7.62x39 Ar-15 Questions Help Please

N

Noel

New member
I would like information from users about the reliability of the 7.62 upper on an AR-15. I have heard good and bad with no way to judge the value of the information I get.

Are the AR magazines ok with 8-10 rounds?

Are there any options to normal AR magazines that work better?

Why is this option not more utilized? A 30-30 kind of round with the ergonomics of the AR?

Buffer wear?

Experience with accuracy and any ammo preferences?

Thanks!

Noel
 
Do a search. If I remember correctly, there was a recent thread that addressed, almost exactly, your same questions.

One of the points made was that there are no reliable magazines available in capacities greater than 5 or so rounds. Mainly it was the 7.62x39 taper requiring a radically curved mag.
 
The info is basically, if you use a 20 round Colt Mag, marked either 223 or 7.62x39, it works good with five rounds of 7.62. If you load 6 or 7 or more you begin to get feeding probs because of taper of round. Stay with five and it works great.

There are aftermarket mags made of the top of an AR mag grafted onto the 30 round AK47 mag which I have heard work great. IIRC the capacity is stated as 20. No personal experience, with these mags though. HHC

------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
 
Noel,

Here's what I've been able to compile on the subject:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt from: http://www.ar15.com/manufacturers/colt/modelNumbers/
R6821dc - upper conv.kit, 7.62x39, 16" HBAR, 1in12 twist, flattop, a2 birdcage
R6830 - Sporter Lightweight, 7.62x39, 16" lightweight, 1in12 twist, a2 birdcage
R6830dc
MT6830 - post-ban 6830
R6850dc - upper conv.kit, 7.62x39, 16" HBAR, 1in12 twist, flattop, a2 birdcage
R6851dc upper conv.kit, 7.62x39, 20" HBAR, 1in12 twist, flattop, a2 birdcage

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt from my query to Colt:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: automail [SMTP:automail@coltscustomservices.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 1:06 PM
> To: csservices@colt.com
> Cc: webmaster@imageteam.com
> Subject: Contact Us Page

Mr. Spencer,
Unfortunately we do not have that information available.
Custom Services

> From: Mykl
> Recipient_Name: Custom Services
> Recipient_Email: csservices@colt.com
> Subject: Information Request
>
> comment: Request info regarding feeding reliability and support to
> improve same for Colt supplied AR-15 magazines for 7.62x39 rifle
> variants and upper receiver assemblies.
> Thank you in advance.
> Mykl

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt from: http://www.recguns.com/IIID2b127.html

On 7.62 x39 AR-15 magazines:

7.62 x 39 magazines for AR-15s tend to be problematic. More and more AR owners are buying spare 7.62 x 39 uppers for their rifles to take
advantage of the low cost of military surplus (Chinese and Eastern Bloc) ammunition, or as a means to get a more effective stopper for deer
than .223 Remington.

The problem is finding mags that will feed when loaded with more than 5 or 6 rounds.

Neither Colt (for the AR-15) or Ruger (for the Mini-30) ever made any high capacity magazines for their 7.62x39s, because neither intended
those guns for military or law enforcement sales. (And both being statist/Politically Correct firms in recent years, neither produced high
capacity magazines for the civilian market before the 9/94 ban.)

The Colt 7.62 x 39 rifles and clones can *accept* standard 20 or 30 round G.I. magazines, but they won't function reliably when loaded with
more than 5 or 6 rounds. With its straight magazine well, the AR-15 is not well-suited to the cartridge. As I'm sure most of you reading this
know, an angle builds up to the point where the 7.62 cartridges will jam horribly if you load more than about 8 rounds--regardless of which
magazine you use. The cartridge simply works better in fully-curved magazines. And with the AR-15's straight magazine well, that problem
can never be properly overcome in AR-15s and clones.

Colt-made 7.62 x 39mm magazines differ from standard .223 magazines only in that they have different followers. The 7.62 x 39mm followers
are black plastic and have

"7.62mm" in white letters printed on the follower. They appear to be made

differently from regular .223 followers. I believe these to be standard

alloy M-16 magazine bodies that are assembled with 7.62 followers.

One tip garnered from the net: With the Colt-made 7.62 x 39 magazines, insert the magazines gently with the bolt closed to keep rounds from
flying out the top.

Another problem is that the fat 7.62x39 cartridge tends to bulge out or even split aluminum alloy AR-15 magazines. There is a solution for
that particular problem: The best magazines that I can recommend for a 7.62 AR-15 are either STEEL original Sterling-made AR-180
magazines (also notched for AR-15 magazine catch), or STEEL original Belgian FNC magazines. Then, if possible, replace the followers with
Colt "7.62 mm" marked followers. Even with these, don't load more than 6 cartridges.

The MWG company makes 5 or 10-round magazines that are optimized for the 7.62x39. These are priced at $14.39 each, so they are
affordable, and reportedly well made. The jury is still out, however, on their reliability. . The 10 round model carries part # M10-7.62x39. For
an illustration, see: http://www.shadow.net/~mwg/magazine.html


Hope this helps you,

------------------
Mykl
~~~~~
"If you really want to know what's going on;
then, you have to follow the money trail."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Addendum: As an after-thought, you might consider modifying the NORINCO drum mags for the AR-15. Were I to pursue this personally, I'd first determine if it's feasible to convert the calibers by simply exchanging the internal components of the 120-round AR-variant drum with the 100-round AK-variant drum. Should this prove feasible, I'd sell the resulting .223 AK drum to a buddy that has such a firearm.


[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited November 01, 1999).]
 
Thanks Mykl. Is the buffer assembly all ok?

Pete,

Well I don't really care about the looks but do like the ammo cost and ease of handling. Besides, I have a 30-30.

Noel
 
Noel,

I don't know that to be the case.

If the bore capacity and resulting ported pressure from the 7.62x39 round is different from that of the 5.56NATO, which I suspect it is, then I would also expect that changes would be made to the bolt/carrier mass and/or the buffer mass and recoil spring assemblies. These differences *may* not be significant as they are both locked breach systems, which may minimize any effect of different bore & port pressures. This is not the case with the blow-back 9mm carbine, which has a noticeably stiffer recoil than the 5.56NATO in the same size carbine.

At this point, someone with a comparative experience between the 5.56NATO and 7.62x39 variants needs to weigh in and offer us the benefit of their experience.

------------------
Mykl
~~~~~
"If you really want to know what's going on;
then, you have to follow the money trail."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited November 01, 1999).]
 
Noel, I have the Colt Sporter Lightweight with the 16" barrel, bought as a complete rifle.

My calibrated eye tells me the bolt carrier is the same as the 223 model.

The bolt only differs in that the bolt face is just opened up to the larger diameter of the 7.62 cartridge case.

I assume the buffer and recoil spring are same same as 223. Can't tell you about the gas port.

I know the mags only differ as to the baseplate markings, 7.62 rather than 5.56. These look like 20 shot GI mags. HTH

------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top