Is the 7.62x39 a legitimate big game round?

My opinion is "no"

I prefer more punch on deer and larger, but it's usable at short ranges with proper shot placement.

Takes the yelp right out of them.
Smallest rifle i would use for Deer and only with heavier bullets.

I wouldn'ta thunk it, but I went after a few in Wyoming last spring with a rancher who used one. I took my brand new .17 HMR single shot with me. My longest shot - of three - was about 125 yds. All told, we got 7 between us and all dropped like they'd been hit with a sledgehammer.

I still prefer a .223 or so. My old .218 BEE is hell on wheels as well.

I have no personal experience with this round so I'm just talking here, but based on ballistic charts I'd be comfortable with it out to 100 yards or so. Both Federal and Remington offer it with 125g soft point bullets. With so many other (and better) choices out there it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.

But then, I often hunt in brush with a .44 mag. I trust the bigger, slower .44 much more than the 7.62X39. I'd only use it in a serious pinch for deer. The range isn't there for open country and the power is short at any range.

In hunting areas around here. I used a .243 WIN for years. Deer never would bleed out, only in.

I would not prefer it. Now I am in a .300 Savage phase. Been looking at the .280 and .308(mainly due to the desire for an M1 Springfield.)

In 280?

That parenthetical was specific to the .308. I've never been excited by the caliber, but the intro of the M1A in '79 was a compromise in interest in the Garand and practical application.

The 7.62x39 was specifically designed by the Russians to be a high impact, short range round and it fills that niche perfectly. It is lethal to anything smaller than an elk at 200 yards, can reliably drop an elk within 100 yards (assuming decent aim), and is far cheaper to shoot than either the .308 or the 30.06.

Personally, I hunt with a 30.06, but I have a hunting partner with a fixed magazine (California legal) SKS, and I've never seen him have any problems dropping anything within range. Using it as an effective hunting weapon simply requires that you be familiar with the guns range and that you avoid firing it at anything outside of that range. Don't try this at home, but I've been told that an SKS at 1000 yards will leave a nasty welt on the target, but not much else. A decent 30.06 round, on the other hand, is just as lethal at 1000 yards as at 10 yards.

So I guess it really boils down to personal preference...do you prefer to do your hunting by taking clean shots at long range, or do you like to see your game to get up close and personal? The two of us debate this every year...I insist that the 30.06 is more reliable, but he insists that the 7.62 is a more challenging, and therfore more sporting, round to hunt with. Which of us is right is really a matter of personal opinion.

In what state would you hunt Elk in? Where is it legal?

(he insists that the 7.62 is a more challenging, and therfore more sporting, round to hunt with.)
Less effective, less lethal, less accurate, I won't even allow my hunters to use it. I've only witnessed 1 deer being shot with a 7.62x39. It was shot from about 35 yards, hit in the shoulder it managed to travel about 1.25 miles before it expired by a water tank. By the time we found it , which was the next afternoon, the coyotes had left us nothing but horns and bones.

I've never been Elk hunting with him, but we've both hunted Elk in Nevada in the past, and he does claim to have bagged one with his SKS. Personally, as I stated above, I do all of my hunting with a 30.06. I wouldn't hunt elk (or anything else for that matter) with his SKS, but this thread was asking whether or not the 7.62x39 was a valid hunting round. My answer was simply that, in the hands of someone familiar with the capabilities and limitations of the round, it can be a perfectly acceptable hunting round.

As for his opinion on the "sport"...well, it is his opinion and we can all judge it however we like. I've personally seen him bag six deer with the rifle over the past few years and can attest that it is DEFINITELY more challenging to get within the SKS's effective range. Whether or not that qualifies as sporting is debateable (honestly, the deer have a better chance...he loses far more deer than he actually hits, because most spot him and run well before they get in range).

Thats wild. Don't think I'd hunt elk with a 22-250 or 220 swift, but it's legal.

You can use pretty much anything to hunt big game, so long as it isn't a shotgun and it isn't fully automatic. I'm with you though...it may be legal to hunt deer and elk with a .22, but who in their right minds would try?!?!

Shot placement is paramount regardless of the round used. The only rub is that you're shooting at a live target that moves, and often does so unexpectedly.

Of the 5 deer I took this year, four were shot where I aimed, three necks and one vitals. I usually prefer a neck shot because deer don't run with broken necks if they manage to survive for a bit. The 5th shot left half a skull on a doe. My neck shot went bad when she moved just as I was squeezing the trigger. It couldn't be avoided because she moved at virtually the same instant the trigger broke. Luckily, it turned out to be an instant kill but could just as easily have been a miss or a wound. I'd prefer a wound with a more reliable (read powerful) caliber that would decrease the bleed out time and tracking in the event of a wound (which I haven't had in years).

And it was only .357 from 4" bbl.

Why did I sell that?

(Why did I sell that?)
Wish i had a dollar for every time I've asked myself that.

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=93611

But FYI:


http://www.prvipartizan.com/en/mil762x39.htm

use it for everything in the Siberian hinterlands. Same with the 7.62x54R.

It might be OK under 100 yds but energy drops off too fast. I am a firm believer in clean kills when hunting and the 7.62x39 just doesn't cut it.

beyond 100 yds.