7.62 x 39 vs. 223

R

rmocarsky

New member
Gunners,

I am pretty sure that my opinion of the 7.62 being a superior round when compared to the .223 for whitetail is correct.

What I am not sure of is just how superior is it?

Rmocarsky
 
Well for one, it is illegal in many states to hunt whitetail with .223, that should tell you something. I'm sorry, I know the .223 has it's... fan(atics)... but a 154 grain soft point .30 bullet with 1500 ft-lbs of energy behind it beats a 62 grain .22 bullet with 1100 ft-lbs of energy every day of the week, for many deciplines but especially hunting this type of game.

The 7.62x39mm rounds is superior in all matters vs the .223 out to 400 yards or so. It is by far the better combat round as well, but I won't get into that as this is the hunting section.
 
Personally, I would use the 7.62 over the .223. I've just never been comfortable with even allowing someone on my property with something smaller than a 6mm to go for whitetail. Just never really been that impressed with the round.
 
nope.
223 is better at range,
if you look at federal premium's ballistic charts and compare 223 64gr powershoks to 123gr 7.62x39mm powershoks. the x39 will always hold just a little more energy at any distance within 400 yards, but when you look at wind drift and bullet drop, you are much more likely to be able to actually make a good hit with the 223 past 150 yards which is far more important than the actual energy of the cartridge. 223 has more than enough energy, expansion, and weight retention to kill deer, especially with modern bullet construction, the bigger problem is finding a shooter that can put the bullet where it will do the most damage.

EDIT: if we look at model12wins handload data, using swift scirocco 62gr bullets loaded to 3200FPS(kindof handpicked data but still reasonable with CFE223 powder and a 24 inch barrel), you actually start out with a muzzle energy of over 1400 FTLBs, which is 400 FTLBs above the baseline quoted by many as the minimum necessary to take elk(I am not advocating taking elk with 223, I am simply stating general beliefs). at 300 yards, it still has ~730 ftlbs of energy and has only dropped 6.6 inches assuming a 200 yard zero(what most hunters in my area zero their rifles for).

now taking another fine bullet selection for the 7.62x39mm, the 150gr hornady interlock, pushed to a theoretical maximum of 2200FPS(again, assuming best powder and 24 inch barrel), and same 200 yard zero. muzzle energy is 1600FTLBs, only 200 greater than 223, and by 300 it has dropped to just under 820FTLBs, a whopping 90FTLBs higher than the 223, and the bullet has dropped a full 15 inches.

the power differences in the two, whether using factory ammo or handloads are so slight as to make comments like "one is illegal in some states for a reason" to be utterly ludicrous.

Ohio only allows straightwalled cartridges in rifles, please explain how a 357 magnum is better suited to hunt deer than the outlawed 30-30?

Indiana only allows straight walled cartridges, no less than 357 diameter, with a case no shorter than 1.16 inches and no longer than 1.8 inches in length, please tell me why 45ACP is not a good deer cartridge, 45 long colt is just right and 45-70 is evil?

Colorado bans 223 for hunting deer, but then again they also banned high capacity magazines and legalized marijuana. they require 500 inches of blaze orange but Blaze orange camouflage is illegal. please tell me that all of their laws make logical sense. there are many things that are illegal in many states and many things which are legal in many states, neither of which, is an indicator of whether it is good or bad.
 
Last edited:
Just curious are you debating the two cartridges because of price? Of course using actual brass hunting shells kills the frugal factor.

There are also many articles of people buying the SKS and using them as deer hunting rifles.
 
it is likely because those are the two most common, evil black cartridges that people try to set up as multipurpose rigs and each side has it's zealots that bashes the other one(guess which side I'm on:D)
 
I would pick the 7.62x39 over .223 if I had to, out here the deer are taken at maybe 125 yards in brushy woods, where trajectory is not important, foot-pounds matter.

I use a .303 for my deer rifle, nothing fancy.
 
I think one of the most important considerations will be whether or not 223 is legal in your state, and whether you already own one of the rifles in question. If you are asking about an AK vs an AR, I would pick the AR. If you are asking about which is better out of a bolt action, I would choose the 7.62X39 just because I already have a bolt rifle chambered for it that I haven't killed anything with yet. But as tahuna said, it's about a wash otherwise. Pick whichever one you want or like and be happy with it, either will kill a deer.
 
.223 in places where whitetails are coyote size, but if you are shooting 140 lb + deer, go with the heavier bullet choice in 7.62 x 39.

Sure a .223 kills lots of deer, but you hit anywhere but through the ribs, and it really lacks in pentration.

When people start talking about 300 yards shots on whitetails for either cartridge in the context of humane, clean kills, I think you'd be better served by a real deer rifle. If your choice between these two is based on trajectory, you're probably too far away for mature whitetails.
 
The 7.62 has the advantage if both are kept within 150 yards. The 223 has the advantage of precise bullet placement at longer ranges but fails the standard minimum energy requirement at those ranges. I've seen both kill deer and in many instances, neither was much above minimally adequate.
I can kill deer with either but prefer more powerful (effective) alternatives. Both will hit deer further than either should be expected to humanely kill.
The 223 is a conundrum: it's low recoil/noise make it a great starter gun for kids BUT it's low energy level requires very good shot placement. Not the best situation for an inexperienced hunter. I've seen it work great and fail dismally-same day, same shooter, similar sized deer, but far different results.
While others consider the .223 as the end all, do-all of cartridges, I see it as a small bore with limited case capacity and limited usefulness in a world of bigger better choices.
 
In reality, at the normal White Tail hunting ranges both are more then capable.

The difference is in accuracy. The 7.62X39 will not come close to the .223 in the accuracy department.

As Col. Whelen said, "only accurate rifles are interesting".

Regardless of which we chose, its the ability of the shooter that counts. Following that is bullet selection.

In bullet selection, again the .223 has it all over the 7.62X39.

But again, either will work at normal ranges white tails are hunted.
 
7.62x39 was designed and excels at man sizes targets at 100-200 yards.
With the added energy over a nominal .223, it's the 7.62 at those ranges. Beyond, the calculus between the two becomes fuzzier.
 
Model12Win said:
Well for one, it is illegal in many states to hunt whitetail with .223, that should tell you something.
Click to expand...

While it is illegal in a few states, the states that allow .223 or ANY centerfire cartridge outnumber the ones that don't nearly 2:1. In fact I thing WY just changed it's regulations to allow .224 caliber cartridges to be used this last year. What we have to hope for is that hunters use a little common sense when choosing a deer hunting cartridge. There are good and bad choices when selecting any cartridge when going hunting.

#1 Remember regardless of cartridge chosen shot placement is the most important thing when hunting. Good shot placement will more often than not negate any other limiting factors of the cartridge.

#2 Choose a good bullet for the job there are a ton of bullets available that make smaller calibers a decent choice in most hunting situations. However a little common sense goes a long way, just because you can use it doesn't mean it always the correct tool for the job. Just remember good bullet but bad placement rarely turns out well.

#3 Forget about velocity and energy numbers, while you need both things they aren't as important as most of us think. All you need is enough velocity and energy to make your bullet perform as intended at your maximum shot range. If these were truly important in hunting there would be regulations against using hand guns, muzzle loaders, and archery equipment.

Then we have the firearms we are going to hunt with to consider. 7.62X39 is chambered in a few rifles such as CZ and Zastava for bolt actions. T/C and H&R/NEF in single shots. However, when we talk about these two cartridges for hunting the majority of us are thinking AR vs. SKS and AK style rifles.

So if we talk about AR's in .223/5.56 vs. SKS/AK rifles in 7.62, I'll choose the AR every time for white tail hunting. The AR has a much better reputation for being accurate and that makes my #1 rule much easier to achieve. That by no means doesn't make a good shooting SKS/AK a bad choice for white tail or other species of big game it might be suitable on. In fact I'd take whatever rifle proves to be the most accurate, but I don't own an SKS/AK just an AR that shoots pretty darn good so that makes my choice easier.

My daughter has been using a .223 to take deer in OK for the last two years. She shoots sub MOA with Barnes Vortex 55 grain TSX ammunition from the bench and she hunts from a blind with a tripod that is pretty much like shooting from the bench. She has gone two for two on white tail does out to nearly 180 yards from the blind. I have no qualms about her using the .223 for deer outside of CO where legal.
 
Last edited:
Where I live it is illegal to hunt big game with any .22 centre fire or smaller, and I think that's a good and sensible ruling. The margin for error just is so small. We all know about people who know old guys who took a moose with a .22...but that was a matter of putting meat on the table back I te day, often in family's that couldn't afford meat or a new rifle more suited to game hunting. That was surviving. Today, I believe hunting with a .22 of any sort is still very much doable but it borders on stunting and is entirely unnecessary and unjustified. All things being equal, I would give it to the 7.62x39 every time, doesn't matter what type of ammo we're comparing...neither round is particularly energetic as far as hunting goes and the 7.62 make a bigger hole. That being said...all things are NOT equal. Almost anyone who will be found hunting with the 7.62 will be using an sks rifle. A savage axis package gun can be had in .223 for like 400 bucks and it will outshoot that sks like nobody's business. Given that neither round is optimal, I'd want to stick with making precision shots (high shoulder/spine, neck, head...and so ultimately I agree that it's more about the platform than the round in this case...and there are just so many .223 platform that are superior to the 7.62x39 platforms available. So if it came right down to HAVING to use one of these underperforming rounds and not my .270, I'd pick an accurate .223 and wait for the perfect shot.
 
Cor-Bon 150 grain 2300FPS 1762ft-lbs from a 20'' barrel.
2360 from a 22'' BBL.

It's premium ammo, so you're going to be paying for it. Not that it should matter much. A 20 round box should easily last most hunters quite a while, hunting deer/elk, so the ~$34 price tag isn't terrible, considering that. (there's always hand loading if price is such a concern) It's obviously not plinking ammo, but it should blow just about any .223 load out of the water at reasonable hunting ranges.
 
I have killed deer with both and had no problems. Why not take the happy medium and add a 6.8 SPC to the list? I used one on deer and that is really a nasty deer round. At 100 yards my 7.62x39 (Bolt gun) will probably out shoot any 30-30 out there. The only rifle in 30-30 that I ever saw come close to the accuracy of my 7.62x39 was my buddy's Savage 340 chambered in 30-30. So much for "The 7.62x39 has the potential of the 30-30" line of thought. If you hunt heavily wooded steep areas with limited range shooting I would not (And have not) hesitate to use either one of them for deer. Depending on a heavier round to cover a bad shot is a habit I don't want to pick up.
 
We all know about people who know old guys who took a moose with a .22...but that was a matter of putting meat on the table back I te day, often in family's that couldn't afford meat or a new rifle more suited to game hunting. That was surviving. Today, I believe hunting with a .22 of any sort is still very much doable but it borders on stunting and is entirely unnecessary and unjustified.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that this almost invariably comes up in topics such as this by the more reasonably guys willing to admit that small calibers were used in the past out of desperation. often times we describe relatives that did it during the great depression, or during WWII when there wasn't a whole lot in the way of centerfire due to wartime production practices. however 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?

if you are poor and desperate, you are poor and desperate, it does not matter what generation you live in. great grampa Bubba killed animal X with gun Y and bullet Z in 1930, animal X has not grown any harder to kill, and bullet Z has not grown any less potent. it is just as possible today as it was 80 years ago to go out and "kill a moose with a 22", the difference is that today we are in denial just as to how desperate some people are. if you have fallen on hard times and all you have in your collection is a 223, then that is what you take hunting, if all you have is a 7.62x39, then that is what you take, if you have both, then make the decision based on how far you are expected to shoot and the size of game you are after. don't say that a person has no excuse in this day and age and tell them to go out and buy another rifle with money they may not have to spend.

now shifting gears from my poor people rant, there is also the 5 stages of hunting psychology to consider. I'm not sure if this was included in older hunter's ed/safety courses or if it's still taught, but when I was taking hunter's ed, there were 5 stages that many hunters go through at some point in their life.
1. the shooting stage:the shooting stage is often little kids who take satisfaction at just being able to say they shot their gun, whether they harvested or not.

2.limiting out stage:where hunters take satisfaction at actually getting to fill their tags.

3.trophy stage:trophy stage is self explanatory, they just want that big buck that comes out to the hay barn every other tuesday morning at 6:37AM.

4. method stage:the Method stage, also called the Challenge stage is where the hunter takes satisfaction at taking the game a specific way, the tactics are as important as the harvest itself.

5. sportsman stage: where you simply take satisfaction in getting to go hunting at all, regardless of means.


some hunters are just bound in the Challenge/method stage where they are after game for a specific purpose that only makes sense to them. I was very heavily invested in method hunting last year when I decided to challenge myself to make a good hunt rather than just tag out of everything. I called in my first turkey, rather than jumping them and blasting away. I shot my first blackbear, also the first time I've hunted from a blind, the first time I've hunted with open sights, and I did it with a 75 year old rifle just to make it more interesting. I shot my deer with a 9mm carbine simply because, much like 223, the interweb told me it was unethical, unreliable, and underpowered: it was the first DRT deer I've harvested in many years. I hunted elk with a number of rifles, but in the end, the day I harvested I wasn't doing anything fancy.

this year I am being fancy with my elk simply because it is the final frontier for me, but that is neither here nor there. I am a method hunter as of this season, next year I may simply mature into a sportsman but some people just like the challenge of forcing themselves to make a good kill with a weapon that is marginal for the task(muzzle loading, achery hunting, and shotgun come to mind), this will often involve getting closer than you normally would, passing up shots that are less than perfect, and stalking game for long distances to get a good position on them. that is what method hunting is for, to force you to adapt to certain conditions.
 
.223 for white tail every day and twice on Sunday, if for factory loading superiority than nothing else.

But that being said, Pop uses his Mini-30 to great effect on hogs.
 
Totally respect what's been said about there being desperately poor people today just like before. On a different note, guns are cheaper now than they were then (comparatively speaking) I know the price tag shows a much larger # than it would have in a sears catalogue from 75 years ago but...if you figure in inflation, a powerful, accurate big game rifle is much more affordable...you can get a savage axis package in .30-06 for well under 400 bucks with the 3-9 scope on it. Nothing remotely that capable wa available at anywhere near that low a price (again, comparatively speaking with inflation and such) We live in a pretty sweet time to be prospective gun buyers (yes I know those entry level packages are as ugly as a stick an have no soul and such but my savage 111 package in .270 has got me venison every year for a while now)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top