Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:08:27 PM EST
being overweight, under powered, and made popular only by the gun that chambers it? I just wonder if with the availability of the AR in 5.56, and the AK-74 rifles in 5.54 if having an AK clone is at best sensible for nastalgia and plinking only, but not for a defense rifle.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 6:09:51 PM EST
within 250 meters I'd say that 7.62x39 is a great round, at least thats what quite a few coyotes think out here anyway
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 6:10:39 PM EST
5.45 beats it, I hear that 5.56 doesn't function to well in Aks, cause of the longer case and smaller case head.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 6:12:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 6:31:45 PM EST
I thought about picking up a WASR-3 but some say they have feeding problems.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 6:36:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 9:05:02 PM EST


It all depends on the shooter, I say.

Just to prove my point. I went to a three gun, open shoot, a year ago.

Some of these guys had thousands of dollars in rifles and scopes. Most were AR15's.

On the short to long range course. That is 25 yards to about 300 yards, rifle only.

What was funny is an older, real heavy set man. Kicked everyones ass with his cheap post-ban AK-47. He also only used iron sights. I say 7.62X39 is fine with me.

You could also buy a Ruger Mini-Thirty. It's chambered in 7.62X39.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 9:18:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 9:20:24 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By gvidon212:
being overweight, under powered, and made popular only by the gun that chambers it? I just wonder if with the availability of the AR in 5.56, and the AK-74 rifles in 5.54 if having an AK clone is at best sensible for nastalgia and plinking only, but not for a defense rifle.



Nail... Head... Hit...

The fact that every country with any significant military power is using or switching to a 5.x mm cartridge should say something...

7.62x39 is basically 30-30 for autoloaders... And it's popular for the same reason - the gun it is most commonly used in (Winchester 94, AK47)...

Neither is a very good choice as a cartridge, but tradition (30-30) and cost (AK) make them very common none the less...
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 9:32:43 PM EST
If you are just shooting for accuracy I wouldn't get a 7.62...mine is pretty accurate with just a red-dot but its a plinker. The 5.45 would definetly be more accurate. However my plinker is also a deer hunting rifle. And in WV you don't get many 70-up yard shots. You usually can't see more than 20-30 yards if you are lucky. So a 7.62 works out decent for me. I have been throwing around the idea of getting a smaller caliber...either a ak74 or a ar15 but I don't know. My MAK is pretty much what I need. I am just trying to scratch those itches.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:23:51 AM EST
762x39 does have one advantage that even I, a long-time 5.56mm lover will admit; it does a much better job on hard cover. I keep an 762x39 for dealing with thugs in a vehicle, or hiding behind that there big tree. And nailing the SOB through a cinderblock wall in one shot is more feasible.

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:19:24 AM EST
The classic 7.62 AK is still a good choice for a centerfire SHTF rifle. If you can get some of the old steel core ammo, it penetrates chance barriers pretty well. In a black-out or race riot situation where you might have to shoot a car load of looters, it would give good service. You could certainly fuck a car up with a 30 round mag of the steel core.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:33:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 6:48:47 AM EST by Kyarguy]
30 rounder??

Oh ...Wait...OK, I get it now, thats assuming in have emptied both of my
Chicom 75 rounders to begin with.

Seriously, i dont even think you would have to use Steel core to mess up a vehicle,
unless the idoit looters suddenly decided to hide behind the engine block, or maybe the
entire length of the car.

7.62 x 39 is just fine, anyone who says otherwise, i ask them this question...

"Will you step in front of one at 100 yards??"

You will almost never get a "YES" answer...:)

KyARGuy
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:19:28 AM EST
How about at 300 yards? I bet someone on here would have the balls to try that.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:28:04 AM EST
most modern militaries are switching to a smaller caliber bullet because they dont want to kill people on the field but wound them. kill a man and take one man out of the fight, wound a man and take one man out, plus the medic, plus whoever is needed to carry him back.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 8:32:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 8:44:03 AM EST
you know, i wouldn't mind seeing a ballistic comparison of the rounds, 7.62 nato, 7.62 ak, 5.56, and 5.45. not the weps that fire the rounds, just the rounds themselves...
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:14:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:17:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kyarguy:
30 rounder??

Oh ...Wait...OK, I get it now, thats assuming in have emptied both of my
Chicom 75 rounders to begin with.

Seriously, i dont even think you would have to use Steel core to mess up a vehicle,
unless the idoit looters suddenly decided to hide behind the engine block, or maybe the
entire length of the car.

7.62 x 39 is just fine, anyone who says otherwise, i ask them this question...

"Will you step in front of one at 100 yards??"

You will almost never get a "YES" answer...:)

KyARGuy



This is a horseshit argument to use to convince someone or yourself that a certain caliber is an adequate man stopper. Would you step in front of 22lr at 25 yards? If you say no then that means it must be good enough for defensive purposes by your logic. If you say yes then you're a complete idiot who probably deserves to take one to the chest.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:21:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 9:22:02 AM EST by 00_buckshot]

Originally Posted By legonas:
most modern militaries are switching to a smaller caliber bullet because they dont want to kill people on the field but wound them. kill a man and take one man out of the fight, wound a man and take one man out, plus the medic, plus whoever is needed to carry him back.



Total bullshit. A smaller round doesn't always equate to a lesser wound. The lighter rounds were adopted for many reasons but this is not one of them. A smaller lighter round allows a soldier to carry more ammo for the same amount of weight. It makes it much easier to engage targets at further distances because the trajectory is usually flatter. It also allows the shooter to control his or her weapon better in full-auto or burst modes.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:35:54 AM EST
first off... hello everyone.. I just got back on-line after a long "vacation" from the board. My old screen name was Blastech...

I agree with Campy here. Look at the UltiMAK web site photos we saw in a thread here of operators carrying 7.62 cal. AKS-47's that were modified... Hell, on Fox News there was a interview w/ Col. Cowlin ( I think thats his name) who was on a "advisory role" mission in Iraq... he also was equipped with the same style weapon with the UltiMAK front site base on his weapon and even showed it to the camera during the interview.

My point is that these operators seem to like the weapon immensly and have grown fond of it in that theater of operations... They prefere it over the M4 (some do) ..

get whatever floats your boat.. Both have pluses and minuses.. I chose the 7.62 round for logistical reasons ... i.e. resupply, penetration in built-up areas and I really have no use for a 16" barreled weapon in 5.56 ... not good in MY eyes when using common ammo and ammo that you will MOST LIKELY run accross in a SHTF world. I never was a fan of the 5.56 round niether..

end of my .02 rant...
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:42:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
The classic 7.62 AK is still a good choice for a centerfire SHTF rifle. If you can get some of the old steel core ammo, it penetrates chance barriers pretty well. In a black-out or race riot situation where you might have to shoot a car load of looters, it would give good service. You could certainly fuck a car up with a 30 round mag of the steel core.



M855 is a far better steel penetrator...

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:46:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By legonas:
most modern militaries are switching to a smaller caliber bullet because they dont want to kill people on the field but wound them. kill a man and take one man out of the fight, wound a man and take one man out, plus the medic, plus whoever is needed to carry him back.



That's a common myth

SCHV (small caliber high velocity) rounds have been adopted because (a) they are more accurate, due to a flatter trajectory and less recoil/muzzle-flip (b) They tend to fragment more reliabliy, causing much more severe wounds than rounds like 7.62x39 or 7.62x51, which tend to go straight thru their targets, and (c) more rounds & less weight means more chances to score an incapacitating hit.

There has been a long-standing historical trend towards smaller bullets as technology advances.

Within 40 years, I wouldn't be suprised if 17cal starts becoming popular as a military round - all it would take is the right bullet design....
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:49:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
finland never left the 7.62 x 39 round.

iraq is being re-armed in 7.62 x 39.

are there better rounds? oh yes.

will 7.62 ruin your day? better believe it.

i prefer 5.45 over 7.62, but i just punch holes in paper.



The Iraqis are being re-armed with 7.62x39 because they have PILES of it (and piles of AKs) laying around...

It's kind of like our troops using the obselete/inferior M14 as a squad-marksman's rifle, not because it's the best gun for the job (the AR-10 or even the SPR would fit that description MUCH better), but because the Army has racks upon racks of them which would uotherwise be cut up for scrap....

All of the Arab nations use that round, mainly because that's what the Russians equipped them with during the cold war...

But when it comes to MAJOR powers, everyone's switching - even the Chinese (also 'given' 7.62x39 as a service cartridge) are moving to 5.8mm

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 11:58:48 AM EST
I wonder if the availability of free ammo in Iraq plays a role in the choice of weapons that the "Operators" chose. The US probably has the 5.56 franchise and doesn't give it out to the private contractors. One the other hand, there is probably more 7.63 x 39 lying around Iraq than can be confiscated and destroyed by a whole bunch of guys.

Remember, the Finns chose the Mosin-Nagant primarily because it was what they could afford and their primary protagonist also used it. They traded off virtually everything else. Not a slam on MN's. If the Russians had been armed with Lebels, MAS, or Mausers, the Finns would have likely gone that route.

There are many reasons why people chose the weapon they carry. Calibre is not the only reason.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 12:15:42 PM EST
i believe in a shtf senerio that any hit is probably going to make them stop and run verses pressing the attack.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 12:32:51 PM EST
I wouldn't call any of the three cartridges superior to the others. This being an AK forum, the individual user should consider these points if he takes one rifle/caliber.
Not many states permit large game hunting with .224 or less caliber. There are also few choices for ammunition type for .223. FMJ, PSP are available though not always cheap. 5.45? Just FMJ as the HP and PSP aren't known for their accuracy. FMJ may not be the bad choice as there is an article archived showing it consistently fishhooking, therefore delivering a decent wound. 7.62 has several choices if you use reloadable brass. Hornady,Remington, and Speer offer a 123-125 PSP. The big three offer such a bullet in loaded ammunition with prices not much less than commercial .30-30. I recall someone on the board using the Wolf 154 sp on feral dogs with good effect.
Magazines. The .223 versions are frequently converted 5.45 mags. Even when they become available from the factory they will cost somewhat more than the $7-9 of warsaw pact standard mags. Don't expect to find any 75 round drums, either.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 1:07:55 PM EST
i guess i was wrong.

5.56:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/wound1.gif

7.62x39
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/ak47.jpg



both steel core FMJ

oh and 5.45 :

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/ak74.jpg

source : home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/Frog.html

this clearly shows that the 5.56 would do more damage. but my point still remains. which would put a man down dead faster? would a bullet with "better" less then lethal wounding properties be better on the battlefield? in an SHTF situation?
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 1:12:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By gvidon212:
being overweight, under powered, and made popular only by the gun that chambers it? I just wonder if with the availability of the AR in 5.56, and the AK-74 rifles in 5.54 if having an AK clone is at best sensible for nastalgia and plinking only, but not for a defense rifle.



What's your criteria ?

7.62x39 has around 500 more ft lbs energy at the muzzle than 5.45 and about 2-300 more than 5.56
I understand the lethality of the Smaller projectiles but 7.62x39 cannot be discounted.

In Chechnya the Russian Omon Forces prefer it over the 5.45 in an Urban / MOUT setting.

US Army Special Forces Operators Carried AKM's along with M4's in Afghanistan
It would make sense as Ammo resupply for the AKM's was probably easier.

I dont think you can go wrong with any of the three but I wouldn't overlook the 7.62x39.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 1:58:54 PM EST
When I was a young Airman at Osan AB, Korea and training for ground base defense, we were instructed that the 7.62X39 will easily penetrate 2 sandbags and occasionally 3 while the 5.56 will penetrate 1 and occasionally 2. I don't know if they were bullshitting us so we would not bitch about building our DFP's 3 bags deep or if they were trying to drive home the fact that your cover is only as good as the effort you put into it. The information they gave sounded reasonable and I did not question it too deeply.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 2:08:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:05:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:24:34 PM EST

Here is some info that I've accummulated, regarding current production Wolf FMJ X posted from various forums.

file away 1/2 of the tip of a common Wolf 7.62x39 FMJ bullet .

look close into the 8mm space and you'll see that , inside the jacket there are 2 ridges . the lower one is the stop for lead core only ammo . the upper ridge is where the steelcore would butt against .

all TCW or Wolf headstamped 762x39 FMJ is this 'improved' type of bullet as is GoldenTiger brand (Vimpel)762x39 FMJ . i've never found the 'improved' bullet in factory numbered headstamped ammo . the one bullet i sectioned of GT didnt have the upper-internal ridge but was otherwise identical .

the 5.45 leadcore counterpart to the 'improved' 7n6 military steelcore bullet is used in Wolf and Barnaul FMJ . they also have a larger tip space and function the same way as the Wolf and G-Tiger leadcore 762x39 impacting a wet target . yaw begins at bullet immersion (about 1" in) and is at 90deg by 4.5" @100M / 3.5"@500M . yes , they yaw faster at farther distances and will out to their maximum range .
go to AW in the ammo forum and read the test i did @500M with Wolf 762x39 FMJ.:
(This refers to the info in the link below.)
www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=49;t=000386#000000


www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005492#000000

More on WOLF FMJ

Also go to www.tacticalforums.com and type in Ulyanovsk 8M3 HP and search The Terminal Effects Forum this ammo is nasty. In terms of accuracy I've posted at length about this do a search under my user name, in terms of range I've read of plenty of people doing 300m with SAR's Vepr's, SAM-7's which on the Arsenal site they rate the SAM7-'s at 400m.
mywebpages.comcast.net/jfreeman246/index.htm Info on various 7.62x39 bullet types and manufatures, hope this helps.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:26:07 PM EST
For open country I would pick 5.45. For urban or jungle warfare I will take the 7.62. Chances are we are going to be going up against an enemy that has 7.62 so the ability to use their ammo is invaluable. Nothing sucks worse than getting pinned down in a fire fight and being low on ammo, the ability to grab some loaded clips off dead enemy nearby could be a life saver.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:43:44 PM EST
7.62 is known for its penetration because the bullet is incredibly tough, and the 5.56 will fragment instead of penetrating. So, on one bad guy, use 5.56mm, on three or four standing back to back, get thee 7.62. Can't get them to stand back to back? Shoulda got the 5.56
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:20:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By gvidon212:
being overweight, under powered, and made popular only by the gun that chambers it? I just wonder if with the availability of the AR in 5.56, and the AK-74 rifles in 5.54 if having an AK clone is at best sensible for nastalgia and plinking only, but not for a defense rifle.



Get one of each... caliber!
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:35:20 PM EST
7.62X39 is a very good SHTF round, Good out to 300Yds, Extremly cheap Guns/Ammo/Mags (Probably the cheapest most available centerfire rifle cartridge available today in the World), Big selection of guns that fire it available, & Lots of ammo choices from true steel core penetrators to Soft point hunting ammo.
Did I say Low Priced & Available!!
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:00:09 PM EST
Even Dick's Sporting Goods carries wolf 7.62x39. And for 2.50 a box its as cheap as I have found it locally. Kinda nice since the local shops are all out of it but I noticed Dick's had tons of it. I am gonna start buying it there. They had .223 FMJ for 2.99. Most places here sell that for 4$.

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 8:20:36 PM EST
True. Wal-mart, K-mart, and most of the stores that sell guns carry 7.62 x 39.

I had to mail-order in my 5.45 as no one stocks it around here......
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 4:30:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
The classic 7.62 AK is still a good choice for a centerfire SHTF rifle. If you can get some of the old steel core ammo, it penetrates chance barriers pretty well. In a black-out or race riot situation where you might have to shoot a car load of looters, it would give good service. You could certainly fuck a car up with a 30 round mag of the steel core.



M855 is a far better steel penetrator...




Steel plate, sure, but a car body isn't really comparable to homogeneous armor plate, more like 1 mil of sheet steel, 5 or 6 mils of sound deadening mastic, a few more mils of plastic, some more steel, maybe some wire harness, more plastic, some cloth, some foam. The larger, slower round would most likely be more effective. IIRC, the M855 is actually too hot for softer barriers, and its penetrating ability goes UP as range increases. At close ranges it fragments. There's alot of stuff in a car body which works against a light, high-velocity fragmenting bullet.

Both would do the job, I just like the steel core AK round a bit better in such circumstances.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:46:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 10:46:40 AM EST by 1179]
one thing i did not factor in for a shtf senerio, is your zombies may be all cranked out.
so be sure to double tap them
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 9:01:39 PM EST
At a get-together we had here a while back, we decided to test the penetration of the Big Four (5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51) vs. an old refrigerator (back when the compressors and such were still in a compartment on top).

From approx. 50 meters.

The 7.62's were the only ones that would penetrate all the way thru, two exterior and two interior walls. The 5.56 would do it if you hit several (3 or more) rounds in the same 2" circle. 5.45 only left a dent on the outside of exterior wall #2 (it hit the inside of the exterior wall, didnt have enough OOMPH left to penetrate).

This is a refrigerator, mind you.

So if the zombies are hiding behind a refrigerator, you need a 7.62 to get them.

We also discovered that .45 ACP isnt nearly as useless against auto bodies as the 9 mil fans want you to believe. Granted, we were launching them out of a MAC-10, but still, it penetrated all the way thru a van at a distance of about 20 feet or so. MAC-10 has a very short barrel.

Link Posted: 10/19/2004 9:22:09 PM EST
Interesting.

Most people (like myself) would assume that the 5.56 would penetrate more because it has a smaller bullet with a lot of velocity. But I guess not. So in other words with my MAK90 I can shoot zombies through about anything....I just have to make sure they are within 250 meters or so to hit them.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 9:58:35 AM EST
ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THE 7.62 ~ 39MM ROUND
is you can stock pile alot of it.
alot of zombies out there ya know.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 10:38:46 AM EST
Here's an unscientific comparison.

I have found my AK's in 7.62 are okay and fun of course, but not accuracy marvels.

My Yugo SKS is a 2 inch grouper all day long with almost any cheap ammo except old surplus (yuck)

Anyway, It's my feeling and only my feeling that the extra barrel length and the non-chrome lined barrel that make the 7.62 wake up. I also have noticed the 7.62 being more destructive fired at steel targets.

This all makes me wonder since the 7.62X39 was developed for the SKS rifle and it works great in the rifle. The SKS has a longer barrel and early ones did not have chrome.

The AK came along and I wonder if any changes were made to the round for the powder load and the shorter barrel. We know thw 5.56 was massaged for use as the M16 famiy was modified.

Just my .02
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 10:59:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By ORFShooter:
Here's an unscientific comparison.

I have found my AK's in 7.62 are okay and fun of course, but not accuracy marvels.

My Yugo SKS is a 2 inch grouper all day long with almost any cheap ammo except old surplus (yuck)

Anyway, It's my feeling and only my feeling that the extra barrel length and the non-chrome lined barrel that make the 7.62 wake up. I also have noticed the 7.62 being more destructive fired at steel targets.

This all makes me wonder since the 7.62X39 was developed for the SKS rifle and it works great in the rifle. The SKS has a longer barrel and early ones did not have chrome.

The AK came along and I wonder if any changes were made to the round for the powder load and the shorter barrel. We know thw 5.56 was massaged for use as the M16 famiy was modified.

Just my .02



I believe this statement is incorrect. The M43 was in existence for some time before the SKS. In fact all the history I've read on the SKS says the rifle was designed around the M43 and not the other way around. The SKS is a good rifle in my opinion but is very big and heavy for the intermediate round it is chambered for. Also I believe that the 7.62x39 burns the majority of its powder by the time it reaches the end of a 16" inch barrel so very little is to be gained from a longer barrel.

If I am incorrect on my facts someone please let me know.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 11:24:45 AM EST
well heavy or not get a couple sks's and a ak and you have yourself a nice fireteams worth of firepower.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 11:36:08 AM EST
Is it the best? No. But 5.56 has it's shortfalls too

It all boils down to shot placement. A hit in the kill zone is a hit in the kill zone.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 11:44:11 AM EST
nam could not agree more with you shot placement is everything
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 11:54:05 AM EST
7.62X39 is more common in certain parts of the world than water. Since most (obviously not all) combative shooting is under 200 yards....the 7.62X39 round is more than adequate. The 5.56 is better due to mag capacity, fragmentation, accuracy, and .... blah blah blah blah.

Ruggedness, affordability, simplistic design, and some marketing back in 1947 accounts for it's popularity!

But I'll take an M4 over an AK anyday.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 12:48:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 12:49:18 PM EST by 1179]
i would take an m-4 too as i love the sights but i would not feel underarmed with a sam-7s either .

for me i am able to practice more with my aks because of ammo costs.
can't stress that enough you got to practice
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 1:04:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 1:06:46 PM EST by 00_buckshot]

Originally Posted By 1179:
i would take an m-4 too as i love the sights but i would not feel underarmed with a sam-7s either .

for me i am able to practice more with my aks because of ammo costs.
can't stress that enough you got to practice



What kind of ammo are you shooting through your AK's that allow you to practice more than your AR because of cost? I shoot Wolf through my AR when I'm practicing CQ drills and it only runs me about a penny more per shot than 7.62 does.

ETA: Of course my AR is zero'd with Q3131A and occasionally I use it but for the most part Wolf provides me with what I need to practice. If I'm shooting off of the bench I will go to the Q3131A but for me bench shooting is a total waste with an AR or AK.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top