7.62 x 39 a medium between 5.56 and 7.62 Nato?

[The Burnside Ninja]

So, I want to buy a rifle... for defense. I've got the WalMart Ruger Mini-14 in mind. Very cheap. Reliable. And did I mention cheap? However, most people prefer to go with .308 (7.62 Nato) I DEFINATELY don't want to get into the discussion of 5.56 Nato vs. 7.62 Nato- but I am wondering if the 7.62 x 39 is a compromise of both? If SHTF, I would like a reliable rifle that ammo is easy to obtain. I DON'T have $600 to spend on a rifle...

So what are the advantages/disadvantages of 7.62 x 39?

 

[AK103K]

Personally, I think the 7.62x39 is the perfect all around round for a combat type rifle. Sort of a .308K.

 

[Josh Aston]

Lack of decent ammo. Surplus/Wolf ammo isn't hard to find but it's a bit more difficult to find premium ammo. And while it's a personal thing, I find the AK and SKS to be about as ergonomic as a brick.

 

[Ivy Mike]

7.62x39 is a great cartridge considering the price of surplus ammo (although it is going up) I'd say its not quite the middle ground between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, but its a good middle-weight round. Maybe if the Russians had done some updating instead of adopting 5.45x39, it would be better.

If you're looking at a mini-14, might I suggest a Kel-Tec SU-16 instead? You get a lightweight little carbine in a common caliber and unlike the Ruger, you can readily get larger capacity magazines at low prices. One of the benefits of the weapon accepting M-16 magazines.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Advice... head to gunshow. Buy Romanian AK for $3XX. Accurate to ~200 yards (after you adjust the sights!). Fires 7.62x39 ammo. Little need to clean.

 

[The Burnside Ninja]

Thanks Clean, I think I'll research that Kel Tec

 

[The Burnside Ninja]

So is the 7.62x39 in large surplus, even though it isn't a Nato round?

 

[George S.]

.223 Remington is easy to find at places like Wal-Mart. You can get good prices for both .223 and 7.62x39 from various internet sources if you want to buy in bulk.

I have a Mini-14 and I find it to be utterly reliable and fairly accurate out to 200 yards. I have done about $75 worth of "tuning" (trigger job and small gas port bushing) to get there but well worth it considering I only paid $400 for the rifle brand new. At 50 yards, I can easily get consistent 3/4 to 1" groups with UMC 55gr FMJ or the Winchester White Box equal. At 100 yards, the groups go to about 2" but that is still accurate enough for SHTF situations.

There are a number of good hi-cap mags out there for the Mini-14 and readily available from Midway or Cabelas. And any gun show worth its salt will have vendors selling hi-caps for the Mini. I use both John Masen and Pro-Mag 20 and 30 round versions and none have given me any problems. And I have yet to pay more than $20 for one of these mags.

Have you thought about a Mini-30? It's in 7.62x39 and is just as reliable as the Mini-14.

 

[AK103K]

If you looking for a daily use rifle, the Kel Tec is probably not what your looking for. Its more meant to be a always have along, but use little gun.

I had one a short while after they came out. It was about as accurate as my AR's at 100 yards. Mine didnt like most M16 mags and they required fitting to work. The 10 round Kel Tec mags worked flawlessly. Its a cool and different little rifle, I just dont think its robust enough for any kind of daily use.

For less money, you can have an AK or SKS, a bunch of mags, and some ammo. With just a little practice and familiarization, most of the usual complaints about the AK go away.

 

[Ivy Mike]

from what I've seen, 7.62x39 surplus is becoming less common and as such, the prices are going up. The plus side is that with the surplus not being as common, commercial ammo is getting better and cheaper.
Wolf has their Military Classic line which is basically their old lacquer cased ammo and is at a decent price most places I've looked.

What I'd love to see is better prices on 5.45x39. My SLR-105R is hungry and I can't afford to feed her right now.

 

[Shrike360]

The middle ground, seems to be the new 6.8mm and 6.5mm Grendel cartridges.

 

[Metapotent]

So is the 7.62x39 in large surplus, even though it isn't a Nato round?

Regardless of the fact that its not a NATO round, it is still a military caliber and therefore you can find military surplus ammo for it. It's a little more difficult to find 7.62x39 in the US specifically than 5.56 nato and .308 nato, but that doesn't matter because Wolf ammo has just about the same quality 7.62X39 as mil-surp 7.62x39 at a cheaper price. So you might as well just buy wolf, or if you want much better performance you can get American factory 7.62x39 but at a higher price.

I've only bought mil-surp x39 ammo a few times and it was more expensive, yet less accurate and less reliabe in exchange for having a slightly higher velocity than Wolf/barnaul. The people who sell x39 surplus can exploit the catchy name of "milsurp ammo" and people think that it is higher quality and/or cheaper than regular factory ammo, which it isn't in my experience.

But its very rare to find x39 milsurp anyhow considering most countries who's military uses 7.62 are our enemy, or alteast an antagonist towards the US and therefore there is rarely a trade relationship between their markets and our markets.

So what are the advantages/disadvantages of 7.62 x 39?

Advantages: Cheap ammo, good short-range punch, usually coupled with relatively reliable rifles, and the ammo itself is usually reliable.

Disadvantages: Not very flat shooting/fast bullet drop, of poorer quality compared to milsurp NATO ammo, shortage of milsurp ammo (if you care), cheap ammo is non-reloadable, accurate loads are far more expensive than 5.56 and 7.62 NATO as well as their civilian designations of .223 remington and .308 winchester. Usually coupled with rifles that are reliable, yet inaccurate and with poor ergonomics.

The biggest thing that I don't like about the 7.62 is definitely its inability to shoot accurately at medium-long and long ranges. This may not be an issue as a self-defense rifle, but I much prefer the .223/5.56. I can hit targets accurately and consistently from 50-400 yds in rapid succession with my .223/5.56 rifles. This can't be done with a 7.62x39, simple as that.

 

[Huddog]

I think any of the three calibers is acceptable. As far as the 6.8 I am concerned because there is no surplus ammo out there to buy as far as I know, making it expensive to shoot, much like the 5.45.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

7.62x39 may be in short supply now, but as soon as the current unpleasantness in Iraq ends, the manufacturers supplying Iraq are going to have huge surpluses to dump on the US market.

 

[The Burnside Ninja]

In considering the Ruger mini-30, I'm aware that Ruger does not suggest the use of "Wolf" ammo for their rifles. So, wouldn't that mean that there is a VERY limited supply of x39 for it???

 

[akodo]

I DEFINATELY don't want to get into the discussion of 5.56 Nato vs. 7.62 Nato this suprises me, as most people agree on where these two stand in relation to eachother.

I'd definately never take the view that 7.62x39 is a comprimise between them. 7.62x39 is ballistically nearly identical to a 30-30, just some bullets are more commonly found in one platform vs the other. If anything, 7.62x39 is the flip side of 5.56 nato, as they are both intermediate rifle rounds roughly the same size using roughly the same amount of propellant, and generating roughly the same amount of energy, one just does it with a lighter bullet (hence faster projectile) one does it with a heavier bullet (and consequently, a bit slower)

Also remember, the soviets went to the 5.45x39, which is basically the same cartridge as 7.62x39, just with the fat bullet pulled off and a smaller put in to replace it, resulting in a round VERY similar to the 5.56 nato


Oh, ruger mini-14 and mini-30s are notorious for being inaccurate. Save some money and buy an SKS, half the price for twice the durability and equally accurate

 

[Metapotent]

What I'd love to see is better prices on 5.45x39. My SLR-105R is hungry and I can't afford to feed her right now.

About 2 weeks ago I purchased 1,080 rounds of 70's production, 50gr 5.45x39 for only $115 at my local milsurp store. I've shot about 200 rounds and had about 3 misfires out of my Saiga, but other than that it's pretty accurate considering its age and price. It's corrosive but I just clean my gun extra carefully after shooting and that fixes any potentional problem.

I haven't been able to find it on the internet for that price, but I have found the same batch at http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=282658

Its a little more expensive, but its still cheap and of pretty good quality all things considered.

 

[lee n. field]

Get an SKS.

Defense against what?

 

[STAGE 2]

Ditto on the SKS. With some tech sights and a kivarri trigger job, the accuracy on my SKS is nothing to scoff at. The round has plenty of punch for 2 legged critters and you can carry lots of ammo on your person. Some people don't like using stripper clips, but with practice, you should be able to reload just as fast as those with mags.

 

[cookekdjr]

So, I want to buy a rifle... for defense.
That's got AK and cheap 7.62x39 written all over it. Sure, the ammo isn't $89 for 1000 rounds anymore, but its still the cheapest centerfire rifle round you can buy. Don't look any farther.
Oh, and you can get a CZ 527 if you want to hunt with your extra hp ammo...
-David

 

[Soybomb]

I think its easiest to find premium defensive ammunition for 5.56 and that gives it a large advantage for me. Ymmv.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I DEFINATELY don't want to get into the discussion of 5.56 Nato vs. 7.62 Nato- but I am wondering if the 7.62 x 39 is a compromise of both

Absolutely not. It has less range and worse terminal ballistics than either of the NATO rounds. It lacks the velocity and fragmenting characteristics of the 5.56mm, and will not penetrate barriers as well as 7.62 NATO. 7.62x39 is arguably better at getting through barriers than 5.56mm when one discounts steel core 5.56.

There is a reason the Soviets developed the 5.45mm round after being on the recieving end of our 5.56mm 35 years ago.

The 7.62x54 soviet, on the other hand, is ballistically all but identical to the 7.62 NATO.

 

[Davo]

I think its a good compromise. Its trajectory is fine out to 300yds, it has a more substantial projectile than the .223 (about 2x), and its got some punch (about 25%more than the .223). It penetrates better than .223 (comparing similar loads) People forget that at 500 yds, the .223 is hitting about like a .22 long rifle at the muzzle, and is subject to wind, so I believe this negates the "flat trajectory" of the .223. Some say FMJ .223 is more deadly...but you are not military, and can use other loadings-especially if hunting or for defense.
Of course the .223 and x39 are not long range cats like the .308-but they are also cheaper, lighter, and faster in action.
Id actually be fine using the 7.62x39 for deer, but would only use .223 if it was an emergency.
I wish kel tec made the su-16 in x39...perhaps a su-47 is coming? Id actually recommend you look at the sks over the mini30, unless you really want the hi cap detachable mags...the ak is obviously great too.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

There is a reason the Soviets developed the 5.45mm round after being on the recieving end of our 5.56mm 35 years ago.

Actually, I don't think too many Soviets were ever on the receiving end of the 5.56mm, but such historical details are unimportant to your point, I suppose.

 

[Ivy Mike]

akodo, I think you'll find that while the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 share case length, they are indeed completely different.
The 5.45 was a brand new round, not simply a necked down 7.62x39.