Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/1/2006 10:04:09 AM EDT
Hey folks,

Reading the AK vs. AR thread below made me wonder if there was any good info online regarding the accuracy of the 5.45 round (out of the AK-74), maximum range, and lethality when compared to the 5.56 M4/M16.

Anyone know where to look ?

Thanks.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:16:36 AM EDT
I typed in 5.45x39 vs. 5.56x45 in google and got a lot of results. try that.

-mark
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:00:44 AM EDT
The 5.45 X 39 has a greater tumbling effect when striking its target. This is due to the design of the bullet. Thus creating more damage. The 5.45 X 39 has the least amount of "kick" compared to the 5.56 or 7.62 X 39.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:19:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
The 5.45 X 39 has a greater tumbling effect when striking its target. This is due to the design of the bullet. Thus creating more damage. The 5.45 X 39 has the least amount of "kick" compared to the 5.56 or 7.62 X 39.




as has been posted on this forum many many times, this is debated (the effect of the tumbling).

-mark
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:50:59 AM EDT
An article by David Fortier. He interviewed a former Spetsnaz member who was in the Soviet - Afghan war. He stated he made hits with his iron sighted AKS-74 at 400 - 600 meters.
At all ranges he found the 7n6 5.45mm effective.

Another Spetsnaz member, he interviewed who was in Chechnya. He said he used his AK-74M to shoot down telephone wires and the accuracy wasn't an issue.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 12:03:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By No1Here:
An article by David Fortier. He interviewed a former Spetsnaz member who was in the Soviet - Afghan war. He stated he made hits with his iron sighted AKS-74 at 400 - 600 meters.
At all ranges he found the 7n6 5.45mm effective.

Another Spetsnaz member, he interviewed who was in Chechnya. He said he used his AK-74M to shoot down telephone wires and the accuracy wasn't an issue.



That's what I've read also. I think the point that the one in Sniper's Paradise was trying to make was that it WAS an effective round. The myth that it turns 50% of your insides in to hamburger and that the Afghans called it the "poison bullet" is pretty much just a myth.

Same goes for the 5.56, it's a proven effective round, otherwise it wouldn't still be in use 40 years later.

-mark
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 12:10:39 PM EDT
Do you guys know where I could find that article or any other related articles (or books for that matter) that discuss actual combat situations where the 5.45 was used ?

I've seen this with regards to the 'yaw' in a couple of places:

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 12:25:30 PM EDT
there was a clinical study done on a dead pig and it didnt' exhibit any more yaw than a 5.56 or a 7.62.

Someone on here (I think thekatar) always links it when this discussion comes up.

-mark
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:21:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 3:22:11 PM EDT by Xenogy]
The advantage the 5.56 has over 5.45 is that it fragments. The 5.45 will continue to tumble on impact as far as you can shoot it. Problem is the 5.56 has a fragmentation threshold. After 110 meters or so it no longer fragments from a 16" barrel. Past that the 5.56 will yaw but nothing like the 5.45 will. Because the 5.45 is a much longer bullet it causes even more damage while yawing. As long as 5.56 fragments it is superior but at greater distances the 5.45 is superior.

The problem with the 5.45 is the ammo brand. All the stuff out there is innacurate and underpowered. I read an article on someone who reloaded 5.45 that shot +/- 1 MOA out of his AK74. He shipped a few batches off to someone that had a 5.45 bolt action rifle who printed sub 1/2 MOA groups.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:25:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 6:38:55 AM EDT
Top Top