Why 7.62x39

**Evil Bert** · 03-07-11, 09:46

I did a search but I did not see anything in which this question was asked. So if I missed it, please just point me to it and close the thread.

My question is about the 7.62x39 caliber round. Why is it so popular? Or it at least appears that way. When it comes to many platforms, such as the SCAR, ACR, XCR, and even the AR15 platform, it appears that so many people are just drooling at the mouth for the x39 caliber. I get that it is a bigger bullet, but to me the ballistics of a 5.56 are greater than the x39. Even the Russian army saw the benefits of the smaller 5.56 round and created the 5.45.

So why the popularity? Can someone explain it to me? Is it just the availability and the cost in relation to 5.56, .308, etc?

**sadmin** · 03-07-11, 09:58

Pretty much yes. The availability of cheap surplus, good terminal performance, and economy.

**Cagemonkey** · 03-07-11, 10:23

IMHO 7.62 X 39mm is the CLOSEST caliber that is in military service that I would consider to be the ideal assault rifle caliber. It has adequate penetration and stopping power, is fairly controllable in full auto and is effective to 300 meters. Its ammo is also prolific and inexpensive. We can hope all we want for the 6.5 or 6.8 for the M4/16, but its most likely not going to happen.

**Anchor Zero Six** · 03-07-11, 10:38

Cheap cheap and cheap. Also has considerably more ass behind it than a 556 but not a viable round for longer ranges.

Building one for a buddy now (waiting on barrel) and I'm very eager to see how it works out.

Another thing is its a pretty good hunting round in the bush.

**LMTRocks** · 03-08-11, 10:42

^^^^^^
I also love the ergonomics of the AR platform and have read, researched, studied, purchased, built, shot, and accumulated several thousand rounds of said ammunition in a relatively inexpensive manner. Sure the 5.56 can reach to longer distances, but in my environment CQB would be more important. Also 30cal bores in sub 16" barrels perform better than their 556 counterparts simply because the greater available powder burn volume. Sure you can get 2500fps from a 10.5" 5.56 and 62gr, but woud anyone in their right mind want to be on the receiving end of a 123gr M67 that is zipping along at 2100fps? I certainly would not. Plus I can get ammunition for less than $0.22/rd, and closer to about $0.18 if purchased in bulk. I could get some dies for it and reload it for subsonic applications, but that will only happen after I get my can. Sure there are some issues with feeding properly but there are number of acceptable ways to make it a good feeding cartridge. Seeing the PWS Diablo 7.62x39 run in full-auto tells me one thing---it can run and run like a sewing machine. Tweaking might be necessary, but often times a short-barreled AR in 10.5 also need tweaking in terms of buffers being upgraded to H or H2, and short-stroking, so any weapon system may not be immune to the dynamics of firing it regardless of caliber.

As noted previously in above posts, the cartridge has been around for years, and will likely remain so for a very long while. I certainly welcome the ability to shoot large bullets for very little money.

**Hang-Fire** · 03-08-11, 19:43

I built one in 7.62 because I have a boatload of the ammo, it hits much harder, it's it can be used for hunting deer, pigs, and such. I can get twice as much 7.62 as I can decent .223. Plus, I have 5 AK's, so it just made sense.

**ZRH** · 03-09-11, 04:36

The ammo is slightly cheaper (5.56 Wolf is cheap too though). Brass is $12 per lb here for scrap.

For ballistics: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

**TXBob** · 03-09-11, 13:06

Cheap ammo, bad guy factor, false premise that bullet diameter is proportional to effectiveness

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885

Suffers same issues as 5.56 Nato.