5.45 vs 7.62

>>32499870
>actual combat scenario where a 7.62 would be superior?
Only time is for barrier destruction and subsonic.

>>32499870
Even 762 yaws very well if you shoot golden tiger.
I'm a bigger fan of 762 in every way within my 400y backyard range. None drop fast enough to matter much.
Lots more fun vs mud etc too.
545 is the sexiest cartridge in existence imo though.

>>32499870
>>32499880
>Only time is for barrier destruction and subsonic.

5.45 goes though barriers better. 9x39 was made for being subsonic. But if you only include perks and not actual performance, then you would not see that both bullets due to different ballistic coefficients of drag actually perform the same at a distance.
5.45 has better recoil management and that is about it.

Like clockwork, the always 7.62x39 "Muh barrier penetration" meme above all else of overall performance.

>>32499941
barrier penetration is incredibly important in combat

File: IMG_2781.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>32499941
According to my soft steel.
223 is double 545, and 545 is double 762's penetration

>>32499870
5.45 is better, but it's less available.

>>32499954
That's what the squad MG is for

>>32499932
this pretty much. I'd take 7.62 8m3 if shift though

5.45 is useless outside of full auto vs 7.62x39


ball 7n6 does more damage then m43 ball 7.62x39, anything other then that in 7.62 does more damage then 5.45, 7n6 is banned and a finite amount now anyway.

commercial 5.45 is underloaded and complete shit too.

>>32499941
>Like clockwork, the always 7.62x39 "Muh barrier penetration" meme above all else of overall performance.
I know this. Even though 5.45 goes through stuff better, 762 destroys more of certain cover types like concrete masonry units.

>>32499985
>citation needed

>>32499941


5.45 does not penetrate more then 7.62, INB4 inconsistent mac test shooting trees, if you cant handle 7.62x39's recoil, why not .22lr I can carry more then 5.45 and its lighter recoiling.

Factory 5.45 is shit, diy.
Handload your 5.45 and slice your way through paper with boolits.

>>32499998
>If you can't handle .338 Lapua recoil why not 1.7 HMR? I can carry more and its lighter recoiling.

>>32499870
7.62 is 2.17 better. It's just math.

>>32500028

this is the logic of the 5.45 fags

>muh lighter recoil

>muh lighter ammo


so why not .22lr? I'm being completely serious, quadruple the amount of 5.45, and no recoil at all so all my shots will hit on target.

>>32500008

no components available,part of being into a niche round with no market in the U.S

>>32500053
You try to put as many shots on target as quickly with a 7.62 as you will with a 5.45. I've done it - 5.45 wins. More shots on target wins every time.

>>32500078

which is exactly why, .22lr>5.45

>>32500053
>rimmed, not jacketed, shit BC, low velocity, low worse pen than both 7.62 and 5.45, not centerfire, no cartridge taper.

Why not get .308? It has more of everything 7.62x39 has.

Because if you want a light fast intermediate cartridge you buy a 5.56 cartridge, if you want a .30 caliber intermediate cartridge you need to buy an AK.

>>32500174
5.45 is better designed for use in a semi auto, though. It has a better case taper and a bullet design less dependent on velocity, so it loses less effect in short barrels

>>32500185
>>32500174
Don't forget higher ballistic coefficients for 5.45 and less recoil.

>>32499985
>commercial 5.45 is underloaded and complete shit too.

I hope Trump lets us get our Ukrainian 5.45x39 imports back.

Also,
>source

File: 1476414021282.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>32500185
>5.45 is better designed for use in a semi auto

Soviets literally adopted 5.45 on the spot because it matched their infantry doctrine use of automatic fire.

>>32500261
would your autism be soothed if I said "auto loader" instead

So what is 7.62 applicable as?

In a DM role? Like an SR-25?

>>32500206
]the factory blew up

>>32500078
>>32500092

And what if they're wearing body armor?

>>32500314
I'd say a 6.5 grendel would do better for that role.
Almost the same recoil as a 7.62x39, almost .308 accuracy.

>>32500354
5.45 penetrates MUCH better than a 7.62, no competition.

>>32500363

neither will penetrate body armor, but 7.62 has a better chance of doing so.

>>32500363
Against a level 3A bullet proof vest?

File: chicken.webm (383KB, 404x720px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 404x720px

I have used 5.56, 7.62, and 5.45 in combat scenarios.

The former and later calibers are righteous by their own merit.

5.45, utilized under a AK74 platform, performed well at most engagements under 400 meters. At 300 meters, it's drop off and grouping was negligibly different than a 5.56 round in a M4. Accounting for inherent difference between platforms, performance was equitable. My AK fired more reliably than an M4 would have given the situation and lack of cleaning/maintenance. Ballistics-wise, I noticed little difference in recoil or soft-tissue damage. I noticed 5.45 rounds had more tendency to spall and ricochet more than 5.56 NATO ball counterpart.

7.62 is a fantastic round in itself, and shouldn't really be compared to the smaller calibers. In LMGs, such as the 240B and PKM, variations of the round did exactly what they were supposed to do.


When it comes to armor penetration, I've seen 7.62 fracture and penetrate ceramic plating, as well as punch holes straight through common steel plating. At combat engagements <300 meters, there's noticeable kinetic damage to soft tissue that the other rounds lack.

I prefer 5.45 over either, but it comes down to shooter preference. Target and environment dictate action and equipment.

>>32500363
>>32500372

5.45 is quite capable of penetrating III and IIIA plates. I've also seen it go through steel plating.

>>32500314

Used commonly in light machine guns like the M240B, PKM/RPK, and various equivalents.

Decent semi-auto rifle round, SVD managed to reach targets to 600m while still carrying enough kinetic energy to disable a person.

It's a bitch to carry tons of 7.62 though, in my opinion.

>>32500431
Bull-fucking-horse-shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heVpWEAn2uQ

>>32500463

I've personally fired a 5.45 round into 2 different steel plates, of common quality for the region, and had penetration 4 times out of 10. That was enough to convince me. Different type of rounds, different types of armor will yield different results.

I've never fired 5.45 commercial in the states, so I can't speak from experience in terms of that. I only know what I know.

Interesting video!

>>32500483
Depends what gauge the steel plates you were firing at were, and the quality of them.

Body armor also varies depending on what materials are used, since they vary between metals, ceramics, and Kevlar.

>>32500551

We used roughly 3/4" to 1" steel handmade plates in Ukraine. Some of us had soft armor carriers, I used a simple cordura plate carrier without any armor. Being struck once with 7.62 at an angle, from a distance, my metal was significantly malformed and I caught bits of spall in my arm and neck. I've never seen 5.45 penetrate anyone who used ceramic plates.

>>32499958
Great, now let's see how they compare through sandbags and bricks.

>>32500577
http://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-body-armor/level-iii-body-armor/ar500-armor-trauma-plate-advanced-shooters-cut-asc-11x14.html

This is a steel plate with spalling coating made to prevent what you said, and is the same exact plate used in that video.

The funny thing about steel is, it can be made in a variety of ways, all of which have a serious impact on performance.

>>32500577
did you at least heat treat the (probably carbon) steel plates?

>>32500431

5.45 will not penetrate level 3 plate, 3a is worthless since any centerfire rifle round penetrates it.

>>32500624

They weren't carbon, and they weren't tempered as far as I'm aware. It appeared and felt like they took steel from a vehicle or some kind of man-made structure to be honest.

>>32500623

My buddy works at AR500, they have great products, I wish I could have used them

>>32500631
I wouldn't say it's worthless. It would definitely be worth it for personal defense, where a handgun or lower-caliber weapon would be more likely to be used.

In combat though, yes, anything below Level 3 is irrelevant.

>>32500646
carbon steel is just another term for normal non stainless or otherwise alloyed steel
car/structural steel is almost always plain carbon steel

>>32499985
>commercial 5.45 is underloaded and complete shit too
*one batch of lacquered Wolf sold by SGammo was underloaded

the vast majority of commercial 5.45 (wolf Polyformance, Silver Bear) performs similarly to 7N6

>>32500798

tula is underloaded as well, and they dont preform like 7n6, they have no air pocket they function like a .22 magnum.

File: bullets-v-max-cutaway.jpg (8KB, 90x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 90x250px

>>32499985
truth

>>32500810
>they dont preform like 7n6
yes, they yaw early (2 inches) and violently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtIDUdDLOE

>>32500825

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFkLAgGy6w&spfreload=10

>>32500825

looks like 8-9 inches in and tumbles a couple times, m43 ball does the same thing.

File: 60gr Silver Bear.png (206KB, 569x251px)

206KB, 569x251px

>>32500829
not sure why you replied to me

>>32500832
where are you getting 8-9 inches? pic related

>>32500838
i can back this up, commercial does yaw like 7N6 but a little later

>>32500825
>Silver Bear
>same as Tula

>>32500424
why would you lie on the internet?

>>32500907
No one said tula and SB are the same, you said "they" as in all commercial 5.45 does not yaw like 7N6, which is not true.

Do you have chrono data from this underloaded Tula? I don't run it in any of my 5.45 rifles so I have no experience with it.

>>32500596
They'd all perform extremely poorly in sand from my experience.
Bricks would be interesting but I don't have time to drag a few out today.

>>32500095
Because they're fucking slavaboos, anon. They don't make sense.

>>32500314
>7.62x39
>DM

pick one

>>32499870
7.62 has more knockdown power in close engagements like urban or jungle settings

>>32499870
>>32505253
>knockdown
>stopping
>power
>damage

These are all fictitious and subjective terms which have no place in a conversation about ballistics.

Use qualitative things like muzzle velocity/energy, ballistic coefficients, accuracy with units like MOA.

>>32500832
>M43
>tumbling
You mean M67

>>32500053
>muh lighter recoil
>muh lighter ammo

Why don't we use .50 bmg service rifles?

>>32505770
nope, m43 steel core will tumble after several inches of penetration, m67 tumbles after about 2 inches, so will 8M2


8M3 fragments immedietely after hitting something.

File: Tabuk6.jpg (1MB, 4624x1555px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4624x1555px

>>32505200
??????????????

>>32505819
>Kebab gun

I rest my case

>>32505819
Ah yes, the famed Tabuk

I fucking want one

>>32499870
7.6 is bigger, like any god fearing american ammo type should be - none of the namby pamby communist 5.45 stuff.

No "intermediate" "compromises" - that's the american way!

File: The Capitalist Gun is Inferior.jpg (697KB, 1280x2020px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1280x2020px

>>32505809
>>32505770
>>32505770
>>32500832
>>32500825

The problem is that they start tumbling through the air too, meaning that the supposed "long range accuracy" of 5.45 rifles is vastly overrated - basically good guns being let down by a bad ammo type that robs the gun of short range power AND long range accuracy.

File: nigga nigga chicken.jpg (66KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 400x300px

>>32506722
What the fuck is this nigger shit?