www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=174014

Well someone asked about the 5.45 in AR Discussions and I figured I'd post a link over here for the dark side members.

It'd be cool to see some 5.45 vs 5.56 over there, but it's 3:16am right now and I'm to tired to do anything.




edit to make hotlink active

Oh god, here we go again. let's see how many pages this one goes.

1) The AR guys will never give an inch that the 5.45 has any use in the world what so ever.

2) The 5.45 guys will not back down beause they have shot the roundand like it better.  This is a Chevy vs Ford debate.


The 5.45 benefits over 5.56.

- Bullet is pretty much not velocity dependant (to a certain degree) to work the way it was designed.

-Works as designed out very near it maximum range.

- Bullet works the same out of any length barrel. It was designed for a 16 inch barrel (where the 5.56 was designed for a 20 inch), but anything longer only increases range.

- Even less recoil. (as if this were a problem with the 5.56)

- You don't have to visit the Ammo Oricle to figure out what kind of ammo you need. just buy what you see and you are good to go.

- The round has proven itself to be effective on every battefield since it was introduced with only one real legitimate complaint.

-Does not tent to over penetrate soft targets like M855

-Costs much less.

-Comes in a far cheaper, more reliable weapon system


How 5.56 is better.

- More choices in ammo. (You can go out and buy ammo for hunting n the same rifle.)

- Comes in a more accurate, more adaptable weapon system that has been developed more for more uses.

- Has (argueably, and I mean very argueably) better would potential within its velocity limits/range.

- Has better penetration against harder (not hardened, but harder) targets.  This has been remedied in Chechnya with the 5.45 with new "enhanced penetration" ammo for use in street fighting with buildings of heavy stone. I have read multile reports of M855 having the same problem in the larger cities of Iraq, so realize this is more of an issue of the general size/power of these small rounds.

I am sure I left some out, but it will be well covered before this ends.

Nice overview Oberschutze916.

I'm just going to say I like them both, and I agree with ober-this is a "Ford vs. Chevy" type argument.

Quoted: - You don't have to visit the Ammo Oricle to figure out what kind of ammo you need. just buy what you see and you are good to go. - The round has proven itself to be effective on every battefield since it was introduced with only one real legitimate complaint.

Do you have any data on how any of the non-military ammo (ie commercial loadings) have performed?  I was under the perhapse misunderstanding that the military round was different (steel post and air pocket, where commercial rounds have just the air pocket)?

The 5.45 is a good all around cart and the steel jacket give it better penetration characteristics on saftey glass and such.

I however do perfer the 5.56 and think the new 75/77 and 100gr OTM rounds are da shit!  Those things are just pure badass!

I love these ammo arguements...

..and i will ask what i always ask...

If the round in question is so ineffective,
why don't you just step in front of one at about 200 yards....??

(Usually followed by silence)

KyARGuy

Quoted: I love these ammo arguements... ..and i will ask what i always ask... If the round in question is so ineffective, why don't you just step in front of one at about 200 yards....?? (Usually followed by silence) KyARGuy

By your reasoning we would all be sufficiently served by .22's, since no one wnts to "step in front of one at 200 yards".  

Just another 'opportunity' to push our SEAK-74 group buy.

I wouldn't want to get shot by a .22 at 200 yards.  I think it is a good arguement.


Glock shooter, I am sure someone will posy some of Facklers pictures as proof that the round wouldn't bring down a gnat.

You are correct about the difference between the military and the civilian ammo.  I have spent about 20 whole minutes testing the round by shooting a mag through several objects with a cardboard box behind it to check for key holeing. (yeah, real scientific I know)

I shot through some metal that was once the side to my above ground pool before the hail storm from hell. I would say it is about 1-1.5mm thick.  All rounds keyholed in the box behind.

Second was a small piece of drywall.  It was a small piece and broke up after four shots, but all rounds showed that they had keyholes in the box.

I then shot a 1X2 piece of pine. 5 shots - 4 key holes, one bullet went right through.

I then shot a 2X4. 4 shots, two keyholes, one regular hole and one that flew off somewhere else and did not hit the box.

What does this mean?  After wasteing 20 minutes that could have been productive, the round will usually keyhole, meaning it was tumbling.  Don't ask about how much it was tumbling or anything like that, I just know it did.

Heavy Metal, I have an armored rear window from a Mercedies armored car.  Next spring, I will take it out and see what various rounds can do to it.  Campy and RS39 have volunteered to help kill it with me.

The modest taper of the 5.45 greatly helps feeding and extraction, even when using AR mags for the Alexander Arms Grendel platform.

Besides, my AR that gets 1" groups on match ammo, gets 2" groups on 10cent wolf/barnaul, which is only 1/2" better than my Bulgy AK. It's not the ammo, it's just the tradeoffs in the platforms.

Given the trend to intermediate rounds, I think HM is onto something.

Basically, i dont think anyone wants to get shot by anything at what ever range.
My point was that people will argue and debate this until they are blue in the face.
They pull up all the ballistic jello tests and all the Fackler data. Talk about penetrating Helmet X at Y yardage and the fact that bullet Z won't do this whatever thing they thought it would do. Why??  Because it is about all that we have on this subject...and we all love to expound facts figures and data..:)

Even the simplest tests like shooting throgh the garage door or the neighbors above ground pool can prove to be interesting at times.
Building "walls" to test bullets in can prove a multitude of theories and data.

As i said before, there is nothing i want to be
shot with at any distance.

Staying low.....KyARGuy

I have been shooting AR15's for many years at paper and small varmints and have come to respect them as  superbly accurate with the best handloaded ammunition and to me they are very reliable and problem free.

Bought a SAR-2 (Romanian AK74 type in 5.45x39) this past Spring.  It is not nearly as accurate, but then I am shooting 10 cent a pop ammo and using iron sights so this is unfair comparison.  The round shoots as flat as the 223 (or nearly so for plinking purposes). Reliability is 100%.  The missing link is that I have not taken any varmints with the 5.45 round, I hope to remedy this situation this Winter.  

I don't understand why some guys feel they can only like the AR -or- the AK. They are different and each has strong points.

I did send my name to KrinkFreak for the SEAK.  I gotta have a primo AK, and I already have a buttload of mags....

Main drawback with 5.45x39mm is that it's relatively low powered compared to a full sized .30 caliber rifle cartridge.  It's less powered compared to the .223, even.

Overwise no big deal.  If you were so objectionable to the drawbacks of the 5.45mm, you'd have the same objections to the 5.56mm Rem.  If you shoot with the 5.56 Rem, there's no reason you should have a beef with the 5.45mm catridge.

edited so I dont get flamed..LOL

Quoted: - Has (argueably, and I mean very argueably) better would potential within its velocity limits/range.

This isn't arguable at all.

At typical combat distances, 5.56 DOES create a much large permanent wound channel.

At non-typical (i.e. extended distances) it behaves much like the 5.45 where it rotates in flesh, the only difference is the 5.56 will rotate once - where the 5.45 might get a second rotation.

Differences favor the 5.56 even more if you go to the 'heavy' rounds like the 75gr TAP (Hornady OTM) or the 77gr Nosler (Mk262 Mod 1 ammo).

Did you check out the paper on the 5.45's wounding potential? www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

Forest, no disreprect at all, but it is argueable, or we wouldn't keep comming back here.

We (many of us) will never agree wich is the better round.  It does not matter, both will do the job very well, I like the 5.45 round because it is in rifle that is more reliable and the bullet is not anywhere near as velocity dependant.  I know your reasons.

I, and many others couldn't give a rats butt about gel tests.  I think they are about as usefull in real world combat as my 20 minute test descibed above.

I have seen several rounds in use in combat, neither were 5.56 or 5.45, and bullets do much more, and sometimes much less than any lab test can provide answers to.

You point about the  heavier bullets adds to my point about more flexability in the 5.56 round. In that area, the 5.56 wins hands down, that simply can not be argued.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Both rounds wound/kill, and wound/kill well, but as campy said, they are pip-squeaks.  

Give me an 8mm Mauser please.

Quoted: Forest, no disreprect at all,

None taken, as I assume you didn't think I was disrespecting you.

but it is argueable, or we wouldn't keep comming back here.

No we comming back here because people refuse to do the research and consult what has been written in the proffessional journals.  (you know peer reviewed scientific research - rather than "I heard this from Ivan....").

and the bullet is not anywhere near as velocity dependant.

Its not velocity dependant because it doesn't do anything ANY spitzer type bullet would do.  It just tends to do it sooner.

I, and many others couldn't give a rats butt about gel tests.  I think they are about as usefull in real world combat as my 20 minute test descibed above.

See that is the problem.

You *assume* the gel tests are done in a vacume and have no relation to 'real world'.

The specific gelatin used in the tests has continually over the last 20 years been an accurate predictor of bullet performance in human tissue.  Tests have been (and still are) compared to autopsies - and many of the tests (you did read Dr. Fackler's work on the AK-74 didn't you?) were also done on live animals (hogs).  Which also compare favorably with Ballistic Gel and Human tissue..

I have seen several rounds in use in combat, neither were 5.56 or 5.45, and bullets do much more, and sometimes much less than any lab test can provide answers to.

No offense but I'll bet Dr Fackler as an Army Surgeon in Vietnam saw a heck of a lot more, as did his compatriots.

Of course things can vary in the real world - depending on where you hit, the physical makeup of the target (i.e. skinny vs fat), did you hit bone (and which bone?) all will influence results.  You can't test for these type of variance because they are infinate in number.  What you can test (consistantly) is what happens in 'average' density flesh.  Results can vary (that is why a number of test rounds are fired).  But On Average what the good Doctor shows in Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets is what you can expect to see.

Remember these studies weren't done for our amusement or arguement.  They were done so surgeons would know what to expect when they had to put soldiers back together after being hit with these rounds.

Edited to fix HTML

Now if you want to argue the AK-74 vs the M4 with M855 you would have a legitimate argument.  As its been shown the manufactuing variances in the SS109 projectile used in the M855 have been producing a wide variance in the results.

Given certain lots of M855 don't fragment easily from M4's and/or tumble very late then the 5.45 would definately have an advantage.  However if you had a 'good' lot of M855 then the 5.56 would be superior.

All I know is if I were a soldier with an M4 I'd be hoping I could get my hands on some Mk262 Mod 1 instead of M855.

You say you would'nt want to get hit with anything at 200 yards but I say this............I'll take a .22 short fired from a NAA-mini revolver with a 1/4" barrel at 500 yards. At best it'll just sting

Quoted: You say you would'nt want to get hit with anything at 200 yards but I say this............I'll take a .22 short fired from a NAA-mini revolver with a 1/4" barrel at 500 yards. At best it'll just sting

No it wouldn't, you wouldn't even hit me.

Forest, I do not attack Fackler, his studies, his intentions, or his methods, I just come away from every gel test with more " but what ifs" than anything else. I mostly see them as a great example of what would happen if everyone was naked and gut shot.  I bet I saw fewer than 10% that were ever gut shot.  That is my biggest beef with the whole thing. We could debate this for hours though, I understand where you are comming from, I just hope you get an idea of where I am comming from.

My whole shoot-em-up lasted about three weeks, two good weeks in my area. I got to play (rather than observe and "guide") for about 5 days.  I am sure Fackler saw more than I did, and much better medical facilities than I did.

I was so happy to get rid of my STG 77 after Infantry School and move on to a very worn out STG 58 in the Mountain unit.  Bigger is better in my mind.............

And as said earlier, I bet you, (cetainly I) would not want to be hit by either round.  I personally would like to see a larger caliber round used, but that is not my choice........

Quoted: I mostly see them as a great example of what would happen if everyone was naked and gut shot.

Now you know test are also done 'clothed', heck I've even got results from tests where they had ballistic vests in front of the blocks.

I bet I saw fewer than 10% that were ever gut shot.  That is my biggest beef with the whole thing.

The test isn't just for 'gut shots'.  It also usable for leg shots, pelvis shots, arm shots.  Chest shots.

Chest shots!?

Yes besides the fact bullets can go between the ribs, or go throught them will little (or no) effect.

I just hope you get an idea of where I am comming from.

I do.

And as said earlier, I bet you, (cetainly I) would not want to be hit by either round.  I personally would like to see a larger caliber round used, but that is not my choice........

The 6.8 looks very nice, if only they would speed up the civilian release...

Quoted: The 6.8 looks very nice, if only they would speed up the civilian release...

Agreed.

At least we kept this one civil.  I think that is a first, no fighting in one of these threads!

But to answer the origional question of the thread, I would not buy the 5.45 AR rifle.  Stick with 5.56 and a 20 inch barrel and you will be fine. (or get a bigger caliber)

My SAR 2 with Barnaul 59 grain is just as accurate as my AR Dissipator with Winchester 55 grain. I am very impressed with the 5.45/AK-74 that in all accounts, accuracy verses the 5.56/AR-15 comes down to the shooter. Both are excellent systems.