, 2007, 05:04 PM
re ammo for 7.62x39 - I am using Barnaul's Brown Bear 125 gr soft point and I am very impressed. I picked it up for 93 bucks for 500 and that is with shipping.

buck00
July 24, 2007, 05:11 PM
The 7.62x39 vs. the .223 Rem?

7.62 x 39 vs .223?? I don't this question has ever been asked before. :)

Spiggy
July 24, 2007, 05:25 PM
tons of times, but no one has every chimed in to say "I have an AK in .223 and an AR in 7.62x39" and given us statistics about that!

Byron
July 24, 2007, 06:50 PM
Woof, I must respectfully disagree with your summation of the 223 vs 7.62x39.I used the M193 in Nam in 68-69 as a 20 year old grunt with the 4th Inf Div. Our round was the M193 and was devistating to the person shoot. That is not to beliitle the 7.62x39 round.We had one man hit in the shoulder with the AK round,jump up,chased the NVA and killed him.His wound was serious and he was taken back to the rear for surgery and did not return to the field.
Byron

woof
July 24, 2007, 06:55 PM
I don't know that there is a disagreement. .223 rounds are reported to have done remarkable things. Still, if I had to stop something of 150-200 lbs and I knew I only had one shot, I'd much rather take the one shot with the 7.62x39. Plus, the .223 isn't legal for deer in most states.

GunTech
July 24, 2007, 08:58 PM
My one bitch about the 7.62x39 for hunting is that it is harder to find good 0.311 bullets. You can use 0.308 bullets in some rifles, but performance can be spotty. The bore on the CZ-527 is 0.3105. My own experience is that I gain about 100 fpd shooting 311 bullets versus 308. It's best to stick with 150 or under.

The big advantage of the 30-30 is that most 30-30 loads are designed to be safe in tubular magazine, whereare the 7.62x39 is typically loaded with a spitzer. The 30-30 will be a bit faster out of the barrel, but by 100 yards, the 7.62x39 has more energy.

I like the CZ-527 because it's around 6 pounds and shoot quite well. Recoil is basically non-existant, so it is a perfect rifle for those who prefer less recoil - particular older children (the rifle is also fairly compact). Detachable mags are nice, as is the mini-sized mauser action. The trigger is very good - a single set type that is fully adjustable for take-up, sear engagement and overtravel.

I bought my with the intention of converting it to 6.5 Grendel, but a steady supply of cheap practice amo makes it hard to rationalize a caliber change.

benEzra
July 24, 2007, 10:51 PM
.223 is somewhat better for target shooting (less recoil, flatter trajectory) and HD (better selection of defensive loads available, less wall penetration).

7.62x39mm is more versatile (you can shoot targets with it, but you can also hunt with it). Match grade ammo and good defensive ammo is hard to find though (it's out there, but you have to look for it).

Price these days is comparable.

In the Ruger Mini platform, both will be reliable. The only downside is, you'll have to do a bit of searching to find reliable magazines holding more than 5 rounds (they're out there, though).

Now, if you start looking into guns other than the Ruger Mini-xx, then this will turn into an AR vs. AK debate, and that is a whole 'nother thread.

MMcfpd
July 24, 2007, 11:03 PM
Well, I've got ARs and SKSs and an AK. The ARs are definitely more accurate, but I wondered about the 7.62 round in a tighter platform. So I've just put together a 7.62 AR and ordered a scope for it today. I'll have some kind of opinion in a week or two.

If you enjoyed reading about "The 7.62x39 vs. the .223 Rem?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!