Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 11/27/2001 3:54:54 PM EDT
Okay, guys. This isn't a "my caliber is better than your caliber" test. I just scored 30rds of Russian military 7N6 5.45x39 w/airpocket & steel penetrator. Someone suggested I do a performance comparison test vs 5.56 (M193 & M855?) and I thought that was an interesting idea. Anyways, I'd like to hear suggestions as to possible tests with an eye towards what I can reasonably put together (sorry, I'm fresh out of ballistic gelatin & APCs to use for targets). Range will be 50m? Someone has already suggested shooting through a hard barrier (plywood) to test both rounds effectiveness after penetration.
Intelligent suggestions only, please...
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 4:23:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:10:49 PM EDT
cat.....j/k
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:10:02 AM EDT
Been tested by by professionals:

home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 9:49:19 AM EDT
Chuck, thanks for the link/info. Unfortunately it doesn't provide any insight into a bullet's performance after encountering chance barriers like wood or clothing or glass.
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:09:24 PM EDT
You think the bullet's performance will IMPROVE after penertrating a barrier ? That would be interesting!

5.45mm Soviet's only wounding mechanism in addition to its diameter is the bullet tumbling. No fragmentation effect. Penetration is likely to be less after barrier penetration. 5.56mm is.

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 3:02:45 PM EDT
Hey, Chuck! I think it's time you dropped that low-fiber diet!... hatLighten up, this is just an attempt to answer some "what if?" questions...
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 4:54:38 PM EDT
Not particularly. The performance of the 5.45 round is inferior in just about every way when compared to the 5.56mm M193/M855.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:01:23 PM EDT
My apologies for spouting heresy in the Church of 5.56, it's apparent that rational discussion is not possible when reasonable questions are answered with the "5.56 is superior, period" mantra. If the 5.56 is so superior then there's nothing to fear from comparison testing, is there?...
Talk about closed minds...
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 7:02:15 PM EDT
How about average chrono readings? I'd like to know real velocities for different bullet weights from real AKs in 5.45.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 7:13:11 PM EDT
Thx, Garmentless, that's a start!...
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 7:40:00 PM EDT
What standards are we using? Accuracy? Penetration? We need something to penetrate.
1 inch pine boards, 1 inch apart.
Wet phone books.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 3:56:33 AM EDT
Thx, Only_Hits_Count, standards are exactly what I'm trying to come up with. For the AK I'll be using a 5.45 SAR-2 w/16" bbl w/iron sights. Which AR(s)should be considered as an "equals vs equals" comparison? Obviously no optics or match/varmint setups. Someone suggested 16" AR but what about 20"? What commerical 5.56 loads would be considered M193/M855 equivelants for testing purposes? Accuracy isn't really an issue (5.56 should be more accurate, that's not an issue) but group sizes will be noted anyway during testing. One inch pine boards sound good as well as phone books behind them. Start with a single pine board and phone book then start adding additional pine boards?
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 4:48:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomac:
Okay, guys. This isn't a "my caliber is better than your caliber" test.

Oh, yes it is.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 5:48:49 AM EDT
LarryG, if you want to make intelligent and constructive suggestions to this thread then please do so.
If you have to view everything from a "us vs them" perspective then please go rant somewhere else.
I, for one, consider the 5.56 to have superior ballistics to the 5.45 . However, that doesn't mean I'm not curious as to how the 5.56 & 5.45 military loads compare in different situations, especially since true military 5.45 is rather expensive to come by. Others may be curious as well, regardless of caliber preference.
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 6:28:15 AM EDT
Remind me tonight and I'll post 5.45mm chronograph data. It's on the other PC. Not that it means much, the bullet is "just another .22" like 5.56mm is at longer ranges.

Unless someone has several dozen blocks of 10% ballistic gelatin to place behind walls this will remain an academic question. We already know that pistol bullets are more effective wounding devices after wall penetration than 5.56mm Ball.

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 7:24:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomac:
Thx, Only_Hits_Count, standards are exactly what I'm trying to come up with. For the AK I'll be using a 5.45 SAR-2 w/16" bbl w/iron sights. Which AR(s)should be considered as an "equals vs equals" comparison?


Tomac, can you get hold of a SAR-3 also? I think comparing AKs to AKs in the two calibers would be useful. Velocity, accuracy should be compared. For the .223, some 55gr S. African will do or some Q3131, and then some M855 or SS109 of common availability. If you handload, I would like to know how the AK in 223 shoots 69gr and maybe even 75gr slugs.
You don't need to compare the AK to an AR, we already know which is our favorite!
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 7:27:06 AM EDT
BTW, my average Uly 69gr 5.45 velocity was 2470 fps at 10 ft.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 7:51:02 AM EDT
Tomac,

If all you have to "test" is 30 rounds, you don't have enough ammunition to do anything meaningful. Any "data" you come up with will be statistically insignificant due to the lack of a well-planned testing protocol. Just get some water jugs or something else that will give up the ghost in a spectacular way and have some fun.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 8:31:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomac:
LarryG, if you want to make intelligent and constructive suggestions to this thread then please do so.
If you have to view everything from a "us vs them" perspective then please go rant somewhere else.
I, for one, consider the 5.56 to have superior ballistics to the 5.45 . However, that doesn't mean I'm not curious as to how the 5.56 & 5.45 military loads compare in different situations, especially since true military 5.45 is rather expensive to come by. Others may be curious as well, regardless of caliber preference.
Tomac

tomain, I will post whatever remarks I want, as long as it is within board code. As for intelligent or constructive, you would not either if you saw it. And, by the way, yes it is "my caliber is better".
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 9:01:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2001 8:57:01 AM EDT by SouthernShark]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
tomain, I will post whatever remarks I want, as long as it is within board code. As for intelligent or constructive, you would not either if you saw it. And, by the way, yes it is "my caliber is better".



Dude you are a tool. Everything you have said is freak'n moronic. Tomac comes on here to discuss some intelligent tests that he wants to perform, and you start whining about how your caliber is better than his. Get a grip dude.


-SS
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 10:20:05 AM EDT
LarryG: "Tomain", that's original, I like it! Now, go outside and play, that's a good little boy...
Dave_G, I agree that 30rds isn't sufficient for a truly scientific testing. For that I'd need thousands of rds of various ammo types as well as all the various ARs w/various barrel lengths and conduct the tests under strictly controlled conditions at all significant ranges with all the barrier/target types we want to see tested. Unfortunately I don't have those kind of resources (wish I did!) I don't claim that this is scientific or will show us anything we don't already know about either caliber but am inviting suggestions to allow us to possibly look at things that haven't been looked at before or just to satisfy some idle curiousity.
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 12:12:29 PM EDT
Tomac: If you want some commercial ammo that is M193 spec then buy some Winchester Q3131 or Q3131A. This 'White Box' ammo will be marked as 5.56mm (not .223 as is another White Box load).
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 3:38:13 PM EDT
Thx, Forest, I shouldn't have trouble locating that locally.
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 6:28:00 PM EDT
You can't test for accuracy AND penetration at the SAME time.
So- 15 rounds for accuracy;3 groups of 3 rounds each and 1 group of 5 rounds-doesn't sound like a whole lot that way, does it?
That leaves 15 rounds for penetration- I'm looking for inexpensive test media that will let you recover the bullets.
3 rounds into wet phone books, 3 or 4 PB's deep!
3 rounds-wet PB's with a denim jacket & tshirt
3 rounds thru scrap piece of local wall
material-sheetrock, etc with a 4X8 sheet of
plywood spaced 1 foot behind 'wall'
3 rounds thru 'wall' with 4X8 plywood 10-12
feet behind 'wall'
or try the wall w/ phone books behind it, but they would have to be close to 'wall'
or use series of 1-inch pine boards, line them up behind one another, in 1-inch slots cut into a 2X4 or 2X6.
Anyone ever heard of a 'Fackler Box'??(SP?)
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 8:39:22 PM EDT
i know this is going to sound kind of stuopid, but here is what i do sometimes, i have a friend who works in the meat dept of a store here and, when they get hams, yes i said hams, the kind you just ate last week, and use them as test matter, they will IMHO, give you the closest resemblance to flesh, and hell youll definitely know what kind of penetration your getting, damn i bet the tumble of the 545 will just devastate them there hams.....snipertaz out
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 8:51:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 4:12:25 AM EDT
Good suggestions, thx! The wife and I are having a new house built so scrap drywall, plywood and such shouldn't be a problem. Got a source for phonebooks but might take a little time to acquire enough for all the testing. Will check with the local meat suppliers for possible sources of "old" meat as well.
Tomac
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 4:35:40 AM EDT
wasnt it Jeff Cooper that used to use wet telephone books as a test medium in the days before ballistic gelatin. easier to procure, easier to manipulate, and not as sensative to temperature variations. i would like to suggest that the test be performed with rifles that are close to mil-spec as possible. like a bushmaster 20inch and a suitable AK clone.
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 4:42:53 AM EDT
DvlDog, I've got a 5.45 SAR-2 (correct bbl length, about as AK-74 as I'm going to get) and have a 5.56 AK available as well (16" bbl). Will have to see if I can beg/borrow/steal a 20" bbl AR.
Tomac
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 11:58:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthernShark:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
tomain, I will post whatever remarks I want, as long as it is within board code. As for intelligent or constructive, you would not either if you saw it. And, by the way, yes it is "my caliber is better".



Dude you are a tool. Everything you have said is freak'n moronic. Tomac comes on here to discuss some intelligent tests that he wants to perform, and you start whining about how your caliber is better than his. Get a grip dude.


-SS

I didn't whine about any calibers. I did not mention any calibers, moron. Read my posts again. I just said it is a 'my caliber is better than your caliber post'. Where did I say that 'my caliber is better than yours'? You get a grip and learn to read and comprehend and I was originally joking, so bite me, and what is a tool? If that is meant to say troll, you are most assuredly joking because trolls don't hang around for 1800+ posts.

Also, this from tomac before anyone slammed him


My apologies for spouting heresy in the Church of 5.56, it's apparent that rational discussion is not possible when reasonable questions are answered with the "5.56 is superior, period" mantra. If the 5.56 is so superior then there's nothing to fear from comparison testing, is there?...
Talk about closed minds...
Tomac

That's a real good way to introduce yourself to a new board. At that point, some people had offered ideas and were repayed in this manner. He seemed defensive from the very beginning.
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 1:18:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/1/2001 3:10:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2001 3:04:22 PM EDT by Only_Hits_Count]
The Fackler Box is a rectangular box made from plywood, and open on the top. Approx. dimms: 3ft long X 12 inches high & 12 inches wide. Inside the box, you line up(front to back) large Ziploc bags filled with water. You can shoot this pretty easily at 50 yds. Did that make sense?
For phone books, look for a PB 'recycling center'-AKA big yellow dumpster. Call your local phone company and ask where you can donate PB's. Unlimited supply.
Top Top