Rethinking the 7.62x39mm


PDA






GunTech
August 6, 2007, 11:32 AM
I'll start this out by saying I have never been a particular fan of the 7.62x39mm. It rainbow like trajectory and tendecy to drill through things has never caught my fancy when looking at service rifle option. I've always lookt at AKs in 5.56, which in it's military guise is really a better stopper. Even 5.45x39mm does abetter job. The FMJ 123 ball just doesn't do anything. At least the M193 and M855 ball will break up at typical combat ranges.

However, the recent threads on SHTF rifles had made me rething my position, particularly as I have a 7.62x39 bolt action CZ-527 which does excellent duty as a brush gun. If one thinks of 7,.62x39mm with soft point bullets as a 30-30, comparisons become very different.

I am starting to think that for general purpose SHTF close in work, ther M43 round may be the better pick than the 5.56, if using expanding ammo.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Rethinking the 7.62x39mm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Father Knows Best
August 6, 2007, 11:37 AM
I don't know how well the M43 or any other 7.62x39 round actually expands. My understanding is that the currently imported "soft point" and "hollow point" rounds don't really expand at all, but are made solely to comply with regulations many states have that prohibit hunting with spire-point FMJ bullets.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the 7.62x39, actually, is the lack of high quality projectiles. I'm a hand loader, and it has been frustrating trying to find good bullets. There are dozens of choices in just about every other rifle caliber, but the range of .311 caliber projectiles used in the 7.62x39 is very small, and almost nobody carries what few decent projectiles are available.

rbernie
August 6, 2007, 11:55 AM
I've hunted almost exclusively with 7.62x39 handloads for years now. For anything thin-skinned inside of 200-250 yards and under 400lbs, it's all I need.

It's trajectory isn't as bad as y'all make it sound. Sighted in at 2.75" high at 100 yards, it'll drop no more than 3" at 225yd (given a Hornady 123gr SP over 2Xgr of H4198 moving out at 2400fps at the muzzle of my AR15) and have just under 1000fpe at that range. That's plenty good for most deer and hog hunting done in the US.

Use decent bullets and it's a fine performer on game.

ETA: Brassfetcher did a test of Wolf SP 154gr 7.62x39 - http://www.brassfetcher.com/7.62x39mm%20Wolf%20154gr%20Soft%20Point.html

Snowdog
August 6, 2007, 12:00 PM
The FMJ 123 ball just doesn't do anything. At least the M193 and M855 ball will break up at typical combat ranges.


You're correct; if you're bent on something that would "break up" at typical combat ranges, forget FMJ ammunition.
If you're considering the purchase of a rifle for SHTF, why not consider a few hundred rounds of decent ammunition for it as well? Three hundred 7.62x39 Ballistic Tips from Georgia Arms should see you through just about anything (unless you intend to thrust yourself into combat at every opportunity and expend thousands of rounds each encounter).

For this reason, my Springfield FAL clone is loaded with 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tips and there's another 200 rounds of the same in a day pack nearby. If I ever to have to grab and go, I don't plan to engage anyone unless absolutely necessary and even then I don't plan to wage wars... just defend or evade.

As for the rainbow trajectory of the 7.62x39, I'm sure you're aware that it was never generally considered an ideal cartridge for snipercraft. If you want flatter trajectory from a military .30 caliber cartridge, perhaps you should simply step up to the 7.62x51.

After several years of searching for the perfect SHTF rifle myself, I discovered it was smarter to simply pick a decent centerfire rifle and become proficient with it rather than mulling over the ballistic attributes of any particular cartridge. I believe the time you spend becoming proficient with a rifle is a far better investment than debating a cartridge's effectiveness.

GTSteve03
August 6, 2007, 12:37 PM
At least the M193 and M855 ball will break up at typical combat ranges.
The Wolf Military Classic (NOT standard black box) hollowpoint round fragments quite well, based on many wet-pack tests.

It's my current SHTF loadout for my Saiga conversion.

GunTech
August 6, 2007, 12:47 PM
I've been loading for my 7.62x39mm CZ-527, and yes, there is a very limited range of bullets available. Speer and Hornaday. I've been shooting the speer 123 0.310 SP (My bore is actually 0.3105 according to CZ). I've also used 308 bullets in it, with decent accuracy, but a loss of about 100 fps. Anyone tried 308 bullets in their AK?

I have to order these as no-one carries any 0.311 bullets locally.

I've noticed many 7.62x39 dies come with two ball expanders - one for 308 bullets and one for 311.

I've been thinking of adding another servce rifle, mostly becasue I see a ban being very likely in the next year. I've been leaning towards a 223, as i have a flaming metric buttload of loaded 223 ammo (almost 40,000 rounds). I looks at both an AK and a Galil (Golani).

But I already have a few 223 rifles, including the obigatory M-forgery with all the goodies. And I do have the CZ-527 carbine, si I need to load for 7.62x39mm anyway. It also looks like a 7.62x39mm with all the trimming is a bit cheaper. With good hunting ammo, it looks like the 7.62x39 could work as a decent brush rifle. Provided I could fine something that would shoot around 2 MOA.

BTW, my goto rifle is M1A.

GunTech
August 6, 2007, 12:49 PM
If I don't opt for 7.62x39mm, the CZ-527 is going to get 'Grendelized'.

I wonder how an AK would run in 6.5 Grendel. It wouldn't be cheap, but it might be pretty interesting.

SSN Vet
August 6, 2007, 12:52 PM
Hornady 123gr SP

just picked up a box of these last weekend for my first x39 reloads.

they're not cheap....but nothing is these days.

dodging230grainers
August 6, 2007, 12:52 PM
For SHTF remember that the most important factor is that you have a gun, and that it actually works.

Most AKs are extremely reliable, which make them good SHTF guns. Its true that at close range the 7.62 Soviet's wounding capabilities aren't as strong usually as say a .223. However if the target is wearing body armor (which is likely in a SHTF), or is behind cover, the 7.62 Soviet is much more promising.

If you find yourself needing to make a shot past 300 yards-ish, you probably shouldn't be using an assault rifle in the first place. Use a FAL, Garand, or your favorite bolt action. Scopes help too.

Tony Williams
August 7, 2007, 03:16 AM
Don't forget that not all 7.62x39 FMJ ball rounds are equal. Some are available with lead cores rather than the standard steel (the Yugoslavian military loading being one, I believe) and this alters the balance of the bullet so that it tumbles much more rapidly on impact.

chris in va
August 7, 2007, 04:32 AM
Some are available with lead cores

Actually, I cut open one of my Wolf FMJ bullets and found a lead core inside a steel jacket.

I don't pretend to know much about reloading and all that, but I think the Brassfetcher gelatin picture pretty much says it all.

BTW I also have a CZ carbine in x39. Great gun.

Ithaca37
August 7, 2007, 09:14 AM
There is all of this talk of gelatin testing and fragmenting, wounding potential, etc. What a load of BS. The 7.62x39 works. So does the 5.56. The only reason people don't respect the x39 is that it is russian and therefore assumed to be communist crap.
If you hit someone in vital organs, they will die with a 7.62x39, 5.56, whatever. If you do not hit the in the nervous or cardiovascular system they might not die or may take time to do so. The heart and lungs don't give a damn how big of a "temporary cavity" your bullet makes they don't work well with any kind of hole in them.

Its true that at close range the 7.62 Soviet's wounding capabilities aren't as strong usually as say a .223.
Think about it, you are talking about "wounding potential"!! If I am in combat, I want killing potential, not wounding potential, wounded people can still pose a threat.

GunTech
August 7, 2007, 09:31 AM
Actually, actual combat result confirm the paucity of wounds produced by the 7.76x39 compared to say the 5.56x45. After being on the receiving end (by proxy) of the 5.56x45, the Soviets developed and started to deploy the 5.45x39. Not saying the 223 is the ultimate round, but within the normal operation range its a more effective round. Indeed, after action reporting in Vietname showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51. Both the M43 and M80 ball round tend to flip over and travel base first through the target. In contrast, the M193 tended to breal along the canneleut creating multiple submissiles and producing a disproportionate wound compared to caliber size.

European countries were particularly concerned about this characteristic when NATO began discussion the adoption of the US 5.56 as a NATO standard, and many nations considered the 5.56 to be in copntravention of the Hague convensions regarding rounds that increase suffering. The SS109 was favored in part because it was seen as less lethal than the existing M193 round and thus more palatable by countries such Sweden with a concern for humanitarian reasons.

The debates at the time about SCHV rounds are well documented in publications like "antipersonnel weapons" published by SIPRI (Stokholm International Peace Research institute).

The argument that the AK round was ignored because it was foreign hardly seems likely, as almost all users of early M16s considered the AK to be the superior weapon, pretty much killing the NIH argument.

It should be noted that in this case we are talking about ball ammunition.

dodging230grainers
August 7, 2007, 01:17 PM
Think about it, you are talking about "wounding potential"!! If I am in combat, I want killing potential, not wounding potential, wounded people can still pose a threat.

You misunderstood; by wounding potential I mean blood loss potential which equals killing power. Before someone dies, they have to be mortally wounded.

I have a book called "Gunshot Wounds" by Dr. Vincent Dimaio who is a famous forensic pathologist, and he notes in the book that often times wounds caused by 7.62x39mm FMJ russian surplus would resemble those of handgun wounds, provided it didn't break up or tumble when it hit the target, but rather passed straight through.

The reason is simply because the x39mm has more mass, it requires a longer distance inside the body before it can begin to tumble. As someone said the yugos made an air pocket round that was designed to defeat the this, and enable the slug to tumble earlier.

That said, I'd still think the x39mm is the better combat round due to its ability to defeat armored targets more easily than say the .223.

dstorm1911
August 7, 2007, 01:19 PM
"Tony Williams. Don't forget that not all 7.62x39 FMJ ball rounds are equal. Some are available with lead cores rather than the standard steel (the Yugoslavian military loading being one, I believe) and this alters the balance of the bullet so that it tumbles much more rapidly on impact."

Actually unless ya have a ton of old Chicom steel core imported prior to 1989 then ALL 7.62X39 imported in the USA is lead core its against the law to import or for a dealer to sell steel core 7.62x39 just as it is for 7.62x51 because it is considered a handgun round cause a company back then decided it would be really cool to build an AK pistol.............



Off topic, why doesn't my quote message in reply button work? its blue and does nothing if I click on it after blocking text etc...

Tony Williams
August 7, 2007, 01:21 PM
I'm not aware that the Soviet decision to switch from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39 had anything to do with lethality: lighter and more compact ammunition, plus the greater controllability resulting from reduced recoil, would seem reason enough.

I've read that some experienced Russian units prefer to keep the 7.62 guns, because they find their effectiveness more reliable. The SCHV ammo seems to be more erratic; sometimes it's devastating, sometimes it does little.

rbernie
August 8, 2007, 11:11 AM
I've read that some experienced Russian units prefer to keep the 7.62 guns, because they find their effectiveness more reliable. The SCHV ammo seems to be more erratic; sometimes it's devastating, sometimes it does little.Boy, does that sound familiar. ;)

TOU
August 8, 2007, 01:29 PM
Back to the OP topic...I too have been rethinking the 7.62x39 round. IMHO it is a great kids first or small women's dear rifle as well especially in the 100-150 yard range. Anyway I have had my eye on the CZ 527 carbines as well and just posted an add in the classifieds with a desire to trade for one. I WTT a CZ 12 Ga Mallard Shotgun or CZ 40P Pistol for CZ 527 Carbine 7.62x39.

Let me know if you all hear of something. Thx!

GunTech
August 8, 2007, 04:39 PM
The CZ-527 carbine is a super little rifle, particularly in 7.62x39. Mine weigh just under 6 pounds, and I have a Burris fixed 4x on it. You can mount the scope much lower than the factory rings with a simple mod to the bolt.

With handloads, I can get about 1.5 MOA at 100 yards - minute of deer. Not bad when you consider this is a sporter barrel. The iron sights were dead on.

Some early carbines had occasional misfired with surplus militay ammo thanks to extremely hard primers. CZ will send you a replacement strtiker spring that corrects this.

I got my CZ for $399 NIB because it had been sitting on the rack for a long time. Some people just don't appreciate 7.62x39 as a useful hunting round, but with modern spitzer bullets it's basically a 30-30.

Winchester 7.62x39 brass is very good, and you can safely load much hotter than you would want top use in the AK. Use common sense, and watch for excessive pressure signs. The receiver is designed for 223 pressures, which can run as high as 60,000psi vs 45,000 for the 7.62.

woof
August 8, 2007, 05:08 PM
What exactly is the simple mod to the cz carbine bolt for lower scope mounting? What's involved and who can do it?

Kilgor
August 8, 2007, 05:37 PM
What exactly is the simple mod to the cz carbine bolt for lower scope mounting? What's involved and who can do it?

I'm interested too.

Harley Quinn
August 8, 2007, 06:24 PM
Ithaca37
Good point (about small holes) the situation is this I have seen so many different wounds and you wonder why they died or did not. Shot placement and even if it is correct sometimes it is still not going to kill or it might.

Bottom line is get what you want and like.

The 223 should not be mentioned if you are talking 5.56 and vice versa.

One is one and one is the other. Respecting pressures.

I have seen through and through vehicles with the 7.62X39 I have not seen the same with the 223.

The 223 will go through some things a 7.62x39 won't but, by and by the 7.62x39 is a very efficient dude.

HQ

kcmarine
August 8, 2007, 06:46 PM
Before you read this... realize I am a bored teenager sitting at his computer on a 100 degree day listening to lethargic Gen- X grunge music... mmmm, Nirvana.

Anyways...

Hell... shoot the thing enough in a short amount of time or in the head, and it really doesn't matter how big the bullet is past a certain point... which is at about 5.56 mm. 7.62x39mm Soviet or 5.56x45mm NATO... either way it doesn't really matter. The "insurgents" in Iraq don't seem to be bitching about the "lack of wounding power" in the 7.62mm Soviet. Seems to work great for them... 5.56 isn't a slouch, either. In fact... it works pretty damn well.

Limeyfellow
August 8, 2007, 07:01 PM
Hell... shoot the thing enough in a short amount of time or in the head, and it really doesn't matter how big the bullet is past a certain point... which is at about 5.56 mm. 7.62x39mm Soviet or 5.56x45mm NATO... either way it doesn't really matter. The "insurgents" in Iraq don't seem to be bitching about the "lack of wounding power" in the 7.62mm Soviet. Seems to work great for them... 5.56 isn't a slouch, either. In fact... it works pretty damn well.

Quite true. In Africa poachers use mass numbers of Ak47 to take down elephants for the Ivory trade.

GunTech
August 8, 2007, 07:45 PM
For those who asked, the bolt handle on the CZ-527 ius much thicker on the root than it has to be. Anyone with a belt sander can slim up the root of the bolt handle and gain another 1/4 inch or more of clearance, allowing the use of Warne, Talley, Lynx or similar low mounts, rather than the tall factory rings.

If you are uncompfortable making this mod, or can't reblue and don;t ewant to polish the whole knob, you can get a modified knob from James Calhoon http://www.jamescalhoon.com The cost is $40 plust you knob. They will send you a modified and reblued knob.

I will take some photos and post them as soon as I get my web server back online.

buck00
August 8, 2007, 08:38 PM
I am starting to think that for general purpose SHTF close in work, ther M43 round may be the better pick than the 5.56, if using expanding ammo.

You are on the right track. Next step is to get a nice AK-47. :)

I own an AK-74 clone in 5.45 x 39, an M1A in .308, and an AK-47 clone in 7.62 x 39. If there was a major civil crisis (SHTF) or a large group of thugs attempting a home invasion- I'd grab my AK-47 first, hands-down without hesistation and never look back.

In my own opinion, if there was a serious situation- softpoint, JHP, or FMJ wouldn't really matter on the ground- just shot placement and volume of fire. :evil:

Good luck.



http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=62090&stc=1&d=1186616214

Marlin 45 carbine
August 8, 2007, 08:46 PM
Wow, they're all bunched up, good time to open up with a couple 12 ga. 3" magnums w/000 buck on 'em!

AR Hammer
August 8, 2007, 09:02 PM
I spent a lot of time at testing firearms when I was in the military, and I don't agree with the base conclusions.

The 7.62x39mm round is a good stopper at short and medium ranges.
It isn't an accurate round, and it's too underpowered for long range.
Ranges out to about 300 yards it does just fine, and it does a lot of damage.

It has the added benefit of being a run of the mill .30 cal. round so you can easily hand load any specialty rounds you might need.
Hot loads, hollow points, or what ever.

That's the beauty of shooting .30 cal... Same bullets/primers/powders for .300 mags, .30-06, .30-30, .308 ect....
-----------------

The .223 isn't a stopper.
It's good for small 'varmint' type animals, and some larger, thin skinned game animals, but I certainly wouldn't call it a 'Power House' round, and you are an idiot if you hunt dangerous game with a .223 rifle.
(I'd pay to see someone hunt Kodiak or Alaskan Grizzly with a .223 rifle!)

It is pin point accurate, reaches out accurately to intermediate ranges with factory ammo, is easy to find ammo for and ammo/rifles are reasonably priced and available.

In military guise, IE: fully auto, the .223 is a reasonable man stopper at short range, but at long ranges it's just not got the 'stuff'...
That's why so many M-14 rifles are being pulled out of storage and shipped to the middle east right now...
(Same with the .45 auto, but that's a different story...)
------------------

The absolute best of both worlds is an AR-10 in .308 cal. or .300 WSM cal.
Light weight, fast action, reliable, standard NATO rounds in .308 and long range knock down power...
Recoil control so you can stay on target for a follow up shot...

Pin point accurate, giving all but the hand built bolt guns a run for their money!
Look up the cult following Egyptian and Isriali snipers have for the AR-10...
------------------

If you really want to make the 7.62x39mm work, try an AR-47 lower from Special Weapons Inc, in Mesa, AZ.
AK mags and drums used in an AR format with a 7.62x39mm barrel/bolt.
I like mine with drums! Lots of CHEAP fire power in my beloved AR format with a drum!
------------------------

Clearing a couple of things up,
The Russian version of the .30-30 is the 7.62x54mm round they use for sniper rifles, not the 7.62x39mm AK round.
The biggest difference is the pointed bullet, but with new soft point .30-30 bullets, that isn't as big a problem as it once was.
........

The 'SHTF' bullet I would use would be the discount russian made hollow point ammo.
Dirt cheap in case lots,
Very reasonable stopping power, especially if you gel pack the bullets first,
and available in states like CA. and IL. since it's a rifle round.

Since the cases are normally steel & Berdan primed, you don't have to worry about policing up brass for reload, and you can do practice range cleanup with a magnet.

For short range target saturation, the 7.62x39mm is hard to beat...

GunTech
August 8, 2007, 10:40 PM
30 caliber Russian is 0.310 or 0.311. 30 Caliber US is 0.308.

As many have noted, including myself, the 7.62x39mm ball does not have a good reputation as a stopper. It's heavy and very stable when iot hits something, tending to pass right through things like tissue with little to mark the passing. At short range, the same envelope as the 5.56, the little 223 tends to do more damage to people. The 7.62x39 gets the nod for things like penetration.

Once you go to expanding bullets, the 7.62x39 should surpass the 223 in terms of lethality. But as observed, beither is a more than 300 yard round, and none can touch the 308 with the same expanding ammo.

GunTech
August 8, 2007, 10:59 PM
If you really want to make the 7.62x39mm work, try an AR-47 lower from Special Weapons Inc, in Mesa, AZ.

Why would I shoot 7.62x39 from an AR? The whole point of the AK is the platform, which is more reliable than the AR. The issue seems to be the 7.62x39mm with ball ammo fals short of 223. The correct solution seems to be 223 in an AK, rather than the other way around.

TOU
August 8, 2007, 11:44 PM
Clearing a couple of things up,
The Russian version of the .30-30 is the 7.62x54mm round they use for sniper rifles, not the 7.62x39mm AK round.
The biggest difference is the pointed bullet, but with new soft point .30-30 bullets, that isn't as big a problem as it once was.
........


I'd think it was closer to the 30-06 than the 30-30, no?

Why would I shoot 7.62x39 from an AR? The whole point of the AK is the platform, which is more reliable than the AR. The issue seems to be the 7.62x39mm with ball ammo fals short of 223. The correct solution seems to be 223 in an AK, rather than the other way around.

You just maybe right...or better yet an AK in both calibers. ;)

buck00
August 9, 2007, 12:44 AM
If you find yourself needing to make a shot past 300 yards-ish, you probably shouldn't be using an assault rifle in the first place.

I agree with this. I don't think anyone should get obsessed with hitting targets at 300 plus yards for a SHTF scenario, not even 200, possibly not even 100 yards. It won't be like trading fire on the Western Front in 1917 from a trench- in most civil crisis scenarios, the action would most likely take place under 100 yards. An AK would be perfect for this- it has proven itself in urban and jungle combat over the years (short to medium ranges).


The absolute best of both worlds is an AR-10 in .308 cal

+1. I never thought much of the AR-10 until I shot the DPMS Panther in .308. Very nice rifle. :)

Deadman
August 9, 2007, 11:15 AM
FWIW here's an extract from Black Hawk Down -

' Then two more holes poked through the tin with loud bangs and dirt flew and Lechner screamed.
He first felt a whipping sensation and then a crushing blow, as if an anvil had fallen on the lower half of his leg. The pain was unbearable. He gripped his upper leg and looked at a gaping hole in his leg.
The bullet had exploded his shinbone and traveled on down his leg and exited at his ankle, shredding the foot beneath the hole. '

And from the rest of the information given on Lt. Lechner, he took no further part in the firefight, and was eventually placed on a morphine drip. He also faced a long recovery after Oct. 3 '93. So it seems 7.62x39 can be quite nasty under certain situations.

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 12:20 PM
Cartridges of the world is a good place to go to find the correct ballistics of these little beauties.

But this is very good also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39

So as you can see, it is less than the 30-30 or as some will say about the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30_Winchester

But it is no where near an 06.

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_30-06.php

HQ

benEzra
August 9, 2007, 01:42 PM
I think he was saying that 7.62x54R is comparable to .30-06, if I read him correctly. You are correct that 7.62x39 is similar to .30-30.

TOU
August 9, 2007, 02:40 PM
Yep...on both counts.

SSN Vet
August 9, 2007, 03:30 PM
just because tube fed lever guns are very popular in .30-30, and are restricted to FN or RN bullets, doesn't mean that the .30-30 cartridge is itself restricted to these ballistically inefiecient projectiles.

if you chose the right powder (Reloader-15 for example) and load up a .308 boat tailed spitzer in a .30-30 case, up to your rifles pressure limit, you'll far outperform the 7.65x39.

The .30-30 has a much greater case capacity, and with a slower powder you can push some pretty darn heavy bullets (180 gr. +) pretty darn fast.

The .30-30 case can fire spitzers from single shot, bolt and even lever action rifles (one in the chamber and one in the tube).

Of course your going to have to load these up yourself.....but why not, that's almost as fun as shooting them.

Edited to add.....don't ask me what this post has to do with the topic of the thread....SHTF rifle calibers.

BangBang
August 9, 2007, 03:47 PM
7.62 x 39 is just fine for S.H.T.F.. Just keep it within 2 - 300 yards, (preferably not more than 150) and stock up on the ammo.

It is all about what the situation dictates. If you can work within those parameters, then this is the right platform, (AK) for you.

JWarren
August 9, 2007, 03:48 PM
I use an AK (with 5 round magazines) as my brush deer rifle-- or should I say a trail-rifle. Basically, we hunt food plots here, but I always put a portable stand on a trail after scouting every year. It gives the opportunity to see a big buck that typically won't go into a food plot at dusk or dawn. It also is a nice change of scenery.

On trails, the maximum shot is will be under 30 yards most likely. An AK with soft points does the job nicely. I put two down cleanly last season with it.


While I am sure the 7.62x39 can reach out as far as the typical food plot shot around here (max shot I've taken was 297 yards), I use a Saiga 308 with Winchester Ballistic Tips on those stands.


-- John

AR Hammer
August 9, 2007, 04:31 PM
WOW! A couple of guy put out a lot of snark on this board!
Wasn't expecting that...
-------------------

I guess I did misspeak some, I didn't differentiate between the standard military 7.62x54mm round, the sniper marked 7.62x54mm, and the 7.62R civilian round.

There are differences in all three.
---------------------

The 7.62x54mm/also known as the 7.62R, is the European version of the .30-30.

The military simply used a pointed nose bullet, but not until after WW-1.

The original civilian released market version didn't at first, but nothing did when this round was adopted.

Most European countries didn't use pointed bullets until after WW-I and some were still using round nose bullets in WW-II.

The 7.62R round was originally a black powder round, later enhanced with 'Smokeless' powder, but the civilian version, chamber pressure wise, is supposed to be equivalent to 30 grains of black powder.

In the firearms museum were were never allowed to use modern military type 7.62x54mm ammo in anything marked '7.62R'.

Although it's the same size and shape case, the early rifles were not designed to take the chamber pressures of the modern version of the military rounds with smokeless powder.

Military refits are one reason 7.62x54mm sniper ammo is clearly marked.
If you have ever seen 7.62x54mm Russian sniper ammo, you know what I'm talking about!
Paned bullet noses, large and clear markings on the ammo packages and clear instructions NOT to use the sniper ammo in crew served weapons!

It is much more powerful than the standard 7.62x54mm link ammo for squad automatic weapons and should not be interchanged.

Soviet military ammo changes are one reason you can't find an 'Early' Dragunov...
The rifles would not cycle correctly, and the barrels wouldn't hold together with the newer, more powerful sniper ammo, so they were destroyed and newer versions were issued.
-------------

The modern 7.62x54mm sniper military round has the equivalent trajectory of the a .308, .30-06 (since both .308 & .30-06 ballistics are nearly identical),

The .30-06 being a black powder based round THIS IS INCORRECT, THE 30-06 WAS DELVELOPED BY THE US MILITARY AS A SMOKELESS ROUND, INSERT BY BW, and the .308 being a nitro-cellulose based 'smokeless' powder round...
Now the 'Sniper' version of the 7.62x54mm round is modern powder.
------------------

But the standard 7.62x54mm military round or the 7.62R round is comparable with the .30-30,
With the exception of the pointed bullet, which gives it slightly better ballistics...
(since it has to be backwards compatible with millions of squad automatic weapons and individual rifles...)
-----------

Same reason the factory can't 'Pump Up' .30-30 rounds... If they do and someone uses them in a 1894 rifle, they stand a good chance of blowing the rifle up...

Civilian market has to conform to SAMMI standards, and make ammo backwards compatible for safety, but the military can do what it wants...
But will interchange in chambers marked for either.
---------------------

Someone got caught off guard and didn't think an new idea through before crapping on it...

7.62x39mm mags for an AR are expensive, and you can't get reliable drums or mags anymore...

As for using the AR-47 lower so you can chamber & shoot AK mags, both straight and drums...
Reasonably priced, available everywhere, function well...

This gives me an AR based format for 7.62x39mm rounds.
I have a short stroke .30 cal. with 75 round drum capacity,
THAT IS ACCURATE & RELIABLE...
China made AK clones are not either...
The Russian combat versions of the AK are few & far between, and priced out of this world when you do find one...
Since all combat versions of the AK were full auto, you have to let Uncle Sam know you have it...
A draw back in my opinion.

Plus I get to use the piles of AR parts I have lying around here, and everybody makes something for an AR and most of it works...
There is some stuff for an AK, but it's not what I'd call plentiful or reliable.

My current stand in for a semi auto version of a 'SAW' is an AR with 20" barrel and 75 rd. drums.
It's also a short stroke rod version so the dirty import ammo doesn't take a crap in my receiver and I don't have gas problems with the huge differences in the cheap production ammo...

Reliability, (in question if you have anything but Russian AK with threaded in barrel)
Parts Availability,
Modular Construction,
Inherent Accraucy,
Cost & Function of Magizines,
Stopping Power,
Available Ammo Sources & Types,
Multiple Caliber Conversions,
Constructive Accessories,

Pretty much the perfect single man carried, .30 cal. 'SHTF' rifle, reliable, rugged, accurate, brutal, sustained fire power.
The next best thing to an M-60, but with out the weight or hassle of linked ammo.
------------------

Long range it's my AR-10's, hands down! Nothing like them!

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 04:32 PM
7.62 x 39 is just fine for S.H.T.F.. Just keep it within 2 - 300 yards, (preferably not more than 150) and stock up on the ammo
*************
Perfect for in the street Id say. Most can't hit real well out much further I have noticed in my observation of those who are not doing it all the time like yours truly.

I even don't hit what I aim at, on purpose some times:uhoh: I have been hunting and missed on purpose, others were not doing well and it was not a time to show off.

Reminds me of a hunt that was down right funny.

But the round we are discussing is a good one for 90% of your shooting in the woods I would believe. Woods, brush, thicket...Would be the correct thought.

Thanks for the clean up on the 54 vs the 39 I just did not read that part :scrutiny::eek::D

Along with the 06 this was/is nice to my way of thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9754R

Got an FN 49 that shoots it.
HQ

AR Hammer
August 9, 2007, 05:22 PM
I wrote,
"That's the beauty of shooting .30 cal... Same bullets/primers/powders for .300 mags, .30-06, .30-30, .308 ect.... "

Gun Tech wrote:
"30 caliber Russian is 0.310 or 0.311. 30 Caliber US is 0.308.

You missed the point again,
The conversation was about 'SHTF' ammo and rifles, and in a pinch, like when the SHTF I'm sure ANY AMMO will be better than NO AMMO at all!
And .30 cal ammo beats .20 cal. ammo in a 'SHTF' close range fire fight.

As for size discrepancies,
Never put too may calipers on Russian bullets have you?
Or checked Russian or Chinese bores?

Anything from 0.306" to 0.3115" regularly in the surplus ammo, so I'm sure the .308 cal bullets I use aren't going to be any real threat to the function or accuracy!
They seem to cut off about .312" so I don't think I'm endangering anyone.

If a 0.312" will go down the barrel, a 0.3085" should too.

The US military pulled bullets I often use are anywhere from .3075 to .3085, so I'm not sure I'd tout the US standard too loudly.

My US 'Standard' .30 cal. bullets might not be optimum for the 7.62x39mm barrel, but since the AK barrels are crap to begin with, I'm sure not going to hurt them.
The AK's and SKS's I've owned and tested in didn't seem to notice the difference, or actually shot better groups with heavier bullets (although slightly smaller in diameter).

May Colt AR barrels in 7.62x39mm seems to like the heavier and smaller diameter bullets more than the factory Russian rounds, but that would stand to reason, since Colt is much more likely to have a correctly sized bore with sharp, crisp rifling than a Chinese made 'Clunker' built to fire steel cased rounds...

As for 'SHTF' bullets, I use Hollow Points in everything.
.223, 7.62x39mm, .308, .300 WSM, all hollow points...
Can't beat a ballistic tip hollow point for maximum damage, so discussing fragmenting bullets or cannelure separations Vs. straight through damage is kind of a moot point anyway...

I'm not bound by the Hague Accords, so ballistic tip hollow points all around!
If I shoot it twice, it's because I wanted to shoot it again, not because I HAD to shoot it again...

TOU
August 9, 2007, 07:40 PM
Keep in mind this thread is NOT about whether an AK or AR is better...although it always seems to get there eventually. IMHO they are both decent weapons if you stay with a quality specimen to begin with.

I personally want at least two of everything. :D As far as an AK offering, I personally am more than satisfied with the Saiga's that I have. Trust me they are not the cheap offerings that you see in the WASR or even the Chinese (speaking of the Chinese..they really weren't that bad.) I actually have at least one in every caliber offered including shotties; (Except the rare sample offering of the 5.45x39 that may or may not exsist.) very cool rigs! And the S-12's are second to none for even 3X the money spent. I bought all of the NIB for not much more than the cost of a nice AR. I also have a Daewoo DR-200 with an ACE folder which is my personal favorite of all .223 offerings. Sold my M1a/14 when times were rough and haven't replaced it, don't know if I will. Recently I'm thinking about a Dissy oriented mid-length gas AR platform so that I have something AR'ish. Just to have decide whether to go with BM's factory offering in the M4 length gas system or build my own with the middie. I just figure I might as well have my bases covered.

My current stand in for a semi auto version of a 'SAW' is an AR with 20" barrel and 75 rd. drums.
It's also a short stroke rod version so the dirty import ammo doesn't take a crap in my receiver and I don't have gas problems with the huge differences in the cheap production ammo...

Nice! Which one and what is your set up, I would honestly love to see it.

I personally would love to have a DR-200 that had a lower that would except all the cheap OEM AK mags like you speak of on your AR-47's...but even the DR-300 take modified AK mags which has made me steer clear of them. :rolleyes: Sure wish they still imported Daewoo's and GB Sr. hadn't cut off the supply...they just don't seem to ever brake. Anyway...I digress. There is no doubt that the x39 is effective in it's own way and it is by far the most cost effective ammo to buy in bulk at the moment...besides the corrosive 5.45 that may soon dry up.

R.W.Dale
August 9, 2007, 08:00 PM
The 7.62x54mm/also known as the 7.62R, is the European version of the .30-30.


You couldn't be more wrong! 7.62x54R introduced in 1891 PREDATES 30-30 winchester.

Now 7.62x51R IS the European metric designation for 30-30.

AR HAMMER
Where did you get such a line of ill informed BS as the post above

The .30-06 being a black powder based round
LOL PLEASE! you're killing me

But the standard 7.62x54mm military round or the 7.62R round is comparable with the .30-30,

Lets see a light ball 150grn fmj from a x54r at 2800fps versus a 150grn fp from a 30-30 at 2300 fps. THE SAME???? whatever

The only thing 30-30 has in common with the 7.62x54r is the rim and even that is a totally different size

As for size discrepancies,
Never put too may calipers on Russian bullets have you?
Or checked Russian or Chinese bores?

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinSpec.htm

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo.htm

The 7.62x54mm/also known as the 7.62R, is the European version of the .30-30.

The military simply used a pointed nose bullet, but not until after WW-1.


A 150grn Spitzer loading was adopted by the Russians in 1909, now do you even know when WWI started and ended?

It isn't an accurate round,

If 7.62x39 isn't an accurate round then why are a couple title winning benchrest rounds based on 7.62x39, The .22 and 6mm ppc?
Given good components the 7.62x39 is just as accurate as anything else.

GunTech
August 9, 2007, 08:17 PM
There is no doubt that 30-30, when handloaded, can be far superior to 7.62x39mm. The comparison was with standard factory ammunition. Since 30-30 is typically loaded with flat point bullets and at relatively low pressure, the 7.62x39 may have slightly less energy at short range, but overtakes the factory 30-30 before 100 yards.

AR hammer, I've mike a lot of Russian ammo and never found the variation you note. Most Russian military ammo in my experience is within +/- 0.001 of 0.3105 - much better than people expect. The issues with AK accuracy have more to do with hard chromed barrels and the general 'sloppiness' of the action. As you no doubt know, the Russuan employ reverse plating followed by plating for chrome lining their barrels. This method leads to irregularities of the bore, which can be easily shown by air guage. Hard chrome lined barrels are typically more inaccurate that non chromed ones because the plating process does not lead to uniform deposition of chrome in the barrel, and hence an irregular bore diameter. This is exactly the reason that one doesn't find chrome lined match rifles.

As noted, firing 7.62x39mm in my CZ-527, which has a hammer forged barrel, I can get military rounds to group under 2 MOA pretty regularly. Hand loaded ammo gives much better results.

And of course it goes without saying that some of the 'winningest' bench rest cartridged are built on a modified 7.62x39mm case (e.g. 6mm PPC, and 6.5mm PPC amongst others).

I have fired 308 bullets in a 0.3105 bbl. The main difference is a reduction in velocity. Loads will typically lose 100 fps when using and undersized bullet in a commercial barrel. In a military AK barrel, there can be keyholing at longer ranges as well.

The US military pulled bullets I often use are anywhere from .3075 to .3085, so I'm not sure I'd tout the US standard too loudly.


That a range of only 0.001 inch, pretty good since pulled bullets are routinely distorted. You should also keeop in mind the accuracy of the measuring tool. Most consumer grade micrometers are barely accurate to 0.001, so variation could well be from the measuring device.

In any case, the whole point of this thread was to point out that while 7.62x39mm with ball ammo is a pretty marginal round, using expanding bullets puts it into a whole different category.

Ball ammo really limits the effectiveness of any round. While 7.62x51mm (308) has almost doule the energy of 5.56x45mm, actual combat data shows that the 5.56 was/is approximately 11% more lethal at typical combat ranges. This is wholly due to the tendency of the 5.56x45mm to break along the canneleur and creat several submissiles in the target. The 7.62s on the other hand, have very well constructed and stable bullets. Both the M43 and M80 ball ammo typicall flip over in tissue, and exit the target base first, creating little in the way of temporary or permament wound cavity.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

Compare these military rounds with the 223 with soft point bullets

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/223%20Remington%2050gr%20JSP.jpg

30-30 with soft point

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/30-30%20Winchester.jpg

308 winchester with soft points

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/308%20Winchester.jpg

GunTech
August 9, 2007, 08:33 PM
AER Hammer, I've handleld a lot of AKs, military select fire and semi-auto civilian versions. I've also shot more than my share of M16 and AR-15, as an infantryman (11B) and Infantry officer, as well as a class 3 collector and consultant to several firearms manufacturers and agencies. I have never seen an AK that wasn't at least as reliable an an AR unless it was damaged.

I love the AR. It is an accurate and reliable weapon - if properly maintained. It is far more accurate, and much more flexible than the AK. But for dead niuts reliablility, the AK wins every time. I can recall firing a full magazine from an AK we dug up that was covered in rust and could have been in the ground for years. Brushed it off and fired 30 rounds with one pull of the trigger. No way an AR will do that.

That being said, most of the AKs I've fired were easily 4-5 MOA guns, where anything past about 50 yards was hit more by luck than skill. My issue M16 would put 5 round into 3/4 of an inch at 100 yards if I used FGMM. Even M855 was good for about 1.5 MOA.

Even the 'best' of the AK, the SVD, was something of a disappointment. We fired several authentic Russian military SVDs and never did get one that did better than about 2 MOA - which is adequate for a DMR (which is what the SVD is anyway).

Our guys with M24s would shoot empty 308 cases at 100 yards.

Just my experience. YMMV.

GunTech
August 9, 2007, 08:38 PM
krochus,

Great links. Looks like it might be worth slugging you Moisin Nagant barrel. With both 0.310 and 0.311 bullets available, it would be interesting to test the different sizes.

R.W.Dale
August 9, 2007, 08:42 PM
I doubt there would be any measurable diffrence in accuracy between .310 and .311 diameter bullets. Like you I found no measurable difference in accuracy shooting .308 diameter projectiles in my CZ527 vs .311 diameter.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/Hpim0697.jpg

Bartholomew Roberts
August 9, 2007, 09:13 PM
It's also a short stroke rod version so the dirty import ammo doesn't take a crap in my receiver and I don't have gas problems with the huge differences in the cheap production ammo...

You say you have a short-stroke gas piston AR-47? Who built the 7.62x39 gas piston upper you are using?

Harley Quinn
August 9, 2007, 09:24 PM
Hey, this is a great thread, lets keep it up, good information. Some times it takes a little misinformation to get the good stuff:D thanks;)

AR Hammer
August 9, 2007, 09:31 PM
krochus, this always happens, you need to read up a little.

The .30-06 is based on the black powder standard.
With a chamber pressure of 50,000 c.u.p. maximum it's well within the black powder range.
Since the .30-06 is a slight modification of the .30-03 cartridge, and the .30-03 round was a black powder equivalent round, the .30-06 is also.

All rounds before about 1920 were black powder based rounds, simply because there was no standardized proofing standard for smokless powder until after WW-I.
Everything was trial and error and/or copper crush standards for the manufacturers before then.
---------------------

No one has mentioned the .303 Savage, also known as the .30 Savage, that was actually a issued military rifle in 1895 and found some success in European border disputes.
The .303 Savage is basically a .30-30 that uses a .309" to .311" diameter bullet.
Sound Familiar?....

The .30-30 cartridge, also know as the .30 Remington, was specifically designed around 'Modern' smokeless powder, which was brand new and actually experimental at the time.
John Browning & Winchester actually had to redesign the model 1894 Winchester rifle for the new power cartridge.
The name is a hold over from the black powder days, where the caliber and grains of black powder in the case and what rifle make it fit (.30-30 Winchester, or .30-32 Remington, or the .30-40 Kreg, ect.).

The round had been around for quite some time as the .30-32 Remington (rim) in black powder.
Since it's first release in European rifles in 1876, you could arguably call this the father of the 7.62x54mm round,
AND,
As .30 Remington rimless designed for use in the Model 8 autoloader and Model 14 pump rifle.
------------------

Later, when more types of smokeless powder because available, the hold over naming was substituted slightly...
.30-03 & .30-06 , the date being the last number, instead of the grans of black powder.
Using 30 grains of smokeless powder could get you into real trouble, so the last number was changed to the date of standard issue.

Now we don't bother with the second number in new rounds unless they are wild cats of existing rounds, like 07mm-08 or .25-06, or .22-250...
------------------

The .30 Savage/.303 Savage and .30-32 rounds were so successful as accurate rolling block target rifles in Europe that the round was adopted in Western Europe.

It never really caught on here since the government was giving away .45-70 rounds and the .30 rolling block wasn't 'Enough' rifle for commercial large game hunters in this country...

It's always been that way in this country, Large bullets, expensive rifles and cheap sights that don't hit well,
In Europe it's the other way around, Smaller bullets, aimed accurately (shot placement) rather than using a howitzer on deer, and reasonable priced rifles with expensive optics so they could place a shot correctly...
-----------------

Anyway, This is a quote from the NRA web site,

"The 7.62x54mm Russian cartridge was adopted by Russia in 1891 for use in the Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant military rifle.
The cartridge was developed by Savaged arms."

"Many of these rifles were manufactured in the US by Winchester, Remington and New England Westinghouse under contracts with the Imperial Russian government.
After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 these rifles were undeliverable, and the US Government acquired those on hand amounting to about 280,000 rifles."

"These rifles were later sold to the NRA members throught he office of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, making the 7.62x54R one of the most popular sporting rounds in the first half of the 20th century.
Winchester, Remington & Savage all loaded the round until Savage spun off it's ammunition production and Remington stopped manufacturing in about 1950."

"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR"

"The Mosin-Nagant rifles are adequately strong for such a load, though clumsy in handling and appearance, and awkward in operation.
Some of the rifles have been crudely converted to fire .30-06 ammunition by simply running a .30-06 chambering reamer into the original barrel, and sold as .30-06 sporting rifles.
This is a hazardous conversion, however, because the 7.62x54mmR chamber is usually about 0.020" larger than the .30-06 case at the rear, and .30-06 cases may not expand that much without splitting.
A split case may release high pressure gas reward injuring the shooter.
Rifles so converted should not be fired."
---------------------

I think this bears repeating,
"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR"

Directly from the NRA website archives...
You don't have to believe me or the NRA, but those are the facts...

Keep in mind the '03 spring field was under development by the same people that designed the 7.64x54R and the .30-40 Krag, the .303 Savage, and the .30 Remington, and the .30-30 Winchester, it's not hard to see the linage of the round....
-------------------

Also keep in mind that I'm wasting a lot of time 'Educating' so called 'Experts' when I should be doing something constructive....
So keep the snark to a minimum when you 'Think' you are 'Right' because it could come back to bite you...

TOU
August 9, 2007, 09:44 PM
Hmmm.

R.W.Dale
August 9, 2007, 09:53 PM
The .30-30 cartrage, also know as the .30 Remington, was specifically designed around 'Modern' smokeless powder, which was brand new and actually experamental at the time.

You've got to be kidding me! 30-30 was standardized in 1894, the 30 remington which is not "also know as the .30 Remington " was standardized in 1909 and is a RIMLESS 30-30. Now smokeless powder was invented by the French was first used in their 8mm Lebel in 1886. A full 23 years before 30 remington was introduced. And yet as you put it "which was brand new and actually experamental at the time." Not hardly!


"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR"

And this bears repeating. No matter what copy and paste experts such as your yourself or what some outdated article from the NRA. The 7.62x54r round is in NO WAY comparable to 30-30, 303 savage. Rimmed 308win is a good way to think of the russian round.

The round had been around for quite some time as the .30-32 Remington (rim) in black powder.
Since it's first release in European rifles in 1876, you could arguably call this the father of the 7.62x54mm round,

I find no reference whatsoever that a .30-32 cartridge ever existed.


All you do is make a bunch of sweeping generalizations about things that in reality are related in no way.

A Ford Focus and a BMW 3 series both roll on round rubber thingies but that doesn't mean that their development is related

how bout some of the other points I've touched apoun that you haven't addressed. If calling a warm gooey load of BS for what it is =snarkiness than I'm guilty as charged.

Soybomb
August 9, 2007, 10:28 PM
here is all of this talk of gelatin testing and fragmenting, wounding potential, etc. What a load of BS. The 7.62x39 works. So does the 5.56. The only reason people don't respect the x39 is that it is russian and therefore assumed to be communist crap.
If you hit someone in vital organs, they will die with a 7.62x39, 5.56, whatever. If you do not hit the in the nervous or cardiovascular system they might not die or may take time to do so. The heart and lungs don't give a damn how big of a "temporary cavity" your bullet makes they don't work well with any kind of hole in them.
Fragmentationtation and gelatin testing aren't about the temporary cavity at all, we're looking to see just how much tissue is destroyed. You've got the right idea, but you've misapplied it. A round that tumbles and fragments is going to destroy a lot more tissue, potentially some of it vital person stopping tissue, than the ice pick wound of a round that goes straight though.

Here's a pretty good discussion of the varying performance of 7.62x39 rounds http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001359 It might become something of a question of do you just plan to have 10 crates of cheap fmj ammo or do you plan on having good ammo?

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/RussianWP.jpg

Kilgor
August 9, 2007, 10:51 PM
Krochus,

Those are pretty slow numbers. Were these 150 grain bullets? Reduced recoil loads?

Ian
August 10, 2007, 12:08 AM
With a chamber pressure of 50,000 c.u.p. maximum it's well within the black powder range.

:scrutiny:

Max pressure for the .45-70 (the quintessential military black powder cartridge) is 28,000 cup (for an 1886 Winchester; 18,000 cup for the Trapdoors). Which black powder rounds were loaded up to 50k?

Using 30 grains of smokeless powder could get you into real trouble, so the last number was changed to the date of standard issue.

Actually, while it depends on the specific powder, 30gr is about right for a starting load of smokeless powder in .30-30.

TOU
August 10, 2007, 12:15 AM
Hey krochus, in your sug file it says "CZ-USA sales flier"...can you elaborate?

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 12:22 AM
Soybomb,

Nice graphics. Some look pretty familiar. LOL.

RockyMtnTactical
August 10, 2007, 12:29 AM
7.62x39 is decent for what it is at ranges under 300 yards. Just know it's limitations and use it accordingly.

R.W.Dale
August 10, 2007, 12:32 AM
Krochus,

Those are pretty slow numbers. Were these 150 grain bullets? Reduced recoil loads?

The load used was a start load, I didn't want to bother to work up loads for both diameter bullets which would be required for saftey. So both bullet diameters got a start load.

read more here
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2274479#post2274479

Hey krochus, in your sug file it says "CZ-USA sales flier"...can you elaborate?

it's a Spoof!

TOU
August 10, 2007, 12:33 AM
it's a Spoof!

{chuckle} got me. :D

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 12:37 AM
For the record, 30-30 was the first commercially produced smokeless only round. There was never a black powder version.

krochus got all the details absolutely correct, so I won't bother to post my own critique.

Here is some corrected data:

7.62x54R max pressure is 3900 bar or 56,565 psi
30-06 max pressure is 4050 bar or 58,740 psi
30-30 max pressure is 3200 bar or 46,412 psi
7.62x39 max pressure is 3550 bar or 51,488 psi

The above data is per CIP and SAAMI, which are the European and US governing bodies for small arms ammunition. Note that 7.42x54R is only 2,000 psi below 30-06 but 10,000 psi higher than 30-30.

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 12:39 AM
krochus,

Your 7.62x39mm data mirrors mine. 0.308 bullets go about 100 fps slower than 0.311. I'm actually using 0.310 bullets at the moment, but haven't chrono'd them yet.

R.W.Dale
August 10, 2007, 12:48 AM
krochus,

Your 7.62x39mm data mirrors mine. 0.308 bullets go about 100 fps slower than 0.311. I'm actually using 0.310 bullets at the moment, but haven't chrono'd them yet.

For what It's worth I've noticed that with 125grn bullets using a max load of AA1680 there is very little difference in velocity between .308dia 125grn Ballistic tips and .310dia Hornady V-maxes

AR Hammer
August 10, 2007, 01:19 AM
I worked as a Marine armorer at Quantico, VA.,
Aberdeen Proving Grounds in MD., and did a touch of service for the Army in Ft. Bragg.(before the Army 'Long Range Marksman' program became the 'Sniper' program moved to Ft. Benning...)

Now I live just a few miles from Crane in Indiana.
I've seen a military rifle or two during my lifetime...
------------

I've seen the tissue damage comparisons, and depending on who was trying to accomplish what, the results would change to achieve those goals...

The only ones I really paid any attention to were the pork shootings in Aberdeen about '78 or so.
They seemed to be pretty well non biased and used a medium that was very close to human... (pigs).

I'm also paying close attention to the autopsy reports coming from the middle east (both sides).

Seems our little bullet isn't as effective at lower velocities as we would like, pitiful at even intermediate ranges (the reason for the heavier bullets), and the insurgents 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm rounds are VERY effective at short and intermediate ranges.
---------------------

Knowing that, it explains why the M-14's are being broken out of storage, and explains a lot of the interest in the 6.8 SPC.
---------------------

From personal testing, and from military testing I took part in, there are some things you aren't aware of, or aren't putting in your information...

First of all,
The cannalure won't break on a 55 grain round under 2,700 fps.
Heavier rounds are even slower and more resistant to breakage.

Now, use a heavier bullet and it leaves the muzzle even slower than the advertised 3,100 fps.
The guys in the sand box are using a bunch of mid 60 grand and up to 77 grain bullets.
I haven't done the testing with the newer issue ammo myself, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure more mass equals less muzzle velocity.
(and now the military is messing with a 99 grain bullet!)

Use a short barrel, and you are down even more muzzle velocity...
Combine a short barrel with heavy bullets and they are exiting the muzzle around 2,700 fps so the 5.56x45mm is a pretty ineffective round unless you have very precise shot placement.

The only advantage our guys have with the 5.56x45mm NATO round is accuracy.
Accuracy in the form of better barrels, good optics and a bullet with better flight characteristics.

In 2003/2004 the Marine corps did a study simply because so many of the insurgent bodies were shot in the head.
The insinuation was that Marines were executing insurgents.
After a year long study, it was found that the head was often the only thing showing, and the Marines were issued optics that allowed for head shots at an average of 150 Yards.

The Army just concluded a study in 2006 of the same circumstances.
Lots of head shots, suspected executions.
Study exonerated the Army and commented that the average head shot is now farther away than they could get soldiers to engage during WW-II, Korea or Viet-Nam.
------------------------

The fragmentation of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, and the non fragmentation of the 7.62x39mm round was why Russia and Viet-Nam were both throwing a fit during the Viet-Nam war...
Saying the fragmenting round inflicted undue suffering banned by the Hague Accords.
They are correct in the most technical sense and the letter of the Hague Accords.
The US passed it off as 'Unintentional' result of the manufacturing process, and after the Viet-Nam war, both countries did not pursue the violations.

The Soviet era 5.45x39mm AKS round was devastating!
I saw the results first hand during the mid '80's and I can tell you the bullet does NOT fragment.
The manufacturing process allows for a hollow 'bubble' in the bullet, and that bubble collapses during impact, causing the bullet to yaw like crazy!
Horrible, hateful wound channels with absolutely no way to determine where the bullet might wind up from the entrance wound, but the bullet does NOT fragment.

On 27-28-Sept-06 this very same subject came up again, proffered by the international Red Cross/Red Crescent to the World Court, and they made a pretty convincing argument.
Of course the US/NATO will ignore any world court ruling like it has since 1954...

We are the only military in the world to issue hollow points to troops.
The open tip of the M118 Long Range Match round classifies it as hollow point.
We pass this off by saying the hollow tip won't inflict anymore damage from one of our snipers than a solid round would...
Our response is 'Head shots are head shots, no matter what bullet we are using."
----------

I'm not bound by the Hague Accords, and I load everything with hollow points.
I even have a special little punch die to make hollow points out of surplus pulled military bullets...

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 01:28 AM
Right now I am running 0.310 Hornady 123 SP over 26gn of Reloader 7 for about 2400 fps. This from my CZ-527. Shoots well with decent velocity. I'm betting I could go hotter in the little mini-Mauser. No signs of pressure at all.

AR Hammer
August 10, 2007, 01:29 AM
Believe what you want to krokus, this is America and you are allowed to be wrong all day, every day.

Oh, and by the way, both me, the Marine corps, and the NRA are all full of it...
According to you! Glad to hear you are up on things...

You should go to work for the Marine Special Weapons center in Quantico, I'm sure they would like to have someone that 'Knows' as much as you...

You should apply at Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indiana, they are short handed and could use someone with your 'Knowledge' in the Spec War Operations center...

Maybe you can come up to Anoka, MN. with me to do some testing at Federal, or down to Arkansas to Remington for testing some time...

Don't just hide behind the computer, get out and do something for the team!
We can use some good men about now...
All of us old farts that have been doing this for 30 or 40 years now need some new help, especially from someone that can change 150 years of history with some key strokes...

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 01:38 AM
Please, let's keep this polite. This is the High Road, and ad hominem attacks are never appropriate. I think you'll find a lot of people on this board with extensive small arms experience, as well a military time. I spent some time in the Infantry and enlisted and as an officer. I've consulted for the firearms industry and various LE agencies.

"I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know." -- Julius Caesar

No offense AR, but you are a new member, and while some of you data posted is correct, other is suspect. Without cites, it can only be considered 'speculative', particularly when in conflict with well known sources.

Argue the facts, not the person. When questioned, provide cites please.

Tony Williams
August 10, 2007, 04:51 AM
AR Hammer said: No one has mentioned the .303 Savage, also known as the .30 Savage, that was actually a issued military rifle in 1895 and found some success in European border disputes.
The .303 Savage is basically a .30-30 that uses a .309" to .311" diameter bullet.
Sound Familiar?....

Can you specify which European countries issued the .303 Savage? That's the first I've heard of any military use for this round, let alone a European one.

The .311" diam bullet does indeed sound familiar: it's what was used in the .303 British, which was invented before the Savage.

rich636
August 10, 2007, 05:06 AM
I am now dumber for having read this thread :(

R.W.Dale
August 10, 2007, 07:22 AM
Believe what you want to krokus, this is America and you are allowed to be wrong all day, every day.

Oh, and by the way, both me, the Marine corps, and the NRA are all full of it...
According to you! Glad to hear you are up on things...


Again I cited FACT you make wild associations with no references to back them up. The onus in apoun YOU to prove me wrong yet in several cases when called to make clarifications to various misstatements by me and others you've ignored the questions . So far you have not done so. At this point I call shenanigans an all your previous posts reguarding this subject.

All of us old farts that have been doing this for 30 or 40 years now need some new help, especially from someone that can change 150 years of history with some key strokes...

You sir have your own version of history that bears little to no resemblance to the historic record .

Ithaca37
August 10, 2007, 08:50 AM
Fragmentationtation and gelatin testing aren't about the temporary cavity at all, we're looking to see just how much tissue is destroyed. You've got the right idea, but you've misapplied it. A round that tumbles and fragments is going to destroy a lot more tissue, potentially some of it vital person stopping tissue, than the ice pick wound of a round that goes straight though.

I understand that tissue disruption is the key point here. What I am saying is that the human cardiovascular system doesn't give a damn if your bullet tumbles and causes slightly more disruption. Also, last time I checked the human body wasn't made of gelatin. It consisted of skin, bone, muscle, and organs. I guess I am just not going to buy into a bunch of BS spewed by what, two guys (fackler and roberts).

Dr. Roberts said that the terminal performance of the 5.7 round was like that of a 22 magnum, if he is the all knowing bullet guru so many claim then why have so many people adopted the P90? I guess teh secret service and others must not put much stock in what he says. Maybe that says something.

Scoring hits on vital organs is what matters, all this yaw/fragmenting stuff is purely academic.

QUESTION: If the 7.62x39 is so bad can you cite some anecdotal evidence? I know anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but I can find you a ton of stuff about 5.56 failing to stop people quickly. Can you do it for the x39? Surely there must be some stories if it such a marginal man stopper as you claim.

buzz_knox
August 10, 2007, 10:53 AM
The Soviet era 5.45x39mm AKS round was devastating!
I saw the results first hand during the mid '80's and I can tell you the bullet does NOT fragment.

Where did you see these wounds? I didn't think the 5.45 was deployed in any combat zone in the 1980s except Afghanistan.

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 01:13 PM
Dr. Roberts said that the terminal performance of the 5.7 round was like that of a 22 magnum, if he is the all knowing bullet guru so many claim then why have so many people adopted the P90? I guess teh secret service and others must not put much stock in what he says. Maybe that says something.

I've owned a FiveSeven and fired a few PS90 and one P90. Used it on small animals, and it performes almost exactly the same as a 22 WMR. Not surprising. Take the same bullet weight and push it at approximately the same velocity and you are going to get about the same performance.

Not so many people/agencies have adopted the P90. It may have special applications. It penetrates body armor better than a handgun - which may be important to an agency like the SS. However, anyone who thinks agencies adopt small arms based only on performance knows very little about government procurement.

For example, when ATF transitioned from model 66s to 9mms, they tested just about every autopistol available. The top performer in their tests was the Glock. The ended up adopting the SIG because they thought it might not be 'political' to carry a poylmer frame gun (this was at the time when many people believed the Glock could evade x-rays and metal detectors).

buzz_knox
August 10, 2007, 01:25 PM
However, anyone who thinks agencies adopt small arms based only on performance knows very little about government procurement

Agreed. One Florida unit bought the P90s because they had budget money they had to spend and couldn't get MP-5s.

This is the same crew who shot a suspect with a burst from a P90 and had him ask them to stop shooting him.

Harley Quinn
August 10, 2007, 02:11 PM
This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30_Winchester

Here is some info for you:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/remington_0303/

So where do we go from here?

:uhoh:

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 02:14 PM
I've been shooting 6.8 SPC for a while. Interesting cartridge, but the more I use it, the more I want to try 6.5 Grendel.

Brian Williams
August 10, 2007, 03:42 PM
ARHammer, there is a huge difference between a black powder based cartridge and one that is developed to black powder standards and pressures.

A 38 special or 45/70 is a black powder based cartridge.
Where the 30-06 is not, but is might have been based on the standards and pressures of that day.


OBTW, Keep it on the High Road.


You'all be sweet now, Ya hear.

Tony Williams
August 10, 2007, 04:01 PM
Ithaca37 said: Scoring hits on vital organs is what matters, all this yaw/fragmenting stuff is purely academic.

I've been studying many different sources on this for some time, and I'd say you're half right. Hitting a vital organ is the most important thing, but you often get marginal hits, where the amount of tissue damage makes the difference between a minor wound and a serious one. A bigger exit hole also lets the blood out faster (the drop in blood pressure being the primary cause of unconsciousness).

In the early days of smokeless powder rifle cartridges, the first military bullets were full-jacket round-nose. These bullets were inherently quite stable, and just drilled straight through, often leaving a neat and tidy wound. The British were concerned about the sharp drop in effectiveness of the .303 compared with the old lead-bullet .450 Martini-Henry round, so developed a hollow-point version of the bullet (first invented at the Dum Dum arsenal in India). This became standard issue, until the Hague Convention banned bullets designed to expand. Not long after, pointed bullets came into vogue to improve the ballistics, but a side-effect was that the bullets were unstable, and turned over on entering a body, significantly widening the wound channel and often causing a bigger exit hole. Concerns about the .303's effectiveness promptly ended.

All pointed bullets will turn over like this, but the speed with which they do it depends on their size (the smaller, the faster) and their detailed design. If they break up as well, that further magnifies the size of the wound and the chance of hitting something vital.

benEzra
August 10, 2007, 04:36 PM
QUESTION: If the 7.62x39 is so bad can you cite some anecdotal evidence? I know anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but I can find you a ton of stuff about 5.56 failing to stop people quickly. Can you do it for the x39? Surely there must be some stories if it such a marginal man stopper as you claim.
It's not that it's "so bad," it's that Russian M43 FMJ is unusually resistant to yaw, so that M43 in Vietnam tended to cause wounds fairly similar to 9mm FMJ, which is to say quite minor as rifles go, as Dr. Fackler has observed in print.

For defensive purposes, civilians can use JHP or SP loads that do a much better job of energy transfer than M43 FMJ, with less overpenetration.

Ithaca37
August 10, 2007, 05:26 PM
This is the same crew who shot a suspect with a burst from a P90 and had him ask them to stop shooting him.

Too funny.

As for not being aware of how gov. procurement works, I am not an expert but have a general idea. I know they don't choose the best stuff based on performance, but I think the Secret service probably thinks about the weapons they pick just a little bit. I don''t think it would go over too well if the prez died because they couldn't shoot a bad guy to death with their crappy guns.

I'd say you're half right. Hitting a vital organ is the most important thing, but you often get marginal hits, where the amount of tissue damage makes the difference between a minor wound and a serious one.

OK, all I am saying is that a vital organ hit is the most important component of a lethal force encounter. Do any of you hunt? Even if you don't you are probably familiar with the fact that a gut shot deer does not drop. The most effective bullet designs (expanding ones of various designs) are used for hunting. These are going to create the greatest tissue disruption. Yet, when not shot in nervous system or cardiovascular system, a deer (which is similar in size to a human) does not die quickly and will run off into the woods. However, there are people who have taken deer with .22's with correct shot placement, the bullet size and/or design becomes less significant.

GunTech
August 10, 2007, 05:56 PM
Fragmenting bullets increase the chance of hitting something vital. Unless a vital organ is significantly damages, the mechanism of death is typically blood loss. BHowever, vertain organs are particularly vulnerable to damage from high energy rounds (the liver comes to mind). These organs can be severely compromised by transferring a lot of energy in a short interval. This is best accomplish by a bullet that expands, tumbles or fragments.

BTW, bullet yaw or upset achieves similar effects to expanding bullets. A kawing bullet has it effective frontal cross section increased to the length of the projectile. Stable bullets drill right on through.

Finally, which a deer is similar in size, they - and most wild animals - are in far better 'shape' than the typical human. Physical fitness has a great deal to do with the ability to absorb punishment and resist shock (although there is no straight correlation)

If you enjoyed reading about "Rethinking the 7.62x39mm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!