The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

[Jason_W]

While both rounds are limited for use on medium game compared to rounds based on the .308 and '06 cases, which of the two would be the better option for whitetail deer sized game in a pinch?

The x39 holds energy way better (it's still packing almost 1000 ft/lbs at 170 yards) but energy alone doesn't kill game. I've read that due to the rounds relatively low velocity, sometimes soft point ammo won't expand on game.

The .223, however, bleeds energy far faster, but there are bullet choices galore and there's probably been more technological advancement of .224" bullets in the last 30 years than any other diameter. Additionally, the smaller lighter bullets impact at a higher velocity and some terminal ballistic theories assert that impact velocity has a lot of bearing on wounding.

Call the maximum range for this thought experiment 150 yards.

 

[Walkalong]

7.62X39.

 

[hdwhit]

Jason_W wrote:
The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

Keeping in mind, of course, that human beings fall into the size range of "medium game", this is a question that has raged on without an objectively definite answer since Vietnam.

So, I refuse to join everyone else in the quagmire by pretending there's anything other subjective personal preference as to which one is somehow "better".

I was trained by the Army to shoot a .223 rifle. I own several.223 rifles. I have developed loads optimized for the 223 rifles that I have. I have spent the last 40+ years shooting them almost exclusively as my center-fire rifles. If I could have my rifle with my reloads, then purely on the basis of familiarity, I would take 223. But, not because I believe there's some reason it is objectively (or even subjectively) "better", but merely because I would be more confident I could efficiently harvest food and effectively protect myself with a rifle I have been shooting for 40 years rather than one I just picked up for the first time a minute ago.

 

[22250Rem]

In a pinch......maximum range 150 yds..........Either would work on medium game. Although I'm leaning 7.62x39 because in terms of ballistics it's in the same ballpark as stuff like the .30-30 which has quite the reputation on medium game out to about our 150 yd. maximum. But I can't disagree with hdwhit about using a rifle you are familiar and confident with. So as long as the shooter can place his shots properly with either round I'd still give the nod to 7.62x39 for medium game in a pinch.

 

[Art Eatman]

Pretty much six of one, half-dozen of the other, IMO. Granted, gotta be knowledgeable about which bullets to select for the .223.

 

[Jason_W]

Pretty much six of one, half-dozen of the other, IMO. Granted, gotta be knowledgeable about which bullets to select for the .223.

And there are way more bullet choices available in .223.

I remember coming across a gel test in one of the gun rags a while back where a 62 grain Barnes ttsx penetrated 20+ inches.

Granted, deer aren't made of Jello, but comparatively, that's nothing to scoff at.

 

[jmr40]

223 every day, but you can't use just any bullet in either. Energy by its self doesn't kill stuff. The better predictors of a bullets performance is its impact velocity and bullet construction. If the bullet is tough enough to stay together long enough to reach vitals. And if it impacts with enough velocity to expand, but not so much that it over expands, it'll kill stuff. Most bullets need a minimum of 1800-2000 fps to expand. Stay away from varmint bullets in either and you'll get the penetration you need.

The better 223 loads will still do that at 300-400 yards with a bullet tough enough to reach vitals. At 150 yards impact speeds are in the 2500 fps range..

The 7.62X39 starts running out of gas at less than 200 yards.

At 150 yards both work if bullets are chosen carefully. But the 223's greater impact speeds will cause more damage and likely result in faster kills. And it isn't limited to 150 yards.

 

[Varminterror]

Either will work, I've used both. BUT... After using both, if I had to pick ONE right now, and could have the rest of my firearms back after this thought experiment was over, I know I'll anchor deer faster with the x39, so I'd pick it.

 

[Corn-Picker]

I would say it depends mostly on bullet choice; I wouldn't want a cup and core in the 223 and i wouldn't want a mono-metal in the 7.62x39. Assuming optimal bullets for each, I'd want the 7.62x39 for the slight energy advantage and bigger hole. If I were going into a gunfight, I'd want the 223 because I could carry 35% more ammo for the same weight.

 

[FL-NC]

While both rounds are limited for use on medium game compared to rounds based on the .308 and '06 cases, which of the two would be the better option for whitetail deer sized game in a pinch?

The x39 holds energy way better (it's still packing almost 1000 ft/lbs at 170 yards) but energy alone doesn't kill game. I've read that due to the rounds relatively low velocity, sometimes soft point ammo won't expand on game.

The .223, however, bleeds energy far faster, but there are bullet choices galore and there's probably been more technological advancement of .224" bullets in the last 30 years than any other diameter. Additionally, the smaller lighter bullets impact at a higher velocity and some terminal ballistic theories assert that impact velocity has a lot of bearing on wounding.

Call the maximum range for this thought experiment 150 yards.

I have personally had better results with the 223, as I have used both for white tail deer. You didn't specify rifle type, but generally speaking, rifles in 223 are more accurate than most rifles available in the x39- terminal ballistics are largely irrelevant when poor shot placement is in play. Also, the terminal performance I have gotten on deer with various x 39 rounds from SKS and mini 30 left a lot to be desired.

 

[Scooter22]

7.62x39. Fatter, heavier bullet no matter what bullet you use. Similar to the 30-30 but with a pointed bullet.

 

[cdb1]

I'll take a .223.

 

[Varminterror]

The x39 holds energy way better...

[snip]

The .223, however, bleeds energy far faster...

The above statements aren't necessarily true - and not true when you compare the light for caliber bullets used in the x39, and heavy for cal bullets used for hunting in the 223rem. The x39 starts with greater energy so it often has more energy down range, which IS true, but in most of the heavier hunting bullets used in 223rem, vs. the light to midweight bullets used in x39, the "energy lost per yard" is greater for the x39 - it loses energy faster than the 223. The heavier 223rem bullets will have higher BC's than the 123's used in the x39, meaning they're more aerodynamic, meaning they shed velocity slower than the less aerodynamic x39 pills. They start with less, but better BC's hold velocity better.

And of course, kinetic energy doesn't mean much. Momentum better explains why the x39 puts deer down faster than the 5.56.

 

[adcoch1]

Ok with ball ammo 7.62x39 all the way on GAME within 150 yards. With premium hunting ammo the 5.56 comes in a very close second for me. In an emergency either will work, but I've taken a lot of deer with 7.62x39 at close ranges, it just works. The trick is getting an accurate x39 rifle. And x39 is almost too much for any small game.

 

[Panzerschwein]

77 gr. 5.56x45mm OTM match.

 

[Varminterror]

No ball ammo in KS for hunting, so no go for me. Before I was reloading, the Rem Express 125grn Core Lokt was a great deer killer. Reloading, I tend toward the 125 and 150 SST's. 60 Partitions in 5.56.

 

[Davek1977]

i've killed deer will both, and regardless of caliber, they were equally dead. knowing your limitations is key....if you aren't someone who can pass up a marginal shot, neither caliber will be your forte......both work, but both are relatively close range affairs, with a 200 yard shot stretching it for either. know your bullet, know your gun, and know your limitations, and both will kill deer on a consistent basis with correct shot placement.

 

[Prijador]

Where I am, the ranges involved are short and very-short, so I'm happiest with a good bullet in 7.62x39.
5.56 /.223 with a good bullet would work well too, though.

Edit: I am... mystified by why anyone would say the average milsurp isn't accurate enough at 100 meters.
Any rifle where I have done my part has been sufficiently accurate.
Granted, I'm not shooting any wretched rifle cobbled together in a third world machine shop.

 

[briansmithwins]

One of the practical problems with 7.62x39 is the beach ball ballistics. .223 is just so much flatter shooting, making accurate range estimation a non-problem for deer sized targets under ~250 yards. With 7.62x39 you have to be much more aware of range and know your hold over and hold under to place bullets with similar precision.

BSW

 

[BigBore44]

With proper bullets and placement, flip a coin. The animal won't know the difference. You only need about 6" of penetration to full penetrate the vitals. Both .223 and 7.62X39 with proper bullets will do that with ease.

 

[Sunray]

More about the rifle than the cartridge. Any milsurp 7.62 x 39 rifle is not up to the accuracy required for say, deer hunting, much past 100 yards. Triggers and sights are poor. The energy of commercial hunting bullets past 100 is lacking too. Any .223 rifle with rifling for suitable, heavy, bullets is ok. Mind you, even ammo with those are iffy energy wise. Federal 60 grain No$ler Partitions, for example, are marginal at 100. And Federal thinks that's deer ammo.
What you think of as "medium game" matters too.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

MT is one of few states where hunting with a .22 caliber centerfire is legal, and my first deer was harvested at age 12 with a Ruger Mini-14 .223. I've also taken deer with a Yugo SKS. Both worked fine, and bullet technology has advanced a ways since I either of them. These days I would take the accuracy of the AR platform over any theoretical advantage in killing power the x39 has, and would trust a 70 gr GMX or a 75 gr Hornady OTM before anything in the x39, esp after 120 yards or so where the x39 becomes essentially a .31 caliber handgun round. The 5.56 has the velocity to kill like a rifle for 3x the distance the x39 does.

 

[stolivar]

There are quite a few bolt guns out there for the 7.62x39 now. The CZ 527, Howa mini, and now the Ruger RAR in that caliber. All three are made to shoot with 311 bore. So I would take the 7.62x39 all day long. The 223 64gr is only 563 fp at 300 where the wolf WPA 125 gr is still 729fp of energy. You are good with the ak round till 200 yards with only a 5.72 inch of drop sighted in at 100 yards.

steve

 

[stolivar]

MT is one of few states where hunting with a .22 caliber centerfire is legal, and my first deer was harvested at age 12 with a Ruger Mini-14 .223. I've also taken deer with a Yugo SKS. Both worked fine, and bullet technology has advanced a ways since I either of them. These days I would take the accuracy of the AR platform over any theoretical advantage in killing power the x39 has, and would trust a 70 gr GMX or a 75 gr Hornady OTM before anything in the x39, esp after 120 yards or so where the x39 becomes essentially a .31 caliber handgun round. The 5.56 has the velocity to kill like a rifle for 3x the distance the x39 does.

Even the 77 gr is only 683fp at 300 yards.

steve

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

For me I'll take the x39. As a reloader I use CFE BLK and with a 123 grain SST, Hot-Cor, and Hornady SP they all shoot MOA or better and clock over 2400fps from a 16" barrel. I'm working with the 135 FTX now. It was made to expand down to 1600fps specifically to hunt medium game with the 300blk.

IMO out to 150 yards the x39 has the advantage over the .223