Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Arsenal 7.62 Krink?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    No more to be had, expect to pay $1,500 plus.

    BTW, 7.62x39 is not exactly the most ideal cartridge for a short package like that. I'd try to find an SLR-106UR, or have a good smith build an rguns 5.45 krink kit on a 5.45 donor saiga rifle.

    You could also SBR a romanian draco and have a smith put a sidefolder on it. The yugo krinks and dracos are a lot easier to handle in 7.62x39.

    107CR is a good option too.
    "Life is short, but the years are long." - Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    365
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armakraut View Post
    BTW, 7.62x39 is not exactly the most ideal cartridge for a short package like that. I'd try to find an SLR-106UR, or have a good smith build an rguns 5.45 krink kit on a 5.45 donor saiga rifle.
    You think 5.56 is better for an 8" barrel than 7.62x39?? Why?

    It'd be my last choice of the three calibers...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    5.56 and 5.45 are ballistically pretty much the same cartridge. The Russians went away from 7.62x39 for the same reason we went away from 7.62x51, because soldiers shot better with the smaller, high velocity cartridges. SLR-106UR's are also easy and cheaply found, as is the ammunition and even the magazines. Similar weight 5.45 and 5.56 bullets are clocking in at about the same velocity out of the spout, M43 is down to M1 carbine velocities.

    Nothing against 7.62x39, but when you put it in a 8'' AK it behaves more like .308 in a G3K or HK51. I just don't find it to be the most favorable cartridge in a krinkov. Thankfully the AK-103 brake effectively negates most of the recoil characteristic differences between a full length 7.62x39 rifle and an AK-74 to the point where numerous former servicemen have commented that my 103 reminded them of their M16A2/A4 in terms of accuracy and controllability.
    "Life is short, but the years are long." - Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    365
    Feedback Score
    0
    About the same velocity, but it's well below ideal fragmentation range for 5.56 even at the muzzle. 5.45 wasn't designed to fragment to begin with, so it isn't as detrimentally affected by the slow velocity as 5.56 is. That's my concern.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    That whole yaw thing is a load of bad science. It's more likely that the Russians might have been trying to prevent the bullet from fragmenting at high velocity (like 5.56) and make it behave more like 7.62x39 by designing what amounted to a crumple zone. 5.45 yaws, but so does 5.56 and just about every other rifle cartridge. Mr. Bin Laden can attest to the terminal performance of 5.56 fired from a short rifle.
    Last edited by armakraut; 12-12-11 at 19:38.
    "Life is short, but the years are long." - Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    365
    Feedback Score
    0
    Mr. Bin Laden was shot from like 10 ft away I was more concerned about 100 m

    When you say crumple zone, are you saying the hollow nose of 5.45 crumples or bends on impact with flesh, causing yaw? Recovered 5.45 bullets aren't visibly deformed, the only deformation is of the lead inside. The uneven dispersion of lead inside the formerly hollow area is what causes yaw.

    Also, although 5.45 and 5.56 (and 7.62) yaw, they don't do it all the same. Spitzer bullets flip once, then travel base first, but the 5.45 often yaws around 90°, then stops and continues through sideways for a while.

    Why do you think 5.45's design is bad science? Because fragmentation is better than non-fragmenting rounds? If so, I agree with that part, but without agreeing 5.45 is necessarily bad. 5.56 that fragments is better than 5.45, but 5.45 is better than 5.56 that doesn't fragment because of its better yawing. It's less picky.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    I'm not hip enough on fragmentation to talk much about it, but I will say that 5.45 is a good, solid caliber. If the next republican repeals the sporting purpose import ban crap and Tula puts some semi-auto krinks on the boat for saiga prices, you better believe I'll be buying.
    "Life is short, but the years are long." - Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    21
    Feedback Score
    0
    I don't know if this helps at all but I just found this last night.
    http://akpartskits.com/cart/index.ph...e890c9cd5ff16b

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    157
    Feedback Score
    0
    The shorter the barrel, the better you are with a heavy bullet and larger caliber.
    The 7.62x39mm is outstanding in short barrels as it doesn't relly so much on velocity. Also the bore/chamber ratio makes the 7.62mm cartridge loose less energy in shorter barells than both 5.45 and 5.56mm cartridges.

    Here's a table with velocities of 7.62x39mm cartridges out of short barrels:



    As you can see the velocity lost going to short barrel is not as bad as in 5.56mm.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,584
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Bought this one about two years ago for $1300 from a shop in Florida. Can't recall the name and pretty sure the emails were deleted, but they are out there from time to time. I'd expect that the prices have gone up a bit though.

    Time flies when you throw your watch.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •