Max Effectiveness of 7.62 x 39

I am sure you can find other forums that will agree with everything and not have dissenting opinions on the capability of whatever cartridge you are a fan of. This is not that place. If being experienced and objective is being a troll I don't understand the point of having a discussion.

Blkhrt13 said:

I would greatly love to be a part of the conversation. That was my full intent. I believed there was more to it than the common narrative. I felt with proper load building it had more potential. I realize there is no replacement for displacement but still have faith it can be more.

Click to expand...

I use 7.62x39 for deer out of my CZ 527. For factory ammo both the Tula 154 gr and Hornady Black 123 gr work very well shooting sub-MOA at 100 yards and are both very effective on deer out to at least 175 yards in my experience. My handloads using CFE BLK and AA2200 and 150 gr Sierra bullets also shoot sub-MOA and also do very well out to 200 based on field experience, though I prefer the AA2200 load since it shoots slightly better, .78 vs .85 averages, and runs right at 2350 vs the 2200 that the CFE BLK with the same bullet. That particular load keeps me above 1000 FPE out to 275 yards but the trajectory drops pretty quickly after 200.

But then again a lot of people would say I'm not an ethical hunter since I also use .223 Rem for deer out to the same ranges and routinely take highneck/headshots if they are within 100 yards.

Beck said:

No, I gave you the correct historical information concerning the development of the cartridge to what we have today. You are simply wrong. SAAMI was wrong when Ruger proposed the 7.62x39 standards.

Click to expand...

Do you have a scholarly cite for that? I don't usually ask for them in casual internet chit chat but that is big talk.
My book on the subject was lost in The Incident.

Beck said:

There are plenty others here that understand the capability of the modern 7.62x39.

Click to expand...

Beck said:

you'll be on your way to maximizing the cartridge. So once again... x39 is not limited by by physical design, but the initial philosophy of war

Click to expand...

I have been reading stuff like the bolded ever since my first Gun Digest in 1957, "the (whatever obsolescent round) has a lot of potential in a strong modern action." In other words, overloaded.
Sure you could draw a .30 Commie Match reamer for a good barrel in a bolt action, load it to 62000 psi with commercial bullets and have a whole new realm of power and accuracy. But I don't think the ammo would be interoperable in an AK.

Beck said:

I think the best thing I can do is start a knew thread on the 7.62x39 rather than have this thread go up in flames. There are plenty others here that understand the capability of the modern 7.62x39. Those folks will be welcome to chime in with their experiences. It would be nice if the trolls could discipline themselves and sit out, listen and learn something. I've been looking for a place to talk about x39 and shoot down the misconceptions. Maybe THR is the place. Or I might have to setup a webpage of my own. I've been thinking about that for a while.

Click to expand...

@Newtosavage has had lots of reloading experience with the x39, and has had quite a few threads here over the years about it. Use the search function to check out his stuff on the subject, it's good reading.

You guys are entertaining. "Military cartridges weren't designed for hunting" blah blah blah. Well, duh! Of course the list of popular hunting rounds today which were designed as military cartridges includes pretty much every 'real' one of them. We could start with 7x57 and work forward to include just about all of the turn-of-the-century bottleneck cartridges adopted by WW1 and WW2 combatants. Remove those from contention and the wild game herds will be quite content to be left alone thank you. Heck if you dropped out the wildcats made from military rounds which were later standardized our shooting and hunting choices would be very close to Zero.

So after ignoring that totally ridiculous argument, we can just look at these things from a civilized and normal perspective. Does a 120ish-160ish grain bullet moving 2200-2400 fps work on small to medium game? Why, yes. Yes it certainly can. There are a bunch of different cartridges which basically clone each other's performance around these parameters. The old Soviet round suffers from a limited selection of standard cup/core bullets and not a small amount of animus by older generations who hold distain for former (and current) international foes plus the reputation as a poachers tool in Africa. Rather than hash again (and again...) probably a better discussion would be one along the lines of 7.62x39 successes - hunting/shooting. Personally I haven't had any real failures with the round. I've been happy with accuracy and terminal performance on deer and hogs from AR and Ruger rifles, plus it's been a great plinking round for a long time in other platforms.

Beck said:

I think the best thing I can do is start a knew thread on the 7.62x39 rather than have this thread go up in flames. There are plenty others here that understand the capability of the modern 7.62x39. Those folks will be welcome to chime in with their experiences. It would be nice if the trolls could discipline themselves and sit out, listen and learn something. I've been looking for a place to talk about x39 and shoot down the misconceptions. Maybe THR is the place. Or I might have to setup a webpage of my own. I've been thinking about that for a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are a lot of misconceptions about x39 and it's capabilities. Seems like x39 is the 40s&w of the rifle world. The caliber everyone loves to hate and have misconceptions about.

What could be the point of starting a new x39 thread, rather than acknowledging you’re standing in the middle of an x39 thread?

This thread demonstrates that most folks which speak online about the capabilities of the x39 have far more experience in reading threads online about the cartridge than they have in using the round in the field - especially lacking experience with quality ammunition in modern bolt actions - and as such, the average quality of opinion on the matter is poor.

The original question was regarding the max effective range of the x39 in a modern bolt action with quality ammunition, assumed to be scoped, for hunting whitetail deer, rather than surplus semi-autos with irons firing surplus ball ammo. The answers there are pretty clear - the round will have enough energy beyond typical hunting distances, and the common limitations inherent to iron-sight surplus rifles and rot-gut ammo don’t carry over to all incarnations of the cartridge.

Varminterror said:

What could be the point of starting a new x39 thread, rather than acknowledging you’re standing in the middle of an x39 thread?

This thread demonstrates that most folks which speak online about the capabilities of the x39 have far more experience in reading threads online about the cartridge than they have in using the round in the field - especially lacking experience with quality ammunition in modern bolt actions - and as such, the average quality of opinion on the matter is poor.

The original question was regarding the max effective range of the x39 in a modern bolt action with quality ammunition, assumed to be scoped, for hunting whitetail deer, rather than surplus semi-autos with irons firing surplus ball ammo. The answers there are pretty clear - the round will have enough energy beyond typical hunting distances, and the common limitations inherent to iron-sight surplus rifles and rot-gut ammo don’t carry over to all incarnations of the cartridge.

Click to expand...

While I have not used x39 for hunting, there are some popular and not so popular YouTube channels who actually use x39 to hunt wild bore, coyotes, and deer on a regular basis without issue. I just looked, and there are A LOT of x39 hunting videos online.

I agree that most experts simply regurgitate what they read on online forums, but do not have any first had real world experience. I see a complete difference of opinion between those with experience and those who base their opinions on what they read online.

7.62X39 has gotten a bad reputation because it's use and proformance out of $200-$300 surplus rifles with it's canted sites and cheap steel cased ammo that was commonly in use when it was introduced to the American market.

Double Naught Spy said:

I always find it interesting when people invoke design intent as if it was the be all to end all of arguments for how something is to be applied. The goal of design intent is for the designed items to meet the parameters of the intent, but the design may meet the parameters for many things not intended, like kevlar that was intended for use in vehicle tires. It was NEVER intended for use in ballistic vests, ship sails, boat hulls, rope, etc., and yet it is excellent in those applications as well...things the developer never ever intended.

Since we are talking about a cartridge, 7.62x39, it does not care what it was intended to be used for. As for the bullet flying down range, it doesn't care either. Of course, the Soviet intent was with ball ammo. You load and fire the same bullet from a different cartridge at the same velocity and it is no longer 7.62x39, but the down range performance will be the same, right? The cartridge doesn't do the killing. The bullet does.

Last I checked, humans are animals and the Soviet military has been hunting with the 7.62x39 since it was issued.

Click to expand...

I like your post!
In my opinion, (that in most cases does not amount to much) the magician does the trick, not the wand. I have range experience with AK types in x39, but I use them to get familiar with the manual of arms, just in case, and they are very effective when engaging steel within 300 yards with cheap ammo. Would I use them to hunt? In a heartbeat!
If I were to hunt with the x39, I would handload to up my chances of killing the animal I would be after.
If the OP wants to buy and hunt with a rifle chambered in x39, well, it's his money, and his choice. Just like the saying goes "colors were made for choices".

Varminterror said:

What could be the point of starting a new x39 thread, rather than acknowledging you’re standing in the middle of an x39 thread?

This thread demonstrates that most folks which speak online about the capabilities of the x39 have far more experience in reading threads online about the cartridge than they have in using the round in the field - especially lacking experience with quality ammunition in modern bolt actions - and as such, the average quality of opinion on the matter is poor.

The original question was regarding the max effective range of the x39 in a modern bolt action with quality ammunition, assumed to be scoped, for hunting whitetail deer, rather than surplus semi-autos with irons firing surplus ball ammo. The answers there are pretty clear - the round will have enough energy beyond typical hunting distances, and the common limitations inherent to iron-sight surplus rifles and rot-gut ammo don’t carry over to all incarnations of the cartridge.

Click to expand...

If we were in church I would say "A..n"

My hunting experiences with that caliber were from a SKS and a mini 30. In the early 90's when you could get a SKS for about $80 and ammo was literally pennies, lots of people who weren't flush with cash (including me) used them for various things, like deer hunting in Tn. I shot a few deer with mine all at 100 yards or less- I used some sort of commie SP rounds and later a Winchester soft point. What I noticed with both was the damage wasn't that impressive, and sometimes I didn't get an exit wound. When I did get an exit wound, I usually found the jacket inside- and that's with both rounds. Somewhere around here I have a mushroomed Winchester round from a deer I shot back then. I prefer exit wounds, since that means more things got hit and I like my deer to leak a lot if they run.

Performance of the 7.62 X 39 is comparable to the 30-30, which is not bad at all and it is supposedly even better because pointed bullets can be shot from rifles that are usually cambered for it. I think the fact that a huge portion of the world uses it for combat & nearly everything else speaks volumes for the round. My only concern with the 7.62 X 39 is that I would want it in a battle rifle and I prefer AR rifles over other military platforms. I have been told that many AR's are finicky (unreliable) when chambered for this round.

Charlie Martinez said:

Performance of the 7.62 X 39 is comparable to the 30-30, which is not bad at all and it is supposedly even better because pointed bullets can be shot from rifles that are usually cambered for it.

Click to expand...

I do like and use 7.62x39, however that statement has not borne out in my experience. It certainly does a good job with medium game like deer and pigs with current production ammo, however the real challenge is the bullets found in most steel cased ammo people commonly use is not comparable with cup/core flat nose performance. Many larger animals like moose and elk have fallen to the old 30-30. I would not personally try factory 7.62x39 for such.

I believe many of you misinterpreted what I posted ( IMO ) 7.62x39 wouldn't be MY choice of a hunting cartridge . I NEVER said it wasn't capable of killing ,it's yardage is limited again IMO . I have several , as I collected them over the last #53 years but they're severely limited bullet choice and weight wise . Personally I Never see 30/30 or 7.62x39 at matches of any sorts ,too many more capable cartridges .

For the record I've seen them UP CLOSE AND IN ACTION ,as well as their inherent lack of accuracy . Still wouldn't use one to hunt with .

Beck said:

I think the best thing I can do is start a knew thread on the 7.62x39 rather than have this thread go up in flames. There are plenty others here that understand the capability of the modern 7.62x39. Those folks will be welcome to chime in with their experiences. It would be nice if the trolls could discipline themselves and sit out, listen and learn something. I've been looking for a place to talk about x39 and shoot down the misconceptions. Maybe THR is the place. Or I might have to setup a webpage of my own. I've been thinking about that for a while.

Click to expand...

Hey Beck... start a new thread. I was enjoying reading your posts last night...... Interesting stuff.

David Hoback said:

This is misleading. The 7.62x39 was not designed to kill 150-200lb ANIMALS. It was designed for warfare against human beings & most importantly, to operate in both full & semi automatic rates of fire weapons. Those were the parameters of the 314 cartridge designs looked at by the Soviet Armament Commission at the time, of which only 8 were manufactured & of course the x39 won the bid for production in 1943.

Oh! And if the argument is 150-200lb Humans being the equivalent representation of Animals, again.. no. Human beings & Game animals react far differently to gunshots. While dying is immanent in both cases, yes.. the goal in hunting is to bring about death in the quickest time possible. Where as with small arms in warfare during WW2, and ESPECIALLY by those like the Germany & the Soviet Union, quick death was not the primary goal. Stopping soldiers by wounding or rather horribly wounding in the aforementioned country’s case, was the intended design.

Click to expand...

The AK aka automatic Kalashnikov :
It was designed to be cheaply manufactured rapidly deployed and light enough to carry ,while providing firepower as a suppression support weapon . In reality it was designed so women could also use it without special training ; Remember the TIMES when it was developed !.

The AK-47 is perhaps the most widespread firearm in the world. Carried by American enemies and allies alike since 1947, it is the standard infantry weapon for 106 countries. There are an estimated 100 million AK-47s of a number of variations round the world.


Now the capability and accuracy belongs to the SVD Dragunov or Nagant 7.62x54 .

It's WHY there are so many cartridges available WORLD WIDE ,NO one cartridge fits the bill .

Still a Semi free country buy and use what YOU prefer ; I DO

Beck said:

No, I gave you the correct historical information concerning the development of the cartridge to what we have today. You are simply wrong. SAAMI was wrong when Ruger proposed the 7.62x39 standards. You would have to think outside a lot of longstanding misconceptions, but I know you won't. You're kind is valuable only as an example of the stubborn misinformed that others shouldn't want to be. No loss to the x39 community. You're not having a conversation. You're spreading decades of x39 mythos. Others will benefit from this thread... at your expense. Congratulations!

Click to expand...

https://www.americanhunter.org/content/an-ode-to-the-7-62x39mm-m43-soviet/ I went out of my way to find an article deliberately leaning pro-X39. There are other, more complete references to the history of the Soviet M43. Your facts are demonstrably wrong. You are argueing effectively against the straw man you so artfully constructed. I think you have a bright future in the Democratic party. I'll take Cartridges of the World over some guy named "Beck" who really loves the 7.62x39 to the point of cognitive dissonace.

I thought it would be neat to see what the Russians think of their own 7.62x39 cartridge, so I checked their forums... it was certainly interesting. Couple different posters...

"I want to say that a moose with one of the largest antlers in the world today was taken in front of my eyes with a "Saiga", using a softpoint cartridge. Distance, 80-100 m."


"In general, I like the gun because of its compactness. I got 4 moose, 2 bears and 6 goats with her. All kills were clean, without wounded animals."


"I use Saiga mainly for wolves, although there are exceptions."

Goosey said:

"I want to say that a moose with one of the largest antlers in the world today was taken in front of my eyes with a "Saiga", using a softpoint cartridge. Distance, 80-100 m."

Click to expand...

I think that is the key there. Both sides of the argument are right, and both sides are wrong. 7.62x39 can be as effective at 30-30...but not at the same distances. At some intersections, that .30 caliber bullet crosses each other's path with the same energy, but not the entire time nor entire distance.

valnar said:

I think that is the key there. Both sides of the argument are right, and both sides are wrong. 7.62x39 can be as effective at 30-30...but not at the same distances. At some intersections, that .30 caliber bullet crosses each other's path with the same energy, but not the entire time nor entire distance.

Click to expand...

This says it all. Not a long distance cartridge, but totally serviceable at reasonable ranges in a quality firearm. I must say I NEVER would have willingly went after that brown bear with a x39!

adcoch1 said:

This says it all. Not a long distance cartridge, but totally serviceable at reasonable ranges in a quality firearm. I must say I NEVER would have willingly went after that brown bear with a x39!

Click to expand...

I think civilians in Russia are only allowed to have smooth bore rifles. If that is the case then I would say 80-100 meters is pretty long range!

I don’t like the 7.62x39 vs 30/30 comparison because it’s kind of a paper argument since they generally use very different bullets. Flat or round nose bullets in my experience punch above what you would expect from a spitzer bullet at the same velocity. Of course there is nothing stopping you from loading a flat nose 30/30 bullet in a 7.62x39 or a spitzer bullet in a 30/30 either which muddies the argument further. Add to that the leverevolution load for the 30/30. If you pick the best load in one and the worst load in the other you can prop one of them up to look better, but I think you have to cherry pick data to do so and ignore bullet construction.

someguy2800 said:

I don’t like the 7.62x39 vs 30/30 comparison because it’s kind of a paper argument since they generally use very different bullets.

Click to expand...

I don't like it in this particular case because the OP is planning to buy a new, bolt action deer rifle and reload for it. That being the case, there's no logical reason to use that cartridge. We're basically talking about 7.62x39 vs. .243 or .308 type cartridges.