Dunno, it just doesn't turn my crank. I'm sure it's a great gun, but...
The 7.62X39 mm cartridge - good or?
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
Dunno, it just doesn't turn my crank. I'm sure it's a great gun, but...
'53 Tula SKS
Tech sights (TS200) and target front post (factory rear leaf removed)
Ejection port mod
Gas tube holes (obviously minimal weight loss there)
Nylon sling w/ plastic adjuster (saved 1/8th of a pound, lol, every little bit counts)
Bayonet, cleaning rod, and cleaning kit not installed, but what other hunting rifle includes these in their weight figures?
Currently weighs in at 7.8 lbs. Not mega light, but I haven't dremelled off the bayonet lug yet. Or done the bolt mod for removable magazines with the bolt forward.
PerversPépère
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Shawinigan (Quebec)
Hundreds of thousands won't be able to testify of its capabilities...
PP.
PP.
Yeah, I love 7.62 X 39. You can shoot all day - you don't have to mortgage the house, you're not deaf and nothing aches - standing or at the bench. I'll go through 200 to 300 rounds on the average range day. Just can't stop pulling the trigger...
It was made because the russians realised that even when stuck on top of tanks the pistol cartridge firing PPSH armed battalion wasnt going to win a firefight against the germans armed as they were. You still need something to get you into the last 50 yards from the 2-300 yards point where the tanks cant kill the entrenched infantryas easily and the infantry can take the tanks out. It was designed to close that killing zone!
yes it works but I wouldnt use milsurp ammo to hunt!
I definitely wouldn't use military surplus to hunt either - you would want a round that expands, full metal jacket would just punch a small hole through and keep going... but thankfully I believe there are soft nose rounds available.
Basically, I'm wondering if ballistically speaking, the round makes "sense" Are there other rounds that do a better job in this "niche"
I have *NO* interest in using this round for what it was originally designed, and I hope neither do you
Basically, I'm wondering if ballistically speaking, the round makes "sense" Are there other rounds that do a better job in this "niche"
I have *NO* interest in using this round for what it was originally designed, and I hope neither do you
THE 7.62x39 ROUND;
It is by far the most common surplus round on the market today, lots of it and its cheap....
It sort of reminds me of the days when the M-1 carbine filled that role....
We can argue forever about the power of the round, no its not as powerful as the .458 mag, but they each have their place.
The 7.62x39 the most fun for the least money, enjoy
John
It is by far the most common surplus round on the market today, lots of it and its cheap....
It sort of reminds me of the days when the M-1 carbine filled that role....
We can argue forever about the power of the round, no its not as powerful as the .458 mag, but they each have their place.
The 7.62x39 the most fun for the least money, enjoy
John
Weell if I was doing a lot of hunting and wasnt fussed re money then the Grendel fits the same receiver length and magazine, also the .300 BLK does something similar but lacks the oomph I think of the Grendel.
The Grendel is becoming more popular here for stalking rigs iin woodland, a nice handy moderated package but still expensive to build!
The Grendel is becoming more popular here for stalking rigs iin woodland, a nice handy moderated package but still expensive to build!
I have *NO* interest in using this round for what it was originally designed, and I hope neither do you
It was designed for reasonable accuracy under 300 yards or so while being lighter than standard full-size rifle ammunition in the Soviet inventory of the day, this is what I was speaking of. I have plenty of interest in using the round for what it was designed for, which is what I stated above: Reasonably accuracy in a lighter weight package. I use it for what it was designed for on things such as paper targets, tin cans and milk jugs filled with water. The occasional busted up TV, too!
The way other people and nations have used it is no business of mine and not something I consider to be relevant to target shooting.
One thing to consider is IF you use the Czeck ammo it has a pretty heavy lacquer coating and this will become a problem in many bolt action rifles.
The chamber heats up and after a few round often the empty will stick in the chamber and you will probably have to drive it out using a brass rod.
I had this trouble in a AIA but now using Russian ammo which has virtually no lacquer this problem is solved.
The heavy coating of lacquer has no operational problems in a SKS or 858 as the action ejects it so quickly there is not much heat build in the chamber.
It is a great little cartridge like many have mentioned and like all has limitations.
The chamber heats up and after a few round often the empty will stick in the chamber and you will probably have to drive it out using a brass rod.
I had this trouble in a AIA but now using Russian ammo which has virtually no lacquer this problem is solved.
The heavy coating of lacquer has no operational problems in a SKS or 858 as the action ejects it so quickly there is not much heat build in the chamber.
It is a great little cartridge like many have mentioned and like all has limitations.
Roughneck12
Regular
- Location
- Blackfalds AB
I have a little Cz 527 carbine chambered in 7.62x39. Awesome little rifle and accurate with even surplus ammo. Typical Cz.
Bullets are not just designed to hit targets. They are also designed to wound & kill targets. There's no way to reason around that fact. Of course, what they were designed for, and what we use them for can be two different things.
Interestingly, the 7.62 x 39 was actually poorly designed for its intended purpose: wounding & killing. It didn't yaw early enough to cause significant tissue damage, which is what a wartime bullet would normally be designed for. The original 7.62 x 39 passed through tissue too cleanly. But that design was updated later on.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=760658
Poorly designed for wounding? I am pretty sure this guy will disagree with ya.
Poorly designed for wounding? I am pretty sure this guy will disagree with ya.
The 7.62x39 compromise:
Inexpensive.
Less weight and bulk to carry around than the equivalent number of rounds of 7.62x54.
Less recoil and muzzle climb than 7.62x54.
Retains adequate accuracy and knock-down power at moderate ranges.
Provides excellent penetration of cover and barriers.
Inexpensive.
Less weight and bulk to carry around than the equivalent number of rounds of 7.62x54.
Less recoil and muzzle climb than 7.62x54.
Retains adequate accuracy and knock-down power at moderate ranges.
Provides excellent penetration of cover and barriers.
I do believe that as the 7.62x39 ammunition advanced... they left void ahead of the ball steel in the FMJ bullet, in later manufactured rounds so it would be more damaging... But that pic sure does say a lot about the round.. Quite a bit of energy dispersement in a small cavity like the calf, can wreak great havoc.
1) If you read my comment again you might notice that I specifically mentioned 'as it was designed', and added that the problem was corrected with a 7.62 x 39 redesign later on.
2) If the bullet hits a bone or other hard object, obviously its going to yaw and rip flesh sooner. There's a lot of bone in a leg, and it just has to graze something to start yawing or even shatter. Kind of a no-brainer.
He might disagree, but facts are facts.
I agree, I was actually going to mention in my post how 7.62x39 punches through things instead of fragments, at least, some of it does.
I still think the other guys comment and implication were rude and unfounded.
I'm amusing I'm "the other guy" here? I did post with a winky to indicate my comment was meant in a humorous way. Offence was not intended. But hey, we all have bad days.
If I'm not the other guy - carry on - I am thankful for the feedback so far.
This is helpful. The note about penetration of cover is a good point - we're going to have to be 100% sure of our backdrops, especially after seeing that poor guy's leg!
You are the other guy, but I should apologize, as the winky thing wasn't apparent to me. Sorry bro, didn't mean to derail or anything.
Have a beer on me!
