7.62 x 39 vs. 223 - Page 2

Unlicensed Dremel · September 27, 2014, 03:59 PM

You are correct - the x39 is materially-preferable to a .223 of any sort, for anything bigger than a coyote/beaver, terminally-speaking wise. But both are adequate with proper bullet selection matched to proper bullet placement matched to appropriate range, IMO.

Roadkill2228 · October 1, 2014, 03:22 PM

That's a fun looking gun armedman! I imagine it saves money on ammo too (you can't use it all up as fast as the sks - I used to have an sks till I ran out of ammo which didn't take long...I debated getting more but all I ever used that gun for was plonking and the .22 is still much cheaper and safer, so I sold it)

bamaranger · October 2, 2014, 04:28 AM

We will see more of this as the AR continues to grow in popularity and use on all fronts. My own experience with both calibers is out of bolt rifles though.

My stance it that the .223 is a tad light for deer...particularly if no attention is paid to the type of ammo used. The caliber is at its best on deer with the heavier, controlled expansion/bonded slugs. Those cost the most. What will Bubba use........you tell me?

Bamaboy took his first two whitetails with a bolt .223 and bonded ammo. He was well prepared and closely coached, under ideal conditions. Both deer got very dead, were well hit/double lunged. Both went about 50-75 yds. Range was 75 and 35 yds respectively. We got an exit on one, not the other. The non exit instance yielded zero blood trail. We recovered both. But we moved to an x39 rifle, then a .243, pretty quickly.

The .223's flatter trajectory makes hits easier past 150, but I believe the energy and penetration is just not there with the smaller caliber. An interesting test would be ballistic gel at each calibers respective 150 yd or so velocity.

One of my favorite deer rigs for long walks in, in thick cover, is a dandy little x39 bolt. I figure 30-30 power, in a tidy bolt rifle with excellent trigger and good glass, that likely weighs less than a lever gun.

Nobody questions that the old .30-30 was a good deer cartridge. The x39 is close at the old levergun calibers heels, if not its near equal with respective barrel lengths. If you asked which.....30-30 or .223, how would the answers return?

Brotherbadger · October 2, 2014, 07:13 AM

I'd take the x39 over a .223. However, I'll take a 300 BLK over a x39. Stealthy little SBR? Yes please.

lefteye · October 2, 2014, 03:52 PM

Re: Post No. 21

Iowa's January rifle season for antlerless deer in the southern tier of counties has been eliminated.

WV_gunner · October 3, 2014, 10:46 AM

I'd use a 7.62x39, but there's other options. Either one will work. With a good shot with deer doesn't matter what caliber it is. Some might argue that it's inhumane to use small calibers, why? Yes they can run a good distance but unless you're literally using a cannon they can run a few hundred yards shot in the heart and lungs, or head. I've seen it several times. Around here it's quite popular to hunt with .22lr at night (illegal several ways) but many get several deer doing this. I don't recommend it but it's doable.
After all, with help, David killed Goliath with a slingshot. A deer can be killed with a .223.

Gunplummer · October 3, 2014, 05:11 PM

I noticed a couple posts about "The only gun you have" type situations. You older guys can remember when this was common. That is where the surplus guns really came in. That was a big pitch for reloading: use your deer rifle for ground hogs and small game just by reloading. It is hard for the younger generations to grasp how it was years back. Many a guy had only one rifle, and usually it was passed down. Heck, I tell kidds that the TV used to go off the air at around 11:00 PM and they look at me as if I am from another planet.

TimSr · October 7, 2014, 10:30 AM

Gunplummer, when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's the most popular cheap surplus rifles were 7x57 or 8mm Mausers, or old 30.06 Enfields and all were very suitable deer cartridges. I don't remember the SKS's popping up until the 80's which nobody really considered a deer gun until 150gr expanding tip ammo became available later on down the road after the handloaders figured out they could duplicate 30-30 150gr loads.

Gunplummer · October 7, 2014, 03:04 PM

Don't know where you are going with that, but I would say the most popular surplus deer guns in my area were the .303 British, 30-40 Krag, and the 03'. The 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 were almost unheard of because of the import restrictions at the time.

Puma prepper · October 7, 2014, 06:37 PM

I really like the 7.62x39 ... I have had both and the 7.62x39 had alot more power, even the cheap stuff.

Snyper · October 10, 2014, 09:00 PM

Quote:

I also think it's interesting that we are still in the grips of a great recession ourselves which at it's peak was actually more crippling than the great depression ever was. money is tight for everyone just as it was during the depression. we say it was ok for them to do it out of desperation in the 20s-50s, but we don't have that excuse now because of foodstamps and credit cards, and better bullet options?

They were doing it from "desperation"
People today are doing it for fun, while filming it on their "smartphones" and posting the pictures on "social media" with their high speed wi-fi internet.

armoredman · October 11, 2014, 01:23 PM

The Great Depression was prior to welfare and the "war on poverty". If you had no job, you didn't eat, so you worked or became a criminal if you had no other way to feed your family. Hunting would feed your family and give pelts that could be sold or traded, I would have to assume, looking back from this time.
Nowadays the thug life can live fat and easy on multiple taxpayer funded programs, leaving them only needing to thug out for drugs and fun. Free phones, medical care, food, drugs, (welfare required free medical marijuana in Berkeley, California), etc., all funded by taxpayers, programs that never existed in the Great Depression.

Dirty_Harry · October 13, 2014, 03:46 PM

Any deer I see in Michigan, I would have no problem shooting with a .223/5.56. I know how well I shoot my AR-15. If I fill my tag with my Marlin .35, I might take my 20" AR15 and try to collect.

Bella · October 13, 2014, 06:11 PM

I guess trying to kill a deer with a .223 would be as silly as trying to kill an elephant with a 7mm Mauser?

tahunua001 · October 13, 2014, 09:55 PM

Quote:

They were doing it from "desperation"
People today are doing it for fun, while filming it on their "smartphones" and posting the pictures on "social media" with their high speed wi-fi internet.

so you're saying that there is not one person in the US that fits the description of a person that would hunt out of desperation? who does not have a smart phone? who does not belong to social media websites? I actually have had conversations with several individuals this week who fit at least one of those descriptions. we like to categorize people based on our observations of a few key individuals but there is more than way to skin a cat. wifi hotspots are plentiful, a member of this forum may not necessarily be checking from their home, they may be checking their email from the library, I functioned that way for several months when I first moved out this way, using the library internet to check email and such.

it is actually cheaper for me to own a smart phone than it is a dumbphone, that's how our cellular carriers are moving, to get rid of legacy plans and services they make it more expensive to continue to use them. other people are issued a smartphone for work.

Quote:

The Great Depression was prior to welfare and the "war on poverty".

welfare was founded during the great depression.

Quote:

Nowadays the thug life can live fat and easy on multiple taxpayer funded programs, leaving them only needing to thug out for drugs and fun

what on earth are you talking about? I feel like this is slipping away from gun related conversation and towards the realm of politics and social commentary. I am talking about people legally hunting out of financial necessity, as in, you live pay check to paycheck and you can either spend $100 on store meat for the family for a month, or $20 to hunt and get the same amount of meat.

849ACSO · October 13, 2014, 10:43 PM

Just my 2 cents.

I am an LEO, and have access to as much 223 brass as I can carry.

I reload, so I can pick and choose the bullet for the job.

My kids and I have taken somewhere between 10 and 15 deer with the caliber over the past several years. 0 were lost, few were tracked, all were shot within 150 yards.

Is it perfect for the job. That depends on your parameters. With proper bullet selection and range of shot discipline, it's certainly a viable option. Perfect would be if it were your only gun. There is no "perfect".

To all of those "you need an '06 Magnumizing, thousand yard, flame belching, mortarizing, meat grinding, shoulder hammer from hell", I say if that's your flavor have at it. A 120mm cannon will kill deer in ranges in the miles, not yards and your '06 won't......the bottom line, bullet selection and know your limitations, regardless of caliber.

armoredman · October 13, 2014, 10:47 PM

Sorry, had come back from work dealing with those self same wonderful humans, sometimes it colors my commentary.
Yes, back in "the day" it was often necessary for people to hunt to supplement or fill the larder, either with meat or to garner pelts/meat to sell. I would hazard a guess that was that way in the backwoods of America for many years, and in the deep backwoods of today it probably is still a requirement, make every round of ammo count. With the transportation network of today, plus advanced food storage available, most likely not so much, and yes, including the fact that poor families can sign up for government provided food in various quantities.
BTW, yes, poor people can get free smart phones, check out the Obamaphone that is offered on your tax dollars. It is ostensibly so the provided person can have a phone number to find work. Facebook is free, so yes, that same person could be on social media as well, I would have to assume. But yes, to answer your question there may be, and most likely still are people who hunt regularly for regular food items, shooting or trapping. i don't know anyone like that to verify it, unfortunately. Ya know, unless I missed their post on Facebook.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

tahunua001 · October 13, 2014, 11:15 PM

this is just coming from a proud murican taxpayer, but I've been down on my luck. I've had to move back into my mother's house as a grown man(trust me, not fun), and I've been unemployed for several months on end despite heavy job searches. not once did I dip into taxpayer's coffers and get a free cell phone, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc etc, I manned up, buckled down, took the cruddiest work, and I hunted to suppliment my food where it was feasible(IE, not driving 30 minutes to go hunt pheasants, but rather, driving 2 miles from home to hunt deer). so trust me, I have little sympathy for folks who think that just because they made a series of bad decisions, think they deserve a bunch of handouts other people work for. however I don't pretend that everyone drawing welfare or on food stamps is there because of decisions they've made. some people do have a reason to be on those programs. it's also worth noting that obama phones are basic models, not smartphones, no internet, no data plans, just voice and in some cases text.

Barnacle Brad · October 14, 2014, 12:32 AM

Shooting a deer with a .22 at a specific range with an appropriate bullet with appropriate shot placement produces a kill. If I use another caliber with similar or superior ballistic characteristics I can do the same thing, all things being equal.

Is the opinion "one deer is more dead than the other"? If it is then this is just another stupid 'forum' post I have wasted my time reading and responding to...

It would be so nice if guys spent more time showing results of how they reached a conclusion, or forming an opinion, than just expressing one and gauging whether or not they are in the ball park based on the responses to their post.

Quote:

I am pretty sure that my opinion...

I am pretty sure that if you are pretty sure that your opinion is all you think it is, you would not have to validate it on TFL...

Go kill something with both calibers in equal circumstances and tell us why one deer is more dead with your preferred caliber than the other. TAKE SOME PICTURES TO POST to support your position. Enfrigginlighten us...

Gunplummer · October 14, 2014, 08:56 AM

I think the "Black gun" had a lot to do with the .22 caliber for deer debate. I still drag my 99' Savage 22 HiPower out of the closet and hunt deer once and a while. It was not really uncommon for guys around here to use a .222 or 22/250 for deer. Maybe it was Gunwriters that started the debate. Most of them could not find their butt in the dark if they used both hands. Who knows?

October 2, 2014, 04:28 AM	#28
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,308	which We will see more of this as the AR continues to grow in popularity and use on all fronts. My own experience with both calibers is out of bolt rifles though. My stance it that the .223 is a tad light for deer...particularly if no attention is paid to the type of ammo used. The caliber is at its best on deer with the heavier, controlled expansion/bonded slugs. Those cost the most. What will Bubba use........you tell me? Bamaboy took his first two whitetails with a bolt .223 and bonded ammo. He was well prepared and closely coached, under ideal conditions. Both deer got very dead, were well hit/double lunged. Both went about 50-75 yds. Range was 75 and 35 yds respectively. We got an exit on one, not the other. The non exit instance yielded zero blood trail. We recovered both. But we moved to an x39 rifle, then a .243, pretty quickly. The .223's flatter trajectory makes hits easier past 150, but I believe the energy and penetration is just not there with the smaller caliber. An interesting test would be ballistic gel at each calibers respective 150 yd or so velocity. One of my favorite deer rigs for long walks in, in thick cover, is a dandy little x39 bolt. I figure 30-30 power, in a tidy bolt rifle with excellent trigger and good glass, that likely weighs less than a lever gun. Nobody questions that the old .30-30 was a good deer cartridge. The x39 is close at the old levergun calibers heels, if not its near equal with respective barrel lengths. If you asked which.....30-30 or .223, how would the answers return?

October 2, 2014, 07:13 AM	#29
Brotherbadger Senior Member Join Date: November 10, 2010 Posts: 1,149	I'd take the x39 over a .223. However, I'll take a 300 BLK over a x39. Stealthy little SBR? Yes please. __________________ Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices. http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " badger "

October 2, 2014, 03:52 PM	#30
lefteye Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2006 Posts: 1,433	Re: Post No. 21 Iowa's January rifle season for antlerless deer in the southern tier of counties has been eliminated. __________________ Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member

October 13, 2014, 03:46 PM	#38
Dirty_Harry Senior Member Join Date: January 11, 2006 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 1,484	Any deer I see in Michigan, I would have no problem shooting with a .223/5.56. I know how well I shoot my AR-15. If I fill my tag with my Marlin .35, I might take my 20" AR15 and try to collect. __________________ "The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you never should have laid down." "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." -John Wayne

October 13, 2014, 10:43 PM	#41
849ACSO Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2014 Location: Somewhere in the middle Posts: 629	Just my 2 cents. I am an LEO, and have access to as much 223 brass as I can carry. I reload, so I can pick and choose the bullet for the job. My kids and I have taken somewhere between 10 and 15 deer with the caliber over the past several years. 0 were lost, few were tracked, all were shot within 150 yards. Is it perfect for the job. That depends on your parameters. With proper bullet selection and range of shot discipline, it's certainly a viable option. Perfect would be if it were your only gun. There is no "perfect". To all of those "you need an '06 Magnumizing, thousand yard, flame belching, mortarizing, meat grinding, shoulder hammer from hell", I say if that's your flavor have at it. A 120mm cannon will kill deer in ranges in the miles, not yards and your '06 won't......the bottom line, bullet selection and know your limitations, regardless of caliber. __________________ "The day you stop learning SHOULD directly coincide with the day you stop breathing."

September 27, 2014, 03:59 PM	#26
Unlicensed Dremel Junior member Join Date: February 13, 2014 Location: Flathead Valley, MT Posts: 2,187	You are correct - the x39 is materially-preferable to a .223 of any sort, for anything bigger than a coyote/beaver, terminally-speaking wise. But both are adequate with proper bullet selection matched to proper bullet placement matched to appropriate range, IMO.

October 1, 2014, 03:22 PM	#27
Roadkill2228 Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2014 Location: Nipawin, Saskatchewan Posts: 311	That's a fun looking gun armedman! I imagine it saves money on ammo too (you can't use it all up as fast as the sks - I used to have an sks till I ran out of ammo which didn't take long...I debated getting more but all I ever used that gun for was plonking and the .22 is still much cheaper and safer, so I sold it)

October 3, 2014, 10:46 AM	#31
WV_gunner Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2011 Location: WV Posts: 938	I'd use a 7.62x39, but there's other options. Either one will work. With a good shot with deer doesn't matter what caliber it is. Some might argue that it's inhumane to use small calibers, why? Yes they can run a good distance but unless you're literally using a cannon they can run a few hundred yards shot in the heart and lungs, or head. I've seen it several times. Around here it's quite popular to hunt with .22lr at night (illegal several ways) but many get several deer doing this. I don't recommend it but it's doable. After all, with help, David killed Goliath with a slingshot. A deer can be killed with a .223.

October 3, 2014, 05:11 PM	#32
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	I noticed a couple posts about "The only gun you have" type situations. You older guys can remember when this was common. That is where the surplus guns really came in. That was a big pitch for reloading: use your deer rifle for ground hogs and small game just by reloading. It is hard for the younger generations to grasp how it was years back. Many a guy had only one rifle, and usually it was passed down. Heck, I tell kidds that the TV used to go off the air at around 11:00 PM and they look at me as if I am from another planet.

October 7, 2014, 10:30 AM	#33
TimSr Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Rittman, Ohio Posts: 2,074	Gunplummer, when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's the most popular cheap surplus rifles were 7x57 or 8mm Mausers, or old 30.06 Enfields and all were very suitable deer cartridges. I don't remember the SKS's popping up until the 80's which nobody really considered a deer gun until 150gr expanding tip ammo became available later on down the road after the handloaders figured out they could duplicate 30-30 150gr loads.

October 7, 2014, 03:04 PM	#34
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	Don't know where you are going with that, but I would say the most popular surplus deer guns in my area were the .303 British, 30-40 Krag, and the 03'. The 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 were almost unheard of because of the import restrictions at the time.

October 7, 2014, 06:37 PM	#35
Puma prepper Member Join Date: October 7, 2014 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 20	I really like the 7.62x39 ... I have had both and the 7.62x39 had alot more power, even the cheap stuff.

October 11, 2014, 01:23 PM	#37
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	The Great Depression was prior to welfare and the "war on poverty". If you had no job, you didn't eat, so you worked or became a criminal if you had no other way to feed your family. Hunting would feed your family and give pelts that could be sold or traded, I would have to assume, looking back from this time. Nowadays the thug life can live fat and easy on multiple taxpayer funded programs, leaving them only needing to thug out for drugs and fun. Free phones, medical care, food, drugs, (welfare required free medical marijuana in Berkeley, California), etc., all funded by taxpayers, programs that never existed in the Great Depression.

October 13, 2014, 06:11 PM	#39
Bella Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Posts: 341	I guess trying to kill a deer with a .223 would be as silly as trying to kill an elephant with a 7mm Mauser?

October 13, 2014, 10:47 PM	#42
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Sorry, had come back from work dealing with those self same wonderful humans, sometimes it colors my commentary. Yes, back in "the day" it was often necessary for people to hunt to supplement or fill the larder, either with meat or to garner pelts/meat to sell. I would hazard a guess that was that way in the backwoods of America for many years, and in the deep backwoods of today it probably is still a requirement, make every round of ammo count. With the transportation network of today, plus advanced food storage available, most likely not so much, and yes, including the fact that poor families can sign up for government provided food in various quantities. BTW, yes, poor people can get free smart phones, check out the Obamaphone that is offered on your tax dollars. It is ostensibly so the provided person can have a phone number to find work. Facebook is free, so yes, that same person could be on social media as well, I would have to assume. But yes, to answer your question there may be, and most likely still are people who hunt regularly for regular food items, shooting or trapping. i don't know anyone like that to verify it, unfortunately. Ya know, unless I missed their post on Facebook. Sorry, couldn't help it.

October 13, 2014, 11:15 PM	#43
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	this is just coming from a proud murican taxpayer, but I've been down on my luck. I've had to move back into my mother's house as a grown man(trust me, not fun), and I've been unemployed for several months on end despite heavy job searches. not once did I dip into taxpayer's coffers and get a free cell phone, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc etc, I manned up, buckled down, took the cruddiest work, and I hunted to suppliment my food where it was feasible(IE, not driving 30 minutes to go hunt pheasants, but rather, driving 2 miles from home to hunt deer). so trust me, I have little sympathy for folks who think that just because they made a series of bad decisions, think they deserve a bunch of handouts other people work for. however I don't pretend that everyone drawing welfare or on food stamps is there because of decisions they've made. some people do have a reason to be on those programs. it's also worth noting that obama phones are basic models, not smartphones, no internet, no data plans, just voice and in some cases text. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin Last edited by tahunua001; October 14, 2014 at 08:46 AM.

October 14, 2014, 08:56 AM	#45
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	I think the "Black gun" had a lot to do with the .22 caliber for deer debate. I still drag my 99' Savage 22 HiPower out of the closet and hunt deer once and a while. It was not really uncommon for guys around here to use a .222 or 22/250 for deer. Maybe it was Gunwriters that started the debate. Most of them could not find their butt in the dark if they used both hands. Who knows?