Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/19/2004 5:26:44 AM EST
Reading a previous post about 7.62x39 VS. 5.45x39, I saw some say that Kalashnikov himself ddn`t like the 5.45. I remember hearing that on Tales Of the Gun (TOTG). He also said he was for modernizing the 7.62 and still thinks that the 7.62 is better than the 5.45.

My question is why? Is it the whole smallbore thing? Or the gun needs to be slightly redsigned thing?

How bout the we already have a pile of 7.62x39?

Thanks
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:45:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:09:19 AM EST
I think he felt that 7.62 gets the job done at all realistic combat ranges (0-200M). The terminal ballistics and effectiveness after barrier penetration of the 7.62 are superior to the 5.45.

The flatter trajectory of the 5.45 is really moot (particularly true in with a conscript army who's long range marksmanship skills would be.... uhhh.... marginal).

Lastly, I guess the old soldier figured young soldiers should be able to carry the extra weight, and the effectiveness of their ammo shouldn't be compromised just to accomodate unfit conscripts.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:34:00 AM EST
Think Stoner had the same attitude as Kalashnikov in regards to small calibers, they both had a thing for .30 cal.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 2:37:00 PM EST
That's strange..When the Soviets invaded Afganastan the Afgans said the 5.45 was a horribly lethal round..Course they dont have much in the way of armor either..
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 3:11:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:59:05 PM EST
The Soviets had a habit of copying anything American, whether it's a good idea or not. The theory is we did all the R&D and decided this gas mask, web gear, rifle round, etc, and decided to adopt it. If we are using it, it must good gear.

Soviet leadership was always pushing for a lighter rifle. Kalashnikov was constantly coming up with new ideas to save weight, some successful, some not. Leadership pushed the smaller round based on weight saving as well as piggybacking on our percieved "success" with the M-16 ammo. In the end, their round is alot more lethal that the ones we carry.

The funny thing to me is that the AK-74 was to use as many off the shelf componnents as possible, including the barrel. The smaller round meant a smaller bore diameter, which meant more metal and more weight!
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:02:51 PM EST
Top Top