Why do people complain about 5.56 NATO but nobody complains

File: #P1070373.jpg (1MB, 1581x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1581x1367px

>>34018712
People complain about literally ever common cartridge.
Where have you been?

>>34018712
Why would russiaboos complain about something Russian?

>>34018712
MUH POISON BULLETS MUHFUGGA

>>34018712
im not sure what you're talking about. i've been on the internet for some time and have not seen any complaints

>>34018712
Because there's nothing to complain about.

>>34018712
Kalashnikov hated the round but he couldn't stop it. They were going to copy the Americans whether he liked it or not.

>>34018712
Because this is 4chan. People just bandwagon hop and love talking about things they know nothing about. That and people here actually non-ironically like mosin nagants and surpshit mak pistols.

>>34018712
>but nobody complains about 5.45?
It wasn't really a complaint, but the Soviets did experiment with that 6x49mm cartridge.

>>34018712
5.45 was designed to kill, not wound like like 5.56

Because the only people who even use 5.45 are people who complained about 7.62.

Whereas everyone who uses 5.56 wants to be using 7.62.

>>34018712
It's actually only 5.4, not 5.45.

>>34019077
eyyy

>>34019077
>>34019077
They were both designed to kill. They are just both bad at it.

>>34019233
This.

>>34018712
because the cheapest bullshit 5.45x39 still reliably yaws in soft tissue.

It's not desirable 100% of the time, for instance if it knicks a stick between shooter and the target it might start tumbling end over end and fly off to who the fuck knows where. But since deflection is also a problem with light-weight 5.56x45 that downside is kind of ignored.

So I would say 5.56x45 like trajectory combined with good terminal performance make it worthwhile in their eyes?

A downside is, for one thing, without a great Russian or soviet-bloc aftermarket with lots of civilian shooters it doesn't have the versatility from free market innovation that the 5.56x45.

You have a few commercial loads for volume shooters but no super heavy loads and stuff like that. It's a one-trick pony.

>>34019189
is the 5.45 part the bore diameter or the bullet diameter?

measured at the lands or the grooves?

last I remember bullet diameter was around .221"

>>34018712

5.45 is normally fired out of guns that have the right barrel length. 5.56 was originally designed for a 20" barrel but that length kept getting chopped. As the length decreased for 5.56 the complaints increased.

>>34019309
Does barrel length and twist even matter as much with 5.45

>>34018712
Russia didn't switch from a full size rifle cartridge to 5.45 like America did with 5.56

it is entirely because too few people use it compared to .223

if it ever becomes a popular cartridge, there will be plenty of detractors

>>34019368
no because it's designed to tumble not to expand so it will still do its job at lower velocities

>>34019261
> Reliably yaws in soft tissue

Given enough tissue and lack of deformation, wouldn't every single spitzer bullet flip due to it's center of mass being closer to the back of the bullet?

>>34019931
Eventually, yes.

Troops were specifically told about the bullet tumbling so that they wouldn't bitch about smaller bullets.

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2161

>SAR: Did you think that there was any difference in effectiveness between the 7.62x39mm AKMs and the 5.45x39mm AK74s?

>Andrei: As a matter of fact the AK74 was something new that they had just started to issue only a few years before. Everybody was under the impression that these things had a special bullet with a offset center of gravity that would leave a devastating blow and we were under the impression that this was a superior weapon because of the special bullet.

>SAR: So when you underwent training they made a point to indicate that the 5.45x39mm ammunition had special characteristics.

>Andrei: That’s right, they indicated that it was an offset center-of-gravity round.

>>34022526
Dumb question: Were US troops never told of the fragmentation characteristics of 5.56?

>>34022551
If you had a instructor or NCO who knew about it and was willing to pass knowledge on, yeah.

I wish the Russians made there bullet just barely bigger than 5.56. just make the case width and length just a tad bigger so they could shoot 5.56 but we could not shoot there ammo.

If only I could go back to 1974 and change the 5.54 to 5.60.

>>34018712
people have to think of you to complain about you

>>34018712
W O U N D V E C T O R S
O
U
N
D

V
E
C
T
O
R
S

>>34022642
clone 5.56 but with a longer neck and substantially longer OAL to fit longer bullets. The chambers are nearly compatible except for the throat, 5.56 NATO would not be able to chamber 5.56 Russian, and all the mags would be incompatible as well.

>>34019233
Wut.

>>34022551
>>34022571
Yep, this was told at boot/basic and to grunts in the field.

>>34018712
The 5.45 is a heavier projectile than 5.56.Also 5.56 has a bigger powder charge though. Two different rounds for two different rounds. one was meant to reach out and hit things with accuracy, the other is a heavy fighting round

File: Washington Times_20170521114932.jpg (98KB, 908x370px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 908x370px

Because with the abundance of modern 5,45 variants (ПП, БC, etc.) the advantages of 7,62 have been reduced to a nil. Better external ballistics, trajectory and range, better terminal ballistics; It has had a ton of development in making more lethal projectiles good across a much wider velocity spectrum.

Because the gommunists didn't have so many people actively trying to sabotage 5.45

30-06 was the round used in any war that mattered

>>34023075
>The 5.45 is a heavier projectile than 5.56
huh? Seems nearly identical to 5.56. Wikipedia lists 49gr-64gr (plus 80gr subsonic, which is an oddball), with 60gr being most common. 5.56 is typically 55gr-77gr with 55gr and 62gr being most common. That's negligible difference to me

>>34019931
Yeah but look at the fucker, and how long it is, especially compared to 5.56. It yaws much more consistently, quicker, and leaves a larger wound channel

>>34023119
7.62x39 is better at subsonic and punching thru concrete

File: SR-3.jpg (232KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1920x1280px

>>34023487
This is why 9x39 is a thing.

C'mon /k/ommandos, lets admit 7.62x39 is best round. The perfect blend of assault rifle and battle rifle.

>>34023701
And how many guns are chambered in that other than VSS or VAL

>>34023789
>9x39
9A-91
AK-9
AS "Val"
OTs-12 "Tiss"
OTs-14-4A "Groza"
SR-3, SR-3M "Vikhr"
VSK-94
VSS "Vintorez"

>>34023789
Its a pretty special purpose round how many more do you need?

Oh look he has a fucking list for you.

>>34019233
They're not.

source: Vietnam

>>34023770
actually it's the worst blend. Heavier round, rainbow trajectory and pretty much no advantage in terminal ballistics

File: 1491952472239.jpg (90KB, 500x710px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x710px

>>34019077
>>34019233
>inb4 two days worth of serious comments calling you a moron and accompanied by essays

>>34022526
>https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2161

Some interesting interview there, thanks for the link.

>>34024333
Why is the main font on a gun magazine's website Comic Sans?

>>34018712

Because almost no one actually uses it in Burgerland.

>>34019077
guaranteed replies

File: 1495251573861.jpg (47KB, 506x674px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 506x674px

>>34019309
>>34019541
thanks, came here to say this

>>34019077

Hello fanboy. You know Russia is shit right?

>>34018955
But 5.45 is objectivly better at everything than perhaps punching thro muh afghan dirt walls.

>>34018955
Kalashnikov was silly, 5.45 is superior to 7.62x39 in pretty much every way.

>>34019309
true for m193, arguably irrelevant with modern loads