7.62x39.....is it a MBR cartridge ?

[blueflash]

Was wondering what the thought about 7.62x39 is ? Guns like the SKS, VZ58, and AK47 all shoot the 7.62x39. I know these are Red Rifles, but I wanted to know if they are actually classified as MBR ?

They do shoot a 30 cal bullets, but it does'nt compare to .308 or 30/06 cartridges performance, not by a long shot.

Most people who shoot 223, talk like the Commie round is a battle rifle, but it seems like guys who shoot 308 don't seem to think that 7.62x39 is ?

 

[John Sukey]

Well the communists certainly shot at us enough with them.

 

[Armedsask]

7.62x39mm is, by design, an intermediate cartridge. That reason right there excludes it from being a battle rifle. 7.62x39mm is one of the first assault rifle cartridges. An assault rifle cannot be a battle rifle.

Thread over. No more discussion. There's your answer.

 

[JDTonken]

There is some debate about this. "Battle rifle" is commonly defined as shooting a full-size round, whereas 7.62x39 is classed as an intermediate round.

I think most people would say no its not an MBR round by virtue of the fact that its an intermediate round. However you can find people who argue that it is an MBR round. The fact that "battle rifle" is a hard definition to pin down precisely keeps this debate going although the general consensus seems to be "not an MBR round". People who argue otherwise tend to be a small minority.

 

[Armedsask]

The definition of battle rifle is cut and dry, and easy to pin down. A battle rifle is a military service weapon that fires a full power rifle cartridge.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. There is no debate. There is no argument.

7.62x39mm is NOT a battle rifle cartridge.

 

[a0jc]

Most people who shoot 223, talk like the Commie round is a battle rifle, but it seems like guys who shoot 308 don't seem to think that 7.62x39 is ?

That's because most of those people who shoot .223 are drunk on the tacticool flavoured koolaid. Red Rifle is just a folk taxonomic term on CGN. It's not considered a real class of firearm.

 

[Armedsask]

The term "Red Rifles" came about because all the Bubba's and chuckle heads who bleed SKS were plugging up the real forums with their stupidity.

 

[JDTonken]

The definition of battle rifle is cut and dry, and easy to pin down. A rifle that uses a full powered cartridge.

An assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge. There is no debate. There is no argument.

7.62x39mm is NOT a battle rifle cartridge.

I was saying that the definition of battle rifle has always been assumed to mean full power cartridge but that its been applied inconsistently in military hardcopy. By that I mean the designation actually used by various militaries sometimes refers to full power cartridge rifles as battle rifles but sometimes does not. Its this inconsistency that led to some people arguing that intermediate rounds are MBR rounds, although I would disagree with them. I wasn't arguing that 7.62x39 was a MBR round, just informing the OP that there was debate on the subject but that its commonly understood that 7.62x39 was not an MBR round for the reasons you and I pointed out.

 

[1895GS]

If you can hit stuff with it at reasonable ranges.
Who really cares?

Unless you are really into the whole:
"Taliban when shot with 556 barely flinch, while 7.62 knocks em right over" type Kool-Aid.

 

[legi0n]

The definition of battle rifle is cut and dry, and easy to pin down. A battle rifle is a military service weapon that fires a full power rifle cartridge.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. There is no debate. There is no argument.

7.62x39mm is NOT a battle rifle cartridge.

there is argument:

The term battle rifle is not defined or frequently used in military field manuals and government documents. There are some government requisition documents[10] that do make mention of a specific rifle as a battle rifle, but those documents may simply be using the manufacturer's marketing name (similar to how Springfield Armory's M14 clone is trademarked as the M1A). Because of this issue, deciding what exact characteristics of a rifle should make it a battle rifle are a matter of contention.

It's like the meaning of "safe" in the firearms act. Open to interpretation.

 

[J996]

Armedsask hit the nail on the head with his answer. Case closed.

 

[fiddler]

This topic is really open to interpretations. Sure its only an intermediate cartridge, but tell the millions of Chinese, Asian, and Middle-East soldiers who shoot it that they are not using battle rifles. Its odd that so many Canadian and American soldiers are falling in battle, but not from Main Battle Rifles?

Its one thing to have definitions for dividing Forum topics, but it stops there. Who ever thinks these lame definitions effect the real world should join the Armed Forces and find out about real combat, rather than sitting in from of a computer and making themselves out be some sort of expert of things that they actually know nothing about. There are tens of thousands of graves of real Men and Women that should tell us that an enemy armed with 7.62x39 IS something to be concerned with. None of these brave people were armchair experts, and could care less whose lame terminology defines whatever.

 

[JDTonken]

This topic is really open to interpretations. Sure its only an intermediate cartridge, but tell the millions of Chinese, Asian, and Middle-East soldiers who shoot it that they are not using battle rifles. Its odd that so many Canadian and American soldiers are falling in battle, but not from Main Battle Rifles?

Its one thing to have definitions for dividing Forum topics, but it stops there. Who ever thinks these lame definitions effect the real world should join the Armed Forces and find out about real combat, rather than sitting in from of a computer and making themselves out be some sort of expert of things that they actually know nothing about. There are tens of thousands of graves of real Men and Women that should tell us that an enemy armed with 7.62x39 IS something to be concerned with. None of these brave people were armchair experts, and could care less whose lame terminology defines whatever.

I think that 7.62x39 is a potent round, but I think at the very least due to naming tradition the round isn't considered an MBR round, where MBR is most commonly understood to be a full power cartridge and the x39 was specifically developed as an intermediate cartridge.

And of course, as you've mentioned... having that definition is most useful on CGN for forum designation so that M14's and SKSs aren't constituting one huge sub-forum.

But like I had said, if for no other reason than tradition, the term "battle rifle" usually denotes a rifle shooting a full power cartridge. Nonetheless, I always appreciate a little debate.... after all, what would we talk about if we all agreed.

 

[Davy Crockett]

This topic is really open to interpretations. Sure its only an intermediate cartridge, but tell the millions of Chinese, Asian, and Middle-East soldiers who shoot it that they are not using battle rifles. Its odd that so many Canadian and American soldiers are falling in battle, but not from Main Battle Rifles?

Its one thing to have definitions for dividing Forum topics, but it stops there. Who ever thinks these lame definitions effect the real world should join the Armed Forces and find out about real combat, rather than sitting in from of a computer and making themselves out be some sort of expert of things that they actually know nothing about. There are tens of thousands of graves of real Men and Women that should tell us that an enemy armed with 7.62x39 IS something to be concerned with. None of these brave people were armchair experts, and could care less whose lame terminology defines whatever.

Do you feel better now? Now that you got that out of your system, did you read this?

The definition of battle rifle is cut and dry, and easy to pin down. A battle rifle is a military service weapon that fires a full power rifle cartridge.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. There is no debate. There is no argument.

7.62x39mm is NOT a battle rifle cartridge.

Not much room for discussion there.

 

[Armedsask]

This topic is really open to interpretations. Sure its only an intermediate cartridge, but tell the millions of Chinese, Asian, and Middle-East soldiers who shoot it that they are not using battle rifles. Its odd that so many Canadian and American soldiers are falling in battle, but not from Main Battle Rifles?

You clearly missed the point.

This is why we can't have this discussion, there's always someone that thinks "battle rifle" means any rifle used in battle.

 

[Red Dawg]

!

I do agree with armedsask, however there is nothing that says whether the 7.62x39 itself is a full-powered/half-powered/no-powered round though there everyone calls it "intermediate" - (maybe the 7.62x39 was considered a full powered round for what it was to be used in originally?), there are so many different cartridge types/sizes all meant for different purposes - so who really cares? They were used for their purposes and got the job done.

As for an "MBR", it doesn't really matter WHAT it is called because any military that finds a rifle that is effective enough to do the job keeping cost vs effectiveness in mind, is used regardless of what "class" it is in.

I also agree with fiddler - realistically most cartridges at a close range can cause intended damage, so keeping that in mind, the 7.62x39 round WAS used in battle so it obviously was effective enough IN battle and so was the intended rifle.

Unfortunately alot of people bash the 7.62x39 cartridge as almost all experience is with crappy bulk surplus however, aftermarket stuff actually performs pretty decent. But overall the whole point of this thread doesn't really matter because in the end, the rifle and cartridge used for the intended purpose gets the job done regardless of class, power, or origin.

 

[Davy Crockett]

I do agree with armedsask, however there is nothing that says whether the 7.62x39 itself is a full-powered/half-powered/no-powered round though there everyone calls it "intermediate" - (maybe the 7.62x39 was considered a full powered round for what it was to be used in originally?), there are so many different cartridge types/sizes all meant for different purposes - so who really cares? They were used for their purposes and got the job done.

As for an "MBR", it doesn't really matter WHAT it is called because any military that finds a rifle that is effective enough to do the job keeping cost vs effectiveness in mind, is used regardless of what "class" it is in.

I also agree with fiddler - realistically most cartridges at a close range can cause intended damage, so keeping that in mind, the 7.62x39 round WAS used in battle so it obviously was effective enough IN battle and so was the intended rifle.

Unfortunately alot of people bash the 7.62x39 cartridge but almost all experience is with crappy bulk surplus but aftermarket stuff actually performs pretty decent. But overall the whole point of this thread doesn't really matter because in the end, the rifle and cartridge used for the intended purpose gets the job done regardless of class, power, or origin.

The thing is, 7.62x39 was designed as an intermediate power cartridge, a less powerful alternative to 7.62x54. Since a battle rifle by definition must fire a full power round such as 7.62x51 or 54 or 30-06, any rifle that fires 7.62 x 39 is automatically NOT a battle rifle.

It's kind of like saying a Subaru car is a truck because it has all wheel drive and you really like it. Sure they both have four wheels and they can all spin at once but no matter how much you try it doesn't make your Brat a pick up.

 

[JDTonken]

The thing is, 7.62x39 was designed as an intermediate power cartridge, a less powerful alternative to 7.62x54. Since a battle rifle by definition must fire a full power round such as 7.62x51 or 54 or 30-06, any rifle that fires 7.62 x 39 is automatically NOT a battle rifle.

It's kind of like saying a Subaru car is a truck because it has all wheel drive and you really like it. Sure they both have four wheels and they can all spin at once but no matter how much you try it doesn't make your Brat a pick up.

You're right and this is really the crux of it. 7.62x39 was the result of a development process that sought to use a smaller round than MBR rounds but larger than pistol rounds to create a cartridge more controllable and compact than the full-size round but more powerful than pistol rounds. This, to me, is why x39 isn't an MBR round... because it was designed specifically to address a different set of needs than MBRs. As I had pointed out earlier though, because various militaries were inconsistent in designating what we understand to be MBRs, there are people who argued differently based on this discrepancy.

 

[Red Dawg]

Go 'ol wikipedia

I decided to wiki this subject and came up with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_rifle

So yes if people want a point proven, wiki is never wrong

However keeping in mind all of it, the x39 round may not be accurate or dangerous at long distances with a shot out AK, but has been proven that a good rifle with longer barrel and someone that can aim, the round can actually do quite well for what it is. I think that if there was a rifle meant to withstand higher pressures and the 7.62x39 round was a mag round, it'd be one sweet little round!

 

[Armedsask]

I do agree with armedsask, however there is nothing that says whether the 7.62x39 itself is a full-powered/half-powered/no-powered round though there everyone calls it "intermediate" - (maybe the 7.62x39 was considered a full powered round for what it was to be used in originally?), there are so many different cartridge types/sizes all meant for different purposes - so who really cares? They were used for their purposes and got the job done.

As for an "MBR", it doesn't really matter WHAT it is called because any military that finds a rifle that is effective enough to do the job keeping cost vs effectiveness in mind, is used regardless of what "class" it is in.

I also agree with fiddler - realistically most cartridges at a close range can cause intended damage, so keeping that in mind, the 7.62x39 round WAS used in battle so it obviously was effective enough IN battle and so was the intended rifle.

Just because you don't something doesn't make it so.

I'm only going to say this one more time and then I'm done talking in circles with you morons;
Use in battle or combat doesn't mean two s**ts in the definition of Battle Rifle.

Read my first post, actually read it. Then stop trying to over complicate things. 7.62x39 is, BY DESIGN, an intermediate cartridge. It, by the intent of the designer, is not possible to be used in a Battle Rifle.