marine6680
New member
Glad it helped.
9mm vs 7.62x39
- Thread starter keithdog
- Start date
tahunua001
New member
you've opened a can of worms. I've owned two AKMs, and will never own another, it took a while for that message to sink in. I just bought my second PCC, but don't get things twisted, I still own two other rifles chambered in 7.62x39: an SKS and an AR15.
here's some things I will note.
1. I have hunted with my AR15 chambered in 9mm. I harvested at 50 yards, but after examining the wound tract I determined that it would not be very effective past that. that was with 147gr handloads that I specifically tailored for weight retention and high velocity out of a carbine, which most of your off the shelf hollow point ammo most definitely is not. will it still hurt like hell if you accidentally shoot your buddy at 100 yard and possibly kill him? yes.
2. I regularly ping the oxygen tanks my range has posted at 200 yards with my 9mm carbine, but it takes a lot of practice to get my windage and holdover figured out.
3. pcc is nice because you only have to worry about bringing one caliber to the field for both a pistol and rifle, it's even better if your carbine takes the same mags as your pistol.
4. the AK, unless you are a master gunsmith, does not lend itself to precision shooting. I have seen guys make detailed write-ups on their .3" grouping AKs, but the amount on time, effort, and skill required to get the rifle to that point, and the fact that they hand to handpick the rifle to begin with suggests way more trouble than I am willing to invest in a firearm to make sure it does the job I want it too. also I will be burned at the proverbial stake for this but both of the AKs I owned suffered very real reliability issues, while none of my 5 ARs ever hiccuped.
5. the 7.62x39 round is not inherently accurate over range due to a relatively low velocity, the generally low ballistic coefficient found in most 123gr projectiles, and the low standards for QC found in most factory ammo. however given handloads, or more expensive factory ammo made to higher standards can overcome a lot of of the inconsistency which gives the x39 a bad rep and really let it shine at the up-to 200 yard range. the problem is that x39 is normally compared to other rifle cartridges and it's just not very flat shooting when compared to other intermediate cartridges like 5.56mm or other 30 calibers like 308. few people seriously consider 9mm at 200 yards because it's such an anemic round that at that range you can actually see the bullet in flight, it's velocity is so low.
now here's some questions for the OP, which have probably already been asked but I'm too lazy and half asleep to read the whole thread.
1. your concern is "causing harm". cause harm to what? deer? people? squirrels? paper bad guys? without knowing the desired requirement for the round, it's difficult to offer relevant or useful input.
2. why are you specifically considering the AK over other x39 offerings like the SKS, AR15, or even the plethora of bolt action rifles available like the Ruger American and m77, or the CZ 527?
3. your range does not allow rifle cartridges at all? that sounds extremely odd and a little bit like they have cut a lot of corners in the safety department. the most common restrictions you see at ranges are no 50 cals, and no ammo that a magnet can stick to. those are pretty hard for indoor ranges to cope with, but to deny all rifle cartridges, even intermediate cartridges sounds like they went cheap, and is probably not any place I would be willing to risk using.
4. you almost never reach beyond 25 yards, why are you worried about 200 yard shots? I ran into this same issue and had to seriously consider what I was demanding. I normally do not reach past the 200 yard "dingers" at my local range. while hunting, I usually won't even attempt to shoot at something past 300 unless I am desperate, have plenty of time to line up a shot, and they are standing perfectly still in the perfect angle. but when I was shopping for rifles, scopes, whatever, I would insist that it would have to be able to be effective out to 600 yards because that might be as close as I could get to an elk. I know I am not good enough to reliably hit the 550 yard gong at my range with sandbags and a bench underneath me, but I was operating under the delusion that if I saw a moving animal at 600 yards I would be able to hit it, freehand no problem. unless you regularly, and reliably can hit a target at 200 yards, I wouldn't worry too much about lethality at that range. just my .02 on the matter.
here's some things I will note.
1. I have hunted with my AR15 chambered in 9mm. I harvested at 50 yards, but after examining the wound tract I determined that it would not be very effective past that. that was with 147gr handloads that I specifically tailored for weight retention and high velocity out of a carbine, which most of your off the shelf hollow point ammo most definitely is not. will it still hurt like hell if you accidentally shoot your buddy at 100 yard and possibly kill him? yes.
2. I regularly ping the oxygen tanks my range has posted at 200 yards with my 9mm carbine, but it takes a lot of practice to get my windage and holdover figured out.
3. pcc is nice because you only have to worry about bringing one caliber to the field for both a pistol and rifle, it's even better if your carbine takes the same mags as your pistol.
4. the AK, unless you are a master gunsmith, does not lend itself to precision shooting. I have seen guys make detailed write-ups on their .3" grouping AKs, but the amount on time, effort, and skill required to get the rifle to that point, and the fact that they hand to handpick the rifle to begin with suggests way more trouble than I am willing to invest in a firearm to make sure it does the job I want it too. also I will be burned at the proverbial stake for this but both of the AKs I owned suffered very real reliability issues, while none of my 5 ARs ever hiccuped.
5. the 7.62x39 round is not inherently accurate over range due to a relatively low velocity, the generally low ballistic coefficient found in most 123gr projectiles, and the low standards for QC found in most factory ammo. however given handloads, or more expensive factory ammo made to higher standards can overcome a lot of of the inconsistency which gives the x39 a bad rep and really let it shine at the up-to 200 yard range. the problem is that x39 is normally compared to other rifle cartridges and it's just not very flat shooting when compared to other intermediate cartridges like 5.56mm or other 30 calibers like 308. few people seriously consider 9mm at 200 yards because it's such an anemic round that at that range you can actually see the bullet in flight, it's velocity is so low.
now here's some questions for the OP, which have probably already been asked but I'm too lazy and half asleep to read the whole thread.
1. your concern is "causing harm". cause harm to what? deer? people? squirrels? paper bad guys? without knowing the desired requirement for the round, it's difficult to offer relevant or useful input.
2. why are you specifically considering the AK over other x39 offerings like the SKS, AR15, or even the plethora of bolt action rifles available like the Ruger American and m77, or the CZ 527?
3. your range does not allow rifle cartridges at all? that sounds extremely odd and a little bit like they have cut a lot of corners in the safety department. the most common restrictions you see at ranges are no 50 cals, and no ammo that a magnet can stick to. those are pretty hard for indoor ranges to cope with, but to deny all rifle cartridges, even intermediate cartridges sounds like they went cheap, and is probably not any place I would be willing to risk using.
4. you almost never reach beyond 25 yards, why are you worried about 200 yard shots? I ran into this same issue and had to seriously consider what I was demanding. I normally do not reach past the 200 yard "dingers" at my local range. while hunting, I usually won't even attempt to shoot at something past 300 unless I am desperate, have plenty of time to line up a shot, and they are standing perfectly still in the perfect angle. but when I was shopping for rifles, scopes, whatever, I would insist that it would have to be able to be effective out to 600 yards because that might be as close as I could get to an elk. I know I am not good enough to reliably hit the 550 yard gong at my range with sandbags and a bench underneath me, but I was operating under the delusion that if I saw a moving animal at 600 yards I would be able to hit it, freehand no problem. unless you regularly, and reliably can hit a target at 200 yards, I wouldn't worry too much about lethality at that range. just my .02 on the matter.
marine6680
New member
The AR chambered in x39 can be finicky to get to run with good reliability. The mag well isn't designed for a highly tapered round.
The ones that take AK mags are hit and miss with reliability as well.
Some people have very good luck with them though.
My personal choice of defensive use caliber is 5.56/223. There are some very effective rounds for this caliber that work out to several hundred yards. There are some that are particularly effective inside 100yds. Even true m193 spec ammo is effective inside 150yds from a carbine.
From reports on the 5.45x39, it may be more effective than 5.56 out to a few hundred yards. The problem is that the effective and cheap ammo is no longer imported.
The ones that take AK mags are hit and miss with reliability as well.
Some people have very good luck with them though.
My personal choice of defensive use caliber is 5.56/223. There are some very effective rounds for this caliber that work out to several hundred yards. There are some that are particularly effective inside 100yds. Even true m193 spec ammo is effective inside 150yds from a carbine.
From reports on the 5.45x39, it may be more effective than 5.56 out to a few hundred yards. The problem is that the effective and cheap ammo is no longer imported.
If you seriously are considering using a 9 mm pistol caliber carbine at 200 yards or greater you should have a look at this diagram:
http://www.mcarbo.com/9mm-trajectory-chart-vs-40-s-w-trajectory-chart.aspx
This blue line shows the ballistic path for a 115 grain, 9 mm Luger shot from a Keltec sub-2000 PCC with a 16" barrel, but the new Ruger PC9 has the same barrel length.
Note that at 200 yards you are dealing with a drop of almost 55" and the projectile is dropping like the proverbial rock. By the time it goes another 20 yards, it has dropped by more than an additional 10". The projectile is also going to be going so slowly by that point that wind will have a much greater effect than it would for any rifle cartridge.
So even if the projectile still has sufficient velocity to be effective from a terminal ballistic standpoint (which is a big "if"), in order to get effective hits not only are you going to have to deal with a hold over of several feet, you are also going to need to have some means by which to range your target accurately. If you estimate your range as 200 yards and are off (under) by 10%, you will miss about a foot low.
And 300 yards? Fuheddaboudit.
http://www.mcarbo.com/9mm-trajectory-chart-vs-40-s-w-trajectory-chart.aspx
This blue line shows the ballistic path for a 115 grain, 9 mm Luger shot from a Keltec sub-2000 PCC with a 16" barrel, but the new Ruger PC9 has the same barrel length.
Note that at 200 yards you are dealing with a drop of almost 55" and the projectile is dropping like the proverbial rock. By the time it goes another 20 yards, it has dropped by more than an additional 10". The projectile is also going to be going so slowly by that point that wind will have a much greater effect than it would for any rifle cartridge.
So even if the projectile still has sufficient velocity to be effective from a terminal ballistic standpoint (which is a big "if"), in order to get effective hits not only are you going to have to deal with a hold over of several feet, you are also going to need to have some means by which to range your target accurately. If you estimate your range as 200 yards and are off (under) by 10%, you will miss about a foot low.
And 300 yards? Fuheddaboudit.
I don't know what to do now. I don't like the AR because as a prepper gun, I don't want to worry about having a whole bunch of bs set aside like replacement pins and o rings and yadda yadda yadda. That's probably nonsense. I had an ar that was great. I wish I never got rid of it. It's because I got rid of it that I want another long gun. I like the 9mm I have now because, well, because I do. Nuff said. But ya, I want a semi auto shtf gun that will work and work and work. Since I don't want the bigger, heavier, louder, harder to shoot rounds like .308 or 6.5, too expensive, and I just won't accept spending lots of money on a rifle right now, I find myself automatically drawn to the only semi auto rifle's I think fit the bill of what I want.
1. must be semi auto
2. must be reliable and rugged
3. ammo must be cheap
4. mags must also be cheap- or if I went SKS, I'd want one of those 20 round fixed that I can feed with stripper clips. They work, from what I hear, but good luck getting your hands on one for a fair price.
Keep in mind that where I live near Chicago, there is not much room for long range firing. Corn fields and soyfields aplenty, if I really wanted to travel from home, but where I live it's just houses and woods. 50 yard shots. 100 yard shots. maybe 200, though if the SHTF it is my thought that I will flee from threats rather than engage, if at all practical. I just want to be able to fire ostensibly out to 300 yards or so. So idk, guys.
I want a gun that doesn't exist. I want to fling .223 out of an AK with a 20" barrel and not have to worry about the mags working. I suppose I could get there, but I won't pay the price for that. At the point I get that stuff all together, I may as well have gotten a tarvor or a full blown battle rifle for the price I'll pay.
So, then, AKM in 5.45? Maybe. In 7.62? Maybe I should just get an sks, then, and run the tapco mags through it. I know they're not ideal, but that seems the best compromise. I know any gun I get that fires rifle rounds will be decent enough for the close ranges where I live, I just am afraid to "pull the trigger" because I don't want to be neck deep in rifles and the one I get will be the last one I get for a while, ya feel me?
1. must be semi auto
2. must be reliable and rugged
3. ammo must be cheap
4. mags must also be cheap- or if I went SKS, I'd want one of those 20 round fixed that I can feed with stripper clips. They work, from what I hear, but good luck getting your hands on one for a fair price.
Keep in mind that where I live near Chicago, there is not much room for long range firing. Corn fields and soyfields aplenty, if I really wanted to travel from home, but where I live it's just houses and woods. 50 yard shots. 100 yard shots. maybe 200, though if the SHTF it is my thought that I will flee from threats rather than engage, if at all practical. I just want to be able to fire ostensibly out to 300 yards or so. So idk, guys.
I want a gun that doesn't exist. I want to fling .223 out of an AK with a 20" barrel and not have to worry about the mags working. I suppose I could get there, but I won't pay the price for that. At the point I get that stuff all together, I may as well have gotten a tarvor or a full blown battle rifle for the price I'll pay.
So, then, AKM in 5.45? Maybe. In 7.62? Maybe I should just get an sks, then, and run the tapco mags through it. I know they're not ideal, but that seems the best compromise. I know any gun I get that fires rifle rounds will be decent enough for the close ranges where I live, I just am afraid to "pull the trigger" because I don't want to be neck deep in rifles and the one I get will be the last one I get for a while, ya feel me?
I'm always well enough pleased with minute-of-man accuracy btw. If you're not, that's fine, I respect your feelings. I don't feel it super likely I'll need a SHTF gun and I'm more interested in having ANYTHING acceptable for the event. the 7.62 seems a good compromise and the AK seems a solid choice for a man who isn't backed up by the US military and it's vast web of support and supplies. Then again, I'm a fool and I make poor choices.
I certainly do not meaning to sound condescending, just reflecting on what has been posted. Also, those claiming "AK's can't do better than 6" groups at a hundred" are either very poor shooters, or are shooting very poor quality rifles or builds with shot-out barrels. Reference above my statement about my Saiga, which was made on the same line using the same barrel as a modern AK-103. It's ~2.5 MOA dispersion mean it is quite capable of shooting ~2.5" groups at 100 yards.
You are confusing bullet drop with accuracy. All bullets eventually drop due to gravity. They can still be accurate. The bullet drop of 7.62x39mm becomes pretty severe beyond 300 meters as it runs out of energy. 9x19mm even more so. I disagree with T O Heir' s statement that the AK is too inaccurate to shoot beyond 200 yards. Even conscripts were trained to shoot beyond that.
Dude. You dont need boxes of spare parts for a basic AR. With a COUPLE of small parts stored in the pistol grip, an AR can run damn near forever.
The whole AR’s are not worthy of a SHTF gun is a load of crap. Look at the HUGE numbers of M4 rifles that are beat to crap EVERYDAY overseas. My issued M4 was thrown around the back of a Suburban everyday and drug around northern Iraq for 7years straight. Shot at least 2x a month in training plus 4 quals a year. NEVER a hiccup or broken part.
Honesty, that is nonsense. As a "prepper gun" an AR makes as much sense as anything. AR parts and 5.56x45mm ammo are much more common in the US than AK parts (which are not 100% standardized, and can vary depending on country of manufacture) and 7.62x39mm ammo.
The only o-ring you might find on an AR is a Crane extractor o-ring, and the rifle will run fine without this (most ARs don't even have them). The gas rings on an AR bolt typically last tens of thousands of rounds (or more), so that will never be an issue in a survival/"prepper" situation. There are no pins that are wear items on an AR, other than the possibility of a firing pin breaking, but this can happen on an AK as well.
The AK is not some mythological beast. It is a rifle that requires cleaning, maintenance, and lubrication, just like every other rifle.
stagpanther
New member
+++1 ^^^
These days, you can buy a quality AR for less than a decent AK. About the only spare part I keep for my ARs is a spare firing pin retaining pin (cotter pin) that costs about a dollar. If you are really paranoid, you could keep a spare bolt carrier group around.
In my admittedly somewhat limited experience, ARs shooting decent 5.56x45 ammunition are a bit more accurate than AKs shooting decent 7.62x39 ammo, but when comparing quality rifles, the difference is not that huge inside of 300 yards. The problem with evaluating relative accuracy is that accuracy depends not only on the rifle but the shooter and the ammunition. And a lot of 7.62 ammo is somewhat less than decent, insofar as accuracy is concerned.
The open sights on the AR also tend to allow for more accurate shooting by most than the open sights on the AK do. Many ARs will shoot 2 MOA or better with good ammo and a decent optic. I have heard of some AKMs shooting sub 2 MOA groups, but 3-4 MOA seems somewhat more common. Of course, some rifles do better and some do worse.
AKMs seem to do well generally with steel-case ammo. Many ARs do so as well, but some do not, so ammunition costs may be a bit less for AKMs, at least as far as practice ammo is concerned. Quality self-defense ammo is going to be pricey for either.
I would not describe modern ARs as being "finicky". They may be slightly less tolerant of absolute abuse than AKMs, but generally speaking they are reliable when used with decent ammunition.
In my admittedly somewhat limited experience, ARs shooting decent 5.56x45 ammunition are a bit more accurate than AKs shooting decent 7.62x39 ammo, but when comparing quality rifles, the difference is not that huge inside of 300 yards. The problem with evaluating relative accuracy is that accuracy depends not only on the rifle but the shooter and the ammunition. And a lot of 7.62 ammo is somewhat less than decent, insofar as accuracy is concerned.
The open sights on the AR also tend to allow for more accurate shooting by most than the open sights on the AK do. Many ARs will shoot 2 MOA or better with good ammo and a decent optic. I have heard of some AKMs shooting sub 2 MOA groups, but 3-4 MOA seems somewhat more common. Of course, some rifles do better and some do worse.
AKMs seem to do well generally with steel-case ammo. Many ARs do so as well, but some do not, so ammunition costs may be a bit less for AKMs, at least as far as practice ammo is concerned. Quality self-defense ammo is going to be pricey for either.
I would not describe modern ARs as being "finicky". They may be slightly less tolerant of absolute abuse than AKMs, but generally speaking they are reliable when used with decent ammunition.
marine6680
New member
Before you get an AK, watch the 5000rd tests from AK Operators Union on YouTube.
Not many make it through their tests without at least minor issues, if not serious issues. Problems with the bolt lockup that lead to the head space becoming dangerously out of spec was not uncommon.
If you want an AK that is EOTWAWKI ready... You will be spending at least $1000 on it. Generally the ones made in certain (not all) former Soviet Bloc countries will be the most rugged and reliable. All of the rifles that are imported must go through a conversion process to get them into the familiar AK configuration. Russian made rifles are not available new any longer either.
A rifle that did make it through the 5000rd testing without any issues, and was still going strong... A PSA Freedom line AR.
So there is the rub... A well made basic AR can be had for $500 (current on sale price of the PSA Freedom models) That will last through any amount of ammo you would reasonably expect to ever be able to put through it in a true EOTW scenario.
If you really want to put 5.56 through an AK... Get a Galil. Well made rifles from my understanding. They are at their heart just a reskinned AK.
As far as spare parts... Small parts on an AK can break just as easily as on any other rifle. A few basic small parts and springs is always a good idea is prepping on a goal. And AK parts are harder to come by, at least ones that work in a particular rifle... No set standard exists between the manufacturers.
For an AR, a minimum list of spare parts would be an extra firing pin, a few firing pin retaining pins, a few gas rings, an extractor and extractor spring, and a cam pin. On a quality made rifle, these are not likely to be an issue, but things happen.
Some like to keep an extra bolt (not a full BCG) on hand, for the unlikely event of a broken locking lug or the bolt breaking at the Cam pin hole. A well made milspec bolt isn't likely to fail early in a semi auto rifle though. There are enhanced BCGs for the really paranoid.
The buffer spring should be replaced after 5000rds or so for optimal performance, but it will keep running for much longwr, so it isn't likely going to be an issue in a EOTW situation.
Not many make it through their tests without at least minor issues, if not serious issues. Problems with the bolt lockup that lead to the head space becoming dangerously out of spec was not uncommon.
If you want an AK that is EOTWAWKI ready... You will be spending at least $1000 on it. Generally the ones made in certain (not all) former Soviet Bloc countries will be the most rugged and reliable. All of the rifles that are imported must go through a conversion process to get them into the familiar AK configuration. Russian made rifles are not available new any longer either.
A rifle that did make it through the 5000rd testing without any issues, and was still going strong... A PSA Freedom line AR.
So there is the rub... A well made basic AR can be had for $500 (current on sale price of the PSA Freedom models) That will last through any amount of ammo you would reasonably expect to ever be able to put through it in a true EOTW scenario.
If you really want to put 5.56 through an AK... Get a Galil. Well made rifles from my understanding. They are at their heart just a reskinned AK.
As far as spare parts... Small parts on an AK can break just as easily as on any other rifle. A few basic small parts and springs is always a good idea is prepping on a goal. And AK parts are harder to come by, at least ones that work in a particular rifle... No set standard exists between the manufacturers.
For an AR, a minimum list of spare parts would be an extra firing pin, a few firing pin retaining pins, a few gas rings, an extractor and extractor spring, and a cam pin. On a quality made rifle, these are not likely to be an issue, but things happen.
Some like to keep an extra bolt (not a full BCG) on hand, for the unlikely event of a broken locking lug or the bolt breaking at the Cam pin hole. A well made milspec bolt isn't likely to fail early in a semi auto rifle though. There are enhanced BCGs for the really paranoid.
The buffer spring should be replaced after 5000rds or so for optimal performance, but it will keep running for much longwr, so it isn't likely going to be an issue in a EOTW situation.
Last edited:
Fine fine fine! You guys have sold me! At least on the viability of the AR platform for my purposes. It DOES meet the most important requirements. PMags are cheap as all get out and they work very well, and basic 55grain or even half decent hollow points aren't THAT expensive for it. I'm very much considering the 20 inch AR, then. A guy in town builds them. Warrior Arms. He built my first AR and it ate steel case the way my hi point carbine does- without so much as a hiccup. I don't want the steel case, though. Unless I get AKM (or SKS). Which I still kind of want. I know the argument "The AR just doesn't feel right" is not a particularly valued one in the realm of self defense, but the feeling is still there, and I'm still listening to it- no need to chastise me for it- that never worked for my parents, I'm sure it won't work for any of you, lol.
Thanks guys.
Thanks guys.
stagpanther
New member
That 7.62 x 25 tokarev soviet tanker's machine pistol was one of the coolest guns I've fired since sliced bread.
Seriously--if you like the idea of soviet ammo but want better accuracy--an AR47 will make you quite happy.
Seriously--if you like the idea of soviet ammo but want better accuracy--an AR47 will make you quite happy.
Marine- The wasr 10 performed very admirably for the AKOU. That's a very inexpensive gun. I don't want to contradict your point (it was solid), but still, it's true. They come with enhanced triggers and chrome lined barrels, which I'm a fan of. Quality mags are as cheap as quality ar mags.
Whatever I get, it will probably serve me equally well in the hopefully unlikely event.
AK isn't wrong. AR isn't wrong. Neither one is right, but I'm torn between them and that great compromise known as the SKS.
Whatever I get, it will probably serve me equally well in the hopefully unlikely event.
AK isn't wrong. AR isn't wrong. Neither one is right, but I'm torn between them and that great compromise known as the SKS.
BTW- what y'all think of my close range option that I keep talking about? Looks cool, right? It is pretty fantastically capable at close range. I just don't believe that it's not. This is my go to for inside the home defense if SHTF. Based on all of your advice, gents, it would seem that if I want something for outside the home that provides significantly greater range (ie something that puts much tighter groups on paper at 2-300) I am much better off going AR than AK.
Attachments
Bill DeShivs
New member
Simple-get both.
If you get 2 of each, you don't even need spare parts!
If you get 2 of each, you don't even need spare parts!