If 7.62x39 hits harder, why switch to 5.45?

>>33286640
Lighter, lower recoil for auto fire, flatter trajectory for tit-for-tat cartridge advancement.
>this thread has been done to death

>>33286640
I really wish we'd have had this discussion 10 years ago
Would have really put everything into perspective for those of us just now turning 18

>>33286666
Quads confirm.

5.45 is insanely controllable.

t. someone who shot an AK-47 AND an AK-74, AND an AR-15 this afternoon. The 15 and the 47 are controllable compared to the battle rifle shit I usually shoot, but the 74 feels like shooting a fucking .22 or an air rifle compared even to 7.62x39 or .223. It's also stupidly controllable when you bumpfire it.

>>33286858
sounds like you were shooting a carbine gassed AR

ARs have way less reciprocating mass than an AK and should recoil much less

>>33286900
With a 20 inch barrel and rifle gas

5.45 achieves the same if not less recoil than a 20 inch AR in a 16 inch gun with better terminal ballistics

>>33286640
Body armor.

>>33286938
>same grain weight
>same velocity
>larger bolt carrier

Yes, this somehow translates to a lower recoil impulse

>muh anecdotes

Felt recoil has to do with weight of the gun and recoil pads, nothing else

>>33286900
You don't know shit. AK74 has less felt recoil.

>>33286640
Lower recoil, can carry more, flatter trajectory, farther effective range.

7.62 has a rainbow trajectory that is very evident past 300 meters

Shooting at people farther away is better than shooting at them close to you

>>33286900
>What is a muzzle brake

File: 1420500979515-0.jpg (19KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 248x249px

>>33286666
Witnessed.

File: 7.62x39-Bullet.jpg (139KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1920x1080px

>>33286640
>If 7.62x39 hits harder, why switch to 5.45?

Don't misunderstand me, I love my 7.62x39. I think it is still great in certain situations, such as combat areas where 90% of engagements will be within 200yds.

I love the cartridge, but it has its limits.

>>33286858
>>33286900
New AK 107s have basically no recoil to be felt because of the counter mass, but it makes me wonder if that's just more that can break.

File: 5.45.jpg (53KB, 736x553px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 736x553px

Because tumbling, the 5.45 was known as the "poison bullet"by the Mujahedeen for it's wounding effects. The second best way to kill a target (first is destroying major organs) is bleed them dry, therefor more tissue damage, more bleeding, quicker kill.

>>33286666
This but also less material used for production and thus faster, cheaper, more voluminous crates of ammo being dropped on the battlefield for more efficient slav squats.

5.45 goes up my butt easier

>>33286640
It has higher muzzle energy but bleeds it a lot faster.At 300 yards its terminal ballistics and its ability to do shot placement is shit when compared to 5.56 or 5.45. Just because the first 200 yards are the most important in a rifle does not mean the next 200 yards do also matter.

File: rifle gel stuff.jpg (104KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 586x750px

>>33286938
>>33287377
5.45 has better external ballistics than 5.56 due to a high ballistic coefficient but terminal ballistics are not nearly as good. 5.45 rounds tumble, but do not fragment. 5.56 tumbles so violently that it fragments leaving a much larger permenant wound cavity.

>>33286666
>Lighter, lower recoil for auto fire
This was the reason 7.62x39 was developed in the first place...
I wish this intermediate cartridge meme would die

>>33288122
And 5.45 has significantly less recoil than 7.62x39.
It is also much lighter, weights significantly less, is more accurate, and has a longer effective range.
Intermediate "meme" cartridges have killed more people in the past 60 years than any other small arms.

>>33286964
>Projectile mass
>Projectile velocity
>Violence of mechanism
>Presence of autoloading mechanism, for that matter
>Muzzle device
You are not a clever man.

File: Victoria 2 endgame.jpg (33KB, 576x416px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 576x416px

>>33287360
Well, we won't be finding out any time soon since no Saiga MK107's ever getting imported.

>>33286640
KE is not the determining factor by which we choose our cartridges. There are many things to take into consideration and 5.45 is better at nearly every one.

>>33288122
but 7.62x39 is an intermediate cartridge

>>33288113
Comparing terminal ballistics by caliber this way is nearly pointless, seeing as how you can use a projectile thats acts however you design it to. It only makes sense if youre comparing specific loads or very different calibers.

>>33288113
This, 5.45 is the shittiest of shitter rounds. You'd think a country devoted entirely to gearing up for war would do a few fucking gel tests with 5.56 and 5.45 before adoption, but then again they adopted the Makarov so they probably didn't care.

>>33288463
No 5.45 rounds were made to fragment, after the original they just made some AP, tracer, training, etc rounds.

>>33288375
Is 7.62x39 obsolete as an intermediate military caliber??

>>33288463
You are correct, but it's useful as a general overview of the common military loads.

File: 22lr.jpg (59KB, 436x416px)

59KB, 436x416px

>>33288325
>filename.png

>>33288499
>No 5.45 rounds were made to fragment, after the original they just made some AP, tracer, training, etc rounds.
It was made to yaw but you can find projectiles to do whatever you want. If they wanted a caliber with the terminal ballistics of 5.56, all they would have to do is produce a projectile that has the same physical properties as whatever 5.56 projectile theyre immitating.

>>33288504
Its got its uses, same as .308/54r/.338 lapua/ whatever

>>33286666
quads confirm, let the debate end already

File: Bald cancer patient meets his idol Charlie Chaplin.png (277KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 500x367px

>>33288526

>>33286640
Certain 5.45 tumble in soft tissue and overstabilize in hard objects. Thou a 7.62x39 hollow point would be interesting though, or hollow tip with a solid perpetrator in the back.

File: chintacular.jpg (3KB, 142x90px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 142x90px

>>33288647

>hollow tip with a solid perpetrator in the back.

>>33288113
>5.45 rounds tumble, but do not fragment.
That's just 7n6, lots of commercial 5.45 is designed to fragment.
>5.56 tumbles so violently that it fragments
Yeah, a hair over 60% of the time from an 18" 1:7, down to 40% out of the M4. To get consistent tumbling you need high speed and a slow twist, which costs you portability and accuracy both of which are prized on the battlefield. The real shining points of 5.45 are its ability to go through hard material without shitting the bed once it finally finds a soft target and its performance out of short barrels. 5.56 was designed for a 20" 1:9, 5.45 was designed for a 16" 1:7. Little did Remington know that the future of their .222 would be a 14.5" 1:7 barrel. Meanwhile the 5.45 retains potency in the AKS-74U's 8" 1:6 barrel thanks to the design's main killing factor being largely indifferent to both velocity and twist. You lose energy of course but the round still does what the designers wanted it to do. Under ideal conditions you're right, but here in the real world things don't always go as planned, especially when you try to force a round to do things the designer never intended.

Now if you can handle the kick and drop 7.62x39 is the answer, and if you can really handle the kick step up to 7.62 real fuckin' NATO.

File: enough.jpg (30KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 316x202px

>>33287377
>poison bullet
>implying this isn't complete fuddlore

>>33288551
>you can copy a design
Wow didn't know that. The Russians didn't copy it, so what's your point?

>>33288719
it ain't. that is a nasty little fucker.

>>33288683
>complains that someone is basing his opinion of a cartridge off of one load using one bullet
>does the same thing

>>33288769
You can add fragmentation potential to anything with a simple bullet tip modification, you can't give 5.56 the entire design of the 5.45 without completely redesigning the cartridge, or at least the neck up.

File: get it right the first time.png (36KB, 690x539px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 690x539px

>>33288719
>fuddlore
>implying it isn't muhmeet lore

Get your memes right, god dammit.

>>33288719
But it's not you retard.
The bullet tumbled much sooner than M43 and the full power rounds the Afghanis were using.
Meaning it caused more internal damage.

Now Afghanis can deal with external trauma, every man and his child sex slave there knows how to sew up an external wound.
So guys were getting shot, having the external trauma taken care of and later dropping dead from internal bleeding.

Afghanis being Afghanis they assumed the bullets were poisoned, which actually made the CIA look into it for a few years.

5.45x39 is superior for military use

7.62x39 might be better for civilians though

>>33288739
I wasnt aware that the only 5.45 anyone could use or consider using is 7n6 surplus.

>>33289453
5.45=/=5.56

>>33289530
that wasnt said or implied by anyone.

What shoots 5.45 other than the AK74 & AK107?

>>33289575
RPK

File: 7n6.jpg (95KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1000x563px

>>33286640
5,45 destroys the insides of the body and doesn't over penetrate like 7,62.

>>33289575
There are some Vepr rifles that shoot it. Also, you can build 5,45 ARs.

File: Babe.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>33286640

7,62x39 is the perfect round for an SBR in a CQB/city scenario...there is a reason that it was copied and renamed 300 BLK.

>>33286640
The 7.62x39 was a rip off of an experimental Nazi cartridge. It is a good round but had room for improvement. The 5.45 had more research and development put into it. It wasn't just a ripoff it was improved from the 5.56.

Although I refer heavier calibers, lighter calibers have more benefits for a conventional army. Soldiers can carry a lot of it, it is accurate, and it has range.

However for a while the US Military has been restricting full auto use in order to conserve ammo. My theory is that countries will switch to something like an intermediate and full size cartidge. Having a heavier projectile but keeping the range and accuracy of the 5.56/5.45

>>33286640
>muh collateral damage

>>33290560
I doubt we will ever see a major military power switch back to a full size cartridge for their service rifles. However I wouldn't be surprised if propellant technology advances to the point where gunpowder becomes more potent and you need less case volume then you used to for high velocity rounds. Maybe to the point of getting 7.62 Nato performance out of .300 blackout or .243 like performance out of a 5.56.

>>33289575
Ukrainian Tavor.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/10/15/ukraine-manufacturing-tavor-in-5-45x39mm/

And a few bolt action rifles I think.

>>33286738
>I've been talking about the same thing IRL and online for as long as I have been cognizant
It's a weird feeling.

>>33286640
A round that hits its target hits infinitely harder than the one that misses. And your average soldier hosing full auto fire is more likely to get rounds on target when there is less recoil.

>>33291321
Did your dad teach you to talk with arguments that anything below .30 is a varmint round?

File: 123513254456.jpg (18KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x327px

>>33286640
According to soviet trials 5.45x39 has x3 times stopping power of 7.62x39, had recoil impulse small enough to make automatic fire useful from assault rifle, and had better trajectory (battlesight range, drop, wind drift, time of flight).

US redneck believes were irrelevant for GRAU.

>>33288122
>muh full powered cartridge!
Choke on horsecock.

>>33288113
>5.56 tumbles so violently that it fragments leaving a much larger permenant wound cavity.
It is illegal according to international treaties so USSR could not copy that (no GRAU doesn't care what your imperialistic lawyers say about legality of M193/M855). Also USSR made decision to use steel core bullets. Better barrier penetration and strategic availability during war.

>>33286938
An AK-74 has nearly half the recoil of an M16.

File: rk.jpg (300KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1600x1200px

>>33291449
I'm a fan of the 5.45x39 cartridge, but do you think that they were perhaps blowing it way out of proportion? Cold war, and all.

File: 123531541345.jpg (83KB, 582x667px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 582x667px

>>33286964

File: 26564562456.jpg (22KB, 504x181px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 504x181px

>>33291567
>what is science

>>33291567
>USSR keeps secrecy around 5.45 AK-74 well after it is introduced
>CIA pays 5000 dollars for the first one in the west 5 years after introduction JUST to get technical data on it
>implies that they just inflated trial results as a PR move to make it look like they were doing well so they could keep it a secret from everyone.

File: 1488922605653.jpg (37KB, 207x236px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 207x236px

>>33291449
Need sauce on this.

File: P1070251.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>33286640
Why the hell does wikipedia still have this picture on their 545 article? I've never seen a 545x39 cartridge with a bullet like that.
All these years and nobody can take a new picture?
>>33286640
Just to add to the topic.
>by pure penetration depth on softer steel shot up fairly close
Wolf gold 223 55gr penetrated 2x as deep as 60gr bear 545, which penetrated 2x as deep as 124gr golden tiger 762x39. Speed kills.
It's obvious that 762x39 has the most energy when you see the effects downrange though. It threw that steel hunk a lot harder than the other two.

>>33288113
>5.45 rounds do not fragment
Actually I've shot ALOT of 60gr silver bear and seen numerous cases of jacket core separation, shooting 1 gallon jugs of water at less than 100 yards has caused this quite a few times. In fact I have kept quite a few of the jackets that have came off like sleeves before, I wouldn't say 5.45 doesn't fragment, I would however say it is less likely to than a 5.56 and probably wasn't designed to.

File: img_6681.jpg (424KB, 2464x1639px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2464x1639px

>>33286640
5.45 are lighter and less recoil

though Russian special force still using 7.62x39
they are better in subsonic

pic are kazakhstan spec op

>>33292246
that is one ugly rifle.

File: IMG_1404.jpg (250KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1200x900px

>>33292299
yeah
the way they set up the MBUS triggered me

>>33292299
Its an Italian one.

>>33292246
>they are better in subsonic
They WORK in subsonic. 5.45 subsonic just doesn't work at all.

File: SpB-Museum-artillery-124.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>33292392
http://gunrf.ru/rg_patron_5_45x39_eng.html

they will work if you press the gun into your target

Why only few Eastern Bloc countries adopt 5.45 and keep 7.62x39 instead??

>>33292483
the fall of Commie happen

>>33292483
They couldn't even afford T-62, what makes you think they could afford to switch to AK-74?

>>33291306
Thoose bolt rifles are one bolt rifle and in the US there are like 200 or some retarded low number

File: armenia VAHAN gp30.jpg (14KB, 572x302px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 572x302px

>>33289575
Armenian Magic gun

File: armenia VAHAN 2.jpg (662KB, 4253x2235px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 4253x2235px

>>33292616

>>33292616
Is that a Sten gun with some sort of Russian mutation?

>>33292630
This looks almost like a direct blowback smg, how does it work?

File: AEK-971 A545 6P67.jpg (1MB, 1575x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1575x1050px

>>33292643
Lever delayed blowback

File: 1488932812668.jpg (58KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 750x750px

>>33286640
>If .577-450 hits harder, why switch to .303?

>>33286640
Lighter, less recoil, better point-blank range

>>33286900
There is the muzzle break on the -74

>>33292688
Fuck I want that one, like an an AK and an MP5 had a baby

File: Quid_cannon_1.jpg (55KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x350px

>>33286666
Quads confirmed

File: 12316934243.gif (483KB, 141x141px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 141x141px

>>33291624
>>33291759
Thanks for the info, I was just genuinely curious.

>>33292442
>they will work if you press the gun into your target

Lol. Sub sonic 5.45x39 is indeed a pitifully weak cartridge. Then again the Russians prefer the impressive 9x39 round for subsonic applications.

File: ArmorPiercingMisc2_resize.jpg (28KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x225px

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that the 7.62x39mm projectile retains its energy better than the 5.45x39mm? I keep seeing people harp on about how the 5.45 is better at longer distances than the 7.62x39 despite the later having a decent amount more energy at the those ranges.

The main advangate from an external ballistics point of view of the 5.45 over the 7.62 is that the latter is too slow to utilize Tungsten core for armor piercing applications. Tungsten works best at higher velocities and thus it would be wasted in the slower 7.62x39. This is why the Russians have Tungsten ap rounds for 5.45 and 7.62x54R but not 7.62x39.

I wish the Russians put a lot more effort in developing a greatly improved 7.62x39 bullet. Maybe make a light 90grain round and put a Tungsten core in it. That's a huge advantage of larger caliber rounds in that they have inherently more room for improvements including drastic ones to keep them viable on the battlefield.

>>33293847
>Why do people keep ignoring the fact that the 7.62x39mm projectile retains its energy better than the 5.45x39mm?
5.45 has a higher ballistic coefficient, though.

>>33293847
>>33293952
>Why do people keep ignoring the fact that the 7.62x39mm projectile retains its energy better than the 5.45x39mm?
5.45 retains energy better than 7.62 till 600 meters. Transonic and subsonic ballistic coefficients of 7.62 are better so it retains energy better after but 600m+ ranges are not very relevant for assault rifles.

>>33286640
Why would it hit harder?

File: Quake_Logo[1].gif (15KB, 224x309px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 224x309px

>>33286666

>>33286640
Same reason the US doesn't use the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56

>>33293680
>impressive 9x39

how is it impressive

File: 762ballisticsaretrash.jpg (20KB, 600x376px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x376px

>>33286640

> This

5.45 is simply better.

>>33293847
Sounds like the Russians all but forgot about 7.62x39 once 5.45 was developed

>>33291223
But body armor...

I think military development is all going towards the current conflicts--fighting against insurgents and guerillas, at relatively short ranges, who wear no armor.

If we ever see another serious, conventional war, I think both sides will find out real quick that intermediate cartridges don't do jack shit when every soldier on both sides is wearing level III plates.

>>33298379
You do know that 5.56 actually does better against body armor compared to 7.62 nato. Look at >>33291939 for an example, small fast bullets do better at penetrating armor.

>>33298379
5.56>7.62 nato at punching through armor.

What is cross sectional density.

>>33298438
>>33298460
Got any sources? People are always telling me that but I can't find conclusive evidence either way. What about AP rounds?

Anyway, I don't think either one is good enough. I don't think you see what I'm getting at here--I believe that should we have another conventional war between two reasonably well-equipped militaries, every single soldier on both sides will be wearing body armor. I think the whole trend of assault rifles and intermediate cartridges will be reversed, and we'll see more battle rifles in calibers even larger than 7.62 NATO. 30-.06 AP will be sort of the bare minimum, and I think things like .338 Lapua and similar rounds will gain popularity as regular infantry rounds.

Do you not think so? I can't think of any other way it could happen. If one side doesn't wear armor, they'll be butchered by the side that does. And if they do, they won't bother with armor that's too weak to stop 5.45 or 5.56, or even 7.62 if it really is worse at penetration.

>>33298438
>>33298460
>intermediate is better at penetrating armor

full size rifle cartridges absolutely BTFO

.308 faggots can go cry in a corner over their anemic round

File: 1468984672887.jpg (103KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x960px

>>33298641
>and I think things like .338 Lapua and similar rounds will gain popularity as regular infantry rounds

>>33298660
>>33298680
Well okay, you tell me then. How else would you address the problem? Whether 5.56, 5.45, or 7.62 penetrates better is a moot point, because level III plates stop them all.

Would you just use one of those rounds anyway, and accept that the enemy's armor will stop at least several rounds?

Or do you just not believe that body armor will become as prevalent as I think it will?

The answer of just using a big ass round to accommodate for their armor sounds logical to me. It'd be a nightmare to equip and train everyone on it, but I think it would be worth the fact that you could actually shoot your enemy in the torso instead of relying on head/leg/whatever shots or just plain bludgeoning them down with blunt impact of rounds that don't pierce their armor.

>>33298641
The whole point in my original post was that loads will just get hotter but we won't go back to bigger bullet sizes. If gunpowder becomes more powerful in the future then you could see 5.56 loadings that have the muzzle energy of 7.62 nato. This would mean they're going crazy fast and would give them an even better chance at penetrating body Armour, as they would have the same amount of total energy but focused on a smaller area.

Big bullets like .308 and .338 lapua are good for long range work as their higher mass give them a stable flight path over extended range, and makes them less affected by wind, and transonic issues at longer ranges. That being said hot loaded 5.56 round would blow either out of the water at armor penetration.

>The answer of just using a big ass round to accommodate for their armor sounds logical to me. It'd be a nightmare to equip and train everyone on it, but I think it would be worth the fact that you could actually shoot your enemy in the torso instead of relying on head/leg/whatever shots or just plain bludgeoning them down with blunt impact of rounds that don't pierce their armor.

the part you aren't getting is that big ass rounds don't defeat armor, speed does. If you had an ax and a knife and thrust both at the same target with the exact same total inertia (mass/speed, so the same amount of energy exerted total), the knife will go deeper because it has a smaller cross sectional density (is pointier) so it wastes less energy punching through. Also the recoil and weight of those rounds means you would't be able to carry that much ammo or lay down as accurate suppressing fire. Both huge factors in selecting a good service rifle and cartridge,

File: 1234234123.jpg (146KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x750px

>>33298379
>he thinks he can hide his fat ass behind plate
>check size of you fat ass
>check size of the plate
>....
>profit!

>>33298931
Right, but why do the bullets have to be so damn small anyway? Big and fast aren't mutually exclusive.

Can't you just use a larger round, and put enough powder behind it to match the velocity of 5.56? Sure, the recoil would be a bitch, but if you hit something it would stay the fuck down.

I thought that's exactly what .338 Lapua was, actually. Is it not?

>>33298931
oh, and to add to that, if a small round with extreme velocity is the answer to body armor, why aren't they coming into use?

My whole point is that I think our and most other militaries are badly unprepared to fight an enemy that wears body armor. We just kind of assume it will always be developed country vs. ragtag towelheads with no armor, for which the M16 is of course really effective. But I don't think we have the equipment for a war breaking out against someone with resources that armors their infantry.

>>33298992
ok the whole reason why it penetrates batter is because its not as wide. The smaller the width the more focused the energy since its only spread across a 5.56mm surface vs a 7.62mm one to put it simply the 5.56 is like a sharp pairing knife so even if its small it will cut better than a big dull knife

>>33298992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG5r71dX5yc

>>33298992
in regaurd to the 3.38 lapua that's kinda what it is but it has such high mass to be able to retain energy over a long range so yes it will punch through most armor but it does so in an inefficient manner and would make a highly cumbersome round for infantry.

>>33299066
Just sharpen your bullets

>>33299502
first understand what cross sectional density entails. sure you can have a 1.7mm penetrator inside a 30cal bullet, but the gross majority of the weight is not behind the penetrator, its in the lead surrounding it

>>33299692
Just make the tip a bit sharper. It'll still have the same diameter overall but less surface area in the very front

>>33299867
thats not how it works. the tip of the bullet will smush back.

does x54R have an AP load?

>>33299981
Probably, but i'm not sure its for sale in the US.

>>33300000
WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF THE GET

>>33298768
Wearing body armor doesnt make you invincible. Most of your body is still unprotected (Arms, Legs, Head, Neck, etc).
And besides even if you get hit while wearing body armor, the punch will be strong enough to brake rips and set you out of fight.

File: 5123251321.jpg (67KB, 580x254px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 580x254px

>>33286640
The Russians had to copy American intermediate cartridge 5.56, that's why they moved to the 5.45
America just does everything better.

>>33286964
An AR-15 with a muzzle brake and an adjustable gas block tuned for the ammo has essentially zero recoil. The gas system can be tuned so that the bolt carrier travels all the way back but doesn't bottom out hard on the recoil spring. There is no jolt to your shoulder as the bolt carrier travels all the way back, just a butter smooth back and forth movement of the bolt carrier.

>>33298641
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=547BKysByqM

Shill though he may be, you can't deny the 5.45 exit holes in the tree.

>>33299867
Aaaand you potentially lose terminal ballistics. If you make the tip soft to allow deformation and thus tumbling, you lose penetration. Everything is a trade-off.

>>33288504
The popularity of 300 blk should tell you that x39 is viable

>>33300440
5.45 is also x39, lol

It's also being abandoned by Ukraine who don't want it for their M16 clones

>>33300440
x39 is viable

>5.45x39
>9x39

Really versatile casing size

File: Stg58 outside.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>33299074
This video just tells me Ian is shit at shooting or faking this

My FAL is easy as shit to shoot steel at 100 yards in the same setup. The surplus triggers in both of mine are perfectly fine too

>>33300584
7.62x39

Mobile error

>>33300584
Because 5.56 production uppers are cheaper than 5.45 production uppers.

Ukraine doesn't have localised AK production, so they needed something to replace it, and buying production guns are cheaper than building an industry from scratch.

If they could have stuck with an AK platform, they would have due to existing training methods.

>>33286640
4 0 0 M
0
0
M

>>33300142
you GET used to it
>>33299999

>>33301023
I wonder what kind of post the big 333333333 will be.

>>33299066
So why not directly scale up 5.56 to .30 cal or bigger?

>>33299074
That's not a real comparison of the rounds... mostly a competition between shooters. How do I know Ian didn't just happen to be bad at that kind of shooting, and it's not the rifle's fault?

>>33300157
Even with 5.56 or 5.45, with III or better plates?

Anyway, if that is what you're trying to do, 7.62 NATO will do it better. If you're talking about injuring the target even though the round doesn't penetrate the armor, it really is just kinetic energy that matters.

And no one really answered >>33299029 . If an even higher velocity small round is the answer to body armor, why aren't we seeing it in common use? What are we doing to prepare for enemies with armor?

>>33301642
>What are we doing to prepare for enemies with armor?
Body armor is overrated. Tiny plate with the size of your ass cheek will not make you invulnerable to small arms in any way.

>>33286640
Politics.

>>33301933
Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass, the plate covers enough of the important bits that you won't bleed out quite as fast and have enough time to get to a field hospital.

>>33302975
>Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass
But small arms hits distribution across body is practically random due to combat accuracy spread been much larger than size of the target. (head and neck receives somewhat more because they stick out cover first but this doesn't help the case ...)

>and have enough time to get to a field hospital.
Out of combat anyway or dead if your position is overrun. Dead if 3rd world and NATO don't let you in their hospitals.

Seriously everyone who is sperging about "intermediate cartridges don't do jack shit agasint muh body armor" should
>wear "muh plate carrier"
>go to range
>ask friend to shot you ass from 300 yards away with AR-15
>post video on liveleak
>...
>genepool cleaning profit!