7.62x39
- Thread starter ratherbefishin
- Start date
This is the thing that always gets me ....
No doubt large/larger calibers are necessary for certain tasks. However there's also no doubt there's A LOT of overkill going on in the caliber advice threads.
Yet ..... there's always bow hunters killing all kinds of stuff big and small with no where near the punch of the average rifle !! .. within their effective range/skill set.
In a decent bolt gun I believe that the 7.62x39 with hand loads is a very capable deer cartridge. Most of my rifle hunting for deer is done with muzzleloaders. There hasn't been a season in the last 12 years when I haven't got a deer. Only 3 have been further than 80 yards. The average shot has been only 20 yards. Mostly broadside shots. How can anyone tell me that a 123-150 gr bullet expanding bullet of 30-31 cal. Going in excess of 2000 fps is not effective or humane for my type of hunting? Personally I wouldn't hunt with a sks but a cz858 or that lil zastava posted above sure. I'd like to hunt with the rifles I enjoy but mainly hunt in muzzleloader only areas.
With the zmax ammo and an accurate rifle it would make a great coyote combat
With the zmax ammo and an accurate rifle it would make a great coyote combat
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 :
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:
And just because it will drive SuperBrad nuts to conceive of people putting meat in the freezer with a cheap commie gun:
EXCELLENT !!!!
Couldn't agree more. The x39 is a lot more capable than the rap it gets. I'm looking forward to checking out the Howa mini x39.
Agree wholeheartedly. If you know your limitations, and stay within them, then you can be extremely effective.
I've known some extremely skilled and competent hunters, who've never shot anything more than 100 yards away, and probably wouldn't even try to. (Not saying that's you, hoytcannon).
If you need a gun that reach out 300+ yards to take a dear (ie: if you're hunting on open, flat terrain), x39 would be a poor choice. If you're bush hunting, you don't see deer much more than 50-75 yards away, maybe 100 yards if you're lucky, then it's more than enough - both in terms of accuracy, and terminal performance.
And this is something that doesn't get taken into consideration near enough. 30-30 and x39 are great bush/ranch rounds for similar reasons. They're not going to over-penetrate and take out a window on the other side of the county.
Side Note: One of the big advantages of x39 for hunters, is actually plinking. Because you can shoot it for cheap, you're more likely to get in practice time and really get to know the gun and its limits. I'm skeptical of "4 shot per year" hunters. This isn't directed at anyone here (odds are, if you're on this forum, you shoot a heckuva lot more than that), but you've all see these guys. 3 shots in the fall to zero their rifle, one shot to take a deer. Supposedly. Other than that, their rifle sits locked up in a cabinet for the rest of the year. There's no replacement for practice and trigger time. x39 lets you do that in spades.
^ that is only true if you do not shoot a magnum cartridge or anything above 30 cal, when jacketed bullets start getting pricey.
Your 25/06 costs almost 3 times as much as surplus btw.
I had one for the same reason as grelmar, gophers/deer. I sold my 30-30 because I thought it carried a lot better without a sling. Honestly I think 30/30 has a lot more going for it in terms of similar velocities with much heavier bullets, but I'm sure the x39 has dumped a lot of deer and will continue to for years with all the SKS in Canada.
Now I have no rifle in that class, but I see a reason for a the "brush cartridge". I never used it on deer, it was either sold or I had better options at the time.
I am thinking now, that the zastava m85 would be a great rifle for my old home on southern VI.
Lightweight cartridge in a lightweight gun that wont punch through brush. Hell I bet those ruger #1's Prophet River is getting in 7.62x39 would make a great salal stalking rifle...
Your 25/06 costs almost 3 times as much as surplus btw.
I had one for the same reason as grelmar, gophers/deer. I sold my 30-30 because I thought it carried a lot better without a sling. Honestly I think 30/30 has a lot more going for it in terms of similar velocities with much heavier bullets, but I'm sure the x39 has dumped a lot of deer and will continue to for years with all the SKS in Canada.
Now I have no rifle in that class, but I see a reason for a the "brush cartridge". I never used it on deer, it was either sold or I had better options at the time.
I am thinking now, that the zastava m85 would be a great rifle for my old home on southern VI.
Lightweight cartridge in a lightweight gun that wont punch through brush. Hell I bet those ruger #1's Prophet River is getting in 7.62x39 would make a great salal stalking rifle...
- Location
- Lloydminster, Alberta
I have built and used 7.62x39 bolt rifles for deer hunting. I did use an SKS a long time ago because it's all I had. I hunt in thick brush where the majority of shots are under 100yds. The 7.62x39 is more than adequate for that as is the 30-30. An accurate bolt action helps with shot placement also.
Last year I got the chance to hunt upwards to 600 meters. I brought out my trusty Rem 700 .308 Win for that and heavier bullets.
I've shot a 7.62x39 at 600 meters just for fun at rocks and there's not enough energy to effectively kill a deer IMO. At 300 meters there was still plenty of smack on those rocks.
The main attraction to me is the cost to shoot surplus and thousands of rounds of trigger time.
Last year I got the chance to hunt upwards to 600 meters. I brought out my trusty Rem 700 .308 Win for that and heavier bullets.
I've shot a 7.62x39 at 600 meters just for fun at rocks and there's not enough energy to effectively kill a deer IMO. At 300 meters there was still plenty of smack on those rocks.
The main attraction to me is the cost to shoot surplus and thousands of rounds of trigger time.
I think many hunters would be better served with a 7.62x39 bolt action than a lever action 30-30 or a .300 magnum. Most hunters really don't practice that much, and it's often due to ammo cost and/or recoil. A guy could get an accurate bolt in 7.62x39 and a 1000 rounds of ammo that if he shot 100 rounds a year would cost him about $30 a year. When you look at this pic
It's clear that even inexpensive ammo can be accurate in these rifles. A hunter could get some meaningful practice at various ranges with his rifle, and then treat it like a 30-30 in hunting situations. And we all know that the 30-30 has been used on moose, elk, deer, bear and even bison. Now, here is where some people cry foul! The 30-30 is more powerful than the x39 they will say! Substituting the x39 will cause the sky to fall!
When the 30-30 (30WCF) was introduced it had a 160gr bullet at 1970FPS from a 26" barrel. It was viewed as a fast moving, flat shooting giant slayer! Guess what? The x39 with a 123gr bullet has more energy than that original load. If we accept the common requirement of 1000 ftlbs to kill a deer, and when comparing modern 30-30 and x39 factory ammo, they all drop below that about the same place -150-175 yards. At 200 yards they are within 50ft/lbs of each other. Stick a 123gr TSX into the x39 and you are looking at better penetration and a little flatter than the 150 or 170gr 30-30.
Put another way- if you hit the same deer in the same spot with a 30-30 and a x39, the deer will probably react the same.
When I think of many of the deer and black bear I've killed in the thick rainforest that I often hunt, I bet at least 50% were close enough that a x39 would have served just fine.
So back to the original question, of why one of these rifles make sense, I would say the answer is:
Anyone that regularly hunts where a 30-30 would be chosen
Anyone that wants to practice more with their hunting rifle
Anyone that wants to practice with cheap ammo in preparation for a hunt with any bolt action rifle
Anyone that wants to have a bit of fun.
It's clear that even inexpensive ammo can be accurate in these rifles. A hunter could get some meaningful practice at various ranges with his rifle, and then treat it like a 30-30 in hunting situations. And we all know that the 30-30 has been used on moose, elk, deer, bear and even bison. Now, here is where some people cry foul! The 30-30 is more powerful than the x39 they will say! Substituting the x39 will cause the sky to fall!
When the 30-30 (30WCF) was introduced it had a 160gr bullet at 1970FPS from a 26" barrel. It was viewed as a fast moving, flat shooting giant slayer! Guess what? The x39 with a 123gr bullet has more energy than that original load. If we accept the common requirement of 1000 ftlbs to kill a deer, and when comparing modern 30-30 and x39 factory ammo, they all drop below that about the same place -150-175 yards. At 200 yards they are within 50ft/lbs of each other. Stick a 123gr TSX into the x39 and you are looking at better penetration and a little flatter than the 150 or 170gr 30-30.
Put another way- if you hit the same deer in the same spot with a 30-30 and a x39, the deer will probably react the same.
When I think of many of the deer and black bear I've killed in the thick rainforest that I often hunt, I bet at least 50% were close enough that a x39 would have served just fine.
So back to the original question, of why one of these rifles make sense, I would say the answer is:
Anyone that regularly hunts where a 30-30 would be chosen
Anyone that wants to practice more with their hunting rifle
Anyone that wants to practice with cheap ammo in preparation for a hunt with any bolt action rifle
Anyone that wants to have a bit of fun.
Last edited:
90%of the deer I have killed have been well within the capabilities of a 7.62 X39, but if I'm going deer hunting,I reach for my 65x55 swede instead of my SKS,just like if I'm going plinking,I reach for my SKS instead of my swede and that pretty much sums up my point,but if the SKS was my only rifle,It sure wouldn't stop me going deer hunting.Actually ,both the swede and the SKS cost about the same money to buy ,although the ammunition for the Swede costs more.But up the ante a bit and say I'm going moose or elk hunting,with the possibility of a bear,the swede is definately my rifle of choice,I don't think I would pack the SKS.Come back to buying a beautiful full stock M85 Zastava or a CZ and the choice of caliber,the 65x55 wins hands down....
Interesting discussion. My buddy and I went deer hunting in 2015, he with his CZ527 (7.62x39) and me with my Browning X-Bolt (300 WSM). The area we normally hunt (N Alberta) is fairly heavily wooded with long cutlines. That being said we generally see game with the naked eye so most shots are under 200 yards. We both took a buck, mine was at 150 yards and his was at 35 yards. I was pretty amazed at the damage his rifle did to the buck (little 2x2) it wrecked a whole front quarter going out after hitting the heart. Definitely an effective round but I know if we hunt S Alberta in 2016, he is going to have leave his baby at home and bring is .308 Win or maybe even get a flat shooting magnum. Most shots down here start at 200 yards and just go out. No trees and tons of rolling hills. Closest shot I took down here to date was 250 yards. I take pride in being a good stalker but man they can see you a ways off and crawling hundreds of yards isn't as fun as when I was younger...
If you are taking a shot with a farmhouse as your backdrop, you have more important things to think about than cartridge selection....
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 :
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:
And just because it will drive SuperBrad nuts to conceive of people putting meat in the freezer with a cheap commie gun:
Lol.... I can assure you it takes more than that to drive me nuts.... It's a discussion forum, where people have different opinions.... it happens.. If everyone thought the same way and expressed it the same way this would be a pretty boring place....
You and I have differences in opnion, and that's fine... Personally, I would never take what appears to be a 4+ MOA gun (when shot off a rest) and put it into play in a hunting scenario......
