The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

stolivar said:

Even the 77 gr is only 683fp at 300 yards.

steve

Click to expand...

Yes, but it also still has 2100 fps or so of velocity.

Your typical 7.62x39 load shoots a ~125 gr bullet @ ~2350 fps. This is a light for caliber projectile with a terrible BC and it sheds over 300 fps in the first 100 yards. By the time you reach about 120 yards the bullet is dropping under 2000 fps.

A 75-77 gr OTM round in a 5.56 is a much heavier for caliber projectile with a much better BC; about .36 for the 5.56 gr bullet vs ~.28 for the 7.62mm bullet. And it starts with 400 fps more velocity. So it maintains 2000 fps all the way out to 300+ yards, even from a 16" barrel.

This is important because Fackler and others have shown us that tissue is elastic and amazingly resilient to so-called hydrostatic shock forces. Projectiles impacting under 2000 fps rarely show much damage beyond the permanent wound cavity created by tissue actually physically displaced by the projectile.Handguns don't produce the velocity to destroy tissue through cavitation, so their wound channels are measured in fractions of an inch, usually slightly smaller than the expanded diameter of the projectile. Rifles do produce enough velocity to destroy tissue through cavitation, which is why a wound channel from a rifle can be several inches in diameter. But it is highly dependent on velocity.

Your typical 7.62x39 round is essentially a .31 caliber handgun round by the time it reaches 150 yards. The bullet may or may not expand much below 1800 fps or so and even if it does expand, damage in the temporary stretch cavity is going to be non-existent. Meanwhile, the 5.56 loaded with a 75-77 gr OTM can expect to retain more velocity at 150 yards than the x39 has a the muzzle. An expanding 5.56 bullet impacting with enough velocity to cause cavitation damage is likely to create a wound channel much larger than the slower .31 caliber projectile.

The 77 gr OTM round was developed for US SOCOM on behest of some tip of the spear guys who wanted more range from their 5.56mm platforms. It has been used successfully in combat out to 600 yards and beyond. The Mk 262 Mod I is the most accurate ammunition ever adopted by our military and has proven to be very effective on humans. As a medium game round, I wouldn't hesitate to take any broadside shot I had out to 300 yards with that round, easily 3x the distance I would feel safe shooting an animal with any 7.62x39 load. The stubby Russian round just doesn't have the velocity to kill like a rifle beyond about 100 yards.

A friend of mine is a Marine Vet who did his share in Desert Storm....

He has told me stories of picking off targets at 600yds with an AR, while the bad guys AK x39 were falling well short of their position.

So while I personally feel that the x39 has an edge within 100yds (my load, with 150gr SP), the AR isn't behind by much (my load, with 62gr SP) and then blows by the x39 after that. not to mention that the trajectory is sooo much easier to figure with the 5.56 (but that's just me, and my seat of the pants Kentucky windage calculator)

Might as well choose the caliber that covers all the bases.

I am not jumping into this one, but the OP stated a max distance of 150 so it seems that much of this discussion is moot.

Since you included projectiles, Im assuming I reload this round. I'd say 7.62x39 for a this reason:

1:More potential power, with a greater disparity of projectile weight. Since I can reload this round, I can run a #1 buckshot for small game all the way up to 200 grain projectiles. Larger case mouth (and case) allows more flexibility.

7.62x39

I have seen the results of neck shots on deer with .223.
This will be my fist year hunting with an AR. I plan to do as well as I have seen, 62 gr Fusion in the neck, DRT.

Per the Army Wound Ballistics Lab testing the 5.56 gives best wound lethality up to 95 yards.

39---was great in MI swamps
i did use a 222 for a while ( killed good under 100yd)
222 made the rangers mad ass hell as they used it for winter kill but did not want us to use it

I have both, and hunt with the.223.

Just like the responses, I'd give it a toss up.

7.62x39 gets some more energy (at muzzle and at range), size, weight
.223 gets more speed, better bullet selection (therefore arguably more reliable expansion), and probably a more accurate platform for most (depending)

I'd probably go 7.62x39 based on cartridge, but my AR shoots better than my SKS based on platform

Sunray said:

More about the rifle than the cartridge.

Click to expand...

stolivar said:

There are quite a few bolt guns out there for the 7.62x39 now. The CZ 527, Howa mini, and now the Ruger RAR in that caliber.

Click to expand...

That's the way I was thinking about this, too.

Ironicaintit said:

A friend of mine is a Marine Vet who did his share in Desert Storm....

He has told me stories of picking off targets at 600yds with an AR, while the bad guys AK x39 were falling well short of their position.

Click to expand...

Just an aside, but I'm leery of evaluating the effectiveness of ammunition, weapons, etc. based on how the Iraqi Army performed with it...

I have used both. At ranges well beyond the OP's 150 yards my longest shot to date is still one I made with a 7.62x39 harvesting a doe at 278 yards with an ar15

Honestly at that range it would be the rifle I like best with one caveat

I've NEVER gotten even a speck of a blood trail from a 22 centerfire. So if it's not open country I'm going to go with the x39 because you will stand a much better chance of actually finding your game

make mine a 763x39 which is balisticaly about the same as a 3030 which is a far better big game round then any 223 load.

SKS makes for a very decent deer rifle.

I would vote for the 7.62x39.

CarJunkieLS1 said:

For me I'll take the x39. As a reloader I use CFE BLK and with a 123 grain SST, Hot-Cor, and Hornady SP they all shoot MOA or better and clock over 2400fps from a 16" barrel. I'm working with the 135 FTX now. It was made to expand down to 1600fps specifically to hunt medium game with the 300blk.

IMO out to 150 yards the x39 has the advantage over the .223

Click to expand...

Listen to this guy... He knows of what he speaks.

Between the two it is clear in my mind anything under 200 yards the x39 is the clear winner. And any further distance one needs to really reconsider both platforms.

It isn't a 30-30 but it gets relatively close, and I don't need to speak to the effectiveness of the 30-30 at putting meat in the fridge for the past 120 years. And I know there are a lot of animals that have been harvested with the x39 over the years in Russia and Africa, that is anecdotal at best but I think it deserves some minor merit. There are quite a few in eastern US that I've read about using the x39 to great extent and success when SKS's were dirt cheap to harvest deer, and most often the story included cheap steel case ammo, of which would be far from my first choice.

Blood trail of a 30% bigger hole will be quite significant difference if an errant shot causes one to have to track an animal.

None of what I said above precludes one from using a good .224 partition or TTSX for hunting but I would really consider keeping distances under 200 yards.

I have killed deer with both calibers. Within 100 yards its going to be the 7.62x39 for me given a choice. Further out I'd choose the 223.
That said as long as I have the options currently available to me I'll choose to use another caliber to hunt.
I've heard that more deer have been killed with a 22 over time than any other single caliber.
There's possibly some Gospel it has a ring of truth as I've had success before squirrel hunting over the year's myself when a target of opportunity presented itself I killed my first deer with a Marlin Glenfield model 60 and a good neck shot while looking for a squirrel or a rabbit as a boy.

7.62x39

It isn't a 30-30 but it gets relatively close, and I don't need to speak to the effectiveness of the 30-30 at putting meat in the fridge for the past 120 years.

Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who has hunted with a pre-64 Win 94 30-30 since the mid-80's and who would just as soon be buried with that particular rifle, in everything but the new LeverEvolotion ammunition, the 7.62x39 can be loaded to be MORE effective downrange and MORE accurate than my beloved old 30-30. That is because I can use higher BC spitzers like my 125 Nosler BT's or the excellent-for-whitetails Hornady 160-grain FTX bullet and keep them above 1800 fps. even out to 200 yards. Compared to the flat-nosed 150's and 170's I hunted with for 30 years out of my '94, it's unquestionably a better downrange option.

Even if we do load the 30-30 with the excellent LeverEvolution ammo, my bolt action 7.62x39 is still twice as accurate, routinely shooting sub-MOA while the levergun struggles to break 2 MOA most days.

So, if given the choice and presented with a 150-200 yard shot, I'd reach for my bolt-action 7.62x39 every time before my beloved Winchester. Sorry pop.

I would personally choose 223. Not because I think its better at 150 yards and under, but because Ive carried an AR15 for the last 15 years.

Lets make some things clear, 7.62 x 39 is nowhere near as effective as a 30-30. 170 gr for the 30-30 vs 123 grs for the 7.62x 39. Big difference in sectional density and energy. Another thing is that no one should use ball or milsurp bullets for hunting. In this state only soft point expanding bullets are legal and ethical.
As for effectiveness both do the job at close range. I have shot lots of deer with both. The .223 has a clear edge in tissue damage though at any range and far more accurate in the military style rifles I have used. The .223 will turn the heart and lungs into mush resulting in a quicker kill. Velocity is more important than small differences in diameter. But the 7.62 with expanding bullets works just fine with good placement. I prefer the .223 for more range, better bullet placement and quicker kills but neither are ethical for very long range. The deer can't measure the difference in of 8 hundreds of an inch difference in diameter.