7.62x39: Weak?

[JCooperfan1911]

Throughout my years I have heard some say the 7.62x39mm cartridge is a rather pathetic and impotent round. That it isn’t capable of ethically harvesting deer, is barely a step up from a .30 carbine, and has unimpressive internal wounding characteristics.

This might be so, but there are some interesting loads out there that take this light round and bump it up a notch:



These 125 grain soft points seem to be decent. The load tested, a commonly available and affordable one at that (Barnaul), generated 2,500 FPS from a 16” AK47 barrel for 1,743 ft-lbs of energy. The bullet expanded dramatically and expended all of its energy in the first 15” of the block.

Now this is comparing apples to oranges in a way, but at the end of the day it is comparing effectiveness to end the threat to effectiveness to end the threat. We have all heard about the legendary “stopping power” of the devastating “King of the Street/Hit like a Bolt of Lightning” of the .357 Magnum 125 grain SJHP fired from a service revolver. From the typical 4” revolver we get a muzzle energy of 583 ft-lbs from 1450 FPS velocity.

Now there are many who hunt deer with .357 magnum revolvers and they see them as more than adequate. So that’s something to think about. More on this later.

Here is a comparison of the energies to the above 7.62x39mm load:



So the “puny” AK delivers almost exactly 300% more energy to the same length wound channel as the .357 125 SJHP will also penetrate roughly the same amount. Additionally, the 7.62x39mm easily breeches the 2200 FPS threshold for “hydrostatic shock” though that is a hotly debated topic we won’t get into today.

So this might not be a far comparison at all, and I’ll give you that it probablt is not, but when someone claims the .357 magnum is a manstopper but an AK is “underpowered” I just shake my head. I’m not convinced. Yes this is comparing a handgun to a pistol, but people will still compare effectiveness to effectiveness no matter the platform. Some with the wool over their eyes and no concept of sounding ballistics deride the “wimpy commie” AK round” while simultaneously singing the praises of the massive knockdown of the .357 on their hip. This post is for those so ill informed.

 

[Jim Watson]

Compare a rifle to a pistol?
Look at a real gun, a light bullet .30-30 gets you a 125 to 2570 fps. Better balanced hunting bullets at 150 and 170 gr are of course slower, but the few heavy .30 Commies are, too.

 

[ECVMatt]

I think you are looking to validate the cartridge that you have chosen to use and there is no need. The 7.62x39 is a good intermediate rifle cartridge. The folks that tend to bash it also seem to bash the 5.56 as well because neither is comparable to say a .308 or a .30/06. However they were never designed to compete against those rounds.

I have hunted deer with a .357 revolver and you can do much better. The round out of a rifle is a different story. There is not real comparison to a .357 out of a 6" barrel vs. the 7.62x39 out of a 16" barrel.

I think comparing the 7.62x39 to the .30/30 Winchester is a better apples to apples comparison. The .30/30 also gets bashed by the magnum rifle cartridge crowd and oftentimes by those who have never hunted with it.

I have killed a lot of deer and pigs with the .30/30 and it works. I have no doubt that the 7.62x39 with quality ammunition would have the exact same result. I see the Ruger American Ranch in 7.62x39 as the modern version of the auto-parts store lever action in .30/30, but much more accurate.

You have a great rifle that shoots a great cartridge so enjoy them both with no guilt!

 

[someguy2800]

A 7.62x39 at the muzzle is equivalent to a 308 winchester at about 200 yards. So if you think a 308 would be effective on deer size game between 200 and 400 yards, and I really don't know anyone that would argue against that, then a 7.62x39 would be just as effective from 0 to 200 yards.

I have killed 3 deer with a 7.62x39 and no cartridge in the world will make a deer any more dead. In my experience the wounding is not very dramatic, which means not a huge amount of blood trail. That may or may not be an issue depending on where you hunt.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

This subject has always interested me particularly when bear defense discussions are going on.

Countless articles by experienced Alaskan guides and hunters about how when properly loaded a 3-inch 44 Magnum revolver is adequate for bear protection and countless articles by equally experienced writers saying that anyone that carries a 20" carbine in 44 Magnum into grizzly bear country is asking for trouble.

I agree, the 7.62X39 is not a 30/06 or a 308 but it is a heck of a lot more powerful than any handgun cartridge that nobody ever disputes as being adequate for self defense or deer hunting.

 

[CapnMac]

The sort of folks who use a .300win mag for 50-75 yard deer shooting will always be convinced the 7.62x39 is little better than a .32-20--people get bull-headed opinions and keep them. That's life.

The 7.62x39 very much mirrors a .30-30 which is no slouch at all. It will never be a 200gr .30-06; but few rounds will be.

Is the pointy-nose x39 as good at "brush busting" as some of the blunt-nose .30-30s? Not sure that argument will ever be settled (even if x39 will consistently drop feral pigs in brush).

 

[trackskippy]

Paper number wise, it is very similar to 30-30. Dont know if the bullet shape of the 7.62 might extend that a bit or not.

I always looked at 7.62x39 and 5.56 as both being around 200-300 yard guns. At least I see that as their "realistic" range. The 5.56 loses its more devastating ballistic edge at around those distances and the 7.62's trajectory drops off real quick past that.

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm going to assert the .22 long rifle is a garbage round because it isn't near as powerful as a .50 BMG......

 

[CraigC]

Energy has never been a good measure of a cartridge's terminal effect. Ever. It exaggerates the importance of velocity while trivializing mass and ignoring diameter. Nowhere is energy more fruitless than when comparing handguns to rifles. With that said, anyone who thinks the 7.62x39 is "weak" is a moron, at least in the context of terminal ballistics. It's a very capable cartridge and there ain't a deer that walks that wouldn't be put down with the cartridge utilizing the right bullet. However, it does not quite equal the .30-30, which uses significantly heavier bullets. What it does with 170's outweighs what the Russian does with 125's.

The .357 is minimal for deer sized game. Most handgun hunters opt for something bigger.

Countless articles by experienced Alaskan guides and hunters about how when properly loaded a 3-inch 44 Magnum revolver is adequate for bear protection and countless articles by equally experienced writers saying that anyone that carries a 20" carbine in 44 Magnum into grizzly bear country is asking for trouble.

The .44 is more than adequate for any bear that walks, with the right bullet. Whether the barrel is 3" or 20". Much more capable than any intermediate rifle cartridge.

 

[LoonWulf]

I ran 174gr SMKs out of my SKS at about 2000 FPS, 150s at 2200, and 125s at 2500.

Accuracy was about as good as I've seen out of any lever action 30-30 I've shot. With groups running 1.5 to 2-in.

Never shot anything with it though.....

I had a friend who used to use one quite a bit shooting factory ammo and never had any issues with bullets stopping or underperforming.

 

[IdaD]

A 7.62 is certainly capable of taking deer size game within reasonable distances although I think a 30-30 still has a fairly big edge in terms of being able to move up to 170 grain pills. Of course there are better choices than either one that can take deer at longer distances and/or take larger game such as elk with minimal additional recoil.

 

[someguy2800]

Energy has never been a good measure of a cartridge's terminal effect. Ever. It exaggerates the importance of velocity while trivializing mass and ignoring diameter. Nowhere is energy more fruitless than when comparing handguns to rifles. With that said, anyone who thinks the 7.62x39 is "weak" is a moron, at least in the context of terminal ballistics. It's a very capable cartridge and there ain't a deer that walks that wouldn't be put down with the cartridge utilizing the right bullet. However, it does not quite equal the .30-30, which uses significantly heavier bullets. What it does with 170's outweighs what the Russian does with 125's.

The .357 is minimal for deer sized game. Most handgun hunters opt for something bigger.



The .44 is more than adequate for any bear that walks, with the right bullet. Whether the barrel is 3" or 20". Much more capable than any intermediate rifle cartridge.

I agree on all counts

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I'd love to see Buffalo Bore load up some 154gr x39 rounds to 30-30 equivalent speeds or faster. They probably won't, because someone's going to load them in an AK or SKS and beat the bolt to death, but those would be sweet in a CZ 527 or RAR.

 

[Mosin77]

Pretty sure a 7.62x39 will always get the job done when used appropriately.

I would prefer a 30-30 however. They’re similar. The 7.62 will hit a little less hard at close range but have an edge in point blank trajectory. Both are entirely adequate for deer or smaller. Neither is great for a brown bear. On the other hand…. Both would probably stop a bear fine. But nobody wants to gamble in 2021 when there are bigger bore, harder hitting choices available.

 

[Ranger99]

. . . . I think comparing the 7.62x39 to the .30/30 Winchester is a better apples to apples comparison. The .30/30 also gets bashed by the magnum rifle cartridge crowd and oftentimes by those who have never hunting with it. . . .

^ ^ ^ this

Used to be just the people that got all
their information from magazines
would bash guns they really knew nothing
about or had no practical experience with,
but it's way worse now with the internet

Oh well. . .

 

[sarduy]

Throughout my years I have heard some say the 7.62x39mm cartridge is a rather pathetic and impotent round. That it isn’t capable of ethically harvesting deer, is barely a step up from a .30 carbine, and has unimpressive internal wounding characteristics.

This might be so, but there are some interesting loads out there that take this light round and bump it up a notch:



These 125 grain soft points seem to be decent. The load tested, a commonly available and affordable one at that (Barnaul), generated 2,500 FPS from a 16” AK47 barrel for 1,743 ft-lbs of energy. The bullet expanded dramatically and expended all of its energy in the first 15” of the block.

Now this is comparing apples to oranges in a way, but at the end of the day it is comparing effectiveness to end the threat to effectiveness to end the threat. We have all heard about the legendary “stopping power” of the devastating “King of the Street/Hit like a Bolt of Lightning” of the .357 Magnum 125 grain SJHP fired from a service revolver. From the typical 4” revolver we get a muzzle energy of 583 ft-lbs from 1450 FPS velocity.

Now there are many who hunt deer with .357 magnum revolvers and they see them as more than adequate. So that’s something to think about. More on this later.

Here is a comparison of the energies to the above 7.62x39mm load:

View attachment 1015719

So the “puny” AK delivers almost exactly 300% more energy to the same length wound channel as the .357 125 SJHP will also penetrate roughly the same amount. Additionally, the 7.62x39mm easily breeches the 2200 FPS threshold for “hydrostatic shock” though that is a hotly debated topic we won’t get into today.

So this might not be a far comparison at all, and I’ll give you that it probablt is not, but when someone claims the .357 magnum is a manstopper but an AK is “underpowered” I just shake my head. I’m not convinced. Yes this is comparing a handgun to a pistol, but people will still compare effectiveness to effectiveness no matter the platform. Some with the wool over their eyes and no concept of sounding ballistics deride the “wimpy commie” AK round” while simultaneously singing the praises of the massive knockdown of the .357 on their hip. This post is for those so ill informed.

JC, those people are the same that shoot deer with a 300wm because nothing else will kill it. Also those that claim 300blk is the best round ever failing to see that 7.62x39 is basically the same on a different profile, but what do i know... im the guy that shot a squirrel with a 7mm Rem Mag too see what happens and hunt hogs with 223

 

[Reloadron]

I hunted with a very good friend extensively in West Virginia. I used a Ruger 44 Carbine and my friend always carried an SKS chambered in the 7.62 x 39 cartridge. Over a few decades and many deer later the 7.62 x 39 fared out just fine. I always put the cartridge on par with the 30-30 Winchester which we often joked was the West Virginia state cartridge. While I do not recall either of us taking a deer at much over 100 yards the cartridge was ideal for where we hunted. He did just fine with it. Like the 30-30 Winchester I see it as a 200 yard cartridge which works just fine on white tail deer.

Ron

 

[12Bravo20]

The best "apples to apples" comparison for the 7.62x39 is the classic 30-30 and 300 Black Out. All three will do just fine for deer sized animals within the effective range of the calibers. And the effective hunting ranges are very similar for all three.

 

[czhen]

Over the years I've read tons of fruitless comparations between cartridges and bullets types.
The 7.62x39 has it niche perfectly covered as round for militia/soldiers and hunting from the get go.
There is a good reason John M. Browning designed different rifles over his life, the reason was to just to accommodate calibers on different uses, since there no round for all.
The 7.62x39 is a fine round in all the variety of options, get the job done since post WWII in all terrains and applications (hunting/defense) not perfect but there are none.
With no need to look up for a magic bullet weights to hit and neutralize targets.

 

[chicharrones]

I have a rifle that shoots 7.62x39, a rifle that shoots .357 magnum, and two revolvers that shoot .357 magnum.

But, I don't have a handgun the size of a Ruger GP100 that shoots 7.62x39. Now that would be interesting.

 

[303 hunter]

I’ve developed a load using CFE BLK and 123gr SST that gives me 2600 FPS from my ARP barreled 16” upper. Several deer have not complained....

 

[Varminterror]

While I’m typically one to point out the realistic performance difference reflected in “paper numbers” for momentum - not kinetic energy - frankly, I’m tired...

I filled my freezer for several years with an SKS in x39, even with the shorter barreled “paratrooper” in a folding stock and a $40 gunshow compact 3-9x firing Remington Core-lokts, I took deer out to 250yrds. For the naysayers, we grow whitetails in Kansas as big as anywhere, and I won’t pretend any of them argued when I sent a bullet through them.

 

[ECVMatt]

I have a rifle that shoots 7.62x39, a rifle that shoots .357 magnum, and two revolvers that shoot .357 magnum.

But, I don't have a handgun the size of a Ruger GP100 that shoots 7.62x39. Now that would be interesting.

Here you go...

 

[12Bravo20]

The deer in the northern half of Missouri are like the deer in Kansas. And when SKS rifles were dirt cheap, they started to replace a lot of 30-30 lever actions.

 

[mokin]

Something about this thread made me think about a survey job I did on some land owned by a coal mine. Since they only used a small portion of the land, they would sell permits to hunt elk and as these were very tightly controlled, there got to be some really good size animals on that land. Permits were accordingly priced....

Anyway, one thing the crew and I noticed were the rather "exotic" and large cartridge cases we would come upon. Some of these, I remember wondering why anyone would use such a rifle south of the Mackenzie River. I know elk are big, but they're a long way from giraffe size.