5.45x39: Pros and cons?

[JosephR]

I think that ammo from AIM is the AP WASP ammo. Lots of 5.45 is NOT like that...

There has to be a simple explanation why the copper jacket is magnetic- possibly additives in the solder or whatever is in the core.

 

[barber613]

I am not just talking about you, I understood the whole buzz saw thing. I thought you were just saying it was prone to tumble after impact. However, the clapper issue is but one of the things I thought was bs. I am not, I repeat not an expert and I have done no independent testing quite frankly I don't have the time or inclination. I would like to say that I am in no way questioning you knowledge, but I think you may have reached on this one. On the bullet that was sanded, the core was bonded to the jacket even if just a little. I stand by my assertion that the thread was chalked full of bologny. I am sorry if feeling got hurt. As a side note, this is the first time I have seen an equation get corrected in a thread.

 

[JosephR]

I just pulled and ground down the same round from AIM. The steel insert is there. The boat tail is open at the rear, no lead and the steel core extends almost all the way to the rear of the opening. When the grinder was spinning, it spun the steel core.

The Jacket is NOT copper. I believe it is treated to look like copper. It is silver throughout. I actually didn't find a hollow nose though. It could have been because I ground the jacket into the core, I'm not sure.

 

[JosephR]

If I can find one of the "gray" cased rounds I had (wolf iirc) I will do the same to it...

 

[shooter521]

I think that ammo from AIM is the AP WASP ammo.

7n6, be it Russian or Bulgarian, is NOT armor piercing (which is what I assume you meant by "AP"). The 5.45 AP rounds are designated 7n22 and 7n24, and feature a pointed penetrator core of hardened steel or tungsten carbide, respectively.

There has to be a simple explanation why the copper jacket is magnetic- possibly additives in the solder or whatever is in the core.

Many types of Russian ammo have a "bi-metal" jacket, which is basically just copper-washed steel.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Hello,

H&A - Login

This might shed some light on the whole thing.

Josh <><

 

[shooter521]

This might shed some light on the whole thing.

Error: You must login to access this area. Please login below, or register for an account.

Can you cut-and-paste the relevant info for those of us who don't want to register for an account?

 

[JosephR]

Wow your post is ripe with well, I'm not sure I should say it here...

Hello,

We have a discussion going about the 5.45x39 here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/ammunition....s_and_cons.html

I contend that it is designed to yaw and tumble (I put it as "buzzsaw," a bad choice of wording perhaps) earlier in the wound track.

My principle [principal] nemesis (is this necessary?)

contends that it was not designed this way.

I have no real-world experience with this round. Looked at getting an AK-74 clone at one point, but figured ammo might get tough to find (turned out to be right) and besides that, the folding stock was too short.

Very beautiful weapon, though.

I'm sure some of you have experience with the 5.45mm Soviet round; what are your thoughts?

 

[JosephR]

Wow! How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

I have a Tantal 88 from Interarms. I got it before the current rush for about $500 and stocked up on ammo and mags before everything went up (Although I am still looking for 2 Tantal black plastic mags!). I like it.

I was a tech intel analyst at the Army's all source intel center as an Army Reservist for years and worked in the section that studied small arms. I had daily contact for a number of years with probably the leading expert on the Kalashnikov system in the West. But I am not going to claim great expertise as I am sort of late to it. I was a firm believer in the superiority of the M16.

The AK-74 was classified the first time I saw a photo of some Soviet Airborne troops armed with it. (Like they did not know what our military attaches did!). It was typed in 1974, hence the number and it was about this time (maybe 1975) that they started to issue the gun to special forces and strategic troops like their paratroopers.

The entire system was in fact developed as a result of the observations of the communist world to the M16 in SEA. But despite all of that jaw jacking about being revolutionary, the Soviet system was evolutionary. If you look hard at their weapons systems, they do not come out with stuff from new cloth but continually product improve instead.

The AK-74 was a minor retooling of the AKM and AKMS which were upgrades (?) on the AK-47. Plus they did similar changes to the supporting weapons as well.

The 545 Soviet is very much like its 762 Soviet predecessor in design. It appears to me however to be a minor upgrade of the 556 NATO round in that it sports a slightly heavier bullet than the original M193 55 grain. It is more like the SS109 or the new 62 grain M882. I may have botched my number there but you get the point. There were arguments about increasing penetration of body armor on both sides of the Inner German Border!

In my testing, the 556 NATO and the 545 Soviet appear to be pretty much alike in accuracy and ballistic tests. I would be so bold as to say they were about ballistically equivalent. And, the 545 Soviet/AK74 is now the issue weapons system to the Russian military.

I do not believe that any of these cartridges were designed to yaw/tumble, break apart or buzz saw as that would be in violation of the requirements of the Hague Conventions restrictions on "unnecessary suffering" (what is necessary is not defined). The effect may be the same but the use of things like soft nose bullets or dum-dums is prohibited. They may or may not be signatories but pretty much everyone abides by it in theory.

It is a documented fact that the Muj in the Soviet Afghan War called it the poisoned bullet but strangely enough, the Muj appear to have liked the 762 RUSSIAN (not SOVIET) better than either the 762 or 545 SOVIET rounds. Not only did they like the penetration of the 762 Russian better, it was available and gave them longer range. The Muj also kept the 303 SMLE made by hand in Peshawar in service as well.

Contrary to the feeling on the street, 545 Soviet ammo is neither going away or becoming any more scare than pretty much any other ammo. It is still a bargain in comparison to 762 Soviet but not as good a bargain as 762 Russian. Supply and demand. The great onslaught of SKS and Eastern Block AKs in 762 makes for much higher demand than 545.

Magazines are available as more satellite countries enter NATO and convert their weapons to 5556 NATO (Poland). There are lots of them out there and internet auction sites are not the place to buy them. Actually ProMag makes a darn nice plastic one but you have to fit them a bit sometimes. And now that S&W makes a gun, it will only be a bit longer before some enterprising US soul comes out with real 'Murican made ammo!

There are no magic bullets in my opinion. The 545 does extend the range on the 762 Soviet a bit but I think of the 545 as about like the 556. I once had the temerity and gall to propose going to a 6.5mm X 45 cartridge (+-2600 fps) upgrade for the M16. Nope, Ordnance swept that idea off the table into the new 6.8 that never happened.

I sure wish folks were not hoarding ammo and components. That is cutting into my shootage!

 

[JosephR]

Josh I'm just going to ask politely that you STOP saying I'm wrong and that you STOP participating in this discussion anymore if you are going to hold anything against me.

I am 100% correct as you stated in your first sentence- "buzzsaw" is the wrong word. That was my point, 100% and nothing more.

Your friend on that forum (that you are an ADMIN on) even confirmed that the round was not designed to do ANYTHING crazy when it penetrated flesh.

Let's drop it. Please stop rep'ing me with backhanded compliments and I'll harbor no ill feelings towards you.

The round starts nose first, ends up nose rearward and does not EVER make a complete revolution or tumble:

 

[JosephR]

Oh wow, and another by Fackler, someone you SHOULD read about:

This is more magical:

OH LOOKIE! THE ROUND WILL BE OUT OF THE BODY BY THE TIME IT ACTUALLY DOES IT'S "CRAZY" DANCE!

IT IS FUNNY THAT I'VE SEEN ALL OF THESE PICTURES BEFORE AND I HAVE TO DIG THEM ALL UP AGAIN WHEN I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN THEM. WHY DO I HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE AGAIN? OH, TO SHOW AN "EXPERT" ABOUT THIS ROUND HE'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT...

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THESE PICTURES?

SORRY BUT THIS HAS GONE WAY TOO FAR...

 

[shooter521]

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THESE PICTURES?

Yes, in my post way back on page 1.

 

[JosephR]

lol not you!

 

[JosephR]

The Russians developed this round after seeing the effects of the 5.56x45mm in Vietnam.

The bullet has a clapper in it that moves forward upon impact, turning the bullet into a buzz saw.

Hardly any recoil.

There's a reason the Afghans called them "poison bullets" when Russia was there.

Then again, 7.62x39mm, esp Wolf, has a hollow nose which does much the same thing, in a larger caliber.

No, I don't think there's a reason to add another caliber, esp since the 5.45 stuff has been getting increasingly harder to find, and I'm aware of no domestic manufacturers.

On the other hand, I think the AK variants which fire them are beautiful. I was looking at buying one and converting it to 7.62x39mm. Dunno how legal that would be though.

Josh <><

Josh- Why would you want to convert a 5.45 to 7.62? What about the 5.45 would you like to see on a 7.62?

If it is the stock, get a Khyber Pass clone- they have the triangle stocks.

If it is the brake, buy a brake for 7.62.

If it is the flat round gas block, well, not all 5.45s have those- some used the 45* gas block. If that is what you really want, you'll have to get a '74.

Why would it not be legal? Just swap out the front trunnion and barrel and you'll be fine- well along with the bolt and carrier but that goes without saying and is simple AFAIK.

I need to get new wood for mine. I had a set of REAL russian handguards but used carb cleaner on the gun and messed the top up. what a shame. $100 down the tubes!

 

[Wabatuckian]

Joseph,

Look at the first two wound tracks on the last picture.

See how early the 5.45 tumbles? That's all I was trying to say.

I think, re-reading this entire post, that we have been trying to say the same thing, but we have very different ways of thinking about things. Type never helps either.

Yeah, I'm an administrator there, and created the board according to certain ideas shared with the other admin.

I've never claimed to be an expert on anything. To me, "expert" says that one knows everything there is to know about a subject.

As for the AK-74 clone I was looking at, it had the same forearm, but the pistol grip was that color as well.

I am not sure of the future availability of the 5.45 round, and this is why I passed on it. I like to make sure of domestic manufacturers and reloading components before I commit to a cartridge. The 5.45 has neither that I'm aware of.

Josh <><

 

[JosephR]

The 5.45 round never tumbles within the first 12". FYI 30cm=12 inches.

Are you thicker than 12"? Do you suppose most troops are thicker than 12" front to back?

The crap you've spewed about the round is wrong. Always was and still is.

No clapper, no buzzsaw effect, just a half-turn somersault (tumble) after 40 or more centimeters of travel.

Oh wait, does it tumble earlier in the wet phone books that your friend uses for scientific testing?


First TWO in the last picture? That's an armor piercing 5.56mm round you are comparing it to. Want to rethink your statement YET AGAIN?

Try looking at the M855. Sure, the temporary wound cavity doesn't start as early but by 12", there's a HUGE gaping hole coming out of your back, no? Do you see it?

5.45 will only make it's 180 degree flip if you're shooting large game like elephants...

All I have said here is to refute your statement of "The bullet has a clapper in it that moves forward upon impact, turning the bullet into a buzz saw." What you said was wrong, 100% without a doubt WRONG. NO part of that is correct whatsoever. This argument continues because you still say you were righta all along.

You blame it on "misunderstanding" but really YOU are misunderstanding the design of the round and what it actually does. Start to understand and I think we'll all be better off for it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I'm not retracting any previous statements. However, I am going to stop arguing now, because we're just going in circles, beating a dead horse.

Later.

 

[JosephR]

Good idea. Better late than never.