Max Effectiveness of 7.62 x 39

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, the question, why 7.62x39 and not something more powerful? Well why not? You can ask the same question of 30-30 Win fans.

Answer: I've had a Mini-30 since 1989. I wouldn't trade it. Last year I jumped at the chance for a CZ 527 bolt gun in x39. Before the pandemic/election and threat of WWIII I was buying x39 for 23 cents per round, including shipping. The prices will come back down like they always have after the nonsense is over.

Factory rounds for x39 have come a long way baby! Lots of good factory rounds for hunting and SD. Finally you can load your own with projectiles from .308 to .311 in diameter. I use mostly .308 bullets.

You can carry more rounds on your person because the rounds are lighter and smaller by design. That's the whole point. It's a highly effective round without a lot of noise or excessive recoil, even when loaded to the max.

You have cheap mil-surp and other inexpensive rounds for blasting ammo for lots of range time. You've got a great selection of factory ammo and loading your own is a doodle. Easy peasy. What's not to like?
 
citizenconn said:
I just have not seen that in the field when comparing close to apples to apples rounds. I'm a pretty big 7.62x39 fan in ARs and in bolt action rifles. Not a fan of the AK platform particularly. I am also a big 30-30 enthusiast.

A handloader can up or download almost any two rounds to achieve certain data points by using particular length barrels that skews normal ballistics for those rounds.

If you are happy with the data you are getting, more power to you. Its just not the data I am normally seeing. Respectfully.
Click to expand...

If that's not the data you're getting it is what it is. I'm not the only one seeing what I'm seeing in the field. I've got friends that are way ahead of me when it comes to maximizing 7.62x39. A lot of folks who are friends of mine from the late great Perfect Union forum. No the forum is not defunct, but after new ownership took over it just died. You can find all the info you can dream of about x39 and Ruger minis over there. That's were the 12 disciples, including me, who truly grasp the power of x39 used to hand out.

By the way, I respect your perspective. Your experience is what it is.
 
I am sorry, I was wrong. I did not realize that people were so determined to make the x39 as powerful as the 30-30. About like supercharging a 50 Ford Flathead so It can run with a Rocket 88. But if it keeps you busy and happy more power to you. Too bad Perfect Union closed. I used to go there years ago.
 
A reasonable apples to apples comparison is the 154 gr soft point Tula at 2177 vs 160 gr Leverevolution 30-30 at 2399 since these are both common factory loads being test fired in common length barrels. Obviously not equals. Still power levels within 200 yards aren't terribly different.




Screenshot_20221020-222532~2.png
* Edit chart for zero at 150
 
Last edited:
d2wing said:
I am sorry, I was wrong. I did not realize that people were so determined to make the x39 as powerful as the 30-30. About like supercharging a 50 Ford Flathead so It can run with a Rocket 88. But if it keeps you busy and happy more power to you. Too bad Perfect Union closed. I used to go there years ago.
Click to expand...

We don't have to try. I've explained to the degree that any reasonable intelligent person, except perhaps former members of the Charles Manson family, could see that the capacity of 7.62x39 was initially under utilized. I've explained the history that the soviets used only enough powder and projectile to kill at close range.

If you want to hang onto your religion, I'm done with this nonsense. If you can, and will look at the balistics and do the math I'll talk about that.
 
Beck said:
Not hardly. You and many others weighing in on this thread are just passing along old outdated uninformed myth about x39.

When comparing 7.62x39 with 30-30, which is a fine cartridge, the barrel length used for 30-30 velocity is 24-inch according to SAAMI standards. That's what ammo makers are referencing when you see 30-30 velocities typically at 2390 to 2410 or there abouts with a 150gr bullet.

When looking at real field data of the rifles actually used over many decades, most people prefer lever guns with 20-inch or less barrel length for 30-30. Many people prefer the 16-inch Trapper style. With a 20-inch barrel you're lucky to reach 2250 fps with 150gr 30-30 factory loads. With that cartridge 4 or more inches of barrel makes a significant difference

Compare that to the 7.62x39 150gr Corbon load, which is sending a soft point spritzer with much higher BC at 2300 fps from a 20-inch barrel. That round leaves my 18.5-inch barrel Ruger Mini-30 between 2270ish to 2290 fps. It starts out faster right out of the muzzle and maintains better trajectory and velocity due to the high BC. Even if it were a little slower the high BC pointed soft point would overtake typical factory 30-30 rounds within 20 to 30 yards and continue to leave the 30-30 bullet in the dust.

According to the Speer tech I spoke with on several occasions while designing my own version of the Corbon factory load, the speer bullet I use has a BC of between .328 and .350 at 7.62x39 velocities. Good luck finding a 30-30 bullet with that kind of performance.

Sure, a guy can use the same Speer bullet for 30-30 handloads in a lever gun, but he'll have 2 rounds, one in the tube and one in the chamber. I have 20 rounds, or 30 if I like in my Mini-30. Now I'm not going hunting with a 20-round magazine. I'm addressing the versatility of the Mini-30 in this case for both hunting deer and HD/SD.

As I correctly stated before, 7.62x39 can equal or surpass 30-30 Win. I love 30-30 Win. It's been a popular cartridge for over 100 years for good reason. If you dismiss 7.62x39, you can dismiss 30-30 as well.

As I stated before, Bill Ruger and his design team saw the potential of 7.62x39 to use the Mini-14 format to design a semiauto 30-30, and that's exactly what they did. About 35 years since the Mini-30 was introduced there's a sky high pile of deer and other medium size game taken with the Mini-30 and many other firearms chambered in 7.62x39 at close to medium ranges.

I have my mini-30 zeroed at 200 yards. My point blank is 235 yards. For most loads of any bullet weight 125gr and above, the bullet doesn't rise or fall more then 3 inches out to 235 yards. At 200 yards the Corbon 150gr load is hitting with over 1100 foot-lbs of energy. At 235 yards it's still above 1000 foot-lbs. And it does better than that in my 22-inch barrel CZ 527.

I don't have much if any reason at all to take dear out that far, but I know that I can with x39. I wouldn't dare try it with a lever gun in 30-30. I'm not bashing 30-30. It is what it is, just like x39 is what it is. Both ideal for close to medium range hunting of medium game up to 300 lbs.

I use three different 150gr projectiles for my x39 handloads. The one I'm talking about here is Speer #2217 with a minimum BC of .328 and a sectional density of .222.
Click to expand...

Man, you are doing some serious cherry picking here. Where to begin...

First, in the data from Hodgdon that @someguy2800 referenced, 7.62x39 vs. 30-30, they used a 24" barrel in BOTH cartridges, and FWIW, with a 150 gr. bullet, the 30-30 had about five loads that ran said bullet from 2350-2400 fps while the 7.62x39 had one load that almost hit 2300 fps (2291) with the rest being well under 2200 fps-

agw5FU8l.jpg gtT2fSIl.jpg

Second, BC has very little effect on trajectory and velocity at the ranges at which these two cartridges are typically used. Even if by some miracle one could "maximize" (read- overload) the 7.62x39 and load a 150 gr. bullet to 30-30 velocities (~2300 fps), there's no practical difference in downrange velocity and trajectory. The 150 gr. Speer bullet you reference indeed has a BC of .328, but their 150 gr. FP, which is designed for tubular magazines, has a BC of .255. Zero them both at 175 yds., and neither will rise over 2.5" and at 250 yds. (which is really too far for either for hunting) the difference in trajectory is less than 1".

qM8Fz8jl.jpg Lark14Cl.jpg

I own rifles in both calibers and they both have their uses. The 7.62x39 is my utility rifle around the place here and it serves that purpose very well, and you can see on the first page of this thread how I put it to use. However for strictly hunting the 30-30 is far more versatile, especially when the game is larger than whitetail and deeper penetrating bullets with higher sectional densities are required. Remember, the 30-30 with run a 170 gr. bullet up to 2200 fps out of a 20" barrel while the 7.62x39 has no hope of that.

35W
 

Attachments

  • qM8Fz8jm.jpg
    qM8Fz8jm.jpg
    23.5 KB · Views: 3
  • Lark14Cm.jpg
    Lark14Cm.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
Beck said:
We don't have to try. I've explained to the degree that any reasonable intelligent person, except perhaps former members of the Charles Manson family, could see that the capacity of 7.62x39 was initially under utilized. I've explained the history that the soviets used only enough powder and projectile to kill at close range.
Click to expand...

Well, the capacity of the 7.62x54R was also "under-utilized"... same with the 5.45x39... not about saving powder, more about function. I wouldn't say it was under-utilized, because if they used a case with less capacity, they would need higher pressures, the capacity was that way for a good reason, not to scrimp on the powder charges. Also I believe depending on your components and platform you may encounter problems pushing it as some people find with the Grendel. Seems to be partly case manufacturing specs. Not sure full 65000 psi is a great idea with any brass. But there is a lot of room to push it faster than the classic "123 grains at 2350 fps".
 
I have learned much from this thread. Quite a bit of things like the fact we can use .308 150 grain bullets. I don’t think it matters so much to me which round is more powerful. It seems the distance push is debatable. But the effect of the round is not. I now wonder about scope choice for my mini 30. I think some of my accuracy was me and some was my ammo choice. The rifle I have is a 580 series after the retool. I may even look into trigger improvement to see if it helps.
 
Blkhrt13 said:
I have learned much from this thread. Quite a bit of things like the fact we can use .308 150 grain bullets. I don’t think it matters so much to me which round is more powerful. It seems the distance push is debatable. But the effect of the round is not. I now wonder about scope choice for my mini 30. I think some of my accuracy was me and some was my ammo choice. The rifle I have is a 580 series after the retool. I may even look into trigger improvement to see if it helps.
Click to expand...
There's a lot you can do to improve the Minis accuracy, you probably won't get it to equal what you can do with a bolt but close.
Good ammo is a must, most of the factory stuff suitable for hunting will be more accurate than cheap FMJ, there's a reason guys don't use FMJ in accuracy competition
The trigger has a lot of room for improvement, smaller port gas bushings, sometimes proper torque on the gas block can help.
Volumes have been written about optics, I'll keep it short, for myself a mini 30 screams LPVO with 1x at the bottom and 4x to 8x at the top, a 2-7x would be good too.
 
Last edited:
Varminterror said:
For consideration - these specs effectively match 357magnum loads AT THE MUZZLE. Suggesting the x39 is not effective at this 400yrd standard is effectively saying the 357mag with 125’s would also be ineffective at ALL distances, including with the muzzle pressed against the hide of the deer.

I’m not a huge fan of the 357mag for hunting, but certainly not because I believe it is so underpowered that it can’t deliver at muzzle contact distance.
Click to expand...
The issue with that is initial bullet diameter and construction.
At the same time Leverevolution powder puts the 7.62x39 into actual factory 30-30 power levels. Not close to it.
I can push a 185 cast with accuracy at 19 and change with mine.
I still only consider it my 150 yard gun because I have ones that do much better beyond that. I also hate tracking in thick forest.
 
BushMaster-15 said:
For hunting purposes the 7.62x39 would be just above a .22 mag . Sorry the cartridge isn't a hunting round IMO unless it's two legged and spray and pray abound the world around . I have them in several flavors including Russian but would NEVER consider them any animal cartridge . My $0.02 worth .
Click to expand...
The 5.45x39mm would be closer to a .22 Mag. The 7.62x39mm fires a round about 3x as heavy as .22 Mag, at higher velocity. The only comparison is that they're both firearm cartridges. As others have said, the big limitations for this round are the bullets in loaded ammo, or trying to make this a (heavy) dangerous game or long distance cartridge.

John
 
d2wing said:
Yeah show what factory load that is. Oh yeah, you don't believe in SAAMI. I hope you don't hurt yourself. You can do that with any cartridge load it beyond SAAMI spec. Not sure that is a legit handload either. I did check at ammo.com. I was wrong standard 123 gr x39 ME is 1445. Me 0f 165 gr 30-30 is 2049. so i had the wrong numbers But your numbers are not in spec at all.


Nope not a factory load.


I did check at ammo.com I had the wrong numbers. They list 123gr (2300) fps) at 1445 ME, 150 Gr 30-30 2480 MV) at 2049. while I was wrong about double, standard load show way more energy and sectional density for 30-30 loads. I am sure handloader can go crazy with both rounds so those are not valid.
Go crazy all you want. Claims that they are equal or even close as you claim are totally false.
Click to expand...
with CFE blk powder you can easily get 2600 FPS with 125 gr bullet out of the 39 and 2260 fps with 150 gr. it is under 30-30 but not that much
 
Last edited:
David Hoback said:
This is misleading. The 7.62x39 was not designed to kill 150-200lb ANIMALS. It was designed for warfare against human beings & most importantly, to operate in both full & semi automatic rates of fire weapons. Those were the parameters of the 314 cartridge designs looked at by the Soviet Armament Commission at the time, of which only 8 were manufactured & of course the x39 won the bid for production in 1943.

Oh! And if the argument is 150-200lb Humans being the equivalent representation of Animals, again.. no. Human beings & Game animals react far differently to gunshots. While dying is immanent in both cases, yes.. the goal in hunting is to bring about death in the quickest time possible. Where as with small arms in warfare during WW2, and ESPECIALLY by those like the Germany & the Soviet Union, quick death was not the primary goal. Stopping soldiers by wounding or rather horribly wounding in the aforementioned country’s case, was the intended design.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with your post.
But in the part where you say "countries like Germany and the Soviet Union" don't care about quick kills"....What is that? The U.S. came out with with the 5.56 while Russia was using a much larger, heavy hitting round. The whole niche of the 5.56 was to remove players from the playing board with ease (living or dead), and have LOTS of such ammo at hand. The Russian followed suit with that philosophy later with the 5.45x39 and the AK74. It was their answer to US, and not the other way around.

In World War 2 most sides were using flame-throwers on each other, so let's just not get into the comparative humane-ness of conventional bullets, then.

That said, and returning from this digression....I would prefer 7.62x39 because of it's versatility for combined hunting and perimeter defense. With HP or SP ammo, It's almost like having a semi auto 30-30 I'd rather have an AK as a ranch rifle than an AR ANY DAY. If I feel the need for longer shots with oomph I'll grab a 308.
 
Offhand McFlan said:
I mostly agree with your post.
But in the part where you say "countries like Germany and the Soviet Union" don't care about quick kills"....What is that? The U.S. came out with with the 5.56 while Russia was using a much larger, heavy hitting round. The whole niche of the 5.56 was to remove players from the playing board with ease (living or dead), and have LOTS of such ammo at hand. The Russian followed suit with that philosophy later with the 5.45x39 and the AK74. It was their answer to US, and not the other way around.

In World War 2 most sides were using flame-throwers on each other, so let's just not get into the comparative humane-ness of conventional bullets, then.

That said, and returning from this digression....I would prefer 7.62x39 because of it's versatility for combined hunting and perimeter defense. With HP or SP ammo, It's almost like having a semi auto 30-30 I'd rather have an AK as a ranch rifle than an AR ANY DAY. If I feel the need for longer shots with oomph I'll grab a 308.
Click to expand...
The Soviets, Germans and Americans never had a wound rather than kill doctrine. That was a doctrine of the VC in Vietnam. Also, the 7.39 was the round much more apt to wound rather than kill. Wounds with the 5.56 are more lethal and have much more tissue damage. That is why Soviets and Chinese have both come out with similar cartridges. All of them are relatively low powered cartridges to function in full auto. Not due to lack of resources or other PU falsehoods. I have no bias against any cartridge, just the fanboy misinformation. Seems many of you make up stuff and consider it fact.
 
mavracer said:
There's a lot you can do to improve the Minis accuracy, you probably won't get it to equal what you can do with a bolt but close.
Click to expand...

“Close” is clearly subjective here. In this context of a Mini getting “close” to the accuracy of bolt guns, to me, doesn’t strike me as objectively scoring in horseshoes or hand grenades.
 
Varminterror said:
“Close” is clearly subjective here. In this context of a Mini getting “close” to the accuracy of bolt guns, to me, doesn’t strike me as objectively scoring in horseshoes or hand grenades.
Click to expand...
Guess I probably should have clarified by bolt I meant the Ruger American Ranch OP was considering.
 
d2wing said:
Wounds with the 5.56 are more lethal and have much more tissue damage. ... Seems many of you make up stuff and consider it fact.
Click to expand...
Completely ammunition dependent. The 7.62x39mm is more powerful than the 5.56x45mm. Being more powerful, it is factually capable of causing more damage when loaded with appropriate ammunition.

John
 
JShirley said:
Completely ammunition dependent. The 7.62x39mm is more powerful than the 5.56x45mm. Being more powerful, it is factually capable of causing more damage when loaded with appropriate ammunition.

John
Click to expand...
early M-16's had a slow twist which supposedly caused the bullet to tumble when it hit bone. now with a 1x7 twist the 5.56 just drills a small hole. in the fall I hike up a mountain and I found a 20' almost vertical rock cliff. I brought a mini 14 and an SKS up there srayed a orange circle on the flat face went back about 80 yds fired the mini with 62 gr bullets. I was surprised how hard it hit. then I fired the SKS and it looked like a bomb went off on the rock. it hit so much harder then the 62 gr did
 
If you're hunting with 7.62x39 your best bet is the Privi PPU brass case 7.62x39 SPRN (soft point round nose).
Basically a 7,62x39 round with a 30-30 bullet.
It's OAL is a bit shorter than the std. 123 gr fmj or semi soft points but feeds fine in all my 7.62x39 AKs, ARs and VZ-58.
Tula also makes a 158 gr. soft point that's close but IMHO Tula's only good for range blasting, not what I'd pick when you may only get one shot. Only reason I shoot it is my WASR seems to group it slightly better.
 
JShirley said:
Completely ammunition dependent. The 7.62x39mm is more powerful than the 5.56x45mm. Being more powerful, it is factually capable of causing more damage when loaded with appropriate ammunition.

John
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Above a certain velocity, I think around 2600 FPS human tissue cannot yield fast enough, therefor energy is transmitted as if the tissue were solid rather than soft. Much like a boat going on plane when water cannot be displaced rapidly enough and the boat rides on top. The result is energy is spread over a wider area causing more tissue damage than a bullet below that velocity threshold. There is a reason that you are told that velocity and energy don't matter.
Of course, bullet construction is important. Of course, the modern slower heavier more stable 5.56/223 are not as devastating as the old slow twist higher velocity as mentioned. Still I have seen the difference between .223 soft points and 7.62x39 soft points deer hunting. The .223 does definitely do more damage.
 
Last edited:
robin banks said:
early M-16's had a slow twist which supposedly caused the bullet to tumble when it hit bone. now with a 1x7 twist the 5.56 just drills a small hole. in the fall I hike up a mountain and I found a 20' almost vertical rock cliff. I brought a mini 14 and an SKS up there srayed a orange circle on the flat face went back about 80 yds fired the mini with 62 gr bullets. I was surprised how hard it hit. then I fired the SKS and it looked like a bomb went off on the rock. it hit so much harder then the 62 gr did
Click to expand...
Yeah, 7.62x39 is better for shooting rocks, trees too in my experience. FMJ goes through a 12-inch tree, but they don't bleed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
7.62 x 39 ammo?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
RustyHammer
R
T
  • Locked
AK & 7.62 X 39 debate
Replies
4
Views
594
my762buzz
M
D
  • Locked
Boxes of 7.62 X 39 ammo?
Replies
2
Views
500
chris in va
C
C
  • Locked
CZ 527 Carbine - .223 or 7.62 X 39?
2
Replies
29
Views
7K
JShirley
JShirley
C
  • Locked
7.62 x 39 ??
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
bejay
B
Back
Top