5.56 that performs like 5.45?

[improperlyaged]

Is there a 556 bullet that performs like the 5.45x39? I'm wondering why doesn't someone make a bullet for the 556 that is 60 grains but as long as a 77 grain bullet. Wouldnt the cause significant yawing and act similar to the 5.45?

 

[gotboostvr]

There's already a number of very good bullets available for .224 caliber cartridges.
Are you looking for a FMJ for living targets? 55gr V-maxs are pretty affordable among others

 

[improperlyaged]

Im talking about a military cartridge. One that would preform similar to the 5.45x39 because out of the two, I believe the 5.45 to be superior.

 

[Malamute]

I believe we have military 5.56 loads that are superior to 5.45 Russian military loads. The Mk262 loads for one.

 

[Dr T]

It depends on how you define "perform". As I recall, the 22 Russian was considered to be an outstanding match cartridge about 40 or 50 years ago...

 

[MachIVshooter]

5.45x39 because out of the two, I believe the 5.45 to be superior.

And therein lies your problem

 

[rcmodel]

Not in its orginial form.

The case was used after reforming to wildcat a few bench rest calibers.

The cartridge itself never won a match anywhere in the world outside of the Soviet Union nations.

http://www.6mmbr.com/6PPC.html

rc

 

[rbernie]

5.45x39 because out of the two, I believe the 5.45 to be superior.

And therein lies your problem

Exactly so - standard ol' M193 has much better wounding characteristics than anything that I've seen in issued 5.45 ammo.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

As I understand the original post, you are asking why a .224 bullet can't be as long as a 70+ grainier but be only a 60 grainier. It it because of physics. That bullet would have to be hollow and that would cause headaches in manufacturing IF they were able to do it probably wouldn't stabilize.

Read an article on Ballistic coefficients. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding your original post...

Thanks for your tag-line.

Greg

 

[Jackal]

5.56 has more power than 5.45 and better bullet selection. Should be asking how to make 5.45 perform like 5.56...

 

[Tirod]

Whatever marginal characteristics one cartridge may have over another are largely dwarfed by training. the variety of support weapons a unit has, it's logistical supply, doctrine in battle, and leadership in the field.

For the most part we pile up more of their dead by a significant factor - the limiting issues are that we engage with a set of rules to limit collateral casualties while they hide behind the public so that we get the blame.

Beyond that we are dealing with peoples whose technical lifestyle has them thinking that if they pull the trigger harder the bullet goes faster. Or pushing paraplegic combatants in wheelbarrows. It's common on gun centric forums to think the gun or ammo is the answer to all the problems. The reality is that things in combat are a lot more complicated. If 5.45 was that significantly superior we'd have changed to a different round decades ago - but didn't. If anything we shortened the barrel and accepted the resulting ballistic differences because we then took advantage of the tactical application that resulted.

The designers of weapons that use 5.45 are now following our lead and shortening their barrels, accepting the resulting differences in ballistics, too. It's not about which bullet is faster or more powerful. It's about which team gets more hits. We do.

 

[MechAg94]

Im talking about a military cartridge. One that would preform similar to the 5.45x39 because out of the two, I believe the 5.45 to be superior.

I would appreciate it if you could lay out the reasons you think 5.45X39 is superior so we can debate specifics characteristics. I like the tapered case of the 5.45, but I don't think the bullet is superior to the 55 or 62 grain mil-spec options for 5.56.

 

[improperlyaged]

As I understand the original post, you are asking why a .224 bullet can't be as long as a 70+ grainier but be only a 60 grainier. It it because of physics. That bullet would have to be hollow and that would cause headaches in manufacturing IF they were able to do it probably wouldn't stabilize.

.

That is exactly what I was asking.

 

[carbine85]

There's no question that the 5.45 is a good round, but it ain't no 5.56. The 556 is by far a better round. The original 5.56 was designed to tumble on impact and the 5.45 is known to tumble in flight.

 

[improperlyaged]

I would appreciate it if you could lay out the reasons you think 5.45X39 is superior so we can debate specifics characteristics. I like the tapered case of the 5.45, but I don't think the bullet is superior to the 55 or 62 grain mil-spec options for 5.56.

Sorry I missed your post earlier. I believe the 5.45 is superior due to the fact that the bullet is designed to tumble and doesn't rely on velocity as much to deliver a devastating would. The 556 relies on velocity to properly fragment and without it it becomes little more than a 22 Magnum.

 

[Baron_Null]

There's no question that the 5.45 is a good round, but it ain't no 5.56. The 556 is by far a better round. The original 5.56 was designed to tumble on impact and the 5.45 is known to tumble in flight.

Other than in rifles with incorrect bore diameters, can you point to any examples of 5.45x39 bullets tumbling in flight?

It's worth noting that the Russians switched away from 5.45 bullets with the empty nose cavity to a lead filled cavity sometime in the 90s. The old 5.45 may not be the best performer when it comes to terminal ballistics, but that's no reason to start spreading false information.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

All pointed bullets "yaw" because the center of gravity is located aft of centerline. When these bullets penetrate flesh the spin stabilization is insufficient to keep them traveling point forward. Because of this they seek to achieve a state of stabilization by "yawing" or attempting to "yaw" 180-degrees to travel base forward.

5.45x39mm does not produce substantial wounding effects. When it yaws it merely produces a temporary cavity approximately 6" in diameter that may or may not permanently damage some soft tissues. The diameter of the temporary cavity is similar to 7.62x39mm FMJ, a bullet noted for it's relatively mild wounding effects. The temporary cavity produced by 5.45 is indeed tied directly to bullet velocity. Less velocity produces less temporary cavitation.

 

[Snowdog]

I'm one of those folks that are absolutely tickled by the 5.45x39. It's an awesome, light-recoiling round.

However, I really like comparing it to the 7.62x39 and not the 5.56x45.
Why? Because the 5.56 is a better round in just about all regards.

The 5.56 is a light recoiling round where military loadings, such as the M855, can be found easily and remain inexpensive. I believe the M855 has better penetration against barriers than the 5.45x39 yet still yaws (and fragments) upon impact against soft media (bodies).

The 5.45x39 is one effective, nasty cartridge. However, so is the 5.56x45... and slightly more so.

Though both the M855 and M193 tend to yaw and fragment, you can always look at some of the "SS109" rounds loaded by others such as Prvi Partizan that possibly use thicker jackets or softer lead that just yaw or find 62gr strictly lead-core FMJs (that bend into a crescent like the 5.45x39 tends to do).

I'm no expert, but those are my personal findings and I've been messing around with bullets and ballistics, informally, for quite some time.

 

[HB]

As I understand the original post, you are asking why a .224 bullet can't be as long as a 70+ grainier but be only a 60 grainier. It it because of physics. That bullet would have to be hollow and that would cause headaches in manufacturing IF they were able to do it probably wouldn't stabilize.

I'm not sure how "hollow" the bullet would have to be but there's plenty of match bullets that are hollow in the front 1/3. I have some Sierra hpbt that are extremely long. They are 120 gr I believe but as long if not longer than the 140s. They are 6.5 cal but point is the same (pun intended )

I believe 5.56 to be a better round overall because millions of tax dollars have been spent to improve it. In contrast to the 5.45 which was invented by a now defunct nation.

HB

 

[Goosey]

I'm not sure how "hollow" the bullet would have to be but there's plenty of match bullets that are hollow in the front 1/3. I have some Sierra hpbt that are extremely long. They are 120 gr I believe but as long if not longer than the 140s. They are 6.5 cal but point is the same (pun intended )

They have a hollow, but the 5.45 has a lighter steel core taking up most of the bullet's interior, so the 53 gr 5.45 mm 7N6 ends up being about as long as a 77 gr .224" Matchking.

 

[Dr T]

Thanks, rc. I was confusing this with the 5.6x39 (.22 Russian) round...

 

[carbine85]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carbine85 View Post
There's no question that the 5.45 is a good round, but it ain't no 5.56. The 556 is by far a better round. The original 5.56 was designed to tumble on impact and the 5.45 is known to tumble in flight.
Other than in rifles with incorrect bore diameters, can you point to any examples of 5.45x39 bullets tumbling in flight?

It's worth noting that the Russians switched away from 5.45 bullets with the empty nose cavity to a lead filled cavity sometime in the 90s. The old 5.45 may not be the best performer when it comes to terminal ballistics, but that's no reason to start spreading false information.

Watch this video and get back to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCgmfbAbP-Q&list=PL6OWYt4WujZ1VKGWJ7F5UOYYiSaQPCImh
The 5.45 is well known for tumbling in flight. Not spreading false information here. Just because you don't know something doesn't make it false.

 

[Goosey]

The 5.45 is well known for tumbling in flight. Not spreading false information here. Just because you don't know something doesn't make it false.

It's not known for this, tumbling in flight would turn rifles into muskets. It's known for "tumbling" after it hits a soft target.

In the video above the round is yawing, either it hasn't become stabilized yet, or it is keyholing (looks more like the latter!) in which case it will tumble, but only because the barrel is perhaps shot out or damaged. That's not something exclusive to the AK74 or 5.45.

 

[dfariswheel]

Delete.

 

[Snowdog]

I've played around with a Romanian AK in 5.45x39 and all the rounds fired (and we fired hundreds that day) made neat little holes on paper.

I understand some of the early Tantals imported by CAI in had the wrong barrel (of .224 bore diameter) that would indeed cause keyholing.

However, I'd say with confidence this was unintentional and not true to the original specifications. A tumbling bullet would eliminate usable accuracy and limit the range dramatically... and forget barrier penetration.

But yes, there exist some Ak74s that exhibit some degree of keyholing due to the wrong size or worn out barrels.