7.62x39 is similar to 30-30, so say many?

30-30 can be loaded with bullets of greater sectional density than 7.62x39, and will send them downrange at a higher velocity. 30/30 is hands down more powerful.

But I think that 7.62x39 would make a fine deer cartridge, sub 200 yards.

Digression...As you know, Ruger currently manufactures the M77 Compact with 16.5" barrel, chambered in 7.62x39. This barrel doesn't get every last bit of velocity out of this cartridge, and there is certainly more muzzle blast than a longer barrel.

If Ruger would make the Ultra-Lite with 20" barrel available in 7.62x39 I'd be the first one to buy it. Ruger actually made a limited run of M77's in 7.62x39 with the 20'' barrel years ago, but I can't find one at a semi-reasonable price.

you are correct that the 30-30 is loaded with bullet weights and designs much more in line with hunting needs while most 7.62x39 bullets are too light and usually FMJ....I have seen some 7.62x39 soft points but they were pretty light bullets still.

Now, the 30-30 today is loaded with higher quality smokeless powder than it was 100 years ago, so you get better performance. The 7.62x39 is very comparable to older 30-30 loads, except it is hindered by no good hunting bullets.

In theory, you could reload the 7.62x39 and get performance similar to, say, 1940's 30-30s...but why bother?

Now, if you are in the soviet union and 7.62x39s are all you have easy access to, then yea, it's different. Lots of people in outer mongolia hunt with SKSs

The Hogdon site lists 150 grain loads for the 7.62x39 at 2192 fps

The 30-30 was first known as the 30 WCF. It was originally loaded 30 with grains of the then new smokeless powder. It was not designed as a black powder cartridge.

The Hornaday LeverEvolution ammo for the 30-30 claims the following velocity / energy from a 24" barrel with a 160 grain.

Muzzle 2400/2046

100 yards 2150/1643

200 yards 1916/1304

300 yards 1699/1025

So, it maintains 1000 ft/lbs at 300 yards. I am not aware of any 7.62x39 loads that can do that.

30-30 Vs 7.62x39

7.62x39 Vs 30-30

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

7.62x39 is similar to 30-30, so say many?

I keep seeing this comparison come up. I understand why Ruger started this mess, since they were trying to sell their little carbine. But does anybody know a factory load with a bullet in the 165-170 grain range, or even a handload, that'll get it to 2000 fps? Especially from the...

Look over these ballistics charts for a comparison.....

Winchester 30/30.....

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/30_30_winc...

7.62x39MM Russian.....

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/762_39mm_r...

At 100 yards these cartridges are similar in energy.... At the muzzle you are correct - The 30/30 has more energy....

The Russians know a thing or two about cartridge design and the 7.62x39mm has great potential for accuracy. The round was pretty thoroughly investigated after it became commercially available here and, properly handloaded, proved suburbly accurate, yet somewhat wanting as a hunting round. It offers ballistics similar to the .30-30 Winchester when handloaded with a 150-grain bullet and is just as suitable for taking deer as the.30-30.

The standard 123-grain softpoint bullet as loaded by Winchester and others travels at 2,365 fps delivering 1,527 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle and should be suitable for small deer out to 100 yards or so. You're down to about 2,000 fps and 1,100 ft-lbs of energy at 100 yards, so if you subscribe to the theory you should deliver 1,000 ft-lbs on a deer for a clean kill, you'll see you're right at the ragged edge of performance using factory ammo.

Power aside, the big reason it never took off here is it uses .311" bullets rather than the .308" so common here, although suitable bullets are available from Hornady, Sierra and others. Ruger's Mini 30 used a .308" barrel with a long leade to reduce pressure and T/C offered .308" barrels for the Contender assuming their customers would handload. CZ offers the Model 527, a nifty little bolt-action rifle in 7.62x39 for a fairly reasonable $700...

We have so many good deer cartridges in guns of similar weight and handling characteristics, the 7.62x39 will probably never catch on here. When you hunt with a cartridge at the bottom edge of the performance scale, you need to pass on shots you might take with a more powerful cartridge like a .243 Winchester.

The 7.62x 39 is less powerful than the .30-30.

The 7.62x39 loaded with a 154 gr Spitzer SP @2,104 ft/s, develops 1,519 ft·lbf energy.

The .30-30 loaded with a 150 gr FN @2,390 ft/s develops 1,903 ft·lbf energy.

You can upload either to a degree, but the 7.62 will always come out on the short end.

Colter B, I don't know which round you were referring to, but neither is a black powder round and never has been.

Well lets look at the case size. The 30-30 of course is a more powerful and faster bullet than a shortened rifle case round. The 7.62x39 was never meant to be a long range round.

Its simple really.

John, I am not sure who is guilty of cherry picking here. It's all in the use of the English language, are they both a .30 caliber short range brush round, well yes. Are they similar, or are they comparable, it's like comparing black grapes to green ones. Some ballistics place them as comparable, no one ever, as far as I know, has said they are identical. We could start the same arguement about the 7.62 x54 being similar to the 30-06. There are loads that will not match.

All being said, I cannot blame you for standing up for our American made 30-30.