>>25456157>>25456185>replicate the performance (so not necessarily mechanics)This is why I suggested .300 BLK
According to wikipedia (and I'm using wikipedia since I don't know of any tests involving 9x39) the ballistic performance of a 259gr 9x39 load is 485.7 ft-lbs
Now for .300 BLK
Wikipedia says that a 220gr load out of a 16 inch barrel achieves about 498 ft-lbs of energy. 220 grain loads are subsonic.
a 220 grain .300 BLK load is comparable to a 259gr 9x39 load in terms of ballistic performance, except in penetration.
Now, .300 BLK is a 5.56 casing that's been fucked around with to accept a standard .308 boolit, and it is very common for people to use pulled M80 boolits and load them in .300 BLK, however these are super sonic loads
There are the M118 boolits which are 175 grain, but I am not sure if these would produce a subsonic load or exhibit the same penetration capabilities.
>>25456267>What readily available round in the USA most closely mirrors the positive traits of 9x39?.300 BLK
>For the sake of argument, 300 blk is excluded.Maybe some handloaded 7.62x39
