G&A article on 7.62 x 39????

[JIMinPHX]

I picked up the March issue (Vol 55 #3) of Guns & Ammo in an airport the other day so that I would have something to read on the plane. The table of contents said that on page 22, in the G&A Reloads section, there would be a piece by Bob Forker on reloading the 7.62 x 39 for sporting use. What the G&A reloads section actually had was an article on the .25 WSSM that filled pages 20-22. I did not find the 7.62 x 39 info I was looking for.

Has anyone else seen the article on the 7.62 x 39? Did it end up in a different issue or something like that?

Thanks,
Jim

[Ole]

It's in my issue. Page 18.

[JIMinPHX]

My page 18 is all advertisement. Which issue do you have?

[Ole]

My page 18 is all advertisement. Which issue do you have?

Feb.

I'll bring it over next time I swing by (along with the YUGO surplus I promised you before). Just remind me. [smilie=1:

[JIMinPHX]

Will Do.

Thanks!

[badbob454]

here is the link hope this works ,,, www.gunsandammo.com/content/the-762x39

[Smoke-um if you got-um]

In one of the mags a few months ago there was an article about pulling the bullets from berdan primed cases and using your own powder and bullet to make sporting loads/hunting loads. I've looked all over the house and can't find it at the moment. It was an interesting article. Not so long ago IMI made boxer primed 7.62x39 cases that some of us were forced to use to form 6ppc cases during the Sako 220 Russian case shortage. They were very accurate but not competitive in that arena. The cases were very uniform in weight. If you can locate some they would be a fine starting point for reloading 7.62x39 if that is your interest.

Mike

[deltaenterprizes]

Thanks for the link, there is some info I have been wanting!

[JIMinPHX]

Yes, thank you for that link. I was surprised to find that they would post that article on the web for free.

Unfortunately, I thought that the article itself was a little lacking. I think that I could have done a better job of it myself. The information that I've found on this board is certainly much more enlightening than what I found there.

...so much for paid writers.

[leadman]

They did not even use AA1680 powder which close to the same as the WC680 the US govt. used to load this cartridge. Someone did not do their homework.

[9.3X62AL]

Well, I guess that explains why I stop in here nearly every day......and haven't read or bought G&A for a very long time.

[JIMinPHX]

Yea Al, I've got to agree with you there, but it's kind of hard to get connected to the board from 30,000 feet, so I went for second best & grabbed a copy of G&A that day. :castmine:

[MakeMineA10mm]

They did not even use AA1680 powder which close to the same as the WC680 the US govt. used to load this cartridge. Someone did not do their homework.

It's in there (at least in the on-line version), but it's used with a very light bullet (110grs), and not with the standard weights. You're right that it should have been used in a broader application of loads. They also did not include Accurate 2200 Data either. If RL-7 and Norma 200 work well (and they do), then AA 2200 will work well also...

I know he said he was using .308" bullets, but no 123s, either. The standard for the caliber...

I found it very interesting that the article was posted on the website in October 2007, but it wasn't published in the paper magazine until this year? Or is it a re-print from late 2007/early 2008? If so, no wonder they don't take articles from amateur writers -- they recycle the articles they paid for once, and get more mileage out of them...

[MT Gianni]

Yes, thank you for that link. I was surprised to find that they would post that article on the web for free.

Unfortunately, I thought that the article itself was a little lacking. I think that I could have done a better job of it myself. The information that I've found on this board is certainly much more enlightening than what I found there.

...so much for paid writers.

I read the on line version . It seemed light enough to float if it was dropped in a puddle. The sad news is it is probably just what the Editor wanted.

[JIMinPHX]

I read the on line version . It seemed light enough to float if it was dropped in a puddle.

I think that I just woke up the neighbor's dog with my bellicose laughter from reading that.

Thank you for the evening's entertainment.:grin:

[mroliver77]

I was surprised to see the 296/H110 loads. You will not find many comfortable with loading them in rifles.
Like has been said, it is a thin article. Writer did not even list what gun/guns was used.
Jay

[Buckshot]

I was surprised to see the 296/H110 loads. You will not find many comfortable with loading them in rifles.
Like has been said, it is a thin article. Writer did not even list what gun/guns was used.
Jay

.................Well that just may be a bit too much information for some G&A readers to handle. To be fair, both "Rifle' and 'Handloader' were admittedly dumbed down for the news stand trade. And if that's what it takes for them to survive I suspect that's what'll happen anywhere else.

.............Buckshot