AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:34:13 AM EDT
So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles.
I won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge 
My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. |
|
Quoted:
A better question is who is questioning the effectiveness of 5.56x45? Certainly not anyone who's been hit by it nor anyone who's hit someone with it. While 5.45 is OK, there are far better 5.56 rounds available (to the military): Mk262 and Mk318 to name two. Yup, this |
|
Quoted: So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8XSKi7U7II won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg/473px-Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg.png My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. Short answer: Because the effectiveness of 5.56 is better than "people" give it credit for, and 5.45's effectiveness is worse than "people" would like you to believe. Longer answer: The air tip of 7n6 has long been thought to be the cause of the double-lobed yaw pattern of that bullet, but there are more conventional designs without the air gap that behave similarly. That's the first point. The second point is that even though 7n6 shows a weird yaw pattern doesn't make it much better than a conventional non-fragmenting/non-expanding FMJ and a significantly worse performer than fragmenting/expanding bullets. |
|
Also, please refer to this post: http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=310 |
|
DocGKR says:
"the 5.45 x 39 mm M74 53 gr FMJ commonly exhibits very early yaw in tissue, at approximately 2.75", but no deformation or fragmentation. In both uncomplicated extremity and torso wounds, the very early yaw allows the bullet to travel sideways through the body, increasing permanent tissue destruction and temporary cavitation effects. A small punctate entrance wound is present and the exit wound may be punctate, oblong, or stellate depending on the bullet yaw angle on exit. Penetration is approximately 21.6”. 5.45 x 39 mm M74 is a lot like an early yawing 5.56 mm bullet that does not fragment--for example M995, but without the AP capability. Good 5.56 mm loads, like the fragmenting Hornady 75 gr or Nosler 77 gr OTM’s, barrier blind loads like the 55/62 gr Federal Tactical TBBC's or Nosler 60 gr Partition JSP, not to mention the new ATK/Crane Mk318 Mod0 OTM SOST load are all superior to 5.45 x 39 mm. " |
|
Quoted:
DocGKR says: "the 5.45 x 39 mm M74 53 gr FMJ commonly exhibits very early yaw in tissue, at approximately 2.75", but no deformation or fragmentation. In both uncomplicated extremity and torso wounds, the very early yaw allows the bullet to travel sideways through the body, increasing permanent tissue destruction and temporary cavitation effects. A small punctate entrance wound is present and the exit wound may be punctate, oblong, or stellate depending on the bullet yaw angle on exit. Penetration is approximately 21.6”. 5.45 x 39 mm M74 is a lot like an early yawing 5.56 mm bullet that does not fragment--for example M995, but without the AP capability. Good 5.56 mm loads, like the fragmenting Hornady 75 gr or Nosler 77 gr OTM’s, barrier blind loads like the 55/62 gr Federal Tactical TBBC's or Nosler 60 gr Partition JSP, not to mention the new ATK/Crane Mk318 Mod0 OTM SOST load are all superior to 5.45 x 39 mm. " Yeah but did you buy several cases of 5.56x45 at 2160 rounds for 300 bucks?  (hell if you have enough .22 is a good round)
|
|
Quoted:
A better question is who is questioning the effectiveness of 5.56x45? Certainly not anyone who's been hit by it nor anyone who's hit someone with it. While 5.45 is OK, there are far better 5.56 rounds available (to the military): Mk262 and Mk318 to name two. Lol....i've always chuckled when people make it seem like a 5.55 is just a BB hitting you....my neighbour was hit by a 7.62x39 round, said he'd take that any day over 5.56 |
|
Quoted:
So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8XSKi7U7I
I won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg/473px-Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg.png My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: |
|
Quoted:
Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Quoted:
Quoted:
So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8XSKi7U7I
I won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg/473px-Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg.png My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, this Quoted:
Quoted:
A better question is who is questioning the effectiveness of 5.56x45? Certainly not anyone who's been hit by it nor anyone who's hit someone with it. While 5.45 is OK, there are far better 5.56 rounds available (to the military): Mk262 and Mk318 to name two. Yup, this |
|
Quoted:
Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8XSKi7U7I
I won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg/473px-Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg.png My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Im not following your logic here. You are saying that 5.56 has a lack of "stopping power" because of its inconsistent fragmentation then you go on to say that 5.45 is "very effective" even though this round clearly does not fragment at all. |
|
Quoted:
Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Quoted:
Quoted:
Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Hello, What you are noticing in the reports is that the type of damage the 5.45x39 does is different than the 5.56x545 round, it isn't necessarily better, and is in a way an urban legend. During the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan some photos of wounds inflicted by the 5.45x39 round surfaced. The 5.45x39 round exit wounds were for the most part stellate i.e. bullet exit with radial tears on the skin extending from it that looks like a star. People took this to be explosive bullets were being used. 
What was actually happened is Afghanis are smaller and the shots exited when it was tumbling (area were the lobes are) exceeding the elastic limit of the skin causing it to tear. The 5.45 though stays intact and wastes a good portion of its energy when it exits. The 5.56 fragments above certain velocity when it yaws dumping all its energy into the target and all you may see is a round hole going though there's a nasty cavity within. The 5.45x39 may séem like a very effective round, but fragmentation in the 5.56 is more effective since what remains of the bullet still penetrates to vital areas. Regards: |
|
Quoted:
Hello, What you are noticing in the reports is that the type of damage the 5.45x39 does is different than the 5.56x545 round, it isn't necessarily better, and is in a way an urban legend. During the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan some photos of wounds inflicted by the 5.45x39 round surfaced. The 5.45x39 round exit wounds were for the most part stellate i.e. bullet exit with radial tears on the skin extending from it that looks like a star. People took this to be explosive bullets were being used. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg What was actually happened is Afghanis are smaller and the shots exited when it was tumbling (area were the lobes are) exceeding the elastic limit of the skin causing it to tear. The 5.45 though stays intact and wastes a good portion of its energy when it exits. The 5.56 fragments above certain velocity when it yaws dumping all its energy into the target and all you may see is a round hole going though there's a nasty cavity within. The 5.45x39 may séem like a very effective round, but fragmentation in the 5.56 is more effective since what remains of the bullet still penetrates to vital areas. Regards: Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Hello, What you are noticing in the reports is that the type of damage the 5.45x39 does is different than the 5.56x545 round, it isn't necessarily better, and is in a way an urban legend. During the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan some photos of wounds inflicted by the 5.45x39 round surfaced. The 5.45x39 round exit wounds were for the most part stellate i.e. bullet exit with radial tears on the skin extending from it that looks like a star. People took this to be explosive bullets were being used. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg What was actually happened is Afghanis are smaller and the shots exited when it was tumbling (area were the lobes are) exceeding the elastic limit of the skin causing it to tear. The 5.45 though stays intact and wastes a good portion of its energy when it exits. The 5.56 fragments above certain velocity when it yaws dumping all its energy into the target and all you may see is a round hole going though there's a nasty cavity within. The 5.45x39 may séem like a very effective round, but fragmentation in the 5.56 is more effective since what remains of the bullet still penetrates to vital areas. Regards: When 5.56 fully fragments in a soft target, there isn't much else that is more effective. However, I think the main difference between the two is that the 5.45 round is more apt to tumble, and it is not as velocity dependent to do so, as the fragmenting 5.56. The 5.56 needs high velocity to consistently fragment, and even then there is still a chance it may not. |
|
Quoted:
Folklore. The actual Pashtu translation is more akin to the poison sting of a bee or wasp. 5.45 "the bee sting" doesnt sound as cool now does it? Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do you think 7n6 is called "poison pill"? Folklore. The actual Pashtu translation is more akin to the poison sting of a bee or wasp. 5.45 "the bee sting" doesnt sound as cool now does it? Pashto is a figurative language, so bee sting and poison bullet probable have similar meanings and not the diminutive meant by that translation. |
|
Quoted:
So I have a question for the guru's here. I see very often the terminal effectiveness of 5.45x39 ammunition out of even short-barrelled rifles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8XSKi7U7I
I won't go so far to say that NATO should adopt that caliber in its entirety (though maybe someone could chime in as to why not?), but it appears that much of the effectiveness of the round comes from its construction. 5.45×39mm 7N6(M) Cartridge Sectional Drawing A: projectile jacket B: steel core C: hollow cavity D: lead inlay E: propelling charge http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg/473px-Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg.png My question is this: If people are always questioning the effectiveness of 5.56, why don't we just mimic the composition of the 5.45 round so as to extract better terminal performance out of the standard 5.56 round? Even the length of the cartridge would appear that it would offer the round a better BC over standard 5.56. Hello, I had to check this first, but a simple, more accurate variant of this "Air Gap" design is already in use by the US military in 7.62x51 and 5.56x45. The OTM MK 262 Mod1 5.56 round makes use of 77 grain SMK bullets in both carbine and rifles as well as the M-118LR with the 175 grain SMK. The below picture shows the construction of the bullet, so no need to copy the Russian bullet, better alternatives are already in use. 
Regards: 
|
|
Quoted:
5.45's bullet design allows it to tumble while still penetrating better than most 5.56 bullet designs. The heavy OTM 5.56 rounds don't penetrate barriers too well. you think the mild steel jacket of the 5.45 7n6 bullet helps it penetrate barrier better and not fragment? |
|
Quoted:
When 5.56 fully fragments in a soft target, there isn't much else that is more effective. However, I think the main difference between the two is that the 5.45 round is more apt to tumble, and it is not as velocity dependent to do so, as the fragmenting 5.56. The 5.56 needs high velocity to consistently fragment, and even then there is still a chance it may not. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Hello, What you are noticing in the reports is that the type of damage the 5.45x39 does is different than the 5.56x545 round, it isn't necessarily better, and is in a way an urban legend. During the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan some photos of wounds inflicted by the 5.45x39 round surfaced. The 5.45x39 round exit wounds were for the most part stellate i.e. bullet exit with radial tears on the skin extending from it that looks like a star. People took this to be explosive bullets were being used. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg What was actually happened is Afghanis are smaller and the shots exited when it was tumbling (area were the lobes are) exceeding the elastic limit of the skin causing it to tear. The 5.45 though stays intact and wastes a good portion of its energy when it exits. The 5.56 fragments above certain velocity when it yaws dumping all its energy into the target and all you may see is a round hole going though there's a nasty cavity within. The 5.45x39 may séem like a very effective round, but fragmentation in the 5.56 is more effective since what remains of the bullet still penetrates to vital areas. Regards: When 5.56 fully fragments in a soft target, there isn't much else that is more effective. However, I think the main difference between the two is that the 5.45 round is more apt to tumble, and it is not as velocity dependent to do so, as the fragmenting 5.56. The 5.56 needs high velocity to consistently fragment, and even then there is still a chance it may not. You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not |
|
Quoted:
You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hi, This reminds me of a chicken and the egg argument. The 5.45X39 is arguably a copy of the 5.56x45 built to Soviet standards for the AKM rifle which became the AK-74. The Soviets saw the advantage in a low recoiling, flat trajectory, lower cost round vs. the 7.62x39 round, and went to it adapting to their tactics and weapons. I remember being in the US Army back in the late 70's early eighties before much was known about the 5.45x39 round. Weird rumors were flying around about it such as breakthrough technology liquid propellants giving it close to 4000 feet per second velocities. Why else would the Russians dump the 7.62x39 round? It turned out that the 5.45x39 had ballistics resembling the 222 Remington instead off the 220 Swift, people were shocked. Fast forward 40 years later the 7.62x39 is still in wide use as a police and military round in Russia and was never completely replaced. It turns out that the Russians in Afghanistan realized that the 5.45x39 lacked the penetration of the 7.62x39 and started limited issue again of the 7.62x39 AKM. The US realized this years ago with the 5.56x45 which resulted first in the M855 round and then a variety of other rounds finally resulting in the M855A1 ammo, 22 caliber riles have trouble punching througgh hard targets. The question then becomes why should the US copy a round that is not superior, and has many of the same issues? Regards: Interesting! Thank you (and everyone else) for your input. I was merely asking because I read reports of troops detailing the lack of stopping power from 5.56 and then you hear about issues detailing inconsistent fragmentation out of the round. Granted, this might be due to the composition of M855, but I digress. I wanted to get input on this question because so far, the 5.45 seems VERY effective based on terminal performance testing. Hello, What you are noticing in the reports is that the type of damage the 5.45x39 does is different than the 5.56x545 round, it isn't necessarily better, and is in a way an urban legend. During the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan some photos of wounds inflicted by the 5.45x39 round surfaced. The 5.45x39 round exit wounds were for the most part stellate i.e. bullet exit with radial tears on the skin extending from it that looks like a star. People took this to be explosive bullets were being used. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg What was actually happened is Afghanis are smaller and the shots exited when it was tumbling (area were the lobes are) exceeding the elastic limit of the skin causing it to tear. The 5.45 though stays intact and wastes a good portion of its energy when it exits. The 5.56 fragments above certain velocity when it yaws dumping all its energy into the target and all you may see is a round hole going though there's a nasty cavity within. The 5.45x39 may séem like a very effective round, but fragmentation in the 5.56 is more effective since what remains of the bullet still penetrates to vital areas. Regards: When 5.56 fully fragments in a soft target, there isn't much else that is more effective. However, I think the main difference between the two is that the 5.45 round is more apt to tumble, and it is not as velocity dependent to do so, as the fragmenting 5.56. The 5.56 needs high velocity to consistently fragment, and even then there is still a chance it may not. You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not Those are still velocity dependent, they will just fragment to a lower threshold than M193 / M855. At a low enough velocity they still will not fragment at all and just tumble. |
|
Its hard to trust a man who doesn't put beans in chili |
|
Quoted:
You do realize that all rounds are velocity dependent, right?  Quoted:
You do realize that all rounds are velocity dependent, right? You obviously don't as YOU just stated in your last post..... Quoted:
You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not 
|
|
Quoted:
You obviously don't as YOU just stated in your last post..... Quoted:
Quoted:
You do realize that all rounds are velocity dependent, right? You obviously don't as YOU just stated in your last post..... Quoted:
You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not Its an exaggeration, a simple device commonly used in the English language. |
|
Quoted:
Its an exaggeration, a simple device commonly used in the English language. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You do realize that all rounds are velocity dependent, right? You obviously don't as YOU just stated in your last post..... Quoted:
You think incorrectly M193 and m855 are velocity dependent, but most other rounds (mk318 and 262) are not Its an exaggeration, a simple device commonly used in the English language. Your grasp of the English language seems a little rusty then. Shouldn't have protested when I correctly clarified the "exaggeration" you tried to make. |
|
Quoted: Its hard to trust a man who doesn't put beans in chili Quoted: Its hard to trust a man who doesn't put beans in chili Beans will rot your brain.  |
|
Quoted: Your grasp of the English language seems a little rusty then. Shouldn't have protested when I correctly clarified the "exaggeration" you tried to make. I think he meant that M193 and M855 are MORE velocity dependent than the others, which is correct. The others are velocity dependent too, just less so. |
|
Quoted:
I think he meant that M193 and M855 are MORE velocity dependent than the others, which is correct. The others are velocity dependent too, just less so. Quoted:
Quoted:
Your grasp of the English language seems a little rusty then. Shouldn't have protested when I correctly clarified the "exaggeration" you tried to make. I think he meant that M193 and M855 are MORE velocity dependent than the others, which is correct. The others are velocity dependent too, just less so. Which was exactly what I clarified. It never hurts to have more velocity. |
AR Sponsor