8 replies to this topic

[The Wandering Jew]

I was browsing YouTube on the reliablity tests of M-16, G36, and AK-74 but I found a quite interesting link.

Here.

Based on the video, it seems that the AK-74 (despite having a lighter projectile compared to the M-16's 5.56x45mm), have penetrated more boards than the latter. If this is true, then how come many consider the Russian 5.45x39mm weaker compared to the 5.56x45mm. Is the former's spitzer-shaped round affected its performance? Or is there any other possible explanation why is this so? Could anyone point me in the right direction?

I never shot an AK-74 before (But I do confess that during my ROTC days, I have shot an M-16 and an AK-47 in Tanay, Rizal; plus an ARMSCOR 9mm. Too bad we were never given the chance to fire a machine gun.) so I have no idea about the AK-74's performance.

And if you'll ask me which is better, well, one cannot compare an orange to an apple. But in my opinion, I like the AK better in terms of ruggedness and handling.

[Chyros]

Both bullets are spitzer types. The AK's round is more modern than the NATO round and is equipped with a steel penetrator system which increases penetration compared to the NATO round. However, the AK round is propelled less forcefully (less propellant - case is shorter) and this is seen as a speed decrease. This causes the projectile to possess less kinetic energy. In addition, highly penetrative projectiles are known to generally not pass all their kinetic energy into a target, therefore they generally possess less stopping power.

[AZZKIKR]

i may be wrong as i am rather unfamiliar in small arms but although both AK-74 and M-16 having the 5.45 mm rounds, and the AK having having better penetrative ability, it is less lethal against infantry. as the M-16 bullet tends to shatter upon hitting a human, making a wound even worse due to shrapnel, while an AK does a clean wound. i may be mistaken.

[Chyros]

AZZKIKR, on 19 Aug 2009, 11:51, said:

i may be wrong as i am rather unfamiliar in small arms but although both AK-74 and M-16 having the 5.45 mm rounds, and the AK having having better penetrative ability, it is less lethal against infantry. as the M-16 bullet tends to shatter upon hitting a human, making a wound even worse due to shrapnel, while an AK does a clean wound. i may be mistaken.

The M16 uses a 5,56 mm round and does not fragment upon hitting a human. The difference between the two isn't even that important because of the two, even the M16 is notoriously weak and bad at effectively killing targets.

Tbh I never even understood why the Russians went from 7,62 mm which WILL put a man down to an extra-weak 5 mm round in the first place, losing one of its primary advantages over the AR-15 series & derivatives.

[AZZKIKR]

the 7.62mm bullet, although bigger and more deadlier, is slower and its size make it more susceptible to environmental effects like wind. plus its sheer weight causes the barrel to shake (in the AK), reducing range of the AK-47 to around 300m. The M16 bullet is smaller and hence faster, but lacks the penetrating power. but u're more lightly to die from an M16 than an AK as small bullet size with inpact at bone, shatters. The AK makes a more cleaner wound, as its larger size means more robustness and strength.

The transition to 5.56mm maybe due to the lack of accuracy found in the AK. the bullet is smaller, and hence can be made faster, plus its solid penetrator means that it still has the relative penetrative capability as that of the original AK-47, but has a relative increase in accuracy and range. hence, the AK is more efective in jungle and urban conflict, as some videos i have seen have shown the AK47 bullet to be capable of penetrating 12 (verification?) inches of wood, which the M16 bullets simply bounce off, and the heavy 7.62mm bullet also can cause it to shatter concrete.

Heavy calibre russian machine-guns are not as effective as smaller calibre ones, as based on what i have seen, various videos have shown the 14.5mm Heavy machineguns mounted on tank roofs well, deviate off target and has a slow bullet, and the tank is probably more adept at taking out infantry with its coaxial 7.62mm machine-gun, then the 14.5mm HMG. the 14.5mm HMG will probably be more effective against thin-skinned vehhicles or enemy helicopters.

[Chyros]

AZZKIKR, on 19 Aug 2009, 15:56, said:

Heavy calibre russian machine-guns are not as effective as smaller calibre ones, as based on what i have seen, various videos have shown the 14.5mm Heavy machineguns mounted on tank roofs well, deviate off target and has a slow bullet, and the tank is probably more adept at taking out infantry with its coaxial 7.62mm machine-gun, then the 14.5mm HMG. the 14.5mm HMG will probably be more effective against thin-skinned vehhicles or enemy helicopters.

The 14,5 actually travels about 20% faster than even a full-size 7,62 mm NATO round and will carry to longer distances more accurately than a smaller rifle round. In addition, heavy-calibre MG cartridges provide far better penetrating properties making most types of cover very ineffective including concrete walls. Naturally, getting hit by a calibre this big (bigger than a .50 BMG, for comparison) will tear whatever body part is struck clean off or leave an exit wound so big that it'll tear hittees in two, obviously surpassing the stopping/killing power of even a full-size 7,62 mm round.

[Jok3r]

A lot of the change is also related to the size of the round, and therefore infantry carrying capabilities. Like when the US switched from the 14 to the 16, it meant ammunition was significantly lighter and cheaper, and therefore soldiers could either carry more, or move faster.

[The Wandering Jew]

Chyros, on 19 Aug 2009, 18:47, said:

...Tbh I never even understood why the Russians went from 7,62 mm which WILL put a man down to an extra-weak 5 mm round in the first place, losing one of its primary advantages over the AR-15 series & derivatives.

They said that Mikhail Kalashnikov changed the rifle cartridge due to the pressure of the Soviet government, which was in response to NATO's switch from 7.62 to 5.56mm.


BTW, some say that the AK-103 can shoot quite well in more than 450m.

[AZZKIKR]

Chyros, on 20 Aug 2009, 2:00, said:

AZZKIKR, on 19 Aug 2009, 15:56, said:

Heavy calibre russian machine-guns are not as effective as smaller calibre ones, as based on what i have seen, various videos have shown the 14.5mm Heavy machineguns mounted on tank roofs well, deviate off target and has a slow bullet, and the tank is probably more adept at taking out infantry with its coaxial 7.62mm machine-gun, then the 14.5mm HMG. the 14.5mm HMG will probably be more effective against thin-skinned vehhicles or enemy helicopters.

The 14,5 actually travels about 20% faster than even a full-size 7,62 mm NATO round and will carry to longer distances more accurately than a smaller rifle round. In addition, heavy-calibre MG cartridges provide far better penetrating properties making most types of cover very ineffective including concrete walls. Naturally, getting hit by a calibre this big (bigger than a .50 BMG, for comparison) will tear whatever body part is struck clean off or leave an exit wound so big that it'll tear hittees in two, obviously surpassing the stopping/killing power of even a full-size 7,62 mm round.

oh. my mistake then