Does 7.62x39 make a decent hunting round?

Yeah

>>29730984
Yup

>>29731122
What about 5.45?

>>29730984
Is best round for hunting of capitalist pig.

>>29731148
A hiker killed a grizzly in Alaska, firing 13 rounds most of them missing.
>It appears two, maybe three, bullets hit the bear.

http://www.adn.com/article/20130731/another-hiker-shot-alaska-bear-dead-cue-pointless-debates

So, sure.

>>29731168
>headshot
Nice

>>29731148
I wouldn't, tht doesn't mean it won't

File: Foto 01.04.16 11 09 06.jpg (2MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1936x2592px

>>29730984
its a good round, and in my opinion the best all around SHTF round. As written in this article >>29731168 5.56 and 5.45 rounds are ment to wound a target. which is great on the battlefield. in a shtf situation a dead enemy is a better one.

But thats only my opinion.

>>29730984
7.62x39mm is a perfect hunting round. I mean, African poachers daily hunt elephants, rhinoceros, and gorillas with AK's.

>>29731279
>ment to wound
Fucking fudd.

>>29731303

but...you know....thats what it is intended to do.

>>29731279
>5.45 rounds are meant to wound a target. which is great on the battlefield. in a shtf situation a dead enemy is a better one.

>Quoted my post, and an article where a fucking grizzly was killed with "two or three" rounds as an argument for fuddlore.

Meant to wound my ass, anon.
While a single round might not drop a target, 2-3 is a very acceptable amount for incapacitation.
Especially a 900+ lb (thats 300+ kilos for you) wild animal.
>inb4 headshotting is infeasible or unrealistic

>>29731347
no. neither one was "designed" to wound. in fact, when 5.56 was first used in vietnam it had a nasty habit of ripping off limbs. 5.45 is known to yaw for massive wound cavities

>>29730984
It's roughly comparable to .30-30 in most situations. It's fine.

>>29731279
What the fuck do you Kraut know about guns anyway?

>>29731374

a little bit.

>>29731347
Well, when your choice is between a round meant to wound or a lethal rounds in a rifle that let's the enemy know when you're out of ammo, what to choose?

File: RussianWP_zps1d0e445c.jpg (133KB, 700x584px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 700x584px

>>29731168

This makes me wonder, what sort of 7.62x39 round would be most effective against a bear.

A regular FMJ might yaw too late to cause the maximum amount of tissue damage to a human, but the sheer size of a bear would take full advantage of it, and maximize the usefulness of its excellent penetration.

But those soft points tho...

>>29731396
>trusting your life to the ability of an FMJ round to destroy tissue
ill take the soft point
>>29731388
>arguing fuddlore with more fuddlore
you people are triggering my 'tism

>>29731396

desu guys....just buy a good sp round in 7.62x39 and you are good to go.

>>29731406
Biomechanical destruction comrade
Bear can't run with a broken shoulder so pump rounds into the shoulder area on a charging bear

File: maxresdefault.jpg (156KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1600x1200px

>>29731406
>take the soft point

See you might say that. But a grizzly bear running at you, on all fours, is going to be six feet long from snout to ass.

With that in mind, and judging by the wound profiles in that last pic, don't you think it's probable that you'd create a more expansive permanent wound cavity with a 7.62x39 FMJ over the soft point, in terms of sheer cubic centimeters of tissue damaged/displaced, due to the sheer extra distance traveled by the FMJ in tissue?

Not to mention that the extra penetrating power of the FMJ might be useful for more easily piercing the bear's skull. Though in all honesty I think the soft point would punch through a bear skull just as readily at the ranges one expects to ward off a bear attack.

>>29731431
>bears cant run on 3 legs
>bears arent known for brushing off bullet wounds to non-vital areas long enough to maul a person
>i can not only repeatedly hit what im aiming at in an extremely panicked state, i can put all of the rounds in a shoulder sized area of a charging bear in the ~3 seconds its going to take for it to maul me
weeeeeeeeeew lad. you seem like a nice guy but i think you need to reconsider your strategy.

>>29731368
>it had a nasty habit of ripping off limbs.
im going to need a fact check on that bit of lie

>>29730984
Rapid fire into Hogs or anything else you are not hunting for meat its perfect.

>>29731441
>With that in mind, and judging by the wound profiles in that last pic, don't you think it's probable that you'd create a more expansive permanent wound cavity with a 7.62x39 FMJ over the soft point, in terms of sheer cubic centimeters of tissue damaged/displaced, due to the sheer extra distance traveled by the FMJ in tissue?
you may be absolutely right, i dont know, but it doesnt matter because at that point if you dont put a bullet into the bears central nervous system and drop it instantly it may well maul you regardless. soft point to the head would be my choice
>>29731457
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
page 22
(2.) (C) "On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th nf Regt was
given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details
are as follows:
a. Number of VC killed: 5
b. Number of AR-oS's employed: 5
c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters
d. Type wounds:
1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
2. Stomach wound, which caused the abhlominal cavity to
explode.
3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both
buttocks.
4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic
cavity.
5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the
right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the
hip.

>>29731368
yeah and once an 5.56 went straight through 3!!!! tanks and disabled them all, and in 2 instances 3 round disabled vietnam gunboats


and once a dirty vietnamies shot off 3 UH-1s with 1!!!!!!! 5.56 round which richrocketed off a mountain

>>29731471
At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an
AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One
round in the head-took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took
it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole
about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed
the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would have caused
death.

(9.) (C) “On 13 April, 62, a Special Forces team made a raid on a small village. In the raid, seven VC were killed. Two were killed by AR-15 fire. Range was 50 meters. One man was hit in the head; it looked like it exploded. A second man was hit in the chest,; his back was one big hole.”

try not to be wrong next time you decide to be a smug asshole

>>29731538
I've heard stories of this shit before.
>Something along the lines of the m16 was issued in small quantities to spec ops dudes.
>They used them in various engagements with VC/NVA.
>Sent back reports with orders for as many of the fucking things they could get with suggestions on improvement.

>>29731538
Soooo I know why they changed to a faster rate of twist, but why doesn't anyone sell any barrels with the old extremely slow twist rate? I want my AR to blow up commies...

>>29731563
1:12 or 1:14?

Because there are a lot of old 1:12 barrels still around.

>>29731563
you could probably special order one if you really wanted but 5.45 basically does the same thing by design.

>>29731347
Please give your gun a blowjob.

>>29731279
>>29731350
I really don't get where these "meaning to wound" bullshit come from.
I believe these cartridges are all designed to drop a man. The wounded part is just a gimmick trick they deploy when old people can't imagine a lighter round would also kill. So that they don't have to prolong the conversation about terminal ballistic with those stubborn old fuck.
I'm sure the designing team was like:
"Ivan, people up there don't quite believe the new round we've been making. Saying it's smaller and lighter, saying it won't kill. How do I tell them to shut the fuck up?"
"The cartridge is fine. It will drop a man most of the time. Just tell them even if they don't, a wounded soldier is more detrimental than a dead one."
"Good idea, wanna go to lunch?"

File: 1371927267755.png (247KB, 760x572px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 760x572px

>>29731279
>5.56 and 5.45 rounds are ment to wound a target
How about I shoot you center mass with a few then? We will see how "wounded" you are going to be.

>>29731655
I honestly don't know, and don't think that I ever head it before my time on /k/. Since then I've seen it elsewhere online.

>>29731283
Their rifles' primary function is executing animals that are traped.
Didn't say much about the lethality of the rounds.

The bullet selection for .310 bullets is relatively sparse. You've got Barnaul soft point of somewhat dubious quality, Hornady's SST, and Corbon's all copper hunting load.

If you only have an CZ 527, AK, or SKS, sure, you could probably take CXP2 under 150m. I'd personally prefer just about any full powered 6mm or larger caliber for bullet selection alone.

>>29730984
Yeeha, it's in the ballpark of a .30-30, it should work well for medium game. With larger game you'd have to magdump or shit, so don't do that.

>>29731148
Depends on the game.
Though you can sort of kill a bear by magdumping when it comes to any of the typical intermediate cartridges.

If you use good ammo, 5.45 should take deer with reason.

>>29731279
>5.56 and 5.45 rounds are ment to wound a target
I fucking hate you.

>>29731441
>Not to mention that the extra penetrating power of the FMJ might be useful for more easily piercing the bear's skull.
Have you tried to shoot a bear in the head before? While it's charging you?
The front of his skull is sloped and assuming your bullet doesn't deflect (and 7.62x39mm seems like it'd be happy to do so), it has to make it past the sinus cavity, basically two layers of bone with a space between them before you can get into his gray matter.

Aim for his body, it's safer, you want a different angle and the element of surprise for a bear if you absolutely have to headshot him. And ideally a stronger cartridge, from a humane standpoint, at least .30-06 or a good shotgun slug

>>29731469
>causing the leg to spilt from the foot to the hip
Holy fuck.
>buttock wound
Was this when they were filming that forest Gump scene?

>>29731538
>>29731469
obvious fuddlore
>fivefivesix fuh huntin'? youll blow all the meat off!

>>29730984
It's pretty similar to 30-30, IIRC.

The soft tips would be great for hunting

>>29732795
It's better to use .22 because once it penetrates it bounces around inside the bear obliterating all of its internal organs. One cartridge is enough to kill anything that moves.

>>29731457
High velocity intermediate rounds do nasty shit, especially if using a fitting bullet.

The Russians use (or used) a bullet for the 5.45x39mm which had a mild steel core for, but also had a little hollow in the nose of the bullet with a vacuum in it, so it not only featured good penetration (at least from the full length rifles, the Krinks weren't as fanfastic), but it gave hollowpoint-like characteristics once it entered a target, limb shots would often ruin the limb entirely.

>>29730984
So long as it's legal to hunt with it where you are. Most big game in Wyoming is big enough and some people suck at shooting enough that Fish and Game outlawed it for big game hunting in the state.

>>29731396
The one with the most straight line penetration through thick hide, heavy bone and muscle

>>29731279
>>29731347
Greater wounds=easier killing

>>29731283
Ah yes poaching, where the only thing that matters is not damaging the one or two parts you wish to sell and therefore are allowed to may bump to you're hearts content.

Its an effective round, but that's a terrible example

>>29732393
>>29733034

While ballistically similar, keep in mind the .30-30 has roughly 150% of the mass of 7.63x39 traveling at the same velocity

File: 7.62 STRONK.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>29730984
>Does 7.62x39 make a decent hunting round?
I don't know, you tell me.

>>29734686
I'll admit, I never stopped to consider the mass.

>>29734834

It's not just you, man. The .30-30 is basically the Rodney Dangerfield of cartridges.

>>29731155
>Not taming of capitalist pig and hunting of truffles

>>29731567
IIRC, the 1:14 was what the twist rate used to be before the Air Force decided arctic testing was necessary. So yeah, one of those.

File: tmp_9039-Buffalo-Bore-30-30-Heavy-ammo-takes-down-.-.-.-a-buffalo.-courtesy-buffalobore.com_-1696098391.jpg (165KB, 823x544px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 823x544px

>>29734855
I was going to disagree with you, given the 30-30s reputation but...times are changing I suppose. Still plenty of love in the right place a though

File: 1454517131852.jpg (95KB, 680x989px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 680x989px

>>29731279
>5.56 and 5.45 rounds are meant to wound a target

>>29738806

My father would disown me, but I think the .30-30 was rendered obsolete when 7x57 and 7mm-08 arrived.

.30-06 and .308 can produce excessive recoil for young and older hunters, but the smaller .284 bullets offer only slightly reduced bullet weights from a .30-30 at higher velocities with a minimal increase in recoil.

Only downside I can think of is that outside of the BLR, I don't think anyone makes a lever action .284

>>29738847
They are. Fatally

>>29739145
Idk why everyone takes offence when something is called obsolete. Doesnt mean it's lost any of it's function. .243 is the go-to youth gun here most of the time but the 336 is still pretty popular. Honestly for the type of hunting so many people seem to do (chilling in a stand in front or a feeder on a pipeline) in my area I'm surprised anyone bothers with anything else. Probably has a lot to do with the availability and price of rifles combined with lever action fuddlore

File: HPIM1263_zps4f073b8c.jpg (109KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x598px

some bullets do ok

>>29734686
And that's before going with something like buffalo bore to make it even more