Talk:7.62x39mm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7.62x39mm article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I just deleted the mention of hydrostatic shock in the section describing wounding potential, as hydrostatic shock has been thoroughly discredited as a mechanism for causing injury in gunshot wounds. Sbard 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Development History

My understanding is that there's a significant debate as to the parentage and development of the cartridge design. That is, there's a tendency for Russian Historians to deny that the 7.92x33mm has much influence in the design, but there's evidence that earlier pre-war german developements like the GeCo round were used as inspiration. So, I'm editing this part of the article slightly, and perhaps an entire section on developement should be added.

[edit] Complaint

WHO WROTE THIS? its mostly IGNORENT NONSENSE! so is the M67 tomb below. bookwormizm by someone who obviously has never handled , used or deeply studied the items in question.

(copied from an edit by a user at 64.85.128.209 that placed this inside the section: "An Imperfect Design: M43". -- Mike Wilson 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

What parts do you consider ignorant? CynicalMe 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The comment in question was placed in the article at this time:
19:11, 23 December 2005 (hist) (diff) 7.62 x 39 mm (→An imperfect design: M43)
That was that user's only edit, so I doubt you'll get a response as to what in that "tomb" is "ignorent". scot 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So for the sake of clean-up, could we do without this section in the Talk page? CynicalMe 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Yugoslavian M-67 round is flat based and has no air pocket in the nose. Its yawing properties are a function of its center of gravity and ogive shape. The last paragraph is totally unrelated to the M-67. If you wish to discuss other 7.62x39 loads, start as seperate section for miscellaneous loads.69.241.40.207 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many problems...

This article isn't well written at all. Anyway, I deleted part about it being as powerful as a .30-30. Although it does have somewhat similar ballistics (Nothing to brag about) to the .30-30, it doesn't do near as much damage, due to bullet size and the type of bullets a .30-30 usually employs. Think of throwing two baseballs at the same speed, but one happens to be heavier and hurts more.

On the contrary, the 7.62x39mm pushes a 124 grain bullet at about the same velocity that the .30-30 pushes a 150 grain bullet. The energy retention is about the same, the 7.62 making up in aerodynamics what it lacks in bullet mass over the .30-30. You can push a much heavier bullet in the .30-30, but very few people do, as you start to have maximum point blank range issues as the velocity drops off.
  • .30-30 Winchester,150,2300,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • .30-30 Winchester,150,2100,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • .30-30 Winchester,150,2300,www.cor-bon.com,Cor-Bon loading
  • .30-30 Winchester,170,2150,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • 7.62 x 39 mm,100,2300,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • 7.62 x 39 mm,122,2396,www.wolfammo.com,Wolf commercial load
  • 7.62 x 39 mm,123,2350,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • 7.62 x 39 mm,125,2320,www.pmcammo.com,PMC loading
  • 7.62 x 39 mm,154,2104,www.wolfammo.com,Wolf commercial load

Given that an SKS is about the same size, weight, and power as a Winchester or Marlin lever action in .30-30, and the SKS is quite a bit cheaper, it has certainly cut into the .30-30's domain as the cheap deer rifle of choice. scot 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't believe it has, and it is certainly erroneous- given your own infromation, and it is generally discouraged to use on deer, especially where I live. It is a poor performing round, and I have yet to find a person who considers it .30-30 comparable. Those 200 fps or 20 gr of bullet do a lot, but the most important bit is the flat tips you see most often in lever guns. You say that it is cutting into the .30-30's domain? It has done nothing of the sort. I suggest you take some milk jugs out, or deer, and see what the difference is.

I won't change it, but personal experience tells me that you are incorrect, particularly with the shoddy loads that you find in Wolf ammo. Winchester ammo has always been finicky in my SKS, and Remington isn't much better. Wolf is flawless, but I've only used it on groundhogs.

My point is not that they are equal, but that they do overlap, and both have pros and cons. The short, fat 7.62x39mm is a more efficient case (look what it can do in the 6 mm PPC) and it uses more aerodynamic spitzer bullets, which gives it the edge in external ballistics. The .30-30's oversized case (it was originally loaded with 30 grains of cordite, and the shorter .30 Herrett will generally match its performance with light bullets) allows a far wider range of bullet weights, and the flat point bullets required for lever actions do provide better terminal performance. This means that the 7.62x39mm will shoot a bit flatter, and the .30-30 will hit harder. Which side you or I come down on in terms of the tradeoff isn't relevant, the fact is that a lot of people use the SKS to hunt with, and it does fill the same niche as the .30-30--an inexpensive, lightweight, medium range carbine. The average hunter doesn't grab the milk jugs or Kind & Knox and test out a dozen types of ammunition to determine the estimated penetration and expansion, he just buys a box of whatever hollow points are on sale and uses them. The evidence that the SKS is "displacing" the .30-30 leverl action is anecdotal, what can be said with some confidence is that the 7.62x39mm has become a popular deer hunting cartridge, and the .30-30 is losing ground. scot 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible that the cartridges would have the same power. The two bullets have the same diameter and the same muzzle velocity, yet the .30-30 has in the lighter loads almost 40 grains heavier bullet and heavier loads a 60 grain heavier bullet. That means that the .30-30 will always have more power. Neither cartridge, however, is a sniper rifle cartridge so if you hit anything beyond 200 yards you're either the best shot in the world or really, really, REALLY lucky. VogonFord 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


'The cartridge was influenced by the late-war German 7.92 mm Kurzdge]] was designed ("Kurz" meaning "short" in German)' this isn't the full truth, the soviets started research on a shorter cartridge in the 1930's; for more info read John Walter's The Evolution of the AK Machine Pistols and Machine Guns from 1945 to Present. Macerator 18:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle velocity?

In the Specifications section, the muzzle velocity of the 7.62mm bullet is mentioned as being 710 m/s... doesn't the muzzle velocity of the bullet depend on the weapon that fires it? --Ravenstorm 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To some degree, yes--and bullet weight, powder type and quantity, bullet material, bore condition, and a myriad other factors (see internal ballistics). Standard barrel length on most 7.62x39mm guns (i.e. the SKS and AK-47, AKM, etc.) is 16 to 20 inches, and the quoted velocity is going to be fairly close for those lengths. The 12" barrel SMG variants (often called "Krinkov" types, similar to the AKS-74U) are going to be significantly less, the RPK a noticable bit more. The AK-47 quotes 710 m/s, and the RPK quots 745 m/s, so that's the span over 16 to 23 inches of barrel length for typical military ball ammunition. scot 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] title

i added the wrongtitle template because the article uses x and not ×. one is a letter and the other is a multiplication sign (which is correct) --80.63.213.182 21:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article renaming

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "7.62x39", with no spaces- It's even referred to thusly in the body of the article! I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I did a search for simply "7.62x39" and got this page. But no, there is not suppose to be any spaces. And to be even further correct, you could use proper european metric notation: "7,62x39mm"--using the comma instead of a decimal. This notation appears on many brands of ammo, including, but not limited to Sellier&Bellot.209.114.201.30 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen boxes of this calibre ammo using the comma, and even if some manufacturers do (S&B are based in the Czech Republic, IIRC), standard English usage is for the decimal point... --Commander Zulu 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a box of S&B 7.62x54R ammo that uses the comma instead of the decimal. If I had the capability to scan it, I would. I will try to find an internet source for this.209.114.201.30 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found it, nevertheless on S&B's website (www.sellier-bellot.cz). Here is a picture: http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/img/boxes/sb33225-kd.jpg (this picture is property of sellier&bellot). I knew I was not mistaken. :) 209.114.201.30 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough- but my point still stands. S&B are a Czech company, and I've never seen Remington, Winchester, PMC, Federal, or even Norinco ammo with "7,62x39" on it. I'm pretty sure the consensus is that, on the English Language Wikipedia, we use English naming conventions- which means decimal points, not commas, in numbers.--Commander Zulu 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with that. I felt perhaps it was worth mentioning that some packaging used the "7,62" notation merely as a factoid. I agree that with the English Wikipedia we should use SAE notation as the norm.JasonM45 15:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the page move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the title include the metric measurement, i.e.: 7.62x39 mm - with a space? Koalorka 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No- it was decided some time ago that calibre designations were to be in the AxB (name) format- no spaces, no measurement designators- after all, we don't refer to .303" British or .45" Automatic Colt Pistol, for example. A case could, however, be made for renaming the article "7.62x39 Soviet" or "7.62x39 M43", FWIW. I'm not too fussed as long as it doesn't involve the "mm" or unnecessary spaces. --Commander Zulu 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Just been through the article, standardising its English, cartridge names, etc, and adding fact tags. This article needs a lot of citations from some good sources, because we have mostly decent info in the article (e.g. mild steel being used because it's cheap rather than its supposed armour-piercing capabilities) but no sources to back it up.Geoff B 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims contrary to ballistics

A rifle bullet is not going to drop below the sight picture at a range shorter than the sight is adjusted to unless it is at point-blank range, in which case the effect is caused by sight offset. Unlike many modern Western designs, this is something AK-pattern guns have little of. This is claimed in the M43 section. Soviet soldiers were probably trained to aim low because infantrymen have a tendency to shoot high and waste ammo. Kensai Max 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I ran the numbers, and could not come up with any round hitting anywhere near 0 at 300 meters that hit low at 50 meters. This just wasn't realistic. Arthurrh 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullet diameters?

European and Soviet bloc catridges such as the 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54R, and .303 British use a .310 or so bullet diameter, while US cartridges a .308 bullet diameter in 7.62x51mm. Should this be mentioned in the article? I can probably find a source for this in a reloading manual. scot 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If not in this particular article, then in a dedicated article that documents the difference between the actual diameter and the stated diameter of various cartridges. Geoff B 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
See Caliber#Metric vs Inch Arthurrh 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethality

The cite tags have been on this article for months now over the lethality of the cartrige. Can someone prove or disprove the claims? IIRC Fackler's studies claiming a low damage potential from the round have been refuted by decades of combat usage showing that it is highly effective. There's gotta be sources out there for this. Kensai Max 16:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mini-30

Under the hunting section, we might want to mention the Mini-30 as it was introduced for the specific market. 68.116.99.152 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)