Hey /k/ is 5.45 is objectively better than 5.55. Why does NATO

>>33314831
>Why won't NATO adopt a Russian round?

No clue, anon

>>33314831
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM

>>33314831
5.56 has more case capacity and better bullet selection.

because we already have the machinery to make shitloads of 5.56 why would they spend all that money to retool machines to make a new round thats more or less the same as 5.56?

if were doing that we might as well make 9x39

>>33315047
Neither of which NATO loads capitalize on because dude budgets lmao.

>>33314841
This, mostly America's fault as usual. Same reason we didn't just make an assaut rifle based on the AK action like Belgium or Switzerland did. We had to prove how star spangled awesome we are by adopting an inferior but domestically designed rifle. We did the exact same thing before with the M14 over the FAL.
>inb4 muh AR beats AK
Now - after decades of R&D - sure, but at the time it was a disaster.
>inb4 M14 beats FAL because muh glass match rifles
Fudds go and stay go.

>>33315319
They do max out case capacity but they are lacking in the bullet department, however the U.S.A. is moving towards better bullets.

>>33316176
The a1 was surprisingly flat shooting for the m4. Great for orc armor (we tested on various steel plates) but I can't help but wonder what a intermediate that is slightly bigger in caliber and with a bit more case capacity could do with the same bullet design. But hey black tips out of the saw were fun as hell

>>33316176
They do fill it up but they fill it with crap. The same results could be achieved in of an x40-42 at the same cost. The M855A1 is basically the first "widespread" 5.56 to make the x45 bit relevant.

>>33316526
>in of an
I guess I couldn't decide between "in an" or "out of".

Also by "widespread" of course I mean military because hunters and target shooters have been doing this shit for years.

>>33314831
Stop these threads fuck you're annoying

>>33315047
Fun fact: 7N6 weights less than M193 but has better BC then M855.

>>33314831
And you know what is objectively better than either of those? Any actual full-power rifle cartridge.

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

104KB, 586x750px

>>33314831
Wtf op your own picture contradicts your statement.

5.45 has pathetic 1300 joules while 5.56 atleast has some power at 1800 joules.

>>33317141

Well OP's pic was also clearly made by a retarded person, so that's hardly important.

>>33317155
It comes at the cost of increased recoil. As result M-16 is semi-automatic weapon and AK-74 is automatic, true avtomat or assault rifle in the western terms.

>>33317320
What the hell are you going on about, it's like you are reading from a propaganda flier.

>>33316940
Yeah, i've always been a fan of long bullets and admit that the 5.45 has better potential for bullets but no one seems to make any.

If i could wave a magic wand, i would make the ar15 in 6x45 but .25" moar oal for the bullet.

You know what would be great, a 5.56 with a bullet as long as mk262 bit at only 55gr. That should help with low velocity fragmentation.

>>33317359
*more

>>33317359
You can find 5.45 for .23 cents a round
http://www.bulkammo.com/bulk-5-45x39mm-ammo-545x3960grfmjtulammo-1000

>>33317429
Ok

>>33317345
>What the hell are you going on about
>US military doctrine: semi-auto
>USSR military doctrine: short bursts fire
Makes you think...

We can all agree 7.62x39 HP is masterrace for wounding, right?

>>33314831
>Why does NATO even bother using 5.56 still?

Because its not 5.55

>>33316526
Goddard that post was retarded. We could also pack the case with pistol powder while chasing numbers but that would go nowhere real fast.

If the mill were worried about marginal improvement they could use 6x45 or 25-45 or fucking. 204 ruger

File: afc95b4db12b8d22a73f9d34cbe53af6.jpg (15KB, 384x288px)

15KB, 384x288px

>>33317862
no

>>33317618
Makes you think that each fire mode has contextual usage and that one can rely on a professional army instead of conscripts, not to mention the manual of arms on any AK is easier when all the way down = fire. Any extra recoil generated by the cartridge is negated by the ARs inline recoil setup, buffer and gas system despite being a lighter gun

>>33319391
Fire mode depends on the weapons. Automatic fire from M-16 is not effective (what is not surprising considering it has 80% more recoil and 30% more rate of fire.). Americans tested M-16 found this fact and obviously put this in the doctrine (why use useless thing?). With AL-74 it is opposite. Automatic fire actually provides considerable advantage over semi automatic fire, doctrine was written to reinforce the use of most effective fire mode.