Best Rifles in 7.62x39

[The Heretic]

I know there are a lot,of people in that camp. I am not one of them. I have used both systems in the "field" for real. Some of my buddies liked the AK better but I always found them crude, and heavy.
I like the 7.62X39 cartridge but it too is heavier than 5.56 ammo.

The OP was asking specifically for a 7.62x39 rifle only.

The Kalashnikov action is very reliable for a number of reasons. Personally, I noticed the heavier BCG, the stronger springs, the much smaller surface area that is the interface between the BCG and the receiver (much less friction, much less area for contamination to slow things down), the magazines that are built like tanks - with mag lips that almost look like they were machined from billet steel (but aren't). The mag/BCG interface is the heart of most semi-auto rifles.

and a number of other reasons:

6 Reasons the AK-47 Is the Most Reliable Rifle in the World: A Guide to Kalashnikov's Magic for Aspiring Gun Designers, Part I - The Firearm Blog

6 Reasons the AK-47 Is the Most Reliable Rifle in the World: A Guide to Kalashnikov's Magic for Aspiring Gun Designers, Part II - The Firearm Blog

First and foremost, I want a self-defense rifle to be reliable - if it doesn't go bang no matter what I do to it, then it can otherwise be a great rifle but it is useless to me.

The weight of rifle and ammo is a consideration - I am a big believer in weight considerations. I am 63 this year, and I am getting to the point where I am having trouble moving much less moving fast, so I do take that into consideration. But at the same time, I do believe the 7.62x39 cartridge to be more effective for self-defense and hunting within its given effective range (300 meters and less). Beyond that, I am not too worried; I am a believer in the 80/20 rule - 80+% of the time I won't need a rifle that is effective beyond 300 meters. When I do, I have other rifles that are effective well beyond that, including one rifle that is effective to 2000 meters.

Even the Russians have gone away from the 7.62.

They went to 5.45x39 because they thought the USA was leapfrogging them with the 5.56x45

In actuality the British had the right idea; 6 to 7mm projectiles in the 100 to 130 grain weight range at about 2300 to 2500 fps velocity range, but the USA - at the time - thought they knew better, when the British had put a lot more effort and time and thought into testing and experimentation as to what the best infantry cartridge would be. But the hubris of the US military won out.

The military (and many others) has now come back around to saying that maybe the British had the right idea after all. We (USA/NATO) just have not adopted anything yet that reflects that thought. There are some cartridges though - the 6x45, 6.5x45, 6.8x45/et.al, and so on.

Do you remember the FN 5.56 pistol......designed to defeat body armor......it is like a 22 short compared to the 5.56 M109 round that many of us love to hate.

Remember it? I have a PS90 bullpup, but not the 5.7x28 pistol, and in either the rifle or the pistol, it is more powerful than the .22 magnum (not the .22 short). Why do I have one? Because I have a family member who due to health conditions can no longer handle a 7# AK anymore (or a 6# AR), and needs something light and small with low recoil but high capacity (50 rounds). I personally like it as a 'get home gun' for SHTF - something I can put into a large laptop case (18" square) and hide in my daily driver with 200 rounds of ammo, that if I find myself needing to walk home the 30 miles from work, I can probably do it better with a PS90 than an AK, and I can hide that little bullpup under a poncho, coat or maybe even a jacket. Once home then an AK or DT MDR could be employed. Or if SHTF and I find myself having to work on my property, then the PS90 would be something I could use to defend myself until I can get inside the house and grab something heavier/larger but more powerful.

I was with the Marines (in spirt) when they resisted the changeover from the M14 but after decades of real life experiance have learned to appreciate the little coyote round. I think people that are marginal riflemen like many in our society today are very well served by it. In today's situations where thousands if not tens of thousands of rounds are expended to inflict one casualty they just make sense.

There is a difference between what the military needs and uses and what civilians would need and use in a SHTF situation - or at least, how they use their weapons. The logistics are quite different. Civilians much of the time don't have the training/experience, they don't have the numbers and resupply. If they are going to be using ammo by the thousands of rounds, they will run out of ammo quickly and be dead. If SHTF, I am not going looking for trouble, I am going to dig in and stay at home. As such I am going to have to go outside quite often and tend to my garden, chop wood, and so on. I may go hunting, but I am not going on a mission to engage enemy forces.

 

[The Heretic]

By all means, have rifles in 5.56x45 and 7.62x51, but also have something in 7.62x39 and maybe something in 5.45x39.

 

[The Heretic]

If it wasn't for cost, I'd love to have a Galil in .308 instead of the Galil Ace.

The Valmet rifless I had were in 7.62x51 (a para, and an M78 - a heavy long barreled rifle with bipod) - they were primo IMO. But at the time (AW/mag/parts import ban) the mags and parts were expensive and hard to come by. The mags were $150 and parts had to be ordered/imported from Finland, so hard to come by. So I sold them and went to the FN FAL which is almost as good, and is a LOT easier to get mags and parts for - a LOT LOT easier.

The Galils are more common now, not hard to come by, and just as good as the Valmets IMO.

 

[The Heretic]

As for the AR in 7.62x39 - there are few AR configurations where that chambering works anywhere near as well as 5.56x45, much less as well as any cartridge in the AK. You really have to either know what you are doing to put together one that works well, or buy one of the few that has been designed to work well in that chambering.

The AK has its disadvantages - the ergos more or less suck, as does learning how to operate it well (mag insertion and changing is easy to flub for example). But it is a simple rifle that is hard to break, and it does well even when neglected or even abused.

There may be better rifles (some of the newer more modern semi-autos) that are technically better. But the AK in 7.62x39 is a very common rifle that can be had for well under $1000, many of the parts between different manufacturers/models can be interchanged (or at least made to work), and everybody and their dogs has one, or at least knows how to operate it.

Just do not get one from Century Arms - the only importer/assembler/etc., that I know of that can screw up even an AK.

 

[Boboclown]

The Valmet rifless I had were in 7.62x51 (a para, and an M78 - a heavy long barreled rifle with bipod) - they were primo IMO. But at the time (AW/mag/parts import ban) the mags and parts were expensive and hard to come by. The mags were $150 and parts had to be ordered/imported from Finland, so hard to come by. So I sold them and went to the FN FAL which is almost as good, and is a LOT easier to get mags and parts for - a LOT LOT easier.

The Galils are more common now, not hard to come by, and just as good as the Valmets IMO.

The parts are more common for the Galil, but for the .308 the magazines are around $100 each at best. Which is why I wish IWI made the Galil Aces we got use the original magazines, so they could import them and the costs could go down.

Just do not get one from Century Arms - the only importer/assembler/etc., that I know of that can screw up even an AK

And don't forget I.O.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I think the SKS gets a lot of hate because prior to the Clinton AWB, they were cheap. I paid 115 for mine and I paid extra for an unissued one. My brother got his for $75. However, I have a problem. I quite literally can't think of a way to really improve on that old '51 Tula. It is accurate as I am, (moreso actually) and I am not a bad shot. I used to hunt coyotes with it. I have more than once hit a moving jackrabbit at a hundred yards with it. (Granted that has actually been a while and my eyes were a touch better then, but the gun has not degraded, even if I have.)

I think they get a bum rap. I actually could pretty much afford whatever rifle I want and for 7.62x39, you'll find a hard time beating a Russian SKS. I prefer mine to my Norinco AK by a pretty fair margin. They are dead simple, overbuilt and in general pretty soft-shooting. My brothers was just as accurate. If I do have a beef with them it is that they eject shells pretty much all over the place in no perceivable pattern.

 

[Boboclown]

I don't mind where the SKS ejects the cases, what I dislike about the SKS is that there's not much you can do with the sling while shooting. It will throw your shots all over the place unless you find a way to attach the sling anywhere but the barrel.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I have never had issues with that. Then again, I started shooting on real rifles with the SKS. So I am very, very used to it. I also don't use the sling on me while I am shooting.

 

[Boboclown]

Its not a big factor when making a decision. Most of my rifles can't be used with a sling for shooting. But being able to use one would be a nice bonus.

Outside of that, the SKS is a good way to go. Its affordable, reliable, and accurate considering what it was meant for. And if you find one that's already been bubba'd up, might as well use that as an excuse to go crazy with the aftermarket stuff.

 

[Argonaut]

The OP was asking specifically for a 7.62x39 rifle only.

The Kalashnikov action is very reliable for a number of reasons. Personally, I noticed the heavier BCG, the stronger springs, the much smaller surface area that is the interface between the BCG and the receiver (much less friction, much less area for contamination to slow things down), the magazines that are built like tanks - with mag lips that almost look like they were machined from billet steel (but aren't). The mag/BCG interface is the heart of most semi-auto rifles.

and a number of other reasons:

6 Reasons the AK-47 Is the Most Reliable Rifle in the World: A Guide to Kalashnikov's Magic for Aspiring Gun Designers, Part I - The Firearm Blog

6 Reasons the AK-47 Is the Most Reliable Rifle in the World: A Guide to Kalashnikov's Magic for Aspiring Gun Designers, Part II - The Firearm Blog

First and foremost, I want a self-defense rifle to be reliable - if it doesn't go bang no matter what I do to it, then it can otherwise be a great rifle but it is useless to me.

The weight of rifle and ammo is a consideration - I am a big believer in weight considerations. I am 63 this year, and I am getting to the point where I am having trouble moving much less moving fast, so I do take that into consideration. But at the same time, I do believe the 7.62x39 cartridge to be more effective for self-defense and hunting within its given effective range (300 meters and less). Beyond that, I am not too worried; I am a believer in the 80/20 rule - 80+% of the time I won't need a rifle that is effective beyond 300 meters. When I do, I have other rifles that are effective well beyond that, including one rifle that is effective to 2000 meters.



They went to 5.45x39 because they thought the USA was leapfrogging them with the 5.56x45

In actuality the British had the right idea; 6 to 7mm projectiles in the 100 to 130 grain weight range at about 2300 to 2500 fps velocity range, but the USA - at the time - thought they knew better, when the British had put a lot more effort and time and thought into testing and experimentation as to what the best infantry cartridge would be. But the hubris of the US military won out.

The military (and many others) has now come back around to saying that maybe the British had the right idea after all. We (USA/NATO) just have not adopted anything yet that reflects that thought. There are some cartridges though - the 6x45, 6.5x45, 6.8x45/et.al, and so on.



Remember it? I have a PS90 bullpup, but not the 5.7x28 pistol, and in either the rifle or the pistol, it is more powerful than the .22 magnum (not the .22 short). Why do I have one? Because I have a family member who due to health conditions can no longer handle a 7# AK anymore (or a 6# AR), and needs something light and small with low recoil but high capacity (50 rounds). I personally like it as a 'get home gun' for SHTF - something I can put into a large laptop case (18" square) and hide in my daily driver with 200 rounds of ammo, that if I find myself needing to walk home the 30 miles from work, I can probably do it better with a PS90 than an AK, and I can hide that little bullpup under a poncho, coat or maybe even a jacket. Once home then an AK or DT MDR could be employed. Or if SHTF and I find myself having to work on my property, then the PS90 would be something I could use to defend myself until I can get inside the house and grab something heavier/larger but more powerful.



There is a difference between what the military needs and uses and what civilians would need and use in a SHTF situation - or at least, how they use their weapons. The logistics are quite different. Civilians much of the time don't have the training/experience, they don't have the numbers and resupply. If they are going to be using ammo by the thousands of rounds, they will run out of ammo quickly and be dead. If SHTF, I am not going looking for trouble, I am going to dig in and stay at home. As such I am going to have to go outside quite often and tend to my garden, chop wood, and so on. I may go hunting, but I am not going on a mission to engage enemy forces.

You have obviously never been in the field where real people's lives are on the line. Or where every day is a SHTF situation. Words come easy to armchair experts.

 

[The Heretic]

You have obviously never been in the field where real people's lives are on the line. Or where every day is a SHTF situation. Words come easy to armchair experts.

I never claimed that I was ever in combat, but I did serve, and real people's lives were on the line during the missions I was in - sometimes people died, most of the time we were able to save their lives - but no, firearms were not involved in those missions. I also lost a friend and colleague while serving.

So as I noted, no, I have no experience in combat with firearms. I do rely on what I read from those who did serve and other firearms experts as to the history of firearms and why different military adopted different firearms.

I also note that those with experience in combat have widely varying opinions as to what firearms work and don't work in combat, and why. So I take one person's opinion for what it is, opinion. To each their own. I also note that combat experience does not necessarily equal firearms design expertise or knowledge, especially regarding the history of firearms and ammo design - just as owning and driving a car daily does not infer that the driver knows anything about automobile design or history.

 

[Argonaut]

I never claimed that I was ever in combat, but I did serve, and real people's lives were on the line during the missions I was in - sometimes people died, most of the time we were able to save their lives - but no, firearms were not involved in those missions. I also lost a friend and colleague while serving.

So as I noted, no, I have no experience in combat with firearms. I do rely on what I read from those who did serve and other firearms experts as to the history of firearms and why different military adopted different firearms.

I also note that those with experience in combat have widely varying opinions as to what firearms work and don't work in combat, and why. So I take one person's opinion for what it is, opinion. To each their own. I also note that combat experience does not necessarily equal firearms design expertise or knowledge, especially regarding the history of firearms and ammo design - just as owning and driving a car daily does not infer that the driver knows anything about automobile design or history.

As I remember........Mr. Kalashnikov learned the lessons required to design and build his arms from experiance in the front lines against the Germans in WW2. He was impressed with the German sub guns and calibers they used but thought they were overly complicated.

 

[The Heretic]

As I remember........Mr. Kalashnikov learned the lessons required to design and build his arms from experiance in the front lines against the Germans in WW2. He was impressed with the German sub guns and calibers they used but thought they were overly complicated.

German products are often over-engineered, but I still like them nonetheless.

As the old saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun. Everything is an evolution of something that came before. The first accepted use of an 'assault rifle' (defined as a select-fire carbine with a detachable magazine and using an 'intermediate' powered cartridge) in combat was the Federov, used long before WWII.

Fedorov Avtomat - Wikipedia

So the Russians it seems, had and used an 'assault rifle' in combat before the Germans.

The authoritative history of both the AK and the AR15/16 was written by Edward Ezell (a curator at the Smithsonian.

Edward Ezell - Wikipedia

I have several of his books, including one on the AK and one on the AR. Highly recommended.

 

[The Heretic]

Another recommended text on military firearm design is 'The Machine Gun' (several volumes) by Col. George Chinn. I think I have one of those volumes somewhere - back when I was buying firearm design books, before Amazon, the only place you could find these were at gun shows. Now you can get them on ebay or Amazon.

 

[RogerJ]

Galil or Valmet - Rolls Royce of AKs

I have a Galil in 5.56 from the 80's that is a sweet rifle. That's why I bought the Ace. Not disappointed.

 

[I-Shoot]

The SKS can be "modernized" into a useful, reliable, accurate, all-around field rifle... if you find such projects to be fun. Still a bit heavy, not as accurate as an AR, not as brutally reliable as an AK -- but I'm pretty sure it will handle any use I could have for it.

 

[filsonhand]

An arsenal sam7 sf is a very good choice

View attachment 368596

Dang Smoky,
You went for the 40's

 

[F2CMaDMaXX]

Let's keep this civil in here please, no need to accuse people condescendingly.

 

[Aispuro]

Dang Smoky,
You went for the 40's

Ya i got 5 30s an 4 40s lol. An i got my sam7 uf today

 

[Boboclown]

I have a Galil in 5.56 from the 80's that is a sweet rifle. That's why I bought the Ace. Not disappointed.

The Ace is a great rifle, I'd prefer a FAL or a Galil of the original design though. Still, one heck of a rifle and accurate enough to be somewhat of a DMR and reliable to boot. Still, wish they used the original magazines, would make for having options in regards to a pistol grip.

The ones in 7.62x39 can have that entire polymer piece removed, so to everyone who has that, lucky.