AK47 vs M16 (again...)

You are correct. Significantly more powerful and more accurate.

 

Soviets allso got longer 7.62 rounds,used in some rifles and PKT,it is not really any advantage,they got prety much same ammo in use.

 

It does not use in automatic weapons,except in belt feeded machineguns.Semi-auto,and bolt action rifes,like Dragunov r mosin nagant.

 

Come on folks!

I can load a 7.62 NATO round so that it is significantly less powerful than a 7.62 X 39.



Just making a point!

Yes, the "full" load of a 7.62 NATO beats the crap out of a 7.62 X 39!

- Greg

:smok:

 

Just saw a picture in this weeks TIME magazine, and remembered this topic

Page 22 shows a US soldier on patrol with an Iraqi soldier... He is carrying an AK-74, no doubts about it...

Just a guess but perhaps US forces are permitted to carry and operate weapons supplied by the ISF, and vice versa... They are "allies" after all, the US are in the process of training them and they probably have to do it in Iraqi military bases, remote places where supply is more difficult... It would be logistically easier just to give the soldiers training and access to the ISF's stockpiles of AK's, instead of delivering NATO munitions...

Again this is just speculation... Maybe one of the USMC vets here know the proper answer?

 

There are always exceptions which is why I said "typically".
Special Forces troops often use non standard weapons. In this case those training the Iraqi forces might use the same weapon that the Iraqis will be using and since those are our allies they are not captured weapons.

 

Interesting site i bump in,look this story:

More info u can find on this site:http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

 

Little off topic.
Interesting pic's

Grandpa (Stg 44) on the left, Romunian AK in the middle and my old aquitance Yugoslav CZ M-70B2 on the right:

Grandpa again:


Source (detail pic's of Stg44 are from kurator in Kalemegdan military museum):
http://www.maketarstvo.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4252

 

Just one point/question:
If everyone is so concerned about the capabilities of the .223(5.56mm) ammunition how come I've never heard complaints from any other country other than the USA? All other NATO countries use it, The British and most other European countries adopted it after Vietnam was long gone so any lessons from there would have been passed on.

 

As i looked on internet,5.56 boulet was projected to expand on impact,what like that on paper is great for stopage power.But i digged a bit more,and not all boulets expand when hit body,actualy less then 50% do any expand.Cons. of that is lack of stopage power,especialy on M-4 rifles.AK if,we folow this principe,had more chance to knock down target.On otther had 5.56 do has some advantages over 7.62x39,mostly in flatern trajectory,what increese accuracy,and it is bit lighter.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778197/posts

 

Bullets that expand after impact with the human body are considered inhumane and are not used by ligit military forces. Militnt groups probably use 'em but that's more due to availability (since bullets of this type are used in hunting....)

 

But nato 5.56 is designed to expand on impact,eawen burst in smaler pieces.Inhuman r not,that was oreginal idea.

 

All bullets deform on impact to one degree or another except armour piercing types. The 5.56mm was not specifically designed to fragment more than any other sort of bullet (Not that I've heard of anyway), it is intended to tumble on impact causing greater wounding than would otherwise be expected.

 

None of the jacketed (full metal jacket) military rounds are designed to expand upon impact and it is rare that they do so to any degree.
Simon has it right. If they pass through enough tissue they will begin to yaw and then may actually tumble.

 

Russian 5.4 got betther prformance in thombling then NATO 5.56mm.

Regarding the two bullets, they are both designed to dump as much of their kinetic energy into the target as they can.
The 5.56mm bullet does this by fragmenting... it is a very short projectile with a long cased cartridge. The projectile has a set if dimples around it that are called a clannure or something that is supposed to ensure the bullet is seated properly and doesn't get pushed in to the case during loading. In reality the clannure is not needed in the 5.56mm round and is only there to weaken the bullet jacket so that as it tumbles it will shatter along this weak point the first time it tumbles and do more damage (though to split reliably it must be travelling above a certain velocity).
The 5.45mm round on the other hand simply has a hollow tip with a rear penetrator made from steel. It obeys the Hague convention because it is a fully jacketed round and does not deform on impact. ie the bullet tip does not crush flat or rupture unless it hits armour plating (like any other normal jacketed bullet). The hollow tip however does move the centre of gravity rearward so that it is prone to tumble on impact.
There is a lead plug between the rear penetrator and the hollow tip that moves forward on impact. That would normally improve stability rather than make it tumble but because the forward movement is not symmetrical (ie even and balanced) it also aids in making the round tumble.
All this video shows is that the 5.45mm round stays in one piece and therefore can penetrate lots of sheets of wood placed close together. better than a 5.56mm round can. This is predictible because from a full length barrel the 5.56mm bullet probably tumbled and fragmented which means its penetration would be greatly reduced.
As few military targets actually constitute this sort of target this is a relatively meaningless test.
With more realistically spaced wood... for example walls in a house a few metres apart then again the 5.45mm round would hold together while the 5.56mm would probably fragment but as shown in this test the trajectory of the 5.45 is curved after impact and not very predictible. You might hit a valid target, or you might hit a baby in a crib next to the valid target, or, more likely you might hit another wall behind the valid target.
The 7.62 x 39mm is much better at hitting targets through obstacles than either of these two small calibre guns with most 308s (ie 7.62 NATO, 7.62 x 54mm, etc) being even better still at travelling through obstructions and hitting targets beyond.
The point being at some point there is a compromise. Being able to shoot through things means that if you hit your target your bullet will go through with less effect on the target than if it had reacted more to the impact and tumbled or fragmented.

(As I said all bullets tumble but a standard ball round from a 308 will not tumble till it has penetrated 10cm of flesh or more unless it hits something hard it will probably start to tumble as it is leaving the body on a front on hit.)

At the end of the day good shot placement means 90% and that extra bullet power means 5% (with luck the other 5%)

From http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=104040&page=3
really good ammo debate.

 

As long as we're discussing the 7.62mm NATO round as well, it might be worthwhile comparing it to it's Kalashnikov-Kounterpart, the 7.62x54 R; the calibre used in the PKM and Dragunov...

Seeing as they are used in identical roles (support wepaons) Which performs better? 7.62x51 or 7.62x54 R?
The R is larger and heavier, but much older...

At any rate, 7.62 NATO complements the 7.62x54... And the 5.56 complements 5.45... Unless I'm missing something NATO has no calibre of a size comprable to the Soviet 7.62 x 39...

 

I had no much infro about that calibers...Really,now sound interesting to do i small study on the internet

 

I had the great honor today to visit the headquarters of the 5 Recce Commando - South African special forces - and talk to several members and ex-members over a few cold ones in the bar. The reason for this is that they are hosting a paintball tournament, and a friend of mine graciously saved a spot for me on one of the teams.

One of the experienced veterans summed up the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate like this: "In the terrain we fought in, engagement range was not more than 50 meters, often as close as 10. I vastly preferred the AK 47 for this type of engagement." He then went on to make a point of it's excellent reliability in harsh conditions, such as the ones he experienced in Angola. However, he did say that for shooting at ranges of 150 meters or above, he preferred a smaller calibre (as opposed to AK 47) due to better (his words) "aerodynamic characteristics of bullet" and less recoil when firing bursts. I did not ask the question "So which one is better, M16 or AK 47?" but I have a feeling he would have replied that they both have their merits!

I know I'm not adding that much new stuff to the debate, but I just thought I'd represent the opinion of an experienced person.

 

Just a note Yugoslav M-76 (basicly improved Dragunov ) uses good old 7,9x59 ammo.