7.62x39

R

ratherbefishin

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
I have a SKS in a Choate Dragunof stock which is a fun gun to shoot,cheap ammunition is readily available.But apart from that ,what practical use is a 7.62x39? I see some very nice CZ and Ruger rifles chambered in that cartridge,but is there any practical advantage to them that a plain SKS doesn't offer? Notwithstanding that ' just because' is a valid reason to spend $600 or $700 for something that a $200 rifle can do just as well or better. But apart from that, what identifiable advantage is there ,the 7.62 x39 does not seem to be even as good as a 30-30 ,definately less than a 6.5x55 swede for deer hunting,under gunned for elk, moose or bear and is overkill for rabbits and not the best choice for squirrels or potting grouse.Its hardly qualifies as a target shooters choice..but if fun shooting is what you want,what does a CZ or Ruger offer that an SKS doesn't? Each to their own,but it Seems to me that the $500 diference might give more value spent on a couple of cases of ammunition for cheap plinking,in a 'truck gun' which seems to be the best use of the cartridge ... your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
First off, let's put that in perspective. What does a pre 64 m70 have to offer that an m1 Garand can't do. That was the dilemma in the 60's for much the same reasons. As far as thinking that the cartridge is somehow inharently inaccurate; the PPC cartridges are sort of its offspring. What can it do....? The same things that the 30-30 can accomplish in a truely short action rifle. I like it in private property where I don't want a stray bullet to travel too far.
Ivor
 
ratherbefishin said:
I have a SKS in a Choate Dragunof stock which is a fun gun to shoot,cheap ammunition is readily available.But apart from that ,what practical use is a 7.62x39? I see some very nice CZ and Ruger rifles chambered in that cartridge,but is there any practical advantage to them that a plain SKS doesn't offer? Notwithstanding that ' just because' is a valid reason to spend $600 or $700 for something that a $200 rifle can do just as well or better. But apart from that, what identifiable advantage is there ,the 7.62 x39 does not seem to be even as good as a 30-30 ,definately less than a 6.5x55 swede for deer hunting,under gunned for elk, moose or bear and is overkill for rabbits and not the best choice for squirrels or potting grouse.Its hardly qualifies as a target shooters choice..but if fun shooting is what you want,what does a CZ or Ruger offer that an SKS doesn't? Each to their own,but it Seems to me that the $500 diference might give more value spent on a couple of cases of ammunition for cheap plinking,in a 'truck gun' which seems to be the best use of the cartridge ... your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose my $1000 CZ527 shoots just a wee bit more accurately than an SKS. Further too with accuracy. Just say'n.
 
My Ex had a CZ 527 that will put 5 shots through a dime a 100 yards with factory PVRI ammo. You get what you pay for.
 
As stated above the CZ and other bolt actions are almost always going to be quite a bit more accurate than an SKS. There's really no discussion to be had on that point.

As for the capability of the 7.62 x 39 round I think it gets underrated all the time. Sure, it's a bit lower velocity than some others but within its realistic effective range a round like the Hornady 123 gr SST can do a lot of damage.

For hunting with it's usually about deer. However, given the typical ranges a high percentage of hunting shots are taken I suspect it would do much better on black bear and moose than people think. I wouldn't shoot a moose at say 350 yards with one but at 100, sure. As always shot placement is key.

Given that, I can hit what I want out to 250 with an SKS so I don't see why many get their pants in a bunch about an SKS at 100 for larger animals than deer.

Flame away .....
 
madashell said:
As stated above the CZ and other bolt actions are almost always going to be quite a bit more accurate than an SKS. There's really no discussion to be had on that point.

As for the capability of the 7.62 x 39 round I think it gets underrated all the time. Sure, it's a bit lower velocity than some others but within its realistic effective range a round like the Hornady 123 gr SST can do a lot of damage.

For hunting with it's usually about deer. However, given the typical ranges a high percentage of hunting shots are taken I suspect it would do much better on black bear and moose than people think. I wouldn't shoot a moose at say 350 yards with one but at 100, sure. As always shot placement is key.

Given that, I can hit what I want out to 250 with an SKS so I don't see why many get their pants in a bunch about an SKS at 100 for larger animals than deer.

Flame away .....
Click to expand...

Good on you!Thk
 
Not flaming...just commenting that the 7.62x39 seems ideally suited to plinking due to cheap ammunition,and if so what would be the advantage of buying a more expensive rifle when a SKS will do the job handily ? I have absolutely no doubts the 7.62 x39 will kill a deer within moderate range,nor would I pass up a shot at a deer if that was what I happened to be carrying ,but it simply wouldn't be my first choice for a deer gun,and if I was going to lay out that kind of money ,I would choose the more expensive CZ or Ruger bolt gun in something with more capability like a 308 round or my favourite 65x55 swede
 
I never really have understood the idea behind using a marginal or "lmiting" caliber or rifle..... Ie, it's good up to ### yards...... Although I do understand the principle of reloading and pushing a cartridge for fun.....

As a hunter and shooter, I don't like making expensive noise.... Having a rifle like an SKS dos not appeal to me because even for plinking, I could do my part and the rifle will limit me....

IMOP, the 7.62 x 39 in a good platform is near the 30-30..... But I fail to see why anyone is attracted to the .30-30 as well.... There are a lot of calibers out there..... And they all have their purpose.... But I don't like limiting myself..... Especially when a basic time honoured deer cartridge can be had over the counter in .308 or .30-06 and eliminates a lot of limitations....

I can drive in a fence post with a tack hammer too...... Doesn't make it the right tool for the job.....
 
Unless you're a plains hunter or hunt in Grizzly territory in NA the x39 is NOT limiting within it's effective range. It hits fairly hard actually.

No need for a .308 or 30-06 on a deer given the TYPICAL ranges things are shot at.

I used to not get this shorter/intermediate round either until I started USING it beyond target stuff. I see EVERY round as limiting.... just gotta know its limits.

Sometimes you don't always need a freight train to get the job done well. Just my opinion and experience, but I get why many would choose something else. If I could choose only one caliber forever it'd be .308 all day long.
 
Minimalist cartridges, generally are and should be, an experts choice... one who has been there, done that and excels at the harvesting of game... at which point he/she has gained the knowledge, experience, temperament and composure to execute effectively with lesser tools... ergo, in my opinion an SKS and the 7.62X39 cartridge should not be the choice of young and/or new and/or inexperienced hunters... and neither should the .223 et al....
 
hoytcanon said:
Minimalist cartridges, generally are and should be, an experts choice... one who has been there, done that and excels at the harvesting of game... at which point he/she has gained the knowledge, experience, temperament and composure to execute effectively with lesser tools... ergo, in my opinion an SKS and the 7.62X39 cartridge should not be the choice of young and/or new and/or inexperienced hunters... and neither should the .223 et al....
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
hoytcanon said:
Minimalist cartridges, generally are and should be, an experts choice... one who has been there, done that and excels at the harvesting of game... at which point he/she has gained the knowledge, experience, temperament and composure to execute effectively with lesser tools... ergo, in my opinion an SKS and the 7.62X39 cartridge should not be the choice of young and/or new and/or inexperienced hunters... and neither should the .223 et al....
Click to expand...


My opinion..... There is no bravado in taking an animal with a lesser cal..... Or a lesser rifle, aka SKS.......

When I head out for deer for example, I have a .308 family cartridge on hand..... My harvest is a product of what I do, and not what I carry...... When I hunt, I am not a shooter, I am a hunter with lots of shooting practice..

I would ratherhunt knowing I have a tool in hand that will do the job than hunt with a tool that has limitations....
 
Superbrad said:
Ok.... Let's say you are joe average or joe average plus because you reload.... Can anyone explain to me why 7.62 x 39 is the cartridge of choice for tommorow's hunt?.....
Click to expand...

Several places in the world its all people have ! Many get the job done simply because they have to. Beware the man with but one gun and all that ...
 
Shocked, I say shocked that Superbrad came in her to bad mouth x39. Take up knitting, you need to relax a bit.

Not going to get into the ballistics of x39 or whether or no its appropriate for any given game - that's a decision each person has to make on their own based on how they hunt, what they hunt, and their own understanding of terminal ballistics.

Having said that, I have hunted with an SKS (successfully), and I also picked up an x39 bolt gun - a full stock Zastava M85. For me, the advantages are as follows:

a) It's more accurate. An SKS is accurate enough for ethical hunting, but that doesn't mean it's a tack driver. And for certain types of shooting, cutting your group sizes down to under 2" makes a world of difference. I can get 3" groups 100yards, consistently, with my SKS and cheap Dominion ammo. I can get 1.5" groups with the same ammo and my m85. With that level of accuracy, it becomes a great all around ranch rifle. The ammo is cheap enough to shoot gophers with, it's accurate enough to do it, and it has enough punch to knock down a coyote humanely (NB: I don't shoot coyotes for sport or pelts, so I'm not worried about ruining the hide. I only shoot them to solve a problem, if they're starting to get a little bold about hanging around the barns and the barn cat population starts dropping). Groups are even smaller with Hornady SST rounds, and if I wanted to get into hand loading, I could probably get under 1" with the M85.

b) It's a lot lighter. About 2&1/2 lbs lighter. That's not a big deal to some people, and the SKS isn't a super heavy weight. But that works out to 8.5lbs for a basic SKS, vs. 6lbs for the M85. You'll see about the same weight for most of the x39 bolt guns. If you're walking around with a rifle in hand all day, that 2&1/2bls works out to your arms being a fair bit less tired. No need to get macho about it. Lighter is easier. Easier is better.

c) Trigger. One of the single worst things about eh SKS is the trigger. It's kind of awful. Both the M85 and the CZ have adjustable triggers that are orders of magnitude better. This doesn't change the inherent accuracy of the guns, but it does improve their practical accuracy.

picture pron:

My M85 full stock kitted out with a Vortex 3x-9x :

zastava_s.jpg


The only pic I have of accuracy testing. Windy day (*accounts for some of the horizontal stringing), front sandbag rest only. Both groups had a low flyer that was entirely shooter twitch. But it gives a good idea of the accuracy difference between the two:

sks_v_m85_test1.jpg


And just because it will drive SuperBrad nuts to conceive of people putting meat in the freezer with a cheap commie gun:

sks_deer.jpg
 
Agreed,and that was my point,I think the 7.62 in an SKS is a great plinking round that us fun to shoot and very inexpensive
 
Superbrad said:
Ok.... Let's say you are joe average or joe average plus because you reload.... Can anyone explain to me why 7.62 x 39 is the cartridge of choice for tommorow's hunt?.....
Click to expand...

Cheap gun and ammo. Mr joe forgot to prepare so he swung by CT and grabbed some hunting ammo for his trusty back up gun. Average joe doesn't have an exuberant budget or do much in the way of range time. Average joe hunts 2-5 times a year and hits the range less. Average joe uses what he know will get the job done and not hurt his wallet.
 
Superbrad said:
I would ratherhunt knowing I have a tool in hand that will do the job than hunt with a tool that has limitations....
Click to expand...

I would love to take that stance... however my position would be tenuous as a bowhunter of 40 years... and game animals numbering well into the triple digits would render that position moot.

Limitations does not = ineffective.
 
Good response

grelmar said:
Shocked, I say shocked that Superbrad came in her to bad mouth x39. Take up knitting, you need to relax a bit.

Not going to get into the ballistics of x39 or whether or no its appropriate for any given game - that's a decision each person has to make on their own based on how they hunt, what they hunt, and their own understanding of terminal ballistics.

Having said that, I have hunted with an SKS (successfully), and I also picked up an x39 bolt gun - a full stock Zastava M85. For me, the advantages are as follows:

a) It's more accurate. An SKS is accurate enough for ethical hunting, but that doesn't mean it's a tack driver. And for certain types of shooting, cutting your group sizes down to under 2" makes a world of difference. I can get 3" groups 100yards, consistently, with my SKS and cheap Dominion ammo. I can get 1.5" groups with the same ammo and my m85. With that level of accuracy, it becomes a great all around ranch rifle. The ammo is cheap enough to shoot gophers with, it's accurate enough to do it, and it has enough punch to knock down a coyote humanely (NB: I don't shoot coyotes for sport or pelts, so I'm not worried about ruining the hide. I only shoot them to solve a problem, if they're starting to get a little bold about hanging around the barns and the barn cat population starts dropping). Groups are even smaller with Hornady SST rounds, and if I wanted to get into hand loading, I could probably get under 1" with the M85.

b) It's a lot lighter. About 2&1/2 lbs lighter. That's not a big deal to some people, and the SKS isn't a super heavy weight. But that works out to 8.5lbs for a basic SKS, vs. 6lbs for the M85. You'll see about the same weight for most of the x39 bolt guns. If you're walking around with a rifle in hand all day, that 2&1/2bls works out to your arms being a fair bit less tired. No need to get macho about it. Lighter is easier. Easier is better.

c) Trigger. One of the single worst things about eh SKS is the trigger. It's kind of awful. Both the M85 and the CZ have adjustable triggers that are orders of magnitude better. This doesn't change the inherent accuracy of the guns, but it does improve their practical accuracy.

picture pron:

My M85 full stock kitted out with a Vortex 3x-9x :

zastava_s.jpg


The only pic I have of accuracy testing. Windy day (*accounts for some of the horizontal stringing), front sandbag rest only. Both groups had a low flyer that was entirely shooter twitch. But it gives a good idea of the accuracy difference between the two:

sks_v_m85_test1.jpg


And just because it will drive SuperBrad nuts to conceive of people putting meat in the freezer with a cheap commie gun:

sks_deer.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom