RE: and now a word on cartridges

Oops first of all let me make a correction.
The new Russian 6mm round was supposed to have a velocity of 1,145mps with an 80 grain projectile. It was originally a 6 x 53mm round but they managed to get the same ballistics with a 6 x 49mm round so they changed to that. Work has apparantly stopped on the cartridge because caseless rounds are being considered.
(Advantages of caseless rounds include they are much lighter… ie metallic cases are often the second heaviest component of a round (after the bullet), Due to compacted propellents they can have higher velocities with smaller charges. The very short length means downward extraction of failed rounds is possible with no normal ejection, so bullpup designs can be fired left or right handed without adjustment. They can be made more cheaply as less brass is used.
The main disadvantage is of course lower tolerance of external factors means factory sealed magazines are preferred, so no “loose” ammo due to potential damage.)

One of the reasons for the choice of the AN-94 appart from the improvement of 1.3 in accuracy from an unsupported standing position over the AKS-74M was that the design of the firing mechanism is self balancing… altering the feed design, magazine, and chamber and calibre of the barrel and it could fire 6 x 49mm or caseless rounds.

“A 139 grain in a 6.5 swedish mauser is a winning combination.”

Ironic isn’t it… the 6.5mm Mauser is a very old cartridge and the 6.5 Japanese Arisaka round is very similar in terms of sophisticated ballistics. Fedorov recognised this when he made the Avtomat in 1916… the worlds first assault rifle. Due to the cost of changing ammo production which was already geared for 7.62 x 54R and the cost of developing machineguns and other rifles it was discarded. The same mistake was made in the west several times (Most notably the British 7mm round that the original SA-80 was designed for).

“Your simply wasteing powder and creating alot of recoil for no real improvement of what the short case 6.5s are capable of.”

True but the larger case means heavier bullets can be safely used. As I mentioned he tended toward a heavier bullet which means a larger case would serve him better.

“You really got to go heavier than 193 to get good long range balistics in the “heavy and slow” side of things. “

🙂 I would never expect to get long range performance from the 7.62 x 39mm cartridge… it was always only ever designed for 200m max. From an RPK with a long barrel an bipod and firing in bursts then 400-600m might be realistic and the bullet would be capable of killing at that range, but with one shot and a much shorter barrel… No… I owe it to the animals I am hunting to use an appropriate weapon at an appropriate range.
Longer range stuff I use a Mosin Nagant Model 1891/1930 rifle. I’m thinking of testing some 200 grain bullets from Wolf, but at the moment I use 180 grain SP from Winchester. At much shorter range I use military surplus FMJ 150 odd grain against goats and smaller animals, and 7.62 x 39mm rounds against similar animals. Rabbits and possums get .22lr or 12 gauge.

Another reason for not going heavier with the 7.62 x 39 is case size.
With bullets in the 200 grain size there is very little room left for powder, so velocity falls off rapidly with larger bullets. 193 grain bullets are already subsonic… going any slower or increasing the powder fraction would probably be more dangerous than beneficial.

I’ve always thought that bullet placement is much more important than bullet weight or velocity. (Of course hunting large animals penetration with a heavy non disintigrating bullet is very important too but I have no real interest in hunting anything that big.)

193 grain is a significant weight and comes with the benefit of being subsonic so a suppressor becomes a silencer. Not having to hunt with ear plugs makes it more enjoyable… part of the fun is walking around and looking and being immersed in nature. This is negated by being made artificialy deaf by using ear protection.