7.62x39: Weak?

[mjsdwash]

7.62X39 has lots of power. Modern bullets were always the issue. .311 is not common.
But your source of information is wrong. Your graph says 583lbs with the .357??? Yea, I got 1320lbs with BB loads, and 900lbs with more common from a 16". And that chrono verified by me.
They can be off, but being wrong by a factor of 2 to 1? Not addressed to the OP, but whoever made the graph: If you need to lie to support your idea, ask yourself why you believe it?

 

[chicharrones]

Here you go...

Now you're talkin'!

A bit of a quick reload issue going on there, but what a palm blasting flame thrower!

 

[chicharrones]

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.

I saw the same thing here in the 1990s back when hunting leases were still affordable, and considering I made much less money back then, that's saying something.

Besides that, my SKS went deer hunting a few times and did the job easily. I still have my 5-round "hunting" magazine around here somewhere.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I wouldn't say it is weak, rather like the M-1 Carbine it is a military round being used for sporting purposes it wasn't designed for. Military doctrine is that inflicting a casualty, incapacitating, taking an enemy out of the fight is all that is needed, The idea that a military rifle must be powerful enough to take down a horse is long obsolete.

 

[someguy2800]

I wouldn't say it is weak, rather like the M-1 Carbine it is a military round being used for sporting purposes it wasn't designed for. Military doctrine is that inflicting a casualty, incapacitating, taking an enemy out of the fight is all that is needed, The idea that a military rifle must be powerful enough to take down a horse is long obsolete.

Ive been very careful not to tell any of my bullets that they are being loaded into a military cartridge case. Surely if they knew that the brass powder holder propelling them out the barrel was not a hunting cartridge they would refuse to work.

 

[The Glockodile]

The "more advanced method" of bullet manufacture in Pakistan, an upgrade to the oft - mocked volumetric method employed in Lahore's street markets...


I b SEALz! Like, in d Navy! Huh huh huh huh...

To put things into context - lots of his highly - trained kind fell to the weak 7.62x39mm...

I misread - is this thread about hunting?

 

[CraigC]

Also those that claim 300blk is the best round ever failing to see that 7.62x39 is basically the same on a different profile......

Sort of but not really. The two are similar on the surface but still very different. First and foremost, the .300 runs through a standard AR and its magazines like grain through a goose. The standard twist rate on the Russian is a bit too slow for +200gr bullets.

 

[edwardware]

. . . I have heard some say the 7.62x39mm cartridge is. . . barely a step up from a .30 carbine. . .

The best "apples to apples" comparison for the 7.62x39 is the classic 30-30 and 300BO

No 7.62x40WT? I feel left out.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Yes, this is exactly right.

In my mind, for those who aren't really data driven, don't like looking at numbers and just want to go out and fill freezers with meat, it's probably best to choose common cartridges, with well known results, with a wide margin for error. For those like you who are, or someone who wants to make an informed decision on if a particular cartridge is capable to ethically harvest a particular game, it's incumbent upon that person to dig deeper, learn about ballistics, projectile construction. Use those factors along with the factors that you will be faced with such as range, topography, etc to make informed decisions. 7.62x39 is plenty capable given the right factors.

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.

 

[whatnickname]

It’s all a matter of understanding the limitations of the round and staying within those limitations when putting the round to use. Up to a point the 7.62 X 39 will effectively take deer. Exceed the capabilities of the round and the end result will be a poor one. Under 150 yards this round will kill deer just as dead as anything else. Past that distance it will still kill deer but shot placement will become more critical. On a percentage basis, as the range stretches out the percentage of wounded deer will increase. I am sure that a 125 grain load out of a 7.62 X 39 will travel 1000 yards. However I can just about guarantee you that if you do hit a deer at 1000 yards with that round the result will be a wounded deer that will die a slow death. See the point here?

 

[d2wing]

I have hunted deer with a wide selection of cartridges including the 7.62x39. It works fine with quality soft point hunting bullets. If you fire it out of an accurate bolt action rifle and can account for the trajectory you should have a 200 yard deer gun. The AK and SKS rifles I used had horrible accuracy. But the bullet works if you can put it in the right place. It does lack the explosive effects of higher velocity bullets so an animal is less likely to die quickly of blood loss in say a none heart shot, so shot placement is, as always critical.

 

[d2wing]

Weak is a relative term.

 

[sarduy]

Keep it under 300 yards and you will drop deers all years to come

 

[Peakbagger46]

It’s a 30-30 equivalent in a semi auto… clearly deer capable and likely enough for elk at close range with a proper bullet.

I’m not an AK or SKS fan, but I’d much rather carry a 7.62 for hunting than any .556.

 

[jmorris]

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.

Well, since the 300 Blk became the greatest thing since sliced bread, the smaller volume of the 300 blk ~ 19 gn of H2O vs the 7.62x39 ~ 27 gn H2O offers a powder volume advantage to the 7.62x39. That said it’s still a ways away from the 30-30 ~ 37gn H2O.

So if you do an apples to apples comparison the order would be 30-30, 7.62x39, 300 blk. That said all are a step up from what you can get from the .30 carbine.

 

[mavracer]

Well you've made a textbook argument with a straw man fallacy.
You're somebody that thinks the 7.62x39 is too weak for deer and your somebody that says the 357 Mag is more than adequate. Are two very different people.

 

[H&Hhunter]

About 1 million AK 47 and SKS poached elephants would indicate that the 7,62x39 is capable of killing large game when properly and vigorously applied.

 

[Speedo66]

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.

I would need lead time to schedule an appointment with a good orthopedic hand specialist first.

 

[Pudge]

Well you've made a textbook argument with a straw man fallacy.
You're somebody that thinks the 7.62x39 is too weak for deer and your somebody that says the 357 Mag is more than adequate. Are two very different people.

Right. There was an earlier discussion about AR's for deer hunting. Everyone was talking about their super-slayer rounds, and they're great, but the argument against is there's some bozo who sees the AR, the effect on deer of say the 450BM, and they see AR = meat in the freezer, then they see someone else who's shooting 1/3 MOA groups and they see AR = tack driver. Then they go out buy a cheap AR and load it up with M855, which isn't perhaps the greatest deer package, and think they're good to 800 yards. Their hunting results color another bozo's evaluation of the AR's effectiveness as a hunting rifle.

The 7.62X39 is what it is. Know its limitations and don't try to make it what it isn't, and it can be as effective as the .357 magnum is within its limitations. A guy used to reaching out with his .270 who can't harvest game with his SKS might think it is a weak round. A guy in West Virginia who hasn't ever shot beyond 45 yards might think it is the equal of his 35 Whelen with less recoil.

To quote d2wing: "Weak is a relative term."

 

[d2wing]

Sounds like you have talked yourself into an AK. I find no fault in that.

 

[Rubone]

Norinko built one for you.

 

[daniel craig]

From what I’ve read it’s closer to 30-30 ballistically than 30 carbine

 

[Ignition Override]

Rubone: maybe that Norinco is in .308?

A buddy (very seasoned gun owner) has a Saiga .308. I had never imagined that it would be so fun to shoot - and soft felt recoil.

Saigas are from the Kalashnikov factory complex (the appearances designed to not offend delicate people). Most people might not know this.

22" barrel length, and could possibly be a fairly accurate gun (?) for hunting with a scope and an appropriate small mag.

Some people have probably read about hunting with such a .308 from XXX yards, and assumed that the gun is chambered in 7.62x39.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Norinko built one for you.
View attachment 1016194

Never seen that before, but I'm digging it. One of the most distinctive "bad-guy" looking guns ever made Fudded into respectability.

 

[Pat Riot]

I have compared 7.62x39 to 30-30 rounds shooting at water jugs. Also against wood and layered drywall targets. They penetrated similarly and caused about the same amount of damage. On paper their energy was similar.

I do feel the comparison of the 7.62x39 round in a carbine and a .357 Magnum out of a revolver to be an unfair comparison. If you put that .357 through a 16” barrel you’ll add about 500 ft-lbs of energy. Still not 7.62x39 or 30-30 energy but it steps it up a bit.