300 blk vs 7.62x39 for hunting deer or hogs

[hq]

Not in the real world, on game. At least, not in my experience shooting literally hundreds of hogs.

In that case you might want to look into the choice of bullet, perhaps? When bullet weight, construction and impact velocity are identical, the terminal ballistics certainly will be too. It's a bit of shame that commercial loads for 7.62 are so far from what's even close to the limits of the cartridge, but once you roll your own the situation changes drastically. An accurate 2400fps load with a high end 150gr hunting bullet is easy to make and well within SAAMI/CIP pressure limits, but none seems to be available commercially.

 

[R.W.Dale]

In that case you might want to look into the choice of bullet, perhaps? When bullet weight, construction and impact velocity are identical, the terminal ballistics certainly will be too. It's a bit of shame that commercial loads for 7.62 are so far from what's even close to the limits of the cartridge, but once you roll your own the situation changes drastically. An accurate 2400fps load with a high end 150gr hunting bullet is easy to make and well within SAAMI/CIP pressure limits, but none seems to be available commercially.

2400 fps with a 150 is not achievable within SAAMI pressure limits. The wolf 154 load is good but tops out just over 2100fps in any "normal" length barrel.

Here's an old thread of mine outlining this.
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=409098

 

[PabloJ]

The CZ Mini-Mauser 7,62x39 would make perfect brush rifle. Dare I say it could replace legendary Winchester 1984 .30-30? The .300 Whisper has been out for years yet nobody in past has thought of it as really useful hunting round.

 

[hq]

Wolf may not be the ideal benchmark for ballistic performance. At 41kpsi and short/steep pressure curve it's acceptable for short barrels but there's quite a bit of room for improvement. Especially if you have access to professional grade piezoelectric measuring equipment and a test barrel, and don't need to rely on just inspecting the brass for signs of overpressure.

 

[justin22885]

Interesting on the 7.62x40. Looks like the energy is actually higher than the 5.56. That can't be said of the 300BLK in any published loading I've found.

It's actually showing as high as the x39 on Wilson's website.

What I wonder is how long the stretched out case necks will last. I watched a guy making that brass. Looks like it works fine but I'd bet where you could get 20 uses out of neck sized 5.56, you'd get 3-4 out of the stretched x40 brass.

Other than that thought... I like it!

EDIT: One other thing I don't like... it's looking like limited sources for barrels and the mag has to be converted. Really, is there anything wrong with the 5.56? With a good expanding bullet, I wonder if the performance is any worse than most of it's competition (6.8, 300BLK, 7.62x39, etc).

the energy level on both 300 blackout and 7.62x40WT is higher than 5.56, larger diameter bullets build energy quicker in equal barrel lengths as the chamber pressure multiplied by the surface area of the base of the bullet determines how much actual thrust is being applies to the bullet.. therefor at equal pressures (say 62kpsi) the bigger bullet generally builds energy much quicker.. also because its slower and remains in the barrel longer, that thrust is applied to the bullet over a longer duration

the published loads youre probably seeing for 300 blackout that makes it look like crap have either been subsonic loads, data from short barrels, or data from ammunition designed for short barrels using pistol powders

 

[justin22885]

The CZ Mini-Mauser 7,62x39 would make perfect brush rifle. Dare I say it could replace legendary Winchester 1984 .30-30? The .300 Whisper has been out for years yet nobody in past has thought of it as really useful hunting round.

if the 7.62x39 already surpasses 30-30 at its relatively low pressure, if that bolt action would enable you to increase chamber pressures with 7.62x39 closer to 60-62kpsi then youd blow 30-30 out of the water

basically all the russians did with 7.62x39 was take 30-30 and make it semi-auto friendly and a bit more dimensionally efficient with higher pressures.. the downside of course as ive mentioned before is the 154 grain .311 bullets are designed for 7.62x54R, the 7.62x39 likely wont have the necessary velocity for reliable expansion of 154 grain bullets, so if your bolt action has a .308 bore then youre set

 

[777funk]

Justin, I used Hodgdon's reloading center for my data in post #12. It shows the most energy efficient 300BLK load to be a 110gr at 2350f/s approx out of a 16" barrel.

You had stated some numbers earlier with the same weight but at a lower velocity (2200 from post #19) EDIT: I see you were talking 150gr bullets... I've seen no published data showing this kind of speed. Both Hodgdon and Nosler show around 1930f/s with 150gr. At the most efficient load I've found published 110gr at 2350f/s that's only 1350 ft lbf. That's a lower energy number than a M855 62gr 5.56 at 3200f/s which is 1410ft lbf.

As others pointed out, once the speed drops out at distance, expansion will not be as reliable.

I wouldn't hunt with an m855 of course since it's an FMJ. But I'm talking energy alone. There could be more to it than that but then again, energy is energy if it can be delivered to the target. And with the math anyways (in theory), it looks like a 62gr at 3200 f/s has more energy than a 110gr at 2350f/s.

 

[justin22885]

Justin, I used Hodgdon's reloading center for my data in post #12. It shows the most energy efficient 300BLK load to be a 110gr at 2350f/s approx out of a 16" barrel.

You had stated some numbers earlier with the same weight but at a lower velocity (2200 from post #19) EDIT: I see you were talking 150gr bullets... I've seen no published data showing this kind of speed. Both Hodgdon and Nosler show around 1930f/s with 150gr. At the most efficient load I've found published 110gr at 2350f/s that's only 1350 ft lbf. That's a lower energy number than a M855 62gr 5.56 at 3200f/s which is 1410ft lbf.

As others pointed out, once the speed drops out at distance, expansion will not be as reliable.

I wouldn't hunt with an m855 of course since it's an FMJ. But I'm talking energy alone. There could be more to it than that but then again, energy is energy if it can be delivered to the target. And with the math anyways (in theory), it looks like a 62gr at 3200 f/s has more energy than a 110gr at 2350f/s.

what powders are those published loads using that youre finding, i bet its H110

 

[777funk]

Just google "Hodgdon Reloading Data Center" and it gives data for almost any caliber. It gives a handful of options for 300 BLK powders.

I just looked and it shows H110 as one of the options as well as IMR 4227 and Lil Gun.

From what I gather, the faster end of rifle powders are still not fast enough. H335 for instance seems to yield very low velocities with full case loads and with unburned powder. Maybe a longer barrel would help with this. This guy tested it with a 16". From his results I think it'd take a very long barrel for all of the powder to burn.
http://www.300blktalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78554

Seems to need faster than a fast rifle powder.

 

[hq]

the downside of course as ive mentioned before is the 154 grain .311 bullets are designed for 7.62x54R, the 7.62x39 likely wont have the necessary velocity for reliable expansion

.311 (+/- a thou) bullets are somewhat common, .303 British and 7.7mm Japanese being nominally .312, in addition to 7.62:s in .311. Many faster expanding ones have ideal impact velocity range between 1600 and 2500fps. x39 at 2200fps V0 is still at 1600fps+ at 250 yards. Bullet selection isn't as incredibly vast as for .308 diameter, but last I checked there were at least a dozen different 150gr premium hunting bullets available in .311, including Barnes Triple Shock, Sierra Pro Hunter, Hornady SST, Speer HotCor and many others.

 

[pakmcc]

I have two of the palmetto uppers in 7.62x39. they are both very accurate. I use .308 and .310 dia bullets of 123 gr. weight with the .310 bullets I can get about 3/4 inch groups at 100 yards(yes, Off a bench rest.) and with the .308 bullets about a inch and a half. I'm using H-4198 and WW 1680 powders. almost no FTF's or FTE's (one upper doesn't like soft tip bullets the other one doesn't care. My newer upper about 50 rounds through it now, might need a new hammer spring. but the older one(about 5-600 rounds) will fire just about any thing. I've gotten under 2 inch groups with some misc. Russian ammo at 100 yards also. I love these two uppers. "O", I put the first upper on an old AR-15 lower that's been around for a long time and I've had no problems with it at all. I'm now look for an 6.8 upper for my lower. midway has .310 bullet on sale for 14 cents each right now.(250 pack) I've got several of these. but I pour my on bullets with gas checks for 7.62 of 161gr. they work in one gun(the older broke in one, but not the newer one (161gr. bullets with 16-18 gr.s of 4198) it in the lyman lead shooting book!

 

[justin22885]

personally im fine with 75 grain .223/5.56 on deer/pig or even my 45acp carbine, i know some people really tend to over think what they hunt with but caliber means next to nothing when compared to proper shot placement and reasonable distance

 

[777funk]

No doubt any of those will work. And I agree, it is an over thought subject. A hole in the vitals will harvest the animal. Really, we're probably splitting hairs over a hundred or two ft*lbf between calibers. But it is interesting. I don't think I'll be buying a 300 BLK. If SKS's were still cheap and abundant, I'd probably buy a x39 because it's cheap and maybe a little more pep. Not now though. No real incentive to it with SKS's being $300 minimum.

 

[justin22885]

i have an AK in 7.62x39 and my preferred load for it was 154 grain .311 bullets which ive put to the test in various occasions and i wasnt impressed at all, the wound channel was.. well, about the same as a .32acp wound channel and i was using 154 grain bullets because the 123s drop like a rock after a couple hundred yards

surprised at how poor the 154 grain wound channel was and how everyone touted it as a great deer hunting round, and seeing the heavy 75-80 grain .223 bullets delivering a much larger wound channel with the necessary penetration ive made the switch back to 5.56

thats why i said what i said about 154 grain 7.62x39 not being all that great, works great in a mosin or an enfield which they were designed for, but x39, not really so thats why i give a slight edge in hunting to a supersonic .300 blackout or 7.62x40WT hand load if you cant get a 7.62x39 rifle with a .308" bore

 

[Newtosavage]

FWIW, I took my Chrony to the range today and shot a few Hornady 123-grain SST's over it with my 7.62x39 Savage scout (20" barrel). The box says 2350 fps. The chronograph agreed. Five-shot average was right at 2350 fps. Not sure how often that happens, but I'm pleased with that result and also with the terminal performance of those Hornady 123 grain SST's on hogs.