[TNTRAILERTRASH]

Who-Tee-Who runs his Ruger x39 "Murican 50-100-200yds with Wolf off the shelf steel case. Figuring bullet drop.

After watching the other video the toobofyou offered this one up. Mag conversion to AK mags.

 

[backbencher]

Who-Tee-Who runs his Ruger x39 "Murican 50-100-200yds with Wolf off the shelf steel case. Figuring bullet drop.

After watching the other video the toobofyou offered this one up. Mag conversion to AK mags.

Who-Tee-Who is now just another for profit YouTube influencer: Leviathan Tribe
When any of these folks recommend a commercial product, you can assume you're watching a paid infomercial.

Mr Brandenburg/Fuercastle is offering conversions to AK mags as a service! I emailed him, see if I get a price:

 

[greg_r]

Wish I had an AK mag well on my 7.62x39 American,

I sight in 3” high at 100. With my Hornady 123 grain interlocks. A center hold keeps me =/- 3" all the way out to 220 yards.

 

[1024Megabytes]

I consider the 7.62 x 39 a round effective to inside of about 425 yards. It is a decent intermediate rifle round that is still very common.

 

[Politically Unreliable]

"Who-Tee-Who is now just another for profit YouTube influencer: Leviathan Tribe
When any of these folks recommend a commercial product, you can assume you're watching a paid infomercial."

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed to see "Honest Outlaw" on their list of clients. I shouldn't be though. It is a business, after all.

 

[greg_r]

I consider the 7.62 x 39 a round effective to inside of about 425 yards. It is a decent intermediate rifle round that is still very common.

I don’t see it as a hunting round at that range. If for no reason than it loses la lot of oomph at that range.

 

[RACHGIER]

I don’t see it as a hunting round at that range. If for no reason than it loses la lot of oomph at that range.

Yeah, I wouldn't hunt with the x39 for anything outside of 300y. Like you said, just not enough ass in it once it's out that far. I want to say that I was taught that the max combat effective range of the x39 was 300~350m?

 

[1024Megabytes]

Yeah, I wouldn't hunt with the 7.62x39 for anything outside of 300 yards. Like you said, just not enough a** in it once it's out that far. I want to say that I was taught that the max combat effective range of the 7.62 x 39 was 300~350 meters?

I think you are right on your estimates. I think you could get possible hits out to 425 yards with the 7.62 x 39 if the situation pressed for it but I would not consider it real effective beyond around 330 yards. The 7.62 x 39 starts dropping like a rock after around 300 yards.

 

[backbencher]

YouTube fellow says he's still doing conversions for $150, and working on a 3-D printed magwell & lug that is customer-drop in for future sales.

 

[RACHGIER]

I think you are right on your estimates. I think you could get possible hits out to 425 yards with the 7.62 x 39 if the situation pressed for it but I would not consider it real effective beyond around 330 yards. The 7.62 x 39 starts dropping like a rock after around 300 yards.

If you can lob one out there, you'll probably be able to drop a two-legged varmint with no armor...

 

[ajole]

I’m sure not volunteering to try to snatch the bullets out of the air…..

 

[RACHGIER]

I’m sure not volunteering to try to snatch the bullets out of the air…..

Right? That's right up there with the guys that talk trash about caliber but don't want to go play catch and prove it.

 

[backbencher]

What's the saying? I wouldn't stand in front of a piss-filled Super Soaker, but that doesn't mean it's a good defensive weapon...

Pistol bullets suck, unless you deliver a lot of them quickly, which is why submachineguns & buckshot are so effective. Damn antibiotics...

 

[RACHGIER]

What's the saying? I wouldn't stand in front of a piss-filled Super Soaker, but that doesn't mean it's a good defensive weapon...

Pistol bullets suck, unless you deliver a lot of them quickly, which is why submachineguns & buckshot are so effective. Damn antibiotics...

It's not really a saying if it's only an ARFCOM thing and it's been relegated to an "in before the" reply.

 

[ajole]

What's the saying? I wouldn't stand in front of a piss-filled Super Soaker, but that doesn't mean it's a good defensive weapon...

Pistol bullets suck, unless you deliver a lot of them quickly, which is why submachineguns & buckshot are so effective. Damn antibiotics...

You know what would really suck? Getting hit by any pistol bullet. At any range.

Not arguing with you, just moving the discussion along.

People always want to define what is good or effective by this or that measurement.

But if a .356 inch wide 115 grain copper and lead projectile moving a few hundred feet per second hit you in the head/face/temple/earhole....or groin or hand or elbow or knee....I think the "effectiveness" argument would become moot. You don't need to penetrate 16 inches, when you hit the soft spots.

Now, the argument is, can you hit those spots? My counter argument is....are you going to stand there and let me try?

Maybe, in some cases, "effective" is less about dropping bodies DRT, and more about making people stop doing the thing they are doing, and move away or get under cover.

Not to talk out of turn, but IIRC, Rach got "stopped" by a round (or several?) that didn't penetrate his armor? And is still suffering from some of the physical side effects of that? Rach, if I have that wrong, feel free to correct me....

So, if that is correct....was that round "effective", despite being incapable of penetrating armor?

 

[backbencher]

You know what would really suck? Getting hit by any pistol bullet. At any range.

Not arguing with you, just moving the discussion along.

People always want to define what is good or effective by this or that measurement.

But if a .356 inch wide 115 grain copper and lead projectile moving a few hundred feet per second hit you in the head/face/temple/earhole....or groin or hand or elbow or knee....I think the "effectiveness" argument would become moot. You don't need to penetrate 16 inches, when you hit the soft spots.

Now, the argument is, can you hit those spots? My counter argument is....are you going to stand there and let me try?

Maybe, in some cases, "effective" is less about dropping bodies DRT, and more about making people stop doing the thing they are doing, and move away or get under cover.

Not to talk out of turn, but IIRC, Rach got "stopped" by a round (or several?) that didn't penetrate his armor? And is still suffering from some of the physical side effects of that? Rach, if I have that wrong, feel free to correct me....

So, if that is correct....was that round "effective", despite being incapable of penetrating armor?

Does it suck? Sure. Folks catch pistol bullets off steel targets & exposed steel backstops fairly regularly, but they're generally pretty flat at that point, so not much penetration and I can't think of hearing of someone killed by a ricochet of a pistol bullet at the firing line.

If I'm going to be shot at from someone 200 yrds away, I'd damn sure prefer they're using pistol ammo than rifle ammo. If they're 2 feet away, I'd again prefer to be shot at with pistol ammo.

The 12-18" penetration measurement from the FBI testing protocol is not in human flesh - but in calibrated ballistic gelatin. If we can get more than 12" of penetration in gelatin, we can expect penetration through the skull, through the sternum, into the hip - whereas there are several accounts of .32 ACP fired at the forehead not penetrating the skull, but traveling under the scalp instead.

Pistol bullets suck in comparison to rifle bullets, and in comparison to pistol bullet effectiveness prior to the discovery of antibiotics. Today, a miscreant threatened w/ a pistol-caliber gut shot likely knows of someone who was shot that carries a colostomy bag; prior to 1928, if someone was gut shot w/ even a .25 ACP, they likely lingered a few painful days before they died. Today, with the relatively effective ambulance service available in urban areas and modern emergency rooms, most pistol shot persons survive; a much higher percentage of rifle & shotgun shot persons do not.

If you're just trying to lay down suppressive fire in an urban environment, pistol bullets will work - blanks might work too for a very lmited period of time. If you are trying to stop a miscreant intent on harm from carrying out that harm, rifles and defensive shotgun projectiles are more effective as immediate blood pressure reduction mechanisms for miscreants than most pistol rounds.

 

[ajole]

Sure....more and less effective are good ways to compare things. But X sucks while Y only sucks sometimes is a bad metric.

And the reality is, the fact that Y is more effective doesn't matter, if you can't carry Y in your pocket, and that's the only option at hand. Besides, I mean...rifle bullets suck compared to cannon balls, right?

Using 180 degree ricochets as an example is disingenous. That's the LEAST effective of all possible things. The Demo Ranch guys caught some shotgun slugs off steel at 15-25 yards in their latest video...no issues.

Meanwhile, I know of two people killed by .22 caliber ricochets. Not on a firing line, but out hunting/plinking. Like I said....hit the right spot, and "effective" changes fast.
And BTW...those two were both killed by ricochets off of T-posts....so I NEVER use T-post target holders for rimfire.

 

[RACHGIER]

You know what would really suck? Getting hit by any pistol bullet. At any range.

Not arguing with you, just moving the discussion along.

People always want to define what is good or effective by this or that measurement.

But if a .356 inch wide 115 grain copper and lead projectile moving a few hundred feet per second hit you in the head/face/temple/earhole....or groin or hand or elbow or knee....I think the "effectiveness" argument would become moot. You don't need to penetrate 16 inches, when you hit the soft spots.

Now, the argument is, can you hit those spots? My counter argument is....are you going to stand there and let me try?

Maybe, in some cases, "effective" is less about dropping bodies DRT, and more about making people stop doing the thing they are doing, and move away or get under cover.

Not to talk out of turn, but IIRC, Rach got "stopped" by a round (or several?) that didn't penetrate his armor? And is still suffering from some of the physical side effects of that? Rach, if I have that wrong, feel free to correct me....

So, if that is correct....was that round "effective", despite being incapable of penetrating armor?

No, that's pretty much spot on. Two to the plate. Cracked my sternum and busted several ribs. Knocked the fight right the fuck out of me for a minute, but the adrenaline and anger carried me through. No lasting ill effects other than getting drunk and forcing people to hear the story for the eleventy-billionth time.

But in the same respect @backbencher is also correct. The ricochet I took in the arm was more annoying than anything. Didn't even know I was hit until my glove made squishy noises. Can't even see the scar anymore because it got tattooed over, nice and clean.

Oops, forgot my point.

I would rather not get shot by anything, ever again. Full stop.

 

[backbencher]

No, that's pretty much spot on. Two to the plate. Cracked my sternum and busted several ribs. Knocked the fight right the fuck out of me for a minute, but the adrenaline and anger carried me through. No lasting ill effects other than getting drunk and forcing people to hear the story for the eleventy-billionth time.

But in the same respect @backbencher is also correct. The ricochet I took in the arm was more annoying than anything. Didn't even know I was hit until my glove made squishy noises. Can't even see the scar anymore because it got tattooed over, nice and clean.

Oops, forgot my point.

I would rather not get shot by anything, ever again. Full stop.

Damn. Deformation through the plate?

 

[backbencher]

Sure....more and less effective are good ways to compare things. But X sucks while Y only sucks sometimes is a bad metric.

And the reality is, the fact that Y is more effective doesn't matter, if you can't carry Y in your pocket, and that's the only option at hand. Besides, I mean...rifle bullets suck compared to cannon balls, right?

Using 180 degree ricochets as an example is disingenous. That's the LEAST effective of all possible things. The Demo Ranch guys caught some shotgun slugs off steel at 15-25 yards in their latest video...no issues.

Meanwhile, I know of two people killed by .22 caliber ricochets. Not on a firing line, but out hunting/plinking. Like I said....hit the right spot, and "effective" changes fast.
And BTW...those two were both killed by ricochets off of T-posts....so I NEVER use T-post target holders for rimfire.

Two people you know both killed by .22 caliber ricochets off T-posts? That's... an amazing coincidence. Tragic, but amazing.

Absolutely, rifle fire is inferior to arty, arty is inferior to LGBs, LGBs are inferior to nukes, etc.

And no, you can't carry a rifle in your pocket, which is why I carry a SUB-2000 in a sling bag - still sucky pistol bullets, but improves my shooting significantly at range. Maybe one of these days I'll upgrade it to a Fold-AR. And why I'm very interested in rifle-velocity pistol rounds, such as 5.7x28mm, .22 TCM, and very light for caliber .357 SIG & 9x25mm Dillon. Those 4 rounds give us perhaps the best chance to inflict rifle-quality wounds from a pistol platform. Perhaps one day MOM will give us a .357 SIG in a pistol, though you'll probably need two of em to keep your pants from sliding off on one side.