>>28664155 It's a very early intermediate cartridge. The bullet is heavy which is the nicest and worst thing about it. On the plus side. >Good barrier penetration. >Depending on payload can really fuck up someone's day, especially with softpoints. >Good deer cartridge. On the downside. >Not as light recoiling as 5.56 or 5.45. >Can't carry as much ammo. >Ballistics of a thrown rock, very steady but has a significant arc past 200-300m.
Russia is very conflicted. It was technically replaced when the AK-74 was adopted but in practice they have not only continued to use it but adopt new weapons in 7.62x39. It functionally mimics a battle rifle at close range. They love it for close quarters when they have to rip shit up, but prefer 5.45 for long foot patrols and outdoor firefights. Technically 9x39mm should have taken over the dedicated CQB role, but 7.62 still bridges the gap very well.
>>28664189 >Good barrier penetration. >Depending on payload can really fuck up someone's day, especially with softpoints. >Not as light recoiling as 5.56 or 5.45. >Can't carry as much ammo. >Ballistics of a thrown rock, very steady but has a significant arc past 200-300m.
It's a fitting round for Finland's conditions. Rarely will you engage an enemy past 200 metres in a forest.
>perfect CQB round >cheaper then dirt >non-meme 300BLK >first widely available and still most popular intermediate rifle round >widely available subsonic loads >soft or hollow point for shooting people and animals also available >obsolete Lolno
>>28666243 Not so. The thing that keeps fast things moving and subsequently traveling farther is inertia. In lay-man terms, heavier objects moving at some speed will want to maintain their trajectory, this means that heavier bullets will be less influenced by factors like air resistance and wind and will travel a farther distance. They will have more energy to dispel over a greater distance than a smaller bullet travelling at the same speed.
>>28666285 There is no such thing as 'preservation of inertia'. Objects with higher mass have higher inertia as inertia is a property of massive objects. This inertia is the objects resistance to a change in motion; thus the more massive an object, the more resistance it offers to a change in motion. So if you compare two bullets, traveling at the same velocity, one more massive than the other, the more massive one will travel further as it will be less affected by non-conservative forces.
OP no, its not obsolete. There's probably vagillions of these rounds floating around, with more produced every year. It's old and outclassed by newer shit, but not only does it have the benefit of being cheap and already heavily proliferated, but its also a good combat round.
People will be using it until something newer becomes the mass production sweetheart and slowly phases the old 7.62x39 out. Looks like 5.56 may be a contender for this, but its going to take a long time and countries would still have to have tons of it in stockpile to sell off to poorfags.
The point i was trying to make is that the lighter grain bullet gets knocked around more in flight to the target than a heavier round, and the fact that its next to impossible to hit something 800 meters away with 7.62x39, but not outside the realm of possibility with 5.56×45.
>>28664132 >Rewind to last June >Just got muh WASR >Load it up with RAS 7.62x39 I had been building up >Start plugging an old pickup box bed we have set up >Dump a few mags >Go to check out the damage >Entry side looks as expected >Exit side ripped open way more than I expected
Not obsolete in the slightest.
>BUT IT CAN'T REACH OUT PAST XYZ YARDS
Then you need to learn ambush tactics, obviously.
>>28666789 >. Looks like 5.56 may be a contender for this
I seriously fucking doubt it at this point. 5.56x45 has been around for long enough that it would have established its dominance if it were supposed to.
5.56 may beat 7.62x39 at long range, but not in close range.
Does anyone know what versions of the 7.62x39mm that Russia is producing now? In terms of obsolesence, I would say the biggest problem for this venerable round is its low velocity and hence poor performance against body armor, even with proper hardened steel core bullets. In fact, unlike the 5.45x39 or 7.62x54mmR cartridges, I don't think there has ever been a Tungsten core version of the 7.62x39mm. I guess because it's simply too low velocity to make use of the expensive metal.
Is Russia or any one else making any new variants of this round for new battlefields?
I like 7.62x 39 for its reliable design ( dat taper ) and out of the AK it has better barrier penetration , more energy transfered and with golden tiger it will tumble and shatter shit in its way. Also won't tumble if a little leaf touches it.
It has shit range and it's heavier compared to the 5.56.
It's all , and like every fucking gun or munition it's up to your taste and what scenario your lookong at. 2-300 yards , thick barrier , jungle or Forrest the 7.62x39 works damn well but over open space 5.56 works better.
>>28666285 >>28666316 >>28666348 >>28666367 >>28666633 >>28666810 Y'all are sperging out on the wrong autismo-point. Literally the only important non-conserved force acting on a bullet in flight is wind pressure/air friction. Gravity effects are proportional, giving advantage to the faster bullet (regardless of mass).
It just so happens most available options for 7.62x39 has shitastic sectional density and BC, while many 5.56x45 options are fairly good, and some quite great. Hence: >the fact that its next to impossible to hit something 800 meters away with 7.62x39, but not outside the realm of possibility with 5.56×45.
tl'dr, long range performance is about marrying the highest practical velocity with the highest practical BC. Mass is a tertiary factor only because of it limiting velocity and potentially improving sectional density and consequently BC.
>>28668050 Exactly. Most 6.5CM loads retain more energy at long range than most .308win loads, despite .308 typically having more mass and higher muzzle energy. Energy at range is about minimizing friction losses, not about inertia.
Note that 5.45x39 has an even more efficient bullet shape than 5.56x45. If only the civilian sporting market would pick up on that, it could be quite the spectacular cartridge. Those two cartridges are straddling a line divided between case capacity vs bullet efficiency.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.