7.62 x 54r Rifles

Model 70, mid 1960s? Under $200. In 1971 I bought an L-579 Sako Forester carbine for about $220, and a Weatherby Mark V for $315. NIB. Prices were up by then from LBJ's guns'n'butter monetary policy.

A guy bought a Model 70 in .458, shot it a very few times, and traded it back to McBride's in Austin. Jack put it in the rack at $150; "like NIB". :D 1968 or 1969, thereabouts.

In 1966 I gave $65 for a NIB convertible Blackhawk and $60 for a four-digit 1911.
 
If you look at inflation, are most surplus guns unreasonably priced? You can still easily pick up a Mauser for under $300 to rebarrel or modify into something to hunt with. I kind of think it is the ammo that took the big jump in price.
 
differences

Not to get too sidetracked, but in addition to the difference in the operating systems (long AK type op rod v. short piston), the trigger systems are different as well, the Drag supposedly having one much better. Magazines will not interchange either. They shoot the same cartridge, use similar optics, and have a similar cosmetic appearance. But it stops there.

The PSL/Romak is literally nothing much more than a stretched AK, from a design standpoint. The Drag was designed new from the ground up. Read somewhere the magazine alone took years to refine.
 
It begs the question WHY did the RUSSIANS USE the 7.62x54mm for so LONG?

Seems that if they just adopted a modern rimless design, it would have eliminated having to design all these different guns around the goofy x54 chamber dims.
 
It begs the question WHY did the RUSSIANS USE the 7.62x54mm for so LONG?

Seems that if they just adopted a modern rimless design, it would have eliminated having to design all these different guns around the goofy x54 chamber dims.
Click to expand...
You could ask the same question in regards to the .303 British cartridge and rifles chambered in that cartridge have been popular in both military and sporting configuration throughout the former British Empire.
 
I don't really see any drawbacks using it. Just as effective (more so) than the 7.62 NATO, only difference is the Rim. Just as reliable. Not wonky at all.
 
I am not sure why, but my 54r brass almost doesn't stretch at all. I would think the opposite since where it headspaces and the generous chambers of milsurps. But 4 realods and still no trim, any ideas why?
 
It begs the question WHY did the RUSSIANS USE the 7.62x54mm for so LONG?
Click to expand...

The Russians used the 7.62x54R from its introduction (1891) until 1917.
The SOVIETS used the 7.62x54R from then until the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Russians use the 7.62x54R today.

Think of it as institutional inertia. OR just think of it as being cheap.

The cost of replacing the 54R round simply wasn't worth it. It IS cheaper to design new guns to use the old round than replace the old round, and everything that goes with the old round.

Also the Soviet system strongly discouraged any criticism, even when warranted. Wanting to replace the approved standard (for any reason) would have been seen as a criticism, and not just of the old round, but of the Soviet system in general. They were kind of ...funny that way.

(they went to the 7.62x39 NOT as a replacement for the 54R, but an addition to it.).

A SLIGHTLY similar situation (economy) was why we got the M1 Garand in .30-06 instead of the .276 round it was designed for. Depression era economy, we were able to afford (in small numbers, at first) a new rifle, but with literally billions of 06 rounds (and our standard MGs using them as well) it was economic sense to adapt the new rifle to the old round, rather than replace the old round, despite the apparent advantages the new round offered.

Bottom line is, it worked, and the benefit of changing to something else did not outweigh the expense of conversion.
 
^^^^

Mostly a matter of money. It is the same old story. In peacetime, those who control the money won't shell out the shekels for new rifles because "they aren't needed", then when war threatens or actually starts, the purse strings loosen but it is too late to begin making new rifles so the military has to "go with what you got." The U.S. was fortunate in the 1930's in having some forward-looking folks in the Army Ordnance Corps who realized that the next war would require semi-auto rifles, and encouraged John Garand to pursue his ideas. That gave the U.S. a giant leap over our enemies, but at times it was a close-run thing and we almost ended up fighting WWII with M1903 and M1917 rifles instead of the M1 rifle, the M1 carbine, and submachineguns.

Jim
 
While 7.62x54R may be a primary issue designated marksman caliber, I've seen enough photos to make me believe that the Russian military doesn't really mind using anything they have in the arsenals. This would fall in line with their adoption of several various weapon systems as a supplement to their already massive stockpiles of older weapons. There were pictures of Russian soldiers clearly holding M4s and Remington 700s. These may be SF units and have more latitute with their equipment, but it seems in stark contrast to the way the American militaries operate. The many veterans on here would have better input. The west seems to really strive for NATO standardization whereas I don't see the same fervor with Russia. Just think... the logistics!!!
 
I have read that the Finns, who have a great deal of experience with the old x53r and modern 308 find that they get better accuracy out of the rimmed round than they do from the 308. What I have read suggests that something about the powder column, the way it stacks or something, makes that cartridge particularly accurate, when care is taken in loading it.

If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Despite the necessary work-arounds for the rimmed round, it works very well. I mean, if a university knew that Steven Hawking wanted to present a valedictory speech, I doubt that there would be any hesitation in building a wheelchair ramp to the podium.

Take ferinstance the PKM. Arguably the finest medium machine-gun ever made. In that case, the rimmed round is actually an asset to assist that mechanism in maintaining an astonishing record of reliability. Given that belt fed ammunition may be more likely to pick up dust and dirt on its way to the chamber, compared to ammunition fed from a closed box magazine, with the rimmed round one can cut a generous chamber to accommodate grit and grime, because the cartridge headspaces on the rim. In the case of a cartridge which headspaces on the shoulder, the depth of the chamber is a critical factor in function, and dirt on a cartridge can result in a hard jam that cannot be readily corrected.

+1 to the x54r.

Just 'cuz something is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. A Stradivarius is old, but no sweeter sound comes from a modern violin. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top