Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Practical difference between 7.62x39, .308 and .223

5.56 7.62x39 308

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Lockeandkey

Lockeandkey

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:10 AM

Hello all.

This is my fist post here. I tried to run a search for this info, but I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for. Sorry if I'm doubling down on a topic.

So, I've been looking into Saigas for a while now, and I've decided to get one. Trouble is, I'm having a bit of a time deciding on caliber. I see split decisions on almost every thread on almost every forum, so I thought I would ask for some more specific opinions. For my personal uses (weekend rec shooting, occasional target/group shooting, and of course SHTF/home defense) I'm trying to find out if the frequently-stated benefits of these particular cartridges carry over to the Saiga platform. For example:

5.56x45 accuracy. I've seen so many threads about 5.56 vs 7.62 Soviet, and most of the proponents of 5.56 cite accuracy as the deciding factor. The problem for me is that the accuracy from this round is as much from the tight, precise AR-15 platform and it's brothers as it is from the round itself. Can the Saiga, with its loose tolerances. take full advantage of the potential in 5.56? At what range does 5.56 show a practical advantage in accuracy over the 7.62 Soviet in a Saiga? (Practical would be hitting a man-sized target or missing completely.)

.308 power and range. We all know the pitch for .308. It's one of the most prolific sniper/DMR rounds in the world. Again, though, I have to wonder if the Saiga is a viable platform for it. I would LOVE to hear that it makes a great DMR comparable to the M14, but all wishes aside, that doesn't seem very likely. I commonly see figures of 2-3 MOA from talented shooters with good rifles, and that's about the most I could hope for from any rifle at the moment. Again, though, is the ~800 yard range of the .308 lost on a platform not designed to take advantage of it? If I shoot .308 and 7.62x39 side-by-side, how much of a difference would I see at 100 meters? 300? 400? (If I shoot past 400 I'm getting something just for that purpose.)

And, of course, 7.62x39, the native cartridge. The major selling point when comparing the three is normally price. So, taking the above points into consideration, is the price advantage of 7.62x39 enough to overcome the potential accuracy lost? I mean, if I have to take 3-4 shots to hit a target vice 1-2 from the the other calibers, would it be worth it still?

I've been staring at pictures and forums for days, and I just can't decide. I know that "just buy what you like the most" is going to pop up a few times, and that's fine. But I'm a statistically oriented person, and I'm not going to buy one caliber over the other without at least some specific, kinda-sorta practical justification.

Thank you in advance.

#2 Groovy Mike

Groovy Mike

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:21 AM

Welcome to the forum and the wonderful world of shooting!

Accuracy has nothing to do with WHICH cartridge you are chambered for. It is about ability of any given rifle and ammo manufacturer to maintain consistency. The ammo portion relates to the consistency of the individual manuafacturer to use and assemble identical componants in exactly the same way time after time. For example - I could load you benchrest accurate ammunition in 223, 7.62x39 or 308 by individually weighing each case, trimming them to identical lengths, making sure that the primer holes and cartrdige necks are uniform and concentric and that the powder charge is exactly the same and each individual projectile weighs exactly the same amount. Or I could load a batch of any of them that would perform at 6 MOA by allowing my cases to be a variety of lengths, powder to slop in a tenth of grain different between charges and the projectiles variable in weight by a few grains of lead. It really doesn't matter which chambering the cartridge is for.

The accuracy of an individual rifle is similar but hinges on teh ability of teh firearm to produce identical results time after time as well.

For that matter - the same is true of the shooter.

My advice is - don't even think about 800 yard shots (or anywhere in that last 600 yards) until you can hit a fist sized target 10 out of 10 times - every day at 100 yards. When you are confident at doing that - move back to 150 or 200 yards. Its a lot farther than most people think.

Edited by Groovy Mike, 06 June 2012 - 07:22 AM.

Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord; trust in Him, and He will act. Psalm 37:3-7

#3 Jim Digriz

Jim Digriz

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:11 AM

Accuracy has nothing to do with WHICH cartridge you are chambered for.


I don't think this is accurate. The 223 and 308 Saigas will be pretty consistently more accurate than the 7.62x39. But the x39 is plenty good out to at least 300 yards.

#4 Agent Lemon

Agent Lemon

    товарищ

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:25 AM

5.56 for home defese. they make ALL KINDS of .223, some of which will kill stuff but wont go through many walls. great little bullet, coupled with a reliable AK system is really neat.

Of course, the 5.56 costs about twice as much as the 7.62 (at least where I buy it, anyway). I always see 5.56 back ordered for months on end where I buy my ammo. 7.62 is great for plinking, and killing things deader than the 5.56. I would NOT use it for home defense, though, even if I DO carry my Saiga to get my morning coffee or whatever.

I've no hands on experience with the 7.62 nato (how sad), so I cant say anything about that.

"стою твердо на землице русской, с калашом в руках"


#5 Red Star

Red Star

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:41 AM

I have a saiga in 7.62 x 39 and one in 5.45. I have not shot the 308 saiga, so i cant give any data regarding it.

The 39 has a 20 inch barrel, and it is plenty accurate. I have gotten relatively consistent groups out of it, many 1 MOA, and on a couple of notable occasions, sub MOA. targets were at 100 yards.

I have not been able to take the 5.45 out to the 100 yard range yet, but i think it will be even more accurate than the 39.

I guess it all comes down to how you set the rifle up, and how much you practice with it. I have spent quite some time finding the ammo that my 39 likes best, and shooting it often.

here is how i have set up the 39:

20 inch barrel, skeleton stock, redfield 3 to 9 scope, PSL flash hider/supressor, factory trigger group

I have posted up pics of a target that i shot showing the 1 MOA potential, as well as a target that my brother shot that is sub MOA. here is a link to the post:

http://forum.saiga-1...__1#entry697141

in my mind, if a regular 7.62 x 39 can do that, the 5.45 should be better, and the 308 would fall somewhere in there too.

#6 mostholycerebus

mostholycerebus

    Citizen

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:31 AM

5.56 balistically is the second best round for CQC/HD, following 12ga of course. It tumbles well on contact, quickly diffusing force in walls or bodies. Great stopper, plus you get capacity, accuracy, low recoil.

7.62x39 ballistically is good at CQB/HD because it loses little force at 16" barrel. Better than 5.56 against armor and barriers. Not really good at 300+ yards. Biggest problem I see now is lack of aftermarket; nowhere near as many specialty rounds, or even firearm parts.

.308 is just awesome at everything, as long as you can use an 18"+ barrel.

I suggest get the 7.62 in 16", and a ar15 in 20", and an M14.

Edited by mostholycerebus, 06 June 2012 - 09:32 AM.


#7 Red Star

Red Star

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:48 AM

I thought 5.56 was designed to fragment at close ranges? that's what makes it great for close quarters. I thought the problem with the 5.56 was that at longer range it would not fragment, and not tumble as much as the 5.45.

I know the 5.45 is designed to tumble because of the airspace in the tip of the bullet...

I will go ahead and disagree with you on your suggestion of a 7.62 with a 16 inch barrel... I would reccomend the 20 inch barrel. 4 extra inches of barrel and rifling will never hurt, and the extra length is not really that unwieldly.

But, for what the OP wants out of his rifle, i would go ahead and suggest either the 7.62 with the 20 inch barrel, or the 5.56 or 5.45 in a 16 inch barrel.

The longer barrel on the 7.62 for better accuracy at range, and a small compromise with length, the shorter barrel on the 5.56 or 5.45 for more than adequate accuracy, and a bit of a bonus for overall length of the rifle.

i totally agree with you on the 308 though... the world class 'do-everything' round.

#8 Saiga Power

Saiga Power

    Just enough to be DANGEROUS

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh PA

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:18 PM

I have only shot my 7.62x39 and .308 at 50 yards with iron sights thus far. The .308 is much more accurate in my experience. I dont know if this is attributed to the .308 having much nicer iron sights, but I like the .308 sights much better than the post on the 7.62......

Attached Files


Edited by Saiga Power, 06 June 2012 - 12:19 PM.


#9 SpetsnazGRU

SpetsnazGRU

    Citizen

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NorthWest

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:39 PM

As far as 7.62x39 mm terminal ballistics, we have been over this. Vmax, 8M3 124 gr HP and Russian soft-points, all do a devastating job. 8M3 fragments and shreds hogs to pieces and just like Vmax, makes fist-sized exit wounds. I've shot deer with the Silver Bear SPs. Had a round completely destroy a deer's shoulder (the leg was hanging off the skin) and then shred both lungs. Not pretty.

Edited by SpetsnazGRU, 06 June 2012 - 12:42 PM.


#10 themadhatter196

themadhatter196

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 94 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:48 PM

10 different people 10 different answers. I would personally suggest 7.62x39 as a overall round. The ak/saiga was designed around using an intermediate cartridge. It wasn't designed for accuracy thus not making much sense using the 308 round. The 5.56 round is a great round but does not have much ballistic coeffecient. Also if you are going to be ever shooting in a bush/wooded area the round is close to useless as it will be deflected by small twigs/plants making it much less accurate. If you ever wanted to go hunting with it most states outlaw the use of .22 caliber on small game. Like I said before the AK was not designed with accuracy in mind. It was designed for reliability and ease of use. The 7.62x39 round is perfectly suited for the AK platorm. It has a good effective range ~400-600 meters and I have seen people place kill shots farther than that. Brush will not affect the heavier 123 grain bullet as much as the 5.56. I have watched videos where a 5.56x5.45x7.62 were compared shooting threw brush at 25 yards. Both the 5.56 and 5.45 were thrown ~10 inches from target while the 7.62 was only off by a inch or so. The 7.62x39 has plently of killing power especially with fragmenting/vmax/military hp's. It also penetrates 3x the barrier that 5.56 will. Okay now to magazines. Try finding local 5.56 or .308 mags for the saiga now try finding 7.62x39 mags.... ak 47 mags are much, MUCH more plentiful and cheaper. Also .308 is very expensive to shoot, 5.56 is a tad bit more expensive, and the 7.62 is the cheapest.

Now all that being said I own rifles in .308 (not saigas) and I have a 5.45 saiga I like em all but for overall I would stick with my 7.62x39 to get the job done.

I consistanly shoot 1 moa (1inch groups at 100 yards with my saiga ak-103 with 16in barrel)
Attached File  c.jpg   45.78KB   2 downloadsAttached File  b.jpg   45.04KB   2 downloadsAttached File  done13.jpg   112.42KB   2 downloads

Edited by themadhatter196, 06 June 2012 - 02:00 PM.

  • G O B and tatonic like this

#11 Boomsick42

Boomsick42

    boomsick42

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

If the choice were so simple and the 223 were as cheap as russian surplus, and the 223 mags were cheap, then I would have opted for the 223 as well. The cartridge makes a good accurate, home defense rifle and the ammo will be available for many many years regardless of world tensions, since it is the us militarys standard round.

But if you are looking at buying a saiga rifle, converting it, having access to cheap hi cap mags and cheap ammo, go with the russian calibers. Theres only a couple ak variants the world over that are chambered for the 223. This makes the mags that work with the saiga 223 a pain in the ass to get at a good price. And even when you get them, some dont work well with the rifle itself (just what ive heard around). This same argument is true of the saiga 308, go price some of those magsPosted Image Posted Image

I absolutely think the cheapness and availability of ak47 and ak74 mags makes this choice a no brainer, if you are on a budget. If you have tons of money to thow around however, then by all means get what ever caliber you want and make it awesome. But for me, after I knew the facts about actually getting mags to use in my rifle, I went for the 7.62x39.

This is only one side of the coin, I know, and there are more things to be considered. This is what made my mind up about which rifle to buy, when I was doing research(plus I just like the caliber). Heres mine, with a 10dollar steel mag.

Attached Files


  • G O B and tatonic like this

#12 Dad2142Dad

Dad2142Dad

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,233 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:59 PM

I own all three, you should and maybe will end up doing the same. The .223 and x39 are for inside 200 - 300 yards, the 308 ( 16" Barrel) will reach out to 600 with consistent hits on a man sized target. If you want 800 yards go with the the longer barrel 308 like this http://www.atlanticf...roduct1030.aspx

Since you let on that your a show me kind of person. Try and find gun store with a range or member who has one and go shoot them first Posted Image

themadhatter196 has it right, to many opinions

#13 post-apocalyptic

post-apocalyptic

    magnificent bastard

  • Banned
  • 4,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:32 PM

I'll just add that if you do get a Saiga in 7.62x39, (everyone should own a couple), go with a 16" barrel. There's no point in using a longer barrel with this caliber, and 4 extra inches hangin off the front end is more of a PITA than you'd think. 16" is much more maneuverable, and also the length the rifle was designed to use.
  • G O B and Dad2142Dad like this

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


#14 Lockeandkey

Lockeandkey

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:23 PM

Wow, this was a much more productive post than I thought it would be. I appreciate all the input, folks. I'll probably be going with the x39 for now, and it'll probably be in a 20" barrel. (I was going to choose 20 regardless. I'm just much more accustomed to the feel of moving about with a larger weapon.) While I like the idea of a .308 DMR, I was talking to a range owner and he left me with the impression that there are much better rifles to fill the role. Besides, this gives me a chance to really establish a firearms 'wish list' that I can build off of in the years to come. Again, thank you for your input.

If I had to say, it was Boomsick and Red Star that put me over the edge. Thanks, guys.

#15 post-apocalyptic

post-apocalyptic

    magnificent bastard

  • Banned
  • 4,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:40 AM

Wow, this was a much more productive post than I thought it would be. I appreciate all the input, folks. I'll probably be going with the x39 for now, and it'll probably be in a 20" barrel. (I was going to choose 20 regardless. I'm just much more accustomed to the feel of moving about with a larger weapon.)...


The longer barrel only makes sense with a .308. The 7.62x39 cartridge does not appreciably benefit from the extra length. At the very least, I recommend handling a 16" barrelled AK, and comparing that in person to one with a longer barrel.

I think you'll find yourself favoring the 16" model. If you buy one with a 20" barrel, you'll almost certainly regret it down the road, and you'll end up here, (and perhaps other forums), asking about the best way to cut it down and recrown it.

You can doubt me if you choose to, but few here will dispute that I generally know WTF I'm talking about. Posted Image

Edited by post-apocalyptic, 07 June 2012 - 12:42 AM.

  • G O B likes this

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


#16 Boomsick42

Boomsick42

    boomsick42

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 07 June 2012 - 01:28 AM

Wow, this was a much more productive post than I thought it would be. I appreciate all the input, folks. I'll probably be going with the x39 for now, and it'll probably be in a 20" barrel. (I was going to choose 20 regardless. I'm just much more accustomed to the feel of moving about with a larger weapon.) While I like the idea of a .308 DMR, I was talking to a range owner and he left me with the impression that there are much better rifles to fill the role. Besides, this gives me a chance to really establish a firearms 'wish list' that I can build off of in the years to come. Again, thank you for your input.

If I had to say, it was Boomsick and Red Star that put me over the edge. Thanks, guys.


Wow, this was a much more productive post than I thought it would be. I appreciate all the input, folks. I'll probably be going with the x39 for now, and it'll probably be in a 20" barrel. (I was going to choose 20 regardless. I'm just much more accustomed to the feel of moving about with a larger weapon.)...


The longer barrel only makes sense with a .308. The 7.62x39 cartridge does not appreciably benefit from the extra length. At the very least, I recommend handling a 16" barrelled AK, and comparing that in person to one with a longer barrel.

I think you'll find yourself favoring the 16" model. If you buy one with a 20" barrel, you'll almost certainly regret it down the road, and you'll end up here, (and perhaps other forums), asking about the best way to cut it down and recrown it.

You can doubt me if you choose to, but few here will dispute that I generally know WTF I'm talking about. Posted Image

Lockeandkey, You will be happy with a 16" barrel(post apocalyptic does know what the fuck hes talkin about). I thought about going with the 20" as well, before I really knew how an ak handled(before I held one). When I got my 16" home I was very happy not to have the extra four inches. This rifle is front heavy as it is, theres no reason to add length. It wouldnt get you enough long range advantage to sacrifice the 'compactness' of the 16in barrel. I am still getting 2-3 in groups at 100yds with 124gr hps, which is good enough for a non professional like myself.

There is a reason why this length and caliber is a standard.

#17 Red Star

Red Star

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:59 AM

Glad to have helped Lockeandkey Posted Image

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a 16 inch barrel, I am quite glad i got the 20 inch. Why? well I feel it is a little more accurate, and, honestly, I think it looks badass.

here is a pic of my 20 inch:

Attached File  MySaiga.jpg   50.95KB   5 downloads

I could not ask for more. I do have the 5.45 with the 16 inch barrel, and it is also awesome. heres a pic:

Attached File  smallbrwnsaiga.jpg   95.38KB   2 downloads

specs for the 5.45:

Beryl folding stock, tapco grip (from the conversion kit), PK-01V red dot, propper '74 Muzzle break.

#18 Jim Digriz

Jim Digriz

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:24 AM

I think you'll find yourself favoring the 16" model. If you buy one with a 20" barrel, you'll almost certainly regret it down the road, and you'll end up here, (and perhaps other forums), asking about the best way to cut it down and recrown it.


I followed this exact same path.

Go with 16". (20" for 223 Saiga though, as there is actually lots of benefit in that caliber with the longer barrel).

Edited by Jim Digriz, 07 June 2012 - 09:25 AM.

  • G O B likes this

#19 jbanzai

jbanzai

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TX

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:12 AM

Once you get the mag situation figured out for .223 it's not really a big deal....although it may seem like it until you do. If you buy online, and in bulk, foreign comercial .223 is as cheap as 7.62x39.

#20 buddykermit

buddykermit

    RON PAUL 2012

  • Contributor
  • Pip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Moon

Posted 07 June 2012 - 01:46 PM

20" 5.56 //// 16" 5.45 & 7.62 //// 20"+ 308
am i the only one who thinks 223-5.56 aks are retarded? why not get a real ak and get a 74? russias service round. its dirt cheap and there are magazines for it that can be had much easier. seems like if you want 5.56 that badly youd just get an ar15. i own 2 aks now in 7.62 and in a few months ill be picking up a 5.45. to me it just seems dumb getting an ak in an 5.56, but maybe its because i bleed russian red lol
"I don't need to be careful- I got a gun" Homer Simpson

#21 Jim Digriz

Jim Digriz

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2012 - 01:51 PM

am i the only one who thinks 223-5.56 aks are retarded?


Probably not, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to own one. I dislike the caliber myself but like to have a plan B for the possibility of 5.45 surplus drying up some time soon.

Edited by Jim Digriz, 07 June 2012 - 01:52 PM.


#22 frz1197

frz1197

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:30 PM

Personally I like the 16 inch .308. I am not all that accurate and the range I go to tops out at 110 yards, so I don't care about thousand yard shots. I have a s-12 or an mpa 10 for any home defense shit. The fireball out of the .308 is large enough to roast hot dogs. The sound is insane as well. It always gets a ton of envious looks at the range.

The x39 is also nice as well. Cheaper ammo is good and 40+ round mags are fun. My accuracy is not as good probably because of my sight not being as good. But it is also a nice range toy.

Your best bet would be one of each.

And a 12 gauge.

#23 Slopes

Slopes

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:01 PM

I will echo what a lot of others have said and advise you to go with the 16" barrel on the x39. Not only does it look like an AK should to me, but it was Kalashnikov's original design length. Plus, those extra 4 inches aren't going to make a noticeable difference, except in maneuverability. Either way, you should get what you prefer, that's just my .02. Also, you definitely made the right choice with the x39 over the .308 etc. The 7.62x39 is the original AK cartridge and it just feels right in the weapon. (The availability of $10 mags and cheap ammo doesn't hurt either!)
  • G O B likes this

#24 BpS12

BpS12

    Citizen

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW, Oiho

Posted 08 June 2012 - 07:34 AM

I know what everyone is saying about longer barrels, but I went with a 23" barreled RPK. The x39 was made for a 20" SKS barrel. It's true you only lose a little going to a 16" barrel. But if it's going to be a primary rifle at least for a while, you may not wanna lose that little. I looked at all the charts I could find, and a 23" RPK barrel squeezes every little bit that can be gotten out of the round. Besides I'll be bullpuping it probably within the year, so barrel length isn't so much of an issue for me as it will only be slightly longer then my 18" barreled S12 w/ muzzle brake.
"Faith is OF the Individual, Religion is FOR the Community. Unfortunately, Religion OFTEN tramples over Faith."
"Ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupidity is knowing and choosing not to act accordingly."
"Look back ONLY to learn, NEVER to regret."
"From his weapons away, No one should ever stir one step upon the field. For no one knows, when need might have, of a sudden, a man of his weapon." Odin from the Havamal

#25 Red Star

Red Star

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:38 AM

thats pretty much the way i figured it too. You only loose a little going to 16 inch, but i am greedy. I would rather not loose anything. finding it again afterwards is a pain in the ass. :)

but, at the end of the day, 16 inch, 20 inch, whatever. as long as you practice with it, you will be alright :)

#26 BpS12

BpS12

    Citizen

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW, Oiho

Posted 08 June 2012 - 12:34 PM

Check out the Tobuk, an Iraqi DMR. Iirc it's basically a RPK receiver fitted with a 21"(?) PSL barrel. Works great for urban/suburban/mid range rural(ie fields bordered by woods, like my area of Ohio).
For HD, I'd go high cap handgun or shotty.
For sniping, I'd go large caliber bolt action.
For an all around/hunting/shtf rifle I'd go with a x39 in a long barreled Saiga or RPK(almost the same thing).
It's ALWAYS better to be able to reach out there and not need to, than to need to and not be able to.
"Faith is OF the Individual, Religion is FOR the Community. Unfortunately, Religion OFTEN tramples over Faith."
"Ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupidity is knowing and choosing not to act accordingly."
"Look back ONLY to learn, NEVER to regret."
"From his weapons away, No one should ever stir one step upon the field. For no one knows, when need might have, of a sudden, a man of his weapon." Odin from the Havamal

#27 Brian M1

Brian M1

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:17 AM

I got the 223 (16") because A) the shop didn't have x39's and B) there's nothing wrong with a .223. Each has their merits. The 223 is inherently more accurate, you can carry more rounds/with less weight, (IMO) the mags look better in the rifle (being straighter), and 223 is ALMOST as cheap as x39 if you buy cheap bulk stuff (read: steel cased, ex: Wolf, Silver/brown/golden bear, Herter's, maybe even Hornady Steel match, etc). The 223 is adequate, ammo is easy to find, and you can carry LOTS of it.
However... for the purpose of this rifle...I DO feel the x39 is the winner. This rifle is not designed to be a "tack driver". It's reliable and rugged. That's it. That being said, a heavier round is appreciated for the (less than) 300m one would use this rifle. The x39 would also make a great deer cartrige. The x39 is also inherently more reliable due to its tapered case (easier extraction). It's the ideal cartrige for this platform.
The .308... well... it just kicks butt at anything. It is the all around winner (power/range), but it costs you BIGTIME in $/round, recoil (forget quick follow ups), weight (those rounds are heavy) and capacity (they are also bulky, thus your mags will be limited). IMO, this is not a good caliber for this rifle as it can't fully utilize it's strengths (accuracy).
Personally, I use a Glock 19 for carry, Mossy 12 ga for home, the Saiga 223 would be for shtf, and my scoped Winchester M70 (.308) for long range.

#28 post-apocalyptic

post-apocalyptic

    magnificent bastard

  • Banned
  • 4,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:48 AM

...go with the 16" barrel on the x39. Not only does it look like an AK should to me, but it was Kalashnikov's original design length....


Yep.

Imagine this rifle with a 20" barrel...

Posted Image

It'd be just plain wrong, on a few different levels.

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


#29 Jaba1017

Jaba1017

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama/Tennessee

Posted 09 June 2012 - 08:39 PM

.223 and 7.62x39 Russian steel case are about the same cost. The .223 has the advantage of lower recoil, less weight, and more bullet variety. The 7.62x39 has the advantage of greater target penetration and better magazine availability. Out of a 16 inch barrel the practical range of both is going to be about the same and as about as far as you can see your target without a high powered optic. 16 inch budget ARs don't shoot cheap .223 any more accurately than an AK. High dollar, 20 inch bull barrel ARs shooting match ammo will out shoot a 16 inch AK shooting Russian steal case. If you want a match rifle in are in the wrong place. Both rounds kill live targets equally dead. I have AKs in both, like both, and would have no issue relying on either.

The .308 AK is a bad**s machine. Izhmash states it is the most accurate AK variant it has produced. I don't know where you got your mis-info that the AK isn't intended for .308. PSLs and SVD AK variants have been shooting full 30 cal. rounds for decades. The 22" .308 Saiga will throw 30 cal lead into a two inch hole if you set it up right and do your part. It is a heavy son-of-***** though. The magazine selection isn't that great. 20 rounders are a bit much - long and heavy. The 8 round factory mags are descent but nobody sells them. What it needs is descent 10 rounders like those for the PSL and Tiger. But those don't exist, or I haven't found them.

5.45 - I don't have an AK74 can't comment. Will probably pick one up at some point I'm sure. 5.45 has some ballistic advantages over the .223/5.56. It's a brilliant round. But not nearly as widely available in the US as the .223/5.56. Other than the AK74 variants there are no other firearms in the US which use it, at least not to my knowledge. Whereas in .223/5.56 you numerous offerings, and even in 7.62x39 there are some bolt guns, ARs and the SKS among probably others which use it.

#30 Jaba1017

Jaba1017

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama/Tennessee

Posted 09 June 2012 - 08:49 PM

I will echo what a lot of others have said and advise you to go with the 16" barrel on the x39. Not only does it look like an AK should to me, but it was Kalashnikov's original design length. Plus, those extra 4 inches aren't going to make a noticeable difference, except in maneuverability. Either way, you should get what you prefer, that's just my .02. Also, you definitely made the right choice with the x39 over the .308 etc. The 7.62x39 is the original AK cartridge and it just feels right in the weapon. (The availability of $10 mags and cheap ammo doesn't hurt either!)


Yes, the rifle was designed to have a 16 inch barrel. BUT, it was also designed to have a grenade spigot screwed to the end of it which makes the total length 20 inches.

Posted Image

I just ordered a spigot so I'm interested to see what if any gains are made with it on.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 5.56, 7.62x39, 308

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users