Am I addicted to 7.62x39??

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MikeyIdaho

    Member
    Aug 6, 2018
    2
    You will not be disappointed. A Nikon Prostaff 2X7 is a good match.

    Very nice! I've been debating between a 1-6 or 2-7, mostly looking at Burris or Vortex, looks like I should widen my search. Till I get a scope I plan on putting my Fastfire III on it for a bit just for fun.
     

    Straightbolt

    unindicted co-conspirator
    Apr 4, 2015
    2,503
    The 'Burbs
    The CZ would be the one I'd buy.

    Thanks for the help...

    My Ruger M77 Mark II 7.62 x39 in skeleton paddle boat stock is a better rifle than the CZ...Just my opinion. :D
     

    Attachments

    • wm_7421465.jpg
      wm_7421465.jpg
      31.4 KB · Views: 304

    Jimbob2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 20, 2008
    16,600
    My Ruger M77 Mark II 7.62 x39 in skeleton paddle boat stock is a better rifle than the CZ...Just my opinion. :D

    Ill admit I prefer the classic lines and decent wood of the CZ but that's a nice rifle and certainly easier to mount a scope on (no need for high rings). I almost bought a couple of those years ago, regret not doing it.
     

    Ngrovcam

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 20, 2016
    2,854
    Florida
    Wow...that Ruger on GB is just plain gorgeous!
    Still, I am a simple man - would prefer the one
    with which Straightbolt teased us. Bought one
    for my nephew recently in .270 (or was it .243?...)
    and was very impressed. Doggone, I like
    Ruger stuff. Alas, I have nothing in x39.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I think I'm up to a dozen guns chambered in 7.62x39. It is a workhorse round. The commies did a few things right.

    It is a great short range round and fun at the range. But for an infantry round, there is a reason they switched to 5.45x39. 7.62x39 is just too short range. When practical accuracy is 200yds, maybe 300yds with someone with mild skills (conscript armies being very low skilled, maybe 500yds for an expert marksman) you need something much more flat shooting. 5.56 and 5.45 both can extend practical engagement ranges by an easy 100yds. 200-300 for someone who is really skilled with the right round.

    7.62x39 still has higher recoil than 5.56 or 5.45 and weighs about 20% more than either 5.56 or 5.45.

    I love it, but other than a short range round it kind of sucks as a practical infantry round. In similar weight, .300BO is superior in every respect and has slightly lower recoil and cartridge weight, greater range...

    6.5 Grendel is basically the same recoil and cartridge weight for vastly more range and accuracy (way lower drift).

    I love my SKS and I want an AK. I’ll have to settle for a vz58/2008 at some point to cover that itch. But I know for anything other than range fun of a 100-150yd deer gun, my .223 AR or 6.5G AR are vastly superior rifles/cartridges.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    Totally agree with everything Lazarus just wrote. Not a bad round for its day, but the ballistics suck compared to more modern stuff. I've got three rifles in that caliber (Sig 556R, AMD-65 SBR, SKS-M)... I shoot them from time to time for lolz, but that's about it. Used to have a VZ-58, but didn't want to deal with the proprietary magazines.

    I've got a couple rifles in 5.45x39, but it's basically an ammo shortage insurance play. All of my ammo is 7N6, so they get almost no use at the moment since the NRA range doesn't allow semi-AP bullets to be fired at the berm. I think it's a reasonable round otherwise, and it holds its own against 5.56x45.

    I have, however, started moving in the direction of 6.5 Grendel, because you can toss around 7.62x39-comparable bullet weights at radically longer ranges, and it performs pretty damn well out of an SBR. I'm going to be building an 11" AR SBR and buying a bolt gun for precision work. Should be a fun project.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    Kind of a cheap comment (pun intended) after more thoughtful discussion above, but an obvious huge appeal of 7.62x39 are the ballastics to cost ratio. Not many rounds capable of dropping a deer at 200 yards can be found for 17-20 cents per round (cpr).

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Kind of a cheap comment (pun intended) after more thoughtful discussion above, but an obvious huge appeal of 7.62x39 are the ballastics to cost ratio. Not many rounds capable of dropping a deer at 200 yards can be found for 17-20 cents per round (cpr).

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

    Sure, but not too many people hurting for a one dollar hunting round to kill a deer. Now, it does give you oodles if practice for dirt cheap.

    And of course price is attractive. $210-220 shipped for a case of 7.62x39 is the cheapest center fire ammo around. Even cheaper than steel 5.56. And at the lower velocities bore wear should be lower so you can run a lot more through the rifle before bore erosion becomes an issue.

    I LOVE it since getting an SKS. I also know it’s place. I love my wife, but I know she ain’t a porn star, a maid or a pornstar maid. But damned if I don’t love her for what she can do (and if she reads this I am not implying she is cheap, slow, fat and fun! )

    What I am surprised about is after reworking my SKS stock and a thinner front post I’ve found with wolf and red army I am getting 2.5” 5 shot groups at 100yds. All of the steel I’ve tried out of my ARs won’t group better than 3” (most 4-5”). Doesn’t matter the weight or brand. That is with a 3-9x scope on my 20” and a 3MOA red dot on my 16”. My 16” is not stellar performer as match ammo it doesn’t seem to group under 2”, but my 20” AR will group under .75” with the right ammo.

    So I figured all steel ammo was 3-4” (or worse). So the fact with iron sights and my SKS cheap 7.62x39 is grouping around 2.5” is flooring me. Sure, it is still not precision ammo, but 3” or less groups is pretty much my gold standard for “if it can manage that, I am having a hoot all day long”. That means an IPSC target is probably going 10 for 10 all day long at 300yds so long as I do my part.

    And I haven’t tied any of the better ammo I have out of my SKS (like my PPU FMJ and SP, Winchester FMJ, Hornady steel match, Hornady STS, Geco FMJ and Fiocchi FMJ and SP). Not that I’ll feed it much of it, because brass cased 7.62x39 isn’t all that cheap, but I still wonder if it can do 2.5” 5 shot groups at 100yds with cheap ammo on a day my shooting glasses were rigged to hell, what can it do with nice ammo? (Probably worse accuracy, lol)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom