The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

[Newtosavage]

The big plus of the 30-30 is that the Winchester 30-30 is very light and short.

Again, as much as I love my Win 94, the edge still goes to my bolt-action Savage in 7.62x39. It's lighter, just as short, and more accurate. When I hand load it with 160-grain FTX bullets, I give up only 100 fps. at the muzzle to my 30-30 loaded with factory LeverEvolution ammo. It's my go-to walking rifle these days and I've enjoyed walking miles and miles of National Forest with it since I bought it.

For whatever reason, the 7.62x39 has NOTICEABLY less recoil than my beloved 94. It's hard to believe it's within 100 fps. at the muzzle. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't chrono'd it myself.

 

[d2wing]

I am glad you are happy with your rifle. I a curious at what kind of load data you are using. Pretty sure you are exceeding SAAMI specs. Which may be perfectly safe. After all it is your eyes.

 

[Corn-Picker]

My CZ 527 carbine (compact version) is 36.5" long and weighs 5.5 pounds, so it's real handy. I have a peep sight on the rear and a Patridge post out front. I am pretty good out to 150 yards, which is as far as I'd shoot a deer with a 7.62x39. For me, the combination is more than the sum of the parts, it's the most fun to shoot rifle I own.

That being said, I take the 7.62x39 with iron sights when I want to extend the hunting season. If I'm trying to fill tags as quickly as possible I'll take my scoped 308

 

[Corn-Picker]

To add to my earlier thought, the CZ 527 in "223" is really chambered in 5.56. According to Barnes data, you can launch a 70 grain tac-x (bc of 0.317) at 3000 fps from a 20" barrel. That'll give you 900 ft-lbs and 2400 fps past 200 yards, which is quite respectable.

 

[Newtosavage]

I am glad you are happy with your rifle. I a curious at what kind of load data you are using. Pretty sure you are exceeding SAAMI specs. Which may be perfectly safe. After all it is your eyes.

LOL. I like my eyes, believe me. Use them every day in fact.

My load data is right off the RL-7 website, and in fact I cannot even get the max load of RL-7 into my Lapua cases anyway, so I am about 1.5 grains under that. Pressure is so low that running the cases through my sizing die, you can barely tell they are deformed.

Anyone that hasn't tried the 160 grain Hornady FTX bullet in their 7.62x39 really doesn't know what they are missing. It is incredibly accurate and an ideal hunting bullet for that caliber inside of 200 yards.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

more bolt action, accurate rifles will be found in a .223....the other 7.62 x 39 is a good proven round for people....a scoped .223 bolt action will leave it in the dust.

 

[hdwhit]

Hummer70 wrote:
Per the Army Wound Ballistics Lab testing the 5.56 gives best wound lethality up to 95 yards.

And what about between 95 yards and the OP's self-imposed 150 yard limit?

 

[hdwhit]

The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

I'm sorry, but the OP's title had to do with which rifle to use "in a pinch" which I take to mean a survival or self-preservation situation. If I am starving to death, then whether the state game regulations permit a 22 caliber round or not, will not be a consideration. If the state says no to 22 but my life is genuinely on the line and all I have is a center-fire 22, then I will use it. After the emergency is over, I will turn myself in for whatever punishment the law demands asserting a defense of necessity or justification as appropriate.

 

[hq]

I've lurked in the background following this thread for a while. I'm not sure whether I should mention that use both regularly on purpose, not just in a pinch. Recently more 7.62x39 than .223 but there's really nothing wrong with either. Don't let the marketing people fool you that you'll absolutely need the latest, fanciest .300000 hypermagnum with laser-straight trajectory and point blank range to the edge of space to down medium game with great success...

 

[Newtosavage]

Per the Army Wound Ballistics Lab testing the 5.56 gives best wound lethality up to 95 yards.

I think some people keep forgetting we are not trying to "wound" game. We're trying to kill it quickly, if not where it stands. It's my belief that a bullet 50% larger in diameter and 100-150% heavier will give much better outcomes at reasonable hunting ranges. I've personally shot 100's of feral pigs (50-200 lbs. on average) with both calibers and I know which one is most effective at stopping them quickly.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you're talking about the 30-30, you're spot on IMO. The only reason I'd declare the 30-30 a capable 200 yard gun is in the right rifle, using only the LeverEvolution ammo.

However, I have - on video - a young lady friend of mine shooting 9 consecutive 6" clay pigeons at 300 yards with my bolt action 7.62x39 using $6/box steel case hollow point ammo. I don't know about you, but I doubt there is a 30-30 in existence that can do that.

When the cheap commie ammo is no longer available (not holding my breath though), I'll just load my Lapua 7.62x39 brass by hand, like I do now.

Not only is my 7.62x39 my first choice for whitetails inside of 200 yard for new and young hunters, but I think it's a MUCH better choice than a .223 for those hunters. I know how many folks love their .223's but I simply cannot bring myself to launch such a lightweight bullet at a 150 lb. animal. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I used to be a 30 cal. guy for medium game also. Hunted deer with a 30-30 and even a 30 Gov't. when I was younger. Actually killed a few deer with those under 150 yds. The fact is deer are very easy to kill so shot placement is the key here, not bullet weight. A .223 with a well designed 70gr bullet will take down any white tail with a well placed shot out to 300 yds. The 7.62 x 39 has twice the drop when compared to a .223 at that range. The simple fact is a 7.62x39 is a 200 yd cartridge. It would work well for anyone who hunts using that limitation.

People are routinely shooting coyotes and P dogs at 300 yds and beyond with a 223.

I bet you don't know anyone doing that with a 7.62 x 39.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

if you were in a pinch...suppose if you were in in a pinch in eastern europe, africa, asia...and certain other territories the ak round would probably be best. In America and allied nations the .223

 

[hq]

The 7.62 x 39 has twice the drop when compared to a .223 at that range. The simple fact is a 7.62x39 is a 200 yd cartridge. It would work well for anyone who hunts using that limitation.

People these days are so focused on trajectory and drop and on the other hand have faith in tiny bullets as long as they don't need to consider either of them. I'd have to be really desperate and hungry to attempt a shot at a whitetail at 300yd with .223, even though that's something I routinely do with black grouse and capercaillie.

 

[CoalTrain49]

People these days are so focused on trajectory and drop and on the other hand have faith in tiny bullets as long as they don't need to consider either of them. I'd have to be really desperate and hungry to attempt a shot at a whitetail at 300yd with .223, even though that's something I routinely do with black grouse and capercaillie.

It's illegal to shoot deer where I live with a .223 so at least somebody sees it the same way you do. I would also have to be mighty hungry to shoot a deer with a .223 at any range.

 

[Newtosavage]

I used to be a 30 cal. guy for medium game also. Hunted deer with a 30-30 and even a 30 Gov't. when I was younger. Actually killed a few deer with those under 150 yds. The fact is deer are very easy to kill so shot placement is the key here, not bullet weight. A .223 with a well designed 70gr bullet will take down any white tail with a well placed shot out to 300 yds. The 7.62 x 39 has twice the drop when compared to a .223 at that range. The simple fact is a 7.62x39 is a 200 yd cartridge. It would work well for anyone who hunts using that limitation.

People are routinely shooting coyotes and P dogs at 300 yds and beyond with a 223.

I bet you don't know anyone doing that with a 7.62 x 39.

I would easily with my bolt action. But back to the topic - just how much energy does that tiny .223 bullet have at 300 yards? And you'd be confident shooting a 200 lb. buck with it?

I'd have to be really desperate and hungry to attempt a shot at a whitetail at 300yd with .223,

Same here. To each their own I guess.

I view the .223 as completely inferior to the 7.62x39 for medium sized game. But only after shooting 100's of medium sized game with both. So I have some real-world data to back up my bias.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I would easily with my bolt action. But back to the topic - just how much energy does that tiny .223 bullet have at 300 yards? And you'd be confident shooting a 200 lb. buck with it?

With a 75 grn bullet, about 850 ft/lbs. That's enough energy to do the job. No, I wouldn't take that shot unless it was an emergency situation, which is basically what we are discussing here, I thought. I've been watching a large herd of whitetail deer here in Utah the last few days and there are some nice well fed bucks in that group. I doubt any of them would go 200 lbs. Maybe one in ten would make that weight. I think 150 lbs is more realistic. Where are you shooting 200 lb whitetail?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I would easily with my bolt action. But back to the topic - just how much energy does that tiny .223 bullet have at 300 yards? And you'd be confident shooting a 200 lb. buck with it?
.

Energy doesn't kill and deer don't read ballistics charts. Only amateurs subscribe to some arbitrary energy threshold without considering other factors much higher on the list.

I would absolutely shoot 300 pound Rocky Mountain muley with the right 5.56 load to 200 yards and probably beyond. The 5.56 is going to expand to at least 300 yards. And again, it's even legal in MT.

 

[AFDoc]

"In a pinch" is also very situational and multivariate for many of us, isn't it? It's not just about the round itself; rather, it is about accuracy, energy, terminal balistics, etc. Each of these factors can be optimized depending on the rifle, glass, ammunition, so I think this question is rather personal depending on what each of us may have on hand.

Let's assume the target is whitetail deer at your specified distance of 150yds. For my purposes I want to maximize both energy and accuracy, so let's take a look at my rifles and the optimized handloads for each.

Rifles:

• AR-15 with 16" barrell, 1-4x scope
• Savage 10FCM Scout 20" barrell with 2.3x IER
• Ruger Compact 16.5" barrell with fixed 4x

Handloads:

• AR: 65gr Sierra Game King handloads avg 2750ft/s; energy at 150yds = 778ft/lbs
• Savage: 123gr Hornady SST avg 2350ft/s; energy at 150yds = 1019ft/lbs
• Ruger: 123gr Barnes TSX avg about 2300ft/s; energy at 150yds = 973ft/lbs

The Savage is the most accurate. The Ruger is next followed by the AR.

"In a pinch" I would most likely grab the Savage 10FCM Scout in 7.62x39. I think I could plant a deer most humanely with this rifle and cartridge.

 

[someguy2800]

In the 90's when SKS's were selling for $100 to $150 bucks there were a lot of people hunting with them. I remember them being in every sale flier the week before deer season along with soft point ammo and scope mounts for them. If fact my father in law bought one for $80 and did shoot a deer with it before giving it to his brother who deer hunted with it for several years with success. I view a 7.62x39 with the appropriate bullets as a fine low recoil 150 yard deer cartridge. It's one notch on the ladder down from a 30/30 and one up from a 300 blk. The equivalent pistol cartridge is a 30 herrett which you can see in my profile picture. That also has a fine reputation on deer.

I have a bit of a mental block against using 223 on deer. I think the only bullet I would use is a nosler partition or a bonded bullet. Another food for thought on the subject, I remember someone posting in the hand loading section that they were using 55 grain V max in 223 for deer. I'm not keen on that idea but if you have ever seen what a v-max or TNT does to a coyote out of a 223 at 3-400 yards there would be no doubt they would kill a deer dead as anything with a broadside lung shot. But you better be darn sure of your shot before you pull that trigger!

That's where a proper deer cartridge like a 270, 30/30, 6.5x55, 30/06, ect... gives you an edge, complete penetration at any angle and large entrance an exit wounds.

 

[Newtosavage]

Maybe one in ten would make that weight. I think 150 lbs is more realistic. Where are you shooting 200 lb whitetail?

Lots of places. Anywhere in the Midwest, bucks routinely exceed 200 lbs. on the hoof and many are 200 lbs. field dressed. I shot a doe in Illinois that dressed 175 on a scale. There are places even in South Texas where mature whitetail bucks will break 200.

Only amateurs subscribe to some arbitrary energy threshold without considering other factors much higher on the list.

Sorry. I didn't realize we had professional hunters on this forum. If killing over 600 feral pigs and another 50+ deer in the past 25 years makes me an amateur, then I guess I'm an amateur. LOL I just know what I've seen first hand, and I've never dropped pigs or deer as cleanly with a .223 as I have with the 7.62x39. But it sounds like you have professional experience so I'll defer to you from now on.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Sounds like you have enough experience to know energy is just a number. Bullet performance and shot placement are much more important. Bullet construction and velocity determine performance, not energy.

A .375 H&H shooting a 300 gr bullet at 2500 fps and a .30-378 Weatherby shooting a 180 gr bullet at 3250 fps produce about the same energy. One is clearly a better choice staring 50 feet downrange at a 1300 pounds of Cape Buffalo looking to turn you into toe jam.

I've shot a few deer with both the x39 and the .223 and have to say I was unable to tell the difference in performance and neither was they deer. They all seem to go about 40 yards and lay down. I've seen enough deer take broadside double lung hits with a .22 caliber centerfire and an expanding bullet to know it is more than adequate. I'll take an expanding .22 caliber bullet at rifle velocities over a non-expanding .31 caliber bullet at handgun velocities any day of the week, and there are very few bullets out there for the x39 that will expand reliably at 150+ yards. If you've found one that works, good for you. I only ever had a Yugo SKS with TechSights. I settled on the Uly 8m3 JHPs. Shot a couple deer inside 50 yards and it performed well enough, but whether it was the Mini-14 or later the Colt 6920, I always found it easier to hit with the 5.56. That's more confidence inspiring than bore diameter and energy figures for me. Your results may vary.

 

[Newtosavage]

Who said the 7.62x39 was lobbing non-expanding bullets at handgun velocities? Not sure if you are just trying to spread misinformation or if you really don't know better, but that simply is not the case. I've chrono'd my loads at the muzzle, and again at 100 and 200 yards. That's how I know my Hornady FTX 160's were still delivering over 1K ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards, and still traveling fast enough to reliably expand (>1800 fps.). That was with an average load of RL-7. I could have compressed the load and pushed it another 100 fps. if I wanted, but didn't see the need as the rifle/load was intended for a new hunter that I wouldn't allow shots past 100 yards anyway.

From your comments, I would have bet quite a lot that you've only handled an SKS or AK in the 7.62x39. This is the biggest disservice to that caliber - that everyone seems to only know it by those less-than-accurate weapons. In a modern bolt gun, it's a nearly ideal low-recoil hunting round for medium game.

I've lost track of the number of AR owners at my gun club who have been shocked by the accuracy of my Savage 7.62x39. I've yet to see one shoot groups with their AR that can match it. A few come close, but nobody I've seen with an AR is shooting sub-MOA at 300 yards. I'm not knocking the AR here. Uncle Sam trained me on that platform and I know what it can do. Just saying folks shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the AK round in a modern bolt action rifle until they have some experience with it (and few do).

 

[Newtosavage]

Incidentally, this is a before and after of one of my handloads. Slug was pulled out of the far shoulder blade of a whitetail doe that was shot at a sharp quartering away angle at approx. 75 yards. That 160-grain FTX chrono'd 2250 at the muzzle. The bullet traveled nearly the entire length of the doe before coming to rest in that off side shoulder blade just under the skin.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

You are in an extreme minority here though. My experience with the cartridge, being limited to AKs and SKSs, is more common. Most people's interest in this cartridge is its economy. This cartridge was more common when you could buy a New/Unissued Yugo SKS with hand selected bore and 1000 rounds of Wolf for $200.

As I suggested, there are very few loads that achieve that level of performance for the x39. Commonly you find a ~125 gr bullet @ 2350 fps. This stuff will drop below 2000 fps around 120 yards. You're not the only one with a chrono. I consider under 2000 fps to be handgun velocities because it is around this velocity threshold that you rapidly start losing cavitation damage. There is also very few bullets that expand reliably below around 2000 fps. So for the level of performance most people associate with the 7.62x39, it is a .31 caliber handgun shooting non-expanding ammunition by the time it reaches 200 yards. I understand it will bring the mass, velocity, and momentum of a .357 Magnum defense load out to 300 yards or more, but this is still handgun ballistics with a bullet that is going to expand little, or not at all.

You've obviously found a load that does considerably better. Good for you. Your results are atypical because most people don't handload for the 7.62x39. I personally wouldn't invest the effort. If I was going to handload for a cartridge like that it would be a 6.5 Grendel.

 

[AFDoc]

I consider under 2000 fps to be handgun velocities because it is around this velocity threshold that you rapidly start losing cavitation damage.

I really don’t want to turn this into a medical discussion, but while exploring wounds we saw ample evidence of cavitation in the ORs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wound evolution over 24-72hrs also argued in favor of extensive cavitation. While I have no hard evidence, we could easily conclude many of the .310 FMJs extracted were sent from distances > 200yds.

We also know from our civilian experience treating handgun GSWs, there is extensive cavitation. Sometimes the cavitation is so severe, that on post-mortem there is evidence of hydrostatic shock in the brain after a GSW to the abdomen.

My experience has taught me a non-expanding bullet traveling at handgun speeds can result in significant cavitation. Your mileage may vary.