PDA

View Full Version : Why no 9x39?


Macx
01-30-10, 18:17
I understand the boom in 5.45x39 sales and AR uppers.

For what the cartridge offers, why hasn't there been a push to bring 9x39 over and create AR uppers to use it? Surely with 7.62X 39 uppers and 9x19 uppers out there, building up a 9x39 couldn't be that hard.

Just thinking . . .

Trajan
01-30-10, 18:32
I have never heard of this cartridge before. Did a qucik wikipedia search, and I like the idea.

Is ammo cheaply available.

GermanSynergy
01-30-10, 19:10
Interesting idea, but I have never seen this cartridge for sale anywhere. Not sure if the Russians even manufacture it for civilian sales or export....

Marcus L.
01-30-10, 20:27
I saw(pictures) quite a few 9x39 rifles in the hands of Russian troops in the Georgian conflict. They mostly use it as a suppressed mid ranged sniper rifle. Although, their rifles are select fire.........those Rooskies love their full auto. Appartently, because the bullet has so much momentum and sectional density, their penetrator load will defeat most body armor rated to stop a .30-06.

Macx
02-01-10, 15:07
I was thinking the round would be lovely for deer in a jacketed soft point.

If there was enough interest, surely some enterprising Russian would make the round available.

jkingrph
02-01-10, 15:59
It would probably come across as an anemic .35 Remington.

TOrrock
02-01-10, 16:16
Outside of Russia, the round is not used.

Since it's still considered to be a modern military round, and a special one at that, I don't see the Russians being too keen on exporting it.

Anything is possible to build, but it's got to be economically viable to a manufacturer to get it into the pipeline, and right now, it's not even a blip on the radar screen.

JSGlock34
02-01-10, 20:13
Russians do have some interesting 9x39mm designs...

http://www.targetrichenvironment.net/wordpress-2[1].3.3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/wtf.jpg

jkingrph
02-02-10, 12:53
Look over at the 6.5 Grendel.com forum. You will see some threads about a .35 Gremlin, which is what I think you are considerig.