Jump to content

Talk:7.62×39mm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macaque21 (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 20 September 2011 (→List of Firearms: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Opening heading

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)[reply]

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.

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))[reply]

What parts do you consider ignorant? CynicalMe 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So for the sake of clean-up, could we do without this section in the Talk page? CynicalMe 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


I noticed this morning that the muzzle kinetic energy of the 7.62 rounds were improperly calculated so I updated them using the usual formula 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 with the given mass and velocity on the page. These data could be inaccurate of course, but the site should at least be self-consistent. User:SCIENCEftw 10:37, 24 November 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.109.253 (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've completed the page move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
See Caliber#Metric vs Inch Arthurrh 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Subjective claim at best. Fackler claims damage potential approximately equal to 9x19mm Parabellum ball rounds UNLESS a bone (or other inelastic organ) is struck. Survival rates of people actually shot with these two rounds in the United States (even at extremely short ranges), as compared to being shot with other cartridges bears out his basic assertion. By contrast, short range hits with M193 and M855 5.56x45mm ball do more tissue damage, with lower survival rates.

Analysis of combat wounds suffered by US servicemen with 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and 7.62x54mmR rounds indicate that the 7.62x39mm generally produces the least damaging, most surviveable, most easily healed wounds of the group. The round doesn't normally fragment like the 5.56, it doesn't have the raw horsepower (including weight and length of bullet) of the 7.62x54mmR and 7.62x51mm rounds, and it isn't a particularly fast tumbler -- it tends to produce relatively minor (compared to other combat rifle rounds. . . ANY gunshot wound sucks and can be lethal) through and through wounds when it hits soft tissue.

Don't have the references in front of me right now, but I seem to recall that Fackler actually references the Real World (as opposed to sticking purely with Jello Warrior results) statistics on various caliber hits.

Geodkyt (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minimal recoil?

Its mentioned in the latter part of the article that this calibre has "minimal recoil" and that this is one of the reasons for popularity, but really having shot lots with this calibre, i wouldnt call the recoil minimal, especially if compared to 5,56 nato weapons, which actually have "minimal" or nonexistant recoil compared to 7,62x39 weapons which actually do have a recoil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting

Since I'm completey unsophisticated at wiki editing, could somebody add that: Sturm-Ruger made a limited run of bolt action hunting rifles for this cartridge. CZ (Ceska Zbrojovka) markets their CZ 527 carbine chambered for 7.62x39. Remington imports Zastava's mini Mauser as the Model 799 Bolt action rifle chambered for this cartridge.

References: http://www.303british.com/id47.html http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=15

I would like to add that actual field test(anecdotal)with a 98K Mauser rifle barrel in this caliber has made this my favorite deer rifle. I have taken hog and deer up to 200lb with it. A oblique shot entering below the last full rib completely liquefied the cardiac muscle of a hog. We use strictly HP bullets due to hunting regulations and have found it will even take dangerous game such at 10' plus alligators. Shooting on a range with a bolt action rifle has demonstrated to me that consistent shots are possible out to 300 yd. past this the bullet goes sub-sonic and its trajectory is greatly influenced by environmental factors. As a responsible hunter I would not attempt a shot under 150 yd. with this cartridge. I believe such a shot does not guaranty a clean kill. 209.251.128.98 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Militiary using

Though 7,62mm had been changed to 5,45mm, russian soldiers prefer to use 7,62mm automats in action, if they can, due to bigger ability of 7,62mm bullets. Military experts explain it by poor characteristics of 7H6 5,45mm cartridges, while new 7H10 cartridges doesn't arrive in army.Ходок (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

I'm going to attempt to change some of the wording to improve the grammar of the article. My goal is to improve the readability of the piece and not take any of the content away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7.62x39mm → Ammo (RPD machine gun) — Article name refers to an unknown , not a common term and , lacks notability. Article name fails "Recognizability" , " Specific-topic naming conventions " and does not respect wp:UCN#Common_names and Wp:UCN#Deciding_on_an_article_title -Paul 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose all ammunition follows the exact same pattern and a quick search produced a health supply of reliable sources. Besides, the suggested name isn't practical. This ammunition is used with a number of weapons, not just the RPD machine gun. -Labattblueboy (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Early close under WP:SNOW. The rename this reverses is ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ammo (RPD machine gun) → 7.62x39mm — Move discussion was closed and page was moved by an inexperienced editor. There was no consensus for a move and in fact the only !vote in the discussion was opposed to a move. Srleffler (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. Besides the reasons given in the discussion above, article titles should not be made ambiguous (and disambiguated with a phrase in brackets) when this is not necessary. The title could have been constructed to avoid this. Also, "Ammo" is too casual for a Wikipedia article title. "Ammunition" should be written out in full.--Srleffler (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given that this ammunition is used by far more than just the RPD it makes little sense calling the article "Ammo (RPD machine gun)". In addition "ammo" is unencyclopedic slang. The standard nomenclature for ammunition article names makes a lot more sense.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firearms

can sombody put a list of firearms that use the 7.62x39mm round at the bottom. Something similar to the list on the 7.62x54mmR page. I'm compileing a list of military firearms and common ammunition for a quick refrence and this would be extremly helpfull. thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7.62×39mm&oldid=451501725"