Perhaps this is better of in the ammo topic, but here goes.....

First I never fired an AK in 5.45, I have one myself in 7,62 and fired several in 5.56x45..

I can only think of one reason the ruskies introduced the 5.45 and that's pretty much the same the US/NATO changed from 7.62 NATO to 5.56. Reducing weight for the individual soldier so he can carry more ammo for his weapon. Funny thing is the "new" AK103 is in 7,62x39 since some outfits demanded the old caliber. Or has the AK103 been outfitted for Russian reserve units still feeding of the amounts of 7,62 ammo while regular units have 5.45mm to fire.

Anyway, I can't think of any reason why a good medium to short range round like the 7,62x39 however old it may be(based on German principles) would be inferior to the 5.45.

So please AK guru enlighten me.....

A good history of the design and why, can be found here..


www.kalashnikovfund.ru/site.php?SMsPId=5&lang=en

The Russian military still have AKM and AKMS rifles in use, the AK-103 rifles are typically used by Spetsnaz units for shorter range ops. So I have heard many Russians prefer 7.62x39 over 5.45x39.

The Fins still use the 7.62x39mm round in there RK M/90 series.

Most all AK variants nowadays are chambered in 5.56 to comply w/ NATO standards.


The Kollector

CAMPYBOB is 100% correct. Russian 7.62X39 production is aimed at the export market. The Russian army uses only the 5.45mm round in the AK series. Except for the 7.62X54mm round witch is used in PKM machine guns or SVD squad-marksman rifles. The older AK/AKM's in 7.62x39mm due seem to be plentiful in combat in Chechnya. I've read certain formations, not just SPETSNAZ prefer the 7.62x39mm round when in MOUT situations. The older round gives better penetration of walls, fences, Etc. than the 5.45mm round. These rifles are not standard issue anymore.

VA_dinger,

Sounds like the same basic discussion that's been going on over here within the Royal Marines and to some extent I believe within the US military also.

Anyway, the Marines want their FAL's back. They say for their type of operation they need the 7,62 NATO round and feel the 5.56 lacks the power. Now I know I don't wanna get hit by either and that the 5.56 has proven itself trough history. But somehow I recognize the discussion.

Using the 7,62x39 for export uses makes sense, since most of the clients still use that round and got a lesser acces to the 5.45 mm rounds.

Big difference between wanting a .308 back verses 7.62x39mm. Its still an "intermediate" sized round. Not a full size .308.

Not comparing the two rounds, but the sentiment is the same

the debate of heavy, hard hitting vs. small and fast has been going on since the 1950's

I suspect it's been going on since the first cave man heaved a rock at his neighbor.

SD

Quoted: the debate of heavy, hard hitting vs. small and fast has been going on since the 1950's I suspect it's been going on since the first cave man heaved a rock at his neighbor. SD

that reminds me of the rock scene from braveheart