7.62X39

A

ADIDAS69

New member
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I thought I would share this image. This is the result of a proper OCW test done for a CZ527 chambered in 7.62X39. I have heard some folk claim that the cartridge is some how inherently inaccurate. the load is H4198 (26.5 grns), the bullet is 150 grn soft point (.312 diameter) and the primer is a CCI large rifle primer. The distance is 125 yards. The target dot is 1 inch in diameter. The rifle was on a lead sled. The shots were taken within 00:00:04 of each other starting from a cold clean bore.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CHARGE IS 2 FULL GRAINS ABOVE MAXIMUM RECOMENDATIONS FROM HODGDON. IN THE RIFLE I OWN PRESSURE SIGNS DID NOT MANIFEST TILL 27.2 GRNS AND EVEN THEN IT WAS THE TINIEST BIT OF PRIMER CRATERING. YOUR RIFLE MAY BE DIFFERENT, DO NOT USE MY LOAD DATA.
 
A

ADIDAS69

New member
also also

I forgot to mention all my reloads are mixed head stamp, I apologize I did not record which head stamps these were. was either Fiocchi or Prvi or Winchester based on the shells used that day.
 
A

ADIDAS69

New member
Hornady product number 3120. They're a little speedy but I waited till they went on sale and bought a couple thousand. They're worth it though. I'm taking the rifle out again to zero at 200 I'll try to remember my magneto speed and post some velocity data.
 
R

RC20

New member
Well that tells you what the Internet and opinions can be worth.

Damned nice by the way, if I could shoot that with my various 30 cal HB rifles I would think I had died and gotten away from Trump and his tweets!

That said, this business about inherently accurate or inaccurate is a lot of bull (IMNSHO)

I suppose you could deliberately design a cartridge with features that would make it perform poorly.

We do know now there are things you can do to help a cartridge work better.

Back in the day when 308 took over from 30-06, they made that claim. The difference was so narrow that only a match grade shooter could tell the difference.

7.69 Ruskie just got put in a poor quality barrel that they did not care.

Put it in the right twist and a good barrel and good loads and away you go.

A good 7.62 Russkie in the right barrel will outshoot a 6.5 Creed in a bad barrel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

zipspyder

Moderator
Nice group OP! The last group out of my 7.62x39 AR15 was about 1.75 MOA at 100 yards before I put it away for deer season. Don't get me wrong, that was my best group of the day so I quick put it away after that. :D
 
U

Unclenick

Staff
ADIDAS69,

Good job on that.

I agree that the inherent accuracy concept is flawed. It's a matter of what appropriate components are available, especially bullet quality, what impression the quality of available commercial ammo gives, what the barrel twist rate choices are, and, of course, how well the handloader can do his job. Some cartridges have just been more thoroughly explored than others, giving the impression they must be better (assumed crowd wisdom). The old belief that the .30-06 and .222 Remington would always be inherently more accurate than .308 Winchester and .223 Remington was premised entirely on neck length difference. The assumption was better alignment could be got from a long neck. Well, there are match bullets with bearing surfaces shorter than the neck lengths in any of those cartridges, so they won't benefit from neck length. Plus, today we have better dies and measuring tools than were available when those rounds were developed and lots more powder and bullet and primer and brass choices. So, no, it doesn't really hold up.

BTW, please use the board's mandatory warning wording for hot loads. I put it in for you, but you can read about it in this sticky at the top of the forum. Thanks.
 
A

armoredman

New member
Very nice, sir - my own CZ 527M is quite accurate, but I've never wrung it out on a lead sled to see just how accurate it can be. :) I will have to start looking at heavier slugs, too - the heaviest I use right now is the NOE 129 gr cast bullet.
Thank you for sharing, and again, very nice shooting, sir!
 
A

ADIDAS69

New member
So I promised a little follow up, I chronographed today using a magnetospeed and one of the new Doppler types. Both read the same. Average speed was 2285 with an SD of 11 FPS over 20 cartridges starting from a cold bore. I ran it out to 200 yards and my group did open up to about .9 MOA from the roughly .33 MOA. I’d needed for time’s sake to pepper the target with other sighters so I’ll try to remember to take a picture next time of just the 7.62X39
 
R

RC20

New member
I agree that the inherent accuracy concept is flawed. It's a matter of what appropriate components are available, especially bullet quality, what impression the quality of available commercial ammo gives, what the barrel twist rate choices are, and, of course, how well the handloader can do his job.
Click to expand...

I think it should be added, that the 7.62 x 39 was designed for and shot in the SKS and AK47. Even the old 7.62 x 54 was not a bad round accuracy wise (good enough for sniping to this day)

303 on average was nothing to write home about, put it in a select gun with the right tweaks and it was pretty good as well. All to do with the hardware.

No ones poster child for quality control on the assembled parts let alone they were semi and full auto weapons designed for an entirely different situation (lots of lead down range)

Put that same round in a modern well build highly controlled bolt action and its a whole different ball game.

I don't know of any lousy cartridges, there might be some, but any of the military rounds shot in a good gun (or in the case of the 1903 and 1917s) even in the real thing could be highly accurate.

the key of course to those two were they had very good quality control, the 1903s maybe a bit more so as they were virtually hand built though a good 1917 will out shoot a good 1903 (my opinion)

Put a 30-06 cartridge in a crappily built gun and it won't shoot for diddly no matter what you do.

I have a 7.5 Swiss K-31, so far I have not been able to get it to shoot. Bore is clean and tight, gun is in excellent shape, it simply won't shoot. That does not mean the K31 is a bad gun and the 7.5 is a very advanced cartridge for its day.

It obviously has a barrel aspect that I may or may not overcome.

Good hand loads in an SKS or AK are not likely to make a whole lot of difference. The gun parts are not there to make up the difference. there may be a rare one that does, just the odds agin it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top