Thread: Max ethical range on a 7.62x39 bolt-action for deer

As the title says, what would you guys recommend as the maximum range for an ethical kill? And yes, I fully appreciate shot placement. So, a ball-park figure would be nice.

The distance from which you can reliably & repeatedly hit an a4 page, using the same hold/position you would when hunting...

We could tell you nnn meters, but it means squat if you can't hit a barn door from half that distance.

I personally would say to kill a medium sized deer you would need to be able to repeatedly hit a 6 inch diameter target from chosen rest at Max determined distance. Bullet energy to also be above 1000 ft pounds.. A ballistic calculator can tell ya this and the distance when energy will be at this point. I would then cut that distance by 100 yards. But if you are after advice on trying to ethically kill an animal you would have to first determine what your ethics are...

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mjmatsen

As the title says, what would you guys recommend as the maximum range for an ethical kill? And yes, I fully appreciate shot placement. So, a ball-park figure would be nice.

200M is about it , not sure what your 7.62x39 shoots like but generally there not the most accurate round I get around a 3" group at 100m with my Zastava never bothered playing with different ammo so could probably improve on it but the last one I had a norinco I could get near an inch at 100 , either way personally I wouldn't shoot at anything over 150M

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

200M is about it , not sure what your 7.62x39 shoots like but generally there not the most accurate round I get around a 3" group at 100m with my Zastava never bothered playing with different ammo so could probably improve on it but the last one I had a norinco I could get near an inch at 100 , either way personally I wouldn't shoot at anything over 150M

3 at 100 average, Well I think u need a bourbon mate because I have seen a lot worse

Originally Posted by Paddy79

3 at 100 average, Well I think u need a bourbon mate because I have seen a lot worse

DONE

And the award for the second most asked question on the forum goes too........

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

And the award for the second most asked question on the forum goes too........

Why are 270's so good

Assuming decent hunting projectiles & accuracy easily as far or further than a 223

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Assuming decent hunting projectiles & accuracy easily as far or further than a 223

So, 150gn Sierra at 2200fps: +4" at 100yds to get a 200yd zero, 15" drop from 200yd to 300yd. Velocity at 200yds 1750fps. Velocity at 300yds 1550. (On a good day)

Rather have a .223 pushing a 50gn Gameking or TTSX.

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

So, 150gn Sierra at 2200fps: +4" at 100yds to get a 200yd zero, 15" drop from 200yd to 300yd. Velocity at 200yds 1750fps. Velocity at 300yds 1550. (On a good day)

Rather have a .223 pushing a 50gn Gameking or TTSX.

I'm not getting into a pissing comp with this, the 7.62 cal generally uses 123 - not 150 & the frontal area/energy makes the 223 with normal weight projectiles look pathetic.

Not many people will use a 223 or 7.62 x 39 effectively at 300, its not its purpose, more like inside 200, way inside..

The 123 in 7.62 x 39 has more energy, frontal area & SD than the 55 in a 223

You need to compare them side by side, in the field, theory, ballistic charts are one thing real life is another

Don't take my word for it ask anyone who has recently-ish hunted two legs as well as four.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Assuming decent hunting projectiles & accuracy easily as far or further than a 223

Greg just a quick question -ive done a little research and have found published ballistics seem to be very similar to a.303.as i own both a 7.62x39 and the grandaddy .303 whats your thoughts on this. regarding range -well if i cant get within 100m or it looks dubious then its not on!

Originally Posted by kotuku

Greg just a quick question -ive done a little research and have found published ballistics seem to be very similar to a.303.as i own both a 7.62x39 and the grandaddy .303 whats your thoughts on this. regarding range -well if i cant get within 100m or it looks dubious then its not on!

There is little difference between the 303 & 308 if you use decent projectiles, brass, powders, action & barrel.

Most of the published data is for old rifles, like the 6.5 x 55 etc

Its a shame in a way that there aren't modern rifles made for the 303, that's what lets it down.

Originally Posted by csmiffy

Why are 270's so good

Doesn't really need much explaining ... the 270 is a mere 7mm and the 308 a whopping 7.62 mm. The 270 has virtually no recoil and suites those with less physically presence. I once shot a Reedbuck behind the head at all of 50 metres once. Dropped right there, no second or third shots required.

Originally Posted by outlander

Doesn't really need much explaining ... the 270 is a mere 7mm and the 308 a whopping 7.62 mm. The 270 has virtually no recoil and suites those with less physically presence. I once shot a Reedbuck behind the head at all of 50 metres once. Dropped right there, no second or third shots required.

Virtually no recoil you say ????? what 270 are you shooting ???
mine is not what I would call un managable but certainly gives much more solid boot than my old 308 and I would say is on par with my old 7mm rem mag
I certainly woould not call it a light recoil option