Rethinking the 7.62x39mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
krochus, this always happens, you need to read up a little.

The .30-06 is based on the black powder standard.
With a chamber pressure of 50,000 c.u.p. maximum it's well within the black powder range.
Since the .30-06 is a slight modification of the .30-03 cartridge, and the .30-03 round was a black powder equivalent round, the .30-06 is also.

All rounds before about 1920 were black powder based rounds, simply because there was no standardized proofing standard for smokless powder until after WW-I.
Everything was trial and error and/or copper crush standards for the manufacturers before then.
---------------------

No one has mentioned the .303 Savage, also known as the .30 Savage, that was actually a issued military rifle in 1895 and found some success in European border disputes.
The .303 Savage is basically a .30-30 that uses a .309" to .311" diameter bullet.
Sound Familiar?....

The .30-30 cartridge, also know as the .30 Remington, was specifically designed around 'Modern' smokeless powder, which was brand new and actually experimental at the time.
John Browning & Winchester actually had to redesign the model 1894 Winchester rifle for the new power cartridge.
The name is a hold over from the black powder days, where the caliber and grains of black powder in the case and what rifle make it fit (.30-30 Winchester, or .30-32 Remington, or the .30-40 Kreg, ect.).

The round had been around for quite some time as the .30-32 Remington (rim) in black powder.
Since it's first release in European rifles in 1876, you could arguably call this the father of the 7.62x54mm round,
AND,
As .30 Remington rimless designed for use in the Model 8 autoloader and Model 14 pump rifle.
------------------

Later, when more types of smokeless powder because available, the hold over naming was substituted slightly...
.30-03 & .30-06 , the date being the last number, instead of the grans of black powder.
Using 30 grains of smokeless powder could get you into real trouble, so the last number was changed to the date of standard issue.

Now we don't bother with the second number in new rounds unless they are wild cats of existing rounds, like 07mm-08 or .25-06, or .22-250...
------------------

The .30 Savage/.303 Savage and .30-32 rounds were so successful as accurate rolling block target rifles in Europe that the round was adopted in Western Europe.

It never really caught on here since the government was giving away .45-70 rounds and the .30 rolling block wasn't 'Enough' rifle for commercial large game hunters in this country...

It's always been that way in this country, Large bullets, expensive rifles and cheap sights that don't hit well,
In Europe it's the other way around, Smaller bullets, aimed accurately (shot placement) rather than using a howitzer on deer, and reasonable priced rifles with expensive optics so they could place a shot correctly...
-----------------

Anyway, This is a quote from the NRA web site,

"The 7.62x54mm Russian cartridge was adopted by Russia in 1891 for use in the Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant military rifle.
The cartridge was developed by Savaged arms."

"Many of these rifles were manufactured in the US by Winchester, Remington and New England Westinghouse under contracts with the Imperial Russian government.
After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 these rifles were undeliverable, and the US Government acquired those on hand amounting to about 280,000 rifles."

"These rifles were later sold to the NRA members throught he office of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, making the 7.62x54R one of the most popular sporting rounds in the first half of the 20th century.
Winchester, Remington & Savage all loaded the round until Savage spun off it's ammunition production and Remington stopped manufacturing in about 1950."

"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR
"

"The Mosin-Nagant rifles are adequately strong for such a load, though clumsy in handling and appearance, and awkward in operation.
Some of the rifles have been crudely converted to fire .30-06 ammunition by simply running a .30-06 chambering reamer into the original barrel, and sold as .30-06 sporting rifles.
This is a hazardous conversion, however, because the 7.62x54mmR chamber is usually about 0.020" larger than the .30-06 case at the rear, and .30-06 cases may not expand that much without splitting.
A split case may release high pressure gas reward injuring the shooter.
Rifles so converted should not be fired."
---------------------

I think this bears repeating,
"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR
"

Directly from the NRA website archives...
You don't have to believe me or the NRA, but those are the facts...

Keep in mind the '03 spring field was under development by the same people that designed the 7.64x54R and the .30-40 Krag, the .303 Savage, and the .30 Remington, and the .30-30 Winchester, it's not hard to see the linage of the round....
-------------------

Also keep in mind that I'm wasting a lot of time 'Educating' so called 'Experts' when I should be doing something constructive....
So keep the snark to a minimum when you 'Think' you are 'Right' because it could come back to bite you...
 
The .30-30 cartrage, also know as the .30 Remington, was specifically designed around 'Modern' smokeless powder, which was brand new and actually experamental at the time.

You've got to be kidding me! 30-30 was standardized in 1894, the 30 remington which is not "also know as the .30 Remington " was standardized in 1909 and is a RIMLESS 30-30. Now smokeless powder was invented by the French was first used in their 8mm Lebel in 1886. A full 23 years before 30 remington was introduced. And yet as you put it "which was brand new and actually experamental at the time." Not hardly!


"The 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian cartridge is comparable in performance to the .30-30 Winchester or the .303 Savage.
Modern Russian military production ammunition may be comparable to .30-06 ballistics and chamber pressures (47,900 c.u.p. maximum) and should not be mistaken for the older 7.62x54mmR"

And this bears repeating. No matter what copy and paste experts such as your yourself or what some outdated article from the NRA. The 7.62x54r round is in NO WAY comparable to 30-30, 303 savage. Rimmed 308win is a good way to think of the russian round.

The round had been around for quite some time as the .30-32 Remington (rim) in black powder.
Since it's first release in European rifles in 1876, you could arguably call this the father of the 7.62x54mm round,

I find no reference whatsoever that a .30-32 cartridge ever existed.


All you do is make a bunch of sweeping generalizations about things that in reality are related in no way.

A Ford Focus and a BMW 3 series both roll on round rubber thingies but that doesn't mean that their development is related

how bout some of the other points I've touched apoun that you haven't addressed. If calling a warm gooey load of BS for what it is =snarkiness than I'm guilty as charged.
 
here is all of this talk of gelatin testing and fragmenting, wounding potential, etc. What a load of BS. The 7.62x39 works. So does the 5.56. The only reason people don't respect the x39 is that it is russian and therefore assumed to be communist crap.
If you hit someone in vital organs, they will die with a 7.62x39, 5.56, whatever. If you do not hit the in the nervous or cardiovascular system they might not die or may take time to do so. The heart and lungs don't give a damn how big of a "temporary cavity" your bullet makes they don't work well with any kind of hole in them.
Fragmentationtation and gelatin testing aren't about the temporary cavity at all, we're looking to see just how much tissue is destroyed. You've got the right idea, but you've misapplied it. A round that tumbles and fragments is going to destroy a lot more tissue, potentially some of it vital person stopping tissue, than the ice pick wound of a round that goes straight though.

Here's a pretty good discussion of the varying performance of 7.62x39 rounds http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001359 It might become something of a question of do you just plan to have 10 crates of cheap fmj ammo or do you plan on having good ammo?

RussianWP.jpg
 
Krochus,

Those are pretty slow numbers. Were these 150 grain bullets? Reduced recoil loads?
 
With a chamber pressure of 50,000 c.u.p. maximum it's well within the black powder range.

:scrutiny:

Max pressure for the .45-70 (the quintessential military black powder cartridge) is 28,000 cup (for an 1886 Winchester; 18,000 cup for the Trapdoors). Which black powder rounds were loaded up to 50k?

Using 30 grains of smokeless powder could get you into real trouble, so the last number was changed to the date of standard issue.

Actually, while it depends on the specific powder, 30gr is about right for a starting load of smokeless powder in .30-30.
 
7.62x39 is decent for what it is at ranges under 300 yards. Just know it's limitations and use it accordingly.
 
Krochus,

Those are pretty slow numbers. Were these 150 grain bullets? Reduced recoil loads?

The load used was a start load, I didn't want to bother to work up loads for both diameter bullets which would be required for saftey. So both bullet diameters got a start load.

read more here
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2274479#post2274479

Hey krochus, in your sug file it says "CZ-USA sales flier"...can you elaborate?

it's a Spoof!
 
For the record, 30-30 was the first commercially produced smokeless only round. There was never a black powder version.

krochus got all the details absolutely correct, so I won't bother to post my own critique.

Here is some corrected data:

7.62x54R max pressure is 3900 bar or 56,565 psi
30-06 max pressure is 4050 bar or 58,740 psi
30-30 max pressure is 3200 bar or 46,412 psi
7.62x39 max pressure is 3550 bar or 51,488 psi

The above data is per CIP and SAAMI, which are the European and US governing bodies for small arms ammunition. Note that 7.42x54R is only 2,000 psi below 30-06 but 10,000 psi higher than 30-30.
 
krochus,

Your 7.62x39mm data mirrors mine. 0.308 bullets go about 100 fps slower than 0.311. I'm actually using 0.310 bullets at the moment, but haven't chrono'd them yet.
 
krochus,

Your 7.62x39mm data mirrors mine. 0.308 bullets go about 100 fps slower than 0.311. I'm actually using 0.310 bullets at the moment, but haven't chrono'd them yet.

For what It's worth I've noticed that with 125grn bullets using a max load of AA1680 there is very little difference in velocity between .308dia 125grn Ballistic tips and .310dia Hornady V-maxes
 
I worked as a Marine armorer at Quantico, VA.,
Aberdeen Proving Grounds in MD., and did a touch of service for the Army in Ft. Bragg.(before the Army 'Long Range Marksman' program became the 'Sniper' program moved to Ft. Benning...)

Now I live just a few miles from Crane in Indiana.
I've seen a military rifle or two during my lifetime...
------------

I've seen the tissue damage comparisons, and depending on who was trying to accomplish what, the results would change to achieve those goals...

The only ones I really paid any attention to were the pork shootings in Aberdeen about '78 or so.
They seemed to be pretty well non biased and used a medium that was very close to human... (pigs).

I'm also paying close attention to the autopsy reports coming from the middle east (both sides).

Seems our little bullet isn't as effective at lower velocities as we would like, pitiful at even intermediate ranges (the reason for the heavier bullets), and the insurgents 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm rounds are VERY effective at short and intermediate ranges.
---------------------

Knowing that, it explains why the M-14's are being broken out of storage, and explains a lot of the interest in the 6.8 SPC.
---------------------

From personal testing, and from military testing I took part in, there are some things you aren't aware of, or aren't putting in your information...

First of all,
The cannalure won't break on a 55 grain round under 2,700 fps.
Heavier rounds are even slower and more resistant to breakage.

Now, use a heavier bullet and it leaves the muzzle even slower than the advertised 3,100 fps.
The guys in the sand box are using a bunch of mid 60 grand and up to 77 grain bullets.
I haven't done the testing with the newer issue ammo myself, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure more mass equals less muzzle velocity.
(and now the military is messing with a 99 grain bullet!)

Use a short barrel, and you are down even more muzzle velocity...
Combine a short barrel with heavy bullets and they are exiting the muzzle around 2,700 fps so the 5.56x45mm is a pretty ineffective round unless you have very precise shot placement.

The only advantage our guys have with the 5.56x45mm NATO round is accuracy.
Accuracy in the form of better barrels, good optics and a bullet with better flight characteristics.

In 2003/2004 the Marine corps did a study simply because so many of the insurgent bodies were shot in the head.
The insinuation was that Marines were executing insurgents.
After a year long study, it was found that the head was often the only thing showing, and the Marines were issued optics that allowed for head shots at an average of 150 Yards.

The Army just concluded a study in 2006 of the same circumstances.
Lots of head shots, suspected executions.
Study exonerated the Army and commented that the average head shot is now farther away than they could get soldiers to engage during WW-II, Korea or Viet-Nam.
------------------------

The fragmentation of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, and the non fragmentation of the 7.62x39mm round was why Russia and Viet-Nam were both throwing a fit during the Viet-Nam war...
Saying the fragmenting round inflicted undue suffering banned by the Hague Accords.
They are correct in the most technical sense and the letter of the Hague Accords.
The US passed it off as 'Unintentional' result of the manufacturing process, and after the Viet-Nam war, both countries did not pursue the violations.

The Soviet era 5.45x39mm AKS round was devastating!
I saw the results first hand during the mid '80's and I can tell you the bullet does NOT fragment.
The manufacturing process allows for a hollow 'bubble' in the bullet, and that bubble collapses during impact, causing the bullet to yaw like crazy!
Horrible, hateful wound channels with absolutely no way to determine where the bullet might wind up from the entrance wound, but the bullet does NOT fragment.

On 27-28-Sept-06 this very same subject came up again, proffered by the international Red Cross/Red Crescent to the World Court, and they made a pretty convincing argument.
Of course the US/NATO will ignore any world court ruling like it has since 1954...

We are the only military in the world to issue hollow points to troops.
The open tip of the M118 Long Range Match round classifies it as hollow point.
We pass this off by saying the hollow tip won't inflict anymore damage from one of our snipers than a solid round would...
Our response is 'Head shots are head shots, no matter what bullet we are using."
----------

I'm not bound by the Hague Accords, and I load everything with hollow points.
I even have a special little punch die to make hollow points out of surplus pulled military bullets...
 
Right now I am running 0.310 Hornady 123 SP over 26gn of Reloader 7 for about 2400 fps. This from my CZ-527. Shoots well with decent velocity. I'm betting I could go hotter in the little mini-Mauser. No signs of pressure at all.
 
Believe what you want to krokus, this is America and you are allowed to be wrong all day, every day.

Oh, and by the way, both me, the Marine corps, and the NRA are all full of it...
According to you! Glad to hear you are up on things...

You should go to work for the Marine Special Weapons center in Quantico, I'm sure they would like to have someone that 'Knows' as much as you...

You should apply at Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indiana, they are short handed and could use someone with your 'Knowledge' in the Spec War Operations center...

Maybe you can come up to Anoka, MN. with me to do some testing at Federal, or down to Arkansas to Remington for testing some time...

Don't just hide behind the computer, get out and do something for the team!
We can use some good men about now...
All of us old farts that have been doing this for 30 or 40 years now need some new help, especially from someone that can change 150 years of history with some key strokes...
 
Please, let's keep this polite. This is the High Road, and ad hominem attacks are never appropriate. I think you'll find a lot of people on this board with extensive small arms experience, as well a military time. I spent some time in the Infantry and enlisted and as an officer. I've consulted for the firearms industry and various LE agencies.

"I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know." -- Julius Caesar

No offense AR, but you are a new member, and while some of you data posted is correct, other is suspect. Without cites, it can only be considered 'speculative', particularly when in conflict with well known sources.

Argue the facts, not the person. When questioned, provide cites please.
 
AR Hammer said: No one has mentioned the .303 Savage, also known as the .30 Savage, that was actually a issued military rifle in 1895 and found some success in European border disputes.
The .303 Savage is basically a .30-30 that uses a .309" to .311" diameter bullet.
Sound Familiar?....
Can you specify which European countries issued the .303 Savage? That's the first I've heard of any military use for this round, let alone a European one.

The .311" diam bullet does indeed sound familiar: it's what was used in the .303 British, which was invented before the Savage.
 
Believe what you want to krokus, this is America and you are allowed to be wrong all day, every day.

Oh, and by the way, both me, the Marine corps, and the NRA are all full of it...
According to you! Glad to hear you are up on things...

Again I cited FACT you make wild associations with no references to back them up. The onus in apoun YOU to prove me wrong yet in several cases when called to make clarifications to various misstatements by me and others you've ignored the questions . So far you have not done so. At this point I call shenanigans an all your previous posts reguarding this subject.

All of us old farts that have been doing this for 30 or 40 years now need some new help, especially from someone that can change 150 years of history with some key strokes...

You sir have your own version of history that bears little to no resemblance to the historic record .
 
Fragmentationtation and gelatin testing aren't about the temporary cavity at all, we're looking to see just how much tissue is destroyed. You've got the right idea, but you've misapplied it. A round that tumbles and fragments is going to destroy a lot more tissue, potentially some of it vital person stopping tissue, than the ice pick wound of a round that goes straight though.

I understand that tissue disruption is the key point here. What I am saying is that the human cardiovascular system doesn't give a damn if your bullet tumbles and causes slightly more disruption. Also, last time I checked the human body wasn't made of gelatin. It consisted of skin, bone, muscle, and organs. I guess I am just not going to buy into a bunch of BS spewed by what, two guys (fackler and roberts).

Dr. Roberts said that the terminal performance of the 5.7 round was like that of a 22 magnum, if he is the all knowing bullet guru so many claim then why have so many people adopted the P90? I guess teh secret service and others must not put much stock in what he says. Maybe that says something.

Scoring hits on vital organs is what matters, all this yaw/fragmenting stuff is purely academic.

QUESTION: If the 7.62x39 is so bad can you cite some anecdotal evidence? I know anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, but I can find you a ton of stuff about 5.56 failing to stop people quickly. Can you do it for the x39? Surely there must be some stories if it such a marginal man stopper as you claim.
 
The Soviet era 5.45x39mm AKS round was devastating!
I saw the results first hand during the mid '80's and I can tell you the bullet does NOT fragment.

Where did you see these wounds? I didn't think the 5.45 was deployed in any combat zone in the 1980s except Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Roberts said that the terminal performance of the 5.7 round was like that of a 22 magnum, if he is the all knowing bullet guru so many claim then why have so many people adopted the P90? I guess teh secret service and others must not put much stock in what he says. Maybe that says something.

I've owned a FiveSeven and fired a few PS90 and one P90. Used it on small animals, and it performes almost exactly the same as a 22 WMR. Not surprising. Take the same bullet weight and push it at approximately the same velocity and you are going to get about the same performance.

Not so many people/agencies have adopted the P90. It may have special applications. It penetrates body armor better than a handgun - which may be important to an agency like the SS. However, anyone who thinks agencies adopt small arms based only on performance knows very little about government procurement.

For example, when ATF transitioned from model 66s to 9mms, they tested just about every autopistol available. The top performer in their tests was the Glock. The ended up adopting the SIG because they thought it might not be 'political' to carry a poylmer frame gun (this was at the time when many people believed the Glock could evade x-rays and metal detectors).
 
However, anyone who thinks agencies adopt small arms based only on performance knows very little about government procurement

Agreed. One Florida unit bought the P90s because they had budget money they had to spend and couldn't get MP-5s.

This is the same crew who shot a suspect with a burst from a P90 and had him ask them to stop shooting him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top