I was watching Tales of the Gun on the history channel, and they were talking about the Soviets developing the 5.45 round as an answer to the 5.56. I've never heard anything about the effectiveness of this round, I just heard that it yaws on impact because of the empty nose.

So what can you tell me about the 5.45?

well you have to shoot people multiple times to be sure of a stop.

what else needs to be said?

I guess it was nick named the poison bullet.

but the newer 762 wolf yellow and black box supposedly uses this technology with the air pocket.

I have personally shot a couple large jack rabits with Wolf 60 gr JHP ammo (the $100 a case stuff) with my SAR-2.  It is nearly as devastating as precision handloaded Nosler Balistic Tip out of a 20" HBAR AR-15 on varmints.  This is not meant to sound poorly for the 5.45, on the contrary the 5.45 provides BOTH dramatic performance in 3 or 4 inches of rabit AND is effective against thicker human targets.

I have no personal experience with 5.45 on people of course.  One issue that does concern me about 5.45 x 39 is that the real Russian military load that has earned the "poison bullet" nickname is the 7N6 (or something like that), the ammo we have available here in the USA is Barnaul SP and FMJ, and Wolf FMJ.  How do these commercial loads/bullets compare to the original 'poison bullet' ammo?

We hear about the 5.56 ammo effectivness and it is mostly dependent on the exact bullet used and bellet velocity at the target.  The 2700 fps rule is explained in the Ammo FAQ here at AR15.com   You should read it as it explains a lot about effective distance for the various barrel lengths.

From what I have gathered (all from reading, nothing personally proven) the 5.45 is effective to a much lower velocity and thus MAY be more effective at medium ranges where the short barreled M16/M4 poops out.  It is not about trajectory, it is about fragmentation which is the wounding/killing parameter needed with 22 caliber bullets.  

Personally I like my little SAR-2 (in 5.45), I would first grab an AR15 if the SHTF though.  If the SAR-2 was all that was available I would be content.  The superb yet inexpensive AK74 mags are a big plus on the side of the SAR-2/AK74.

(edited to correct spelin)

Here is what this thread will come down to.  5 pages of AK guys saying that the 5.56 round is the best round ever developed for killing anything up to an including a T-Rex; while the 5.45 round is the most worthless round ever made and you would be better off with a single shot .22short CB cap, and it wouldn't hurt a chipmonk (because you know, chipmonks are people too )

The AK guys will tell you it is a very good round an works well for what it was designed to do. It is a flat shooting round that holds its effectiveness out to almost its max. range. It has less recoil than the 5.56 although is not quite as accurate due to the gun itself.

The Soviets may not be the most technological people in the world, but will change something very quickly if found not to be effective in the field. It has been in use since the mid 70's. if it was as bad as all the AR guys say, it would have been replaced long ago.

The best thing to do is to shoot an AK-47 varient, then a 74 varient.  You will notice the difference right away.

As for this debate, it is like a 1000 drunk guys fighting over which is best, Chevy or Ford.

In this months Small Arms Review they interviewed a Russian that was in Afghanistan.  He said that whatever they wanted to kill with the 5.45, it'd kill it.  

This is my guess. If I'm at such close range that I dont have time to catch my breath and shoot for the head, or make a couple of quick follow up shots. I'm probably going to either be spraying bursts at my target, in which case the point is moot, or I'm going to sling my rifle and rely on my 12-ga shooting "buck and ball" or a mix of 95gr HP and 110gr AP rounds from my Tok.

About the only time I'd ever realy want a bigger round would be an an "Afghani" situation where I could find and ID a target at a 500-1000m range, and in that case, hell, semi-auto doesnt matter, I'd either use an Enfield or a Kiv39 (better known as the M.39 Mosin Nagant)....

I'll toss in some of my own nit picking observations:

The idea of a lightened front to help a bullet yaw when it hits something is not new from the Russians. The .303 British round had this many years before them in the form of wood or other materials in the tips.

The 5.45 has a better ballistic coefficient than the std 5.56, so it travels very flat at lower speed. The sectional density of the skinny round gives great penetration without special materials like the SS109 5.56.

The 7N6 has a steel core that makes it 55gr, and a wee bit faster and a wee bit better at tumbling. But 10% less weight inside does not make me fell like I am 'settling' for what I can buy over here. The poison bullet theory came from the fact that it left a tiny hole going in, and no exit splat going out to prove it's damage at first glance. But Afgans dropped plenty fast when they were hit.

The 5.45 has noticable case taper to help feeding and extraction compared to 5.56. But the straighter case of 5.56 helps with more consistent sealing of the chamber upon firing, for more consistent velocity/accuracy.

In full-auto, they are about the same in my limited experience. The 5.45 rnd has less recoil on it's own, but the AK has more mass slamming back-forth inside than the AR does.

I enjoy the punch of .308, 54r and 8mm. But for better handling in a busy fight the .22 things rule. And last I measured, 500 rnds of 7.62x39 and 750 rnds of 5.45x39 were both in the 18-18.5lb range.

Tell ya what - instead of listening to third hand stories on the History Channel - why not check out what the experts (surgeons & reserchers) are saying:

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

www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02Projectiles.html

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6708147

Near the bottom of this page are some links to great illistrationswww.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

and make up your own mind?

Quoted: As for this debate, it is like a 1000 drunk guys fighting over which is best, Chevy or Ford.

Ain't that what life (on this board) is all about?

Quoted: The Soviets may not be the most technological people in the world, but will change something very quickly if found not to be effective in the field. It has been in use since the mid 70's. if it was as bad as all the AR guys say, it would have been replaced long ago.

In the US we're generally trying to make things better.  The Soviet Union would simply stay with something that worked correctly.  

If that were true they would still be using T-34s, Ratas, and 1895 Nagants.

Gas seals rule!

Please read
Wounding Potential of the Russian AK-74 Assault Rifle and

Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets

Quoted: If that were true they would still be using T-34s, Ratas, and 1895 Nagants.

They  are still using basicallly the same space capsule.  Strictly from memory a launch with that capsule costs them something under $10 million dollars.

Didn't someone say this thread would go nowhere fast?  Oh wait, that was me!

Its economical, practical, and it doesnt fall, spectacularly out of the sky like the STS system.

The shuttle was never ment to be a fleet of primary haulers for what is now closing on 30 years. For virticle launch you cant beat a capsule system...but even then virticle launch needs to be replaced eventually.

Ok, my question has been answered, feel free to hijack all you like.