5.45x39: Pros and cons?

[Disposable Heart]

You don't die from lead poisoning from bullets. Are you still going to argue that?

I never said the Afghans were great medics or that the bullet didn't yaw and travel to an odd location.

Hey, just going on what I read about the Afghan war from Soviet and afghan accounts, what they had to say. Lead poisoning doesn't kill you. However, lead poisoning+terrible nutrition+poor medicine=bad outcome. Infection kills too.

 

[JosephR]

Ok it's about time someone with some sense actually did some reading.

It looks like this article is the one where a lot of the articles I've been reading have borrowed information:

"The Soviet 5.45 × 39 mm M74 round was introduced into service in 1974 in the AK-74 assault rifle, an updated version of the AK-47, and the AKSU-74 carbine/sub-machine gun. The round, which replaced the 7.62 × 39 mm round then in Soviet service, was likely developed based on Soviet observation of the American 5.56 × 45 mm round in [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]Vietnam[/COLOR][/COLOR].
The Russian military-issue 5N7 specification 5.45 mm bullets are a somewhat complex full metal jacket design. Some people have said that the Russians were concerned about the lower energies of the bullets and designed them to cause more damage than might otherwise occur. The bullet's core consists mainly of a length of soft steel rod, cut to length during the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]manufacturing [COLOR=blue! important]process[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] to give the correct weight. There is a hollow air space underneath the bullet's thin copper jacket ahead of the steel rod core. The base of the bullet is tapered, to reduce vacuum drag (a so-called boat-tail bullet) and there is a small lead plug crimped in place in the base of the bullet, ostensibly so that the thin [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]copper[/COLOR][/COLOR] alloy jacket material can be stamped in place in the proper tapered shape. The lead plug, however, in combination with that air bubble in the point of the bullet, has the effect of pushing the bullet's center of gravity very far to the rear, and the hollow air space under the point of the bullet makes the bullet's point prone to bending to one side when the bullet strikes anything solid, unbalancing it. Most authorities in the West believed this bullet was designed specifically to tumble in flesh, which should have increased wounding potential.
At the time, it was mistakenly believed that yawing and cavitation of projectiles was of major importance in producing tissue damage. Although Dr. Fackler later showed that projectile fragmentation was the key to producing significant wounding effect, this was unknown to the Soviets when they began [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]development[/COLOR][/COLOR] of the new round. This was similarly unknown to the non-Soviet alarmists who feared that they had achieved wounding parity with the 5.56mm M16 round.
Unfortunately, the rigidity of the bullet prevented it from fragmenting and the round soon developed a reputation for being a mediocre stopper. Reports of the 5.45 projectile producing horrific wounds have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false. In his terminal ballistics study using live pig and ballistic gelatin (1984), Fackler was able to demonstrate that the AK-74, even at close range, did no more damage than a handgun round. The only exception was a hit to the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]liver[/COLOR][/COLOR], which caused heavy damage due to the stiffness of the organ. All other organs and tissue were too flexible to be severely damaged by the temporary stretch effect.
With the 5.45 mm bullet, the tumbling produced a temporary stretch cavity twice, at 100 and 400 mm of depth. This is comparable to modern 7.62x39 ammunition and to tungsten penetrator (non fragmenting) 5.56 ammunition. The average width of a human trunk is 400 mm."

Let's just cut the fantasy crap right now.

It turns out this round is no better at wounding than a handgun round and nowhere near the AR15 round so...

Buzzsaw anyone?

Magical internal gimmicks/parts/properties?

Next time you say something that is a little far fetched and someone challenges you, it would behoove you to check into it to make sure you heard correctly or that someone wasn't pulling your leg when they told you this. That would save you a lot of emberassment later on down the road.



How's that for some information?

 

[JosephR]

Hey, just going on what I read about the Afghan war from Soviet and afghan accounts, what they had to say. Lead poisoning doesn't kill you. However, lead poisoning+terrible nutrition+poor medicine=bad outcome. Infection kills too.

OK so then don't defend the guy who made it sound like the magical bullet ripped your insides up, that's all I'm saying.

We're talking about the round here, not the fact that Afghans had a high mortality rate...

Once again, lead poisoning from bullet -- not gonna happen. Quit mentioning it please.

 

[RealtorWhoCarries]

Sorry OP that your original posting got hijacked to those who are more concerned about being "Right" instead of helpful. should have been taken PM

 

[JosephR]

Actually no. So many people have heard and believe these stories about the magical rounds and now think it's the thing to get.

Now at least the OP isn't going to get one for the wrong reasons.

Speaking of hijacking, the point of you spending an entire post to say absolutely nothing was what exactly? It's not that you spoke, you spoke incorrectly- you are trying to play hall monitor when in fact you actually wasted my post 531 correcting you

 

[Disposable Heart]

Sorry OP that your original posting got hijacked to those who are more concerned about being "Right" instead of helpful. should have been taken PM

It was an informative threadjack!

 

[JosephR]

Exactly! Either we start a new thread or we finish this one?

Why should the OP have to search for all 5.45 threads? This one (in hindsight) became a "hijack" of sorts but noone intended to do that. Misinformation relevant (or somewhat relevant to) the round came up and I corrected it. It's not a hijack so quit throwing your "cool" words around willy-nilly.

Thank you.

 

[LS2Notch]

What are you going to Ion Bond? The chamber and inside of the barrel? The steel FSB?

Just spray it out with Windex, wash in the dishwaster then coat in WD40. No need to worry.

Barrel and bolt carrier group, gas block and tube. I've got a 5.56 SBR upper being built by MSTN and they are diamond black coating the barrel, bcg, and charge handle. From what I understand the diamond black coating is good for scratch and wear resistance but didn't know if there was something better for corrosion.

 

[RealtorWhoCarries]

Exactly! Either we start a new thread or we finish this one?

Why should the OP have to search for all 5.45 threads? This one (in hindsight) became a "hijack" of sorts but noone intended to do that. Misinformation relevant (or somewhat relevant to) the round came up and I corrected it. It's not a hijack so quit throwing your "cool" words around willy-nilly.

Thank you.

I have no problem with ultra stong opinions, opposition, people correcting others or people correcting me. However, there are plenty of people on this forum that have proven themselves to be of sage wisdom, strong character, of different levels of expertise (not speaking of me). And these people have demonstrated that it is possible to quickly correct inaccuracies, interject strong opinions, all without "willy nilly" commentary like WTF, BS and the like. I believe in being able to say what you want to say, while being clear concise and respectful. I just think it lowers the caliber of this awsome site. I'm not playing moderator by any means, but i am a member too and members have the right to help preserve the integrity of this forum. I hope you receive this in the spirit it is intended, as I don't think ill of you in any way, because i'm sure you could teach me some things. The Bible says, "As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another". And that doesn't happen without some sparks flying.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Ok, anybody can edit Wikipedia. That's where that information came from.

Here's the deal:

A sectioned view of the bullet shows the lead base, a mild steel core, and on top of the mild steel core, another piece of lead. The nose is hollow.

The piece of lead sitting on top of the mild steel core is supposed to separate upon impact, being a dissimilar metal with a weaker bond. As it separates, it changes the balance of the bullet.

Though it was designed to buzzsaw, the resulting bullet went sideways, bent, and tumbled once, creating a pretty nasty wound.

By comparison, the American 5.56 would break at the cannelure and become two separate pieces.

The Russians observed that the ammo didn't perform exactly as expected, so they made several improvements - as we did with the 5.56.

As well, we're not the only ones with gelatin, pigs, etc. In fact, the Russkies aren't beyond testing such things on condemned criminals.

I can guarantee that a bullet moving over 2000fps will have much greater effect than a handgun round. Hydrostatic shock comes into play at that point.

E=M*v^2. This is why a handgun round has to be relatively big to achieve a borderline effect, but a .223 will drop a man. Energy is a function of velocity, while momentum is a function of mass.

Now, if you really want to bring Marshall and Sanow into this, I will be glad to contact Evan and see what he has to say.

I do not know Fackler, but it would be interesting to hear what he has to say, as well.

I believe in rounds which work on people. I do not put stock in water tests, gelatin tests, or pig tests. The reason for this is that gelatin and water simply compare one bullet to another, and, unlike the human body, are homogeneous in nature.

The pigs, well, they aren't hopped up on adrenaline.

The worst dedicated rifle round will usually do much better than any pistol round commonly used for defense. You just cannot compare the two. Apples and pomegranates.

 

[JosephR]

Are these YOUR facts or did you gather these from somewhere?

Yes, Wiki can be edited by anyone but you do realize, that it is very likely that the smarter more knowledgeable people will be the ones editing the articles, right?

Look at that page, all of the sources are cited.

Fackler is a well respected ballistics expert and I do believe he's the one that's done more testing on pigs and animals than anyone else. He IS the go-to guy in this area.

Your "interpretation" of what happens to the 5.45 round based on what you "see" in the section means diddly squat to me.

Where do you get this information that it was actually designed to "buzzsaw"?? You are still hanging on to that one, aren't you? Will you ever let it go?

Marshall and Sanow?? Yeah, contact "Evan" and maybe he can explain this to me.

BTW- you forgot to divide by two in your mass/energy equation


POINT BEING- YOU SAID THERE WAS A CLAPPER BUILT INTO THE ROUND THAT MAKES THE ROUND TURN INTO A BUZZSAW. I TOLD YOU THERE IS NO SUCH DEVICE BUILT IN AND THE ROUND DOES NOT DO THIS.

Now, you want to pick apart everything else I have said when my ORIGINAL contradictions to your initial statements are 100% correct? Are you seriously trying to say that I was WRONG for telling you the round was not made with a "clapper" device and it does NOT buzzsaw??

 

[JosephR]

Josh- do you even realize that the last large chunk of information I gave you is NOT from Wikipedia and if it ENDED up there, the source I got it from WAS CITED?

Does the fact that it MAY have been put on wikipedia nullify it's value?

Seriously? You are grasping at straws to defend the Buzzsaw and Clapper comments.

You were wrong about them. Sorry.

 

[fireball168]

To hell with Wikipedia.....this is straight from the BFG Design "Speed Emporium".


Here's what we started with, right from AIM Surplus.

Bullet pulled with a pair of pliers. Contrast screwed up on camera.

Bullet laid on the belt sander for a few seconds. It should be noted that there was a bit of lead like material bonding the core to the jacket(and I do mean a bit, literally a drop).

A pick easily popped the core out of the jacket. I've prodded, poked and pried, this is one SOLID jacket. You can see the remnants of the "lead" on the interior of the jacket.

Both the core and the jacket are magnetic.

Despite all of that, which has to be due to the fairly expansive hollow area in the forward portion of the bullet....these things will tear the hell out of a groundhog.


Where a 55 FMJ out of a 223/22-250/220 Swift makes a nice pretty hole(if you ever find the hog), my limited testing with these show damage not unlike that seen with the 6BR and 87g V-MAX loads.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Fireball, thank you.

This was the whole point I was trying to make. When I made the buzzsaw comment, I was referring to the design which allowed it to yaw and tumble early, unlike the 7.62x39, which tumbles once in the last few inches of a wound track.

Joseph, you're more than welcome to go talk to Evan yourself. Evan Marshall - Handgun Stopping Power . He's too busy to do much more than one board.

As well, you can lose the chip on your shoulder and visit my place. Several notable figures there. H&A - Home

Re-reading this, we may have a communications problem. I'm not saying this thing suddenly spins like a boomerang; I'm saying that it has much more yaw and tumble characteristics than the 7.62x39.

That said, I prefer the 7.62 in softpoint. I have a hard time using what is essentially a varmint cartridge on folks, no matter what damage is done.

However, if you truly believe that the design was not well researched and thought out, well, I'm sorry you think that.

Josh <><

 

[JosephR]

No, you mistook what I was saying. I was saying there is no "clapper" or buzzsaw effect, despite the awe experienced by the Afghan people. That is ALL.

Anything else either of us brought to the table was insignificant.

You do understand where that wiki info came from and that it is not "wrong" just because people are free to write articles on wiki, right?

 

[Wabatuckian]

I've published gun stuff on Wikipedia.

This is how I know that a lot of the information is flawed. I read stuff there, and wonder where the heck some of these folks come up with their ideas of things.

Been meaning to go through and correct a bunch of it.

For example, I looked up the 1911 pistol. It states (unless it's been corrected) that the max COL of the .45acp is 1.260". In reality, the max COL is 1.275", and is even stated as such if you look up ".45acp," the cartridge only.

My point is that you never know when it's legit, and when it's some armchair commando in his mother's attic taking internet rumors and publishing 'em.

When I publish data, I use hard fact. I do it myself. For example, I will water test rounds. I do not claim that these tests simulate tissue. Water is to gelatin what gelatin is to a human body, and the human body is not homogeneous.

Mr. Stephen A. Camp prefers wetpack.

Comparing notes, we both have results which are extremely similar to gelatin and animal testing, though we have to do mathematical adjustments for penetration figures.

With that said, I've only tested handgun bullets. I've tried 7.62x39mm, but it just keeps blowing through, literally, every effort I make to test it. Ditto the 7.62x54r. I'll have to work on my methods.

Regardless, autopsy results show that the 5.45x39 tumbles earlier than the 7.62x39, creating a different wound channel.

The post above yours seems to bear this out - he's getting hollowpoint-like performance on groundhogs, which are not the thickest critters in the world.

Josh <><

 

[JosephR]

I've published gun stuff on Wikipedia.

This is how I know that a lot of the information is flawed.

LOL that doesn't quote so well!

 

[barber613]

This thread is laced with more ******** than not.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Barber,

Care to expound upon that comment?

My only contention is this: The 5.45 was designed to yaw and tumble earlier in the target than previous Soviet designs. Perhaps "buzzsaw" was bad wording on my part as it doesn't do that, but it does disrupt earlier, usually yawing quickly and then coming to rest in a vertical position after tumbling once or twice.

This design was developed after observing our original 5.56 in 'Nam. Ours would often break at the cannelure and create two separate wound tracks.

I'd just like to know what you think is "********."

You know, there should be a law - you can't call "********" without expounding upon it.

I respect Joseph's posts because he at least tells me why he thinks it's ********, even if I know he's wrong!

Josh <><

P.S. Joseph, you got a rep point headed your way for a really good discussion, even though we disagree. As well, we may be talking different designs, as the Soviets had bullet designs in this caliber specifically designed NOT to expand, but rather be more of an anti-armor/anti-materiel round. J.S.

 

[JosephR]

How can you still tell me I'm wrong? There's no "clapper" and no buzzsaw effect- that is all I argued against. The stories from Afghans only compounded the myths and I wanted to make that clear...

I think Barber may be talking about all of the people that jumped on your side because they do not like me. That's what is BS.

And when you word it that way, you are 100% correct. That is the intended effect and a great design came from it, although we now see it's not quite as effective as 5.56.

BUT I like the fact that all of their steel core bends and yaws while M855 does not exhibit the same anti personnel characteristics as OTHER 5.56mm. It seems 5.56mm is tailored for different needs- something the USA can and always has been able to do correctly. The USSR knew their logistics were flawed and they wouldn't be capable of constantly moving out new or different ammo to the troops.