troy fairweather
Member
The round was designed to kill 150-200 pound animals.
Max Effectiveness of 7.62 x 39
- Thread starter Blkhrt13
- Start date
- Status
mgmorden
Member
The 7.62x39 has around 1500 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle - the .22 WMR has around 325 ft-lbs. They're not even remotely in the same league.
It can be used perfectly fine as a hunting cartridge within its appropriate ranges - which is IMHO 175 yards and under though you might be able to take shots a LITTLE further than that.
IMHO, you'd be far better served with something faster like a .30-06, .308, 6.5 Creed, etc, but you'd be able to kill plenty of deer with a 7.62x39 if you had to.
That said, if you're buying a new rifle as part of the venture, the "if you had to" part isn't a factor - buy something more versatile.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
I have hunted with that cartridge for some years. I have a very rare Saiga that will shoot 3-4 MOA at 100 yards from a bench. I consider that about the limit with a decently accurate bolt action or rare AK type that is sub 7-8 MOA.. They are a low velocity cartridge lacking sectional density and drop like a rock beyond 125 yards. Use a flatter shooting cartridge. Trajectory is similar to a 30-30 but the 30-30 is shooting a much heavier bullet with more energy and sectional density. A 200 yard shot is well beyond the ethical range in my opinion. Especially in hunting conditions.
David Hoback
member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 870
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.
Last edited:
Typical misconceptions I see floating around the web, but I expect it.... it's not your fault. You see the same misinformation that everyone does, passed around the web for years by no-nothings.
The fact is the 7.62x39 equals or exceeds 30-30 Win depending on the load. With higher BC bullets it shoots flatter with slightly greater effective range than 30-30.
30-30 Win is a great round, so 7.62x39 is in good company. That was Bill Ruger's vision... a semiauto with 30-30 effectiveness in a compact carbine. He succeeded. My Mini-30 is 33 years old and they're still being made and taking deer size game all over North America.
The most important thing to know is that the soviets limited their new 7.62x39 cartridge near the end of WWII... a limitation of philosophy, not actual capability. The close quarters combat they were experiencing called for the least amount of powder with the least amount of projectile to get the job done. So most are familiar with a 123gr to 124gr projectile with 25 grains of whatever mystery powder they were using back then.
The case capacity is capable of much more powder and bullet. Once you understand that you'll be on your way to maximizing the cartridge. So once again... x39 is not limited by by physical design, but the initial philosophy of war at the end of WWII... a choice the Soviets made to conserve materials while killing their enemies Just as dead.
The case capacity is capable of much more powder and bullet. Once you understand that you'll be on your way to maximizing the cartridge. So once again... x39 is not limited by by physical design, but the initial philosophy of war at the end of WWII... a choice the Soviets made to conserve materials while killing their enemies Just as dead.
Random 8
Member
The case capacity is much less than a .300 Savage, a "medium" round often maligned as having too little case capacity by modern standards. The firearms chambered in X39 also have pressure limitations. Capable of a little more bullet and powder? Yes. A lot more? Absolutely not, and neither is it's modern facsimile, the .300 BO.
The Soviets set a standard performance level for the round and they matched it. It wasn't to conserve components, or it never would have been rolled out in wartime in the first place. They weren't trying to create another X54r, they were trying to create an improved submachine gun or the new at the time term assault rifle equaling or exceeding the automatic fire capabilities of the German STG44.
Can the round kill deer? Yes, this has been answered fully. Is it as good as a .308 or even a .300 Savage at 200 yards? Absolutely not.
someguy2800
Member
lol, that’s a good one
someguy2800
Member
I agree with you, I would never shoot a deer at that range with a x39. My point was that the practical range you can hit something is much further than the ethical hunting range.
The load that I deer hunted with in mine was a 125 grain nosler accubond at 2600 fps and shot sub moa from my AR15. That’s going 2141 fps at 200 yards.
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
There are a lot of preconceived notions about the X39 accuracy, velocity, and bullet selection that people just won’t let go of.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,949
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.
Nothing like taking one part of a post out of context and running off a tangent.
But just to run with your tangent I'd suggest a contest you at 400 yards with a 7.62 x 39 of your choice in field conditions vs me with a 357 at contact distance.
And then there's the blood trail contest
There's more to ethical hunting than just power.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,949
You promoted ONLY that the 123 at 1425fps isn’t enough power. Sure, take a shot at precision limitations for ethical hunting out of common platforms for the x39 and you might have had something - but the power argument that YOU posited doesn’t hold water.
Equally, now you’re extending your power argument by implying that a 357 with LOWER sectional density would promote better blood trail than an x39 bullet of the same weight at the same speed. That simply isn’t how physics works, and not surprisingly isn’t how hunting with either of these cartridges work either.
Just let go of the bias - like @someguy2800 mentioned:
Why though? If you don't have the rifle or dies already and intend to buy them anyway, why would you intentionally handicap yourself?
I have real world experience with the 6.8 SPC which is similar. Never took out a 7.62X39 because it is obviously not a top choice for hunting open ranch country. In my view it would be for under 200 yards, and for use on culling does. I would stay away from russian ammo, use something with a real SP hunting bullet to get some expansion. For trophy hunting open country, there are much better choices.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
Nope. 30-30 shoots a much heavier bullet with much greater energy and sectional density. False comparison.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
I have thought of a quality mini action bolt rifle in 7.62x39 for low recoil woods hunting for grandkids but My grandson wanted to use my Remington 700 in 243 with a youth stock and loves it. Still low recoil but flat shooting and far more effective at any range and not limited to 125-150 yards. And accurate. He has one shot kills on deer and coyotes with it, he's 12 but a very good shot.
A couple decades ago I armed my kids with an SKS, a AK-47, a 30-30 and a .243 for deer hunting. The kids with the 30-30 and .243 were the only successful deer hunters.
At that time AR's weren't legal for deer and not common. Since then I have used AR's and my grandson got his first deer with one. Much more suitable for deer hunting. Lighter gun and far more effective and accurate but he switched to the .243 and it is far superior to either AK or AR for deer.
A couple decades ago I armed my kids with an SKS, a AK-47, a 30-30 and a .243 for deer hunting. The kids with the 30-30 and .243 were the only successful deer hunters.
At that time AR's weren't legal for deer and not common. Since then I have used AR's and my grandson got his first deer with one. Much more suitable for deer hunting. Lighter gun and far more effective and accurate but he switched to the .243 and it is far superior to either AK or AR for deer.
Last edited:
https://www.nosler.com/762-39mm
Hodgdon data has one 125 gr. max load at around 2550 out of a 24" barrel. The rest are around 2460 which is not much hotter than a steel case russian round. Again 24" barrel.
Hodgdon data has one 125 gr. max load at around 2550 out of a 24" barrel. The rest are around 2460 which is not much hotter than a steel case russian round. Again 24" barrel.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
Thanks for that. I can see it for a very light woods bolt gun but why bother when much better hunting cartridges are available for no extra cost. I would choose a .223 over a 7.62x39 for that anyway for varmints and close range deer. but something more powerful and flatter shooting for deer.
You didn't even quote my complete sentence at that power level a double lung shot will likely run off a good distance.
And it isn't the fact that I have a better blood trail but that it starts at my feet I'll only need to look down, you still need to run 400 yards just to start looking.
someguy2800
Member
Back when CFE BLK was released Hodgdon had a higher max loaded listed for a 125 gr. I think it was 30.1 compared to the current listing of 29.7. The original load typically does about 2600 from a 16" barrel, which many people have attested too. Since I had already been loading and shooting the original higher load I didn't see a reason to change and haven't, not that I am offering that as advice. There are some people that have bolt action only loads, but at that point I'm in agreement with others that a guy had just as well get something more suitable if you need more power than what the X39 gives. CFE BLK for me is kind of a game changer for the caliber. I am really not interested in the anemic factory ammo out there with 2300 fps velocities, but 2600 is enough to make it interesting. It is what it is and isn't what it isn't. For me it opened my mind to the idea of deer hunting with an AR, and for the next deer season I invested my money in a 358 yeti. I am keeping the X39 in reserve for my daughter to start hunting with.
Last edited:
35 Whelen
Member
How far? At LEAST 107 yds. 
Granted I used a handload consisting of a 123 gr. Winchester SP running around 2400 fps.
Seriously though, I personally wouldn't try anything past 175 yds., max. Those short little bullets are blown about by the slightest puff of wind. And the talk of shooting said caliber with a 123 gr. bullet at 400 yds. is silly. I've shot it extensively at 200 yds. with a Saiga, an AK and a couple of SKS and gotten pretty decent groups, especially with the Saiga and my Chinese SKS. I shot these groups while regulating the sights on the SKS-
Shot the Saiga at 300 yds. and groups opened up to around 18", just wasting ammunition.
35W
Granted I used a handload consisting of a 123 gr. Winchester SP running around 2400 fps.
Seriously though, I personally wouldn't try anything past 175 yds., max. Those short little bullets are blown about by the slightest puff of wind. And the talk of shooting said caliber with a 123 gr. bullet at 400 yds. is silly. I've shot it extensively at 200 yds. with a Saiga, an AK and a couple of SKS and gotten pretty decent groups, especially with the Saiga and my Chinese SKS. I shot these groups while regulating the sights on the SKS-
Shot the Saiga at 300 yds. and groups opened up to around 18", just wasting ammunition.
35W
No, I gave you the correct historical information concerning the development of the cartridge to what we have today. You are simply wrong. SAAMI was wrong when Ruger proposed the 7.62x39 standards. You would have to think outside a lot of longstanding misconceptions, but I know you won't. You're kind is valuable only as an example of the stubborn misinformed that others shouldn't want to be. No loss to the x39 community. You're not having a conversation. You're spreading decades of x39 mythos. Others will benefit from this thread... at your expense. Congratulations!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I always find it interesting when people invoke design intent as if it was the be all to end all of arguments for how something is to be applied. The goal of design intent is for the designed items to meet the parameters of the intent, but the design may meet the parameters for many things not intended, like kevlar that was intended for use in vehicle tires. It was NEVER intended for use in ballistic vests, ship sails, boat hulls, rope, etc., and yet it is excellent in those applications as well...things the developer never ever intended.
Since we are talking about a cartridge, 7.62x39, it does not care what it was intended to be used for. As for the bullet flying down range, it doesn't care either. Of course, the Soviet intent was with ball ammo. You load and fire the same bullet from a different cartridge at the same velocity and it is no longer 7.62x39, but the down range performance will be the same, right? The cartridge doesn't do the killing. The bullet does.
Last I checked, humans are animals and the Soviet military has been hunting with the 7.62x39 since it was issued.
Last edited:
I think the best thing I can do is start a knew thread on the 7.62x39 rather than have this thread go up in flames. There are plenty others here that understand the capability of the modern 7.62x39. Those folks will be welcome to chime in with their experiences. It would be nice if the trolls could discipline themselves and sit out, listen and learn something. I've been looking for a place to talk about x39 and shoot down the misconceptions. Maybe THR is the place. Or I might have to setup a webpage of my own. I've been thinking about that for a while.
- Status
