as originally designed by Kalashnikov sixty plus years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iwKf-yoEhnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iwKf-yoEhnM
More reason to stay with 7.62 x 39
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
The original M43 steel core doesn't have the greatest wounding potential. The Yugo M67 lead core, flat base is better as it yaws earlier.
Mine is loaded with Hornandy V-Max 123gr varmint loads. But over penetration and ricochet are concerns of mine since I live in the city.
The other issue with 7.62x39 is it's rainbow trajectory. I zero at 200 yards and have a nasty ~6" holdunder at 100 yards. That's easily enough to make you miss a head sized target at that range, assuming you were holding center mass of the head. A 5.56 rifle would drop rounds into the forehead at 100 if you aimed center head, assuming a 50 yard zero.
I like 7.62 Sov, but it ain't the end all and be all of intermediate cartridges.
BSW
Mine is loaded with Hornandy V-Max 123gr varmint loads. But over penetration and ricochet are concerns of mine since I live in the city.
The other issue with 7.62x39 is it's rainbow trajectory. I zero at 200 yards and have a nasty ~6" holdunder at 100 yards. That's easily enough to make you miss a head sized target at that range, assuming you were holding center mass of the head. A 5.56 rifle would drop rounds into the forehead at 100 if you aimed center head, assuming a 50 yard zero.
I like 7.62 Sov, but it ain't the end all and be all of intermediate cartridges.
BSW
W L Johnson
Member
One) Kalashnikov did not design the 7.62x39
Two) The Soviets started moving the round from front line service almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago in favor of the 5.45.
In fact name one major first world country that uses 7.62x39 as it's main front line round anymore.
USA, W. Europe, some former members Warsaw pact, and others - 5.56
Soviet Union/Russia, some former members Warsaw pact. and others - 5.45
China - moving to the 5.8 since the 90s.
Third world - 7.62x39 and anything else they can get their hands on cheaply.
Not knocking the round I love it, but it's not a front line round anymore in most first world countries. And there's got to be a reason for that don't you think. Main one is the Soviet's felt the 5.56 was the more effective round that's why they developed the 5.45. There's more to wound ballistics than just bullet size.
Last edited:
You is right..............
So, why shoot it?
Nothing wrong with choosing it because it supplies what is needed in a ballistic task. And being inexpensive is part and parcel of that choice.
However, justifying it because it's not accurate or powerful isn't good logic. And, the Army has upgraded the 5.56 with steel penetrator inserts. Not to mention that if a barrier is part of the tactical problem, a full auto .308, .50BMG, or 40MM Mk17 can be brought to bear. Units aren't restricted to just one gun a soldier is issued, they have other organic weapons to bear on problems, which are there specifically because it's the experience and doctrine to overcome heavy cover with them - not chip it away with rifle fire.
Bluntly, the premise of the video is out of step with typical military applications and resources. As usual for a cartridge fanboy.
RustHunter87
Member
LOL, "Standard issue Arizona bush"
but i got a 7.62 Nato if i need to reach out or threw some thing
but i got a 7.62 Nato if i need to reach out or threw some thing
mortablunt
Member
Thanks for the informative video.
@W L Johnson: There are European countries which still use 7.62x39 as their main round, and some of them are NATO members.
List of NATO members who still field significant amounts of 7.62x39 weaponry:
* Albania
* Bulgaria
* Croatia
* Czech Republic
* Estonia
* Hungary
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Poland
* Romania
* Slovakia
* Slovenia
The USSR came up with the 5.45x39 because the USA came up with the 5.56x45. They were afraid that we had discovered something they had not, and the 5.56 was spreading rapidly when they came up with the AK-74. Mikhail himself opposed developing the AK-74, but went ahead with it anyway.
And another thing, small arm have a tendency to stick around for a long time after they have officially been removed from service. Some of our soldiers fielded the M1 Garand in Vietnam. Russia issued the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 to internal troops and border guards. It was not officially withdrawn from service in Russia until 1998, but it still shows up every now and again in Russian service. The British still field the Hi-Power despite also outfitting themselves with the Sig-Sauer P226. It's economically much easier to gradually phase weapons from the field and the supply chain by letting the old guys keep their guns but giving the recruits the next thing. It's also much more doable and enforceable than going around to every last road block and doing an overhaul on the spot. Soldiers are not always the most cooperative with things either; some refuse to accept the new weapon, or obtain their own personal arms.
I also would like to add that unless you happen to be a friend of the West, or in someway useful, or a rather wealthy nation, then odds are you use a 7.62x39 cartridge. It seems like the really poor nations take G3 and FAL.
EDIT: I apologize; I was not trying to pick a fight.
@W L Johnson: There are European countries which still use 7.62x39 as their main round, and some of them are NATO members.
List of NATO members who still field significant amounts of 7.62x39 weaponry:
* Albania
* Bulgaria
* Croatia
* Czech Republic
* Estonia
* Hungary
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Poland
* Romania
* Slovakia
* Slovenia
The USSR came up with the 5.45x39 because the USA came up with the 5.56x45. They were afraid that we had discovered something they had not, and the 5.56 was spreading rapidly when they came up with the AK-74. Mikhail himself opposed developing the AK-74, but went ahead with it anyway.
And another thing, small arm have a tendency to stick around for a long time after they have officially been removed from service. Some of our soldiers fielded the M1 Garand in Vietnam. Russia issued the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 to internal troops and border guards. It was not officially withdrawn from service in Russia until 1998, but it still shows up every now and again in Russian service. The British still field the Hi-Power despite also outfitting themselves with the Sig-Sauer P226. It's economically much easier to gradually phase weapons from the field and the supply chain by letting the old guys keep their guns but giving the recruits the next thing. It's also much more doable and enforceable than going around to every last road block and doing an overhaul on the spot. Soldiers are not always the most cooperative with things either; some refuse to accept the new weapon, or obtain their own personal arms.
I also would like to add that unless you happen to be a friend of the West, or in someway useful, or a rather wealthy nation, then odds are you use a 7.62x39 cartridge. It seems like the really poor nations take G3 and FAL.
EDIT: I apologize; I was not trying to pick a fight.
Last edited:
W L Johnson
Member
Yes they do, they have huge stockpiles of the stuff, you just don't stop using what you have overnight, budgets just won't allow that, but they have or have at least been trying to.
But I did word it
major first world country that uses 7.62x39 as it's main front line round anymore
not sure if many on that list qualify as "major".
Most of those started moving to 5.45 a while back, as budgets allowed, and some have even started moving to 5.56.
maskedman504
Member
Heck, last night I read a post on this forum that some old Comm-Block country (maybe Bulgaria?) had recently done an inventory of their weapons- and, despite what had been sold and stolen, they still had 100 AK-74s per active duty soldier in their army. I know the interweb is rife with fallacies, but even if it 25 AK-74s per soldier, I would hope to see a flood hit the shores of the ole You Ess and Ay soon!! 
BSW said:
6" hold under?? All my ballistic programs using even relatively poor BC for the round show a less then 4" hold under. Using the more commonly cited BC of 0.35 I get a 3.1" hold-under at 100 with a 200 yard Zero. What parameters are you using? (using BC=0.350 Wt=122gr MV 2350 fps, Sight Height=1.5")
Also, I cannot speak for some of the other countries, but the baltic nations do issue the railed G36 with a CompM2 as their primary issue arm. Granted, they probably have crates of 47's and 74's for second line and reserve troops, but they've also been switching over to the 5.56 since they joined NATO and EU.
Also, the Soviet Army wasn't stupid...they really weren't under the illusion that the US had discovered some voodoo mystical thing with the 5.5mm round. They looked at the US involvement in Vietnam, and looked at their utilization of the 5.56 round and how it was used. They concluded that the smaller cartridge was a better fit for their doctrine of volume of fire, being much easier to control then the 7.62 and allowed each soldier to carry more ammo.
After all, it might come as a shocking revelation that the Soviet Union was not a bunch of sloped-forehead neandrathals, and could actually analytically look at things using things such as science.
W L Johnson
Member
And lets not forget, the AK-74 is 5.45
Kymasabe
Member
I like it because it's cheap, plentiful, and easy to find. My use is target fun at the range with my teen daughters, we go with our AK, the SKS, and a Rossi single shot rifle we have chambered in 7.62x39. Kids have a blast, and Dad doesn't go broke at the range. The other use, hog hunting. Basically, all our shots are within or up to 100 yards. I hunt with guys using .30-30's, one guy uses a .357 mag. lever gun, another hunter uses his old M1 carbine. 7.62x39 is a decent bush round, gives me good accuracy within 100 yards, good knock down power, equivalent to a .30-30 which is good enough for me.
I have nothing against 7.62 x 39 guns or ammo but come on man, I can't see me saying, "Hey, look at all the 3rd world countries that can't field anything better" as a reason to tout and or "stay with" the stuff. But what the heck, I'm dumb enough to pay for a few wild cats. I do tend to stay pretty close to AR platform guns. To each their own.
WVleo
Member
Saw a shot from a news channel while on the treadmill at the Gym yesterday of a citizen of Syria defending Himslef with a SKS with a scope mounted. I did tapco a sino-soviet out with just this Urban Carbine use in mind ( should the need every arise ). No scope but a Primary Arms red dot. Confident in both the round and the weapon for it's intended use....WVleo
Spotty-Shottie
Member
AK and AR in a SHTF, the AK gets to be pick up first. AK and AR in peacetime shooting, the AR gets to be first . But the first to be grab when something bangs at night is my Glock 19 with nightsights. A little futher theres a 1911 in condition 3.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
If the point of having a rifle is the ability to accurately engage a target at distance, why in the world would anyone handwave away "accuracy and long distance reach" on a rifle?
That's like saying a Trabant makes for a great off-road vehicle, so long as you don't pay attention to the lack of ground clearance and all wheel drive.
Welding Rod
Member
This looks like it might be a fun platform to shoot it in: http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=558
TrickyDick
Member
I would say the 7.62x39 is a good intermediate round (Roughly 300M effective range) I'm no ballistics expert, however, I've used the round quite a bit. I wouldn't dismiss it's distance and accuracy as that of a slingshot. It was a round that was an experiment in regards to the old 7.62x54R. A short cartridge with penetrating power. This reduced weight, cost, and material. But as technology progressed, ballistics were closely examined and experimentation grew broad. But neverless, the 7.62x39 is a good round, but it's not exactly a nail driver.
Youngster
Member
Russian M43 and at least a few of its Warsaw Pact equivalents was supposely modified to yaw as early as the Yugo M67 round a long time ago. And anyway, 7.62x39 ball never really seemed to have the reputation of not being sufficiently effective in live meat on the two-way range.
mortablunt
Member
@ Welding Rod:
A huge advantage of the 7.62x39 is that it's being slung by a very all-conditions reliable platform. Why take away that advantage?
A huge advantage of the 7.62x39 is that it's being slung by a very all-conditions reliable platform. Why take away that advantage?
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
I'm using a SLR-107FR with a Aimpoint mounted on the siderail (HOB 2.2") firing Yugo M67. Condition were ~50 degrees at a elevation of about 250'ASL. Rifle is zeroed at 200 yards using a KD range.
BSW
You're right about him, he has turned a little goofy about the AK on his website. I got into an argument with him on the subject.
- Status
