5.45x39mm penetration/ballistics

[natedog]

I've heard that the 5.56mm round has very little overpenetration of things like interior walls (ie the round is going so fast that when it hits an object it is disrupted and fragments). I was curious if the 5.45mm round does this too. The specifications are pretty similar (50 something grain bullet moving at 3000 FPS or so) are pretty similar, and I believe the 5.45 has an airspace in the nose to assist in fragmentation/yawing. Does anyone have a ballistics chart that compares the trajectory of both rounds?

 

[Tony Williams]

I don't have a ballistics chart, but I can tell you that the % retained velocity at long range is almost exactly tthe same as the 5.56mm 62 grain M855.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[Ivy Mike]

I believe there are some ballistic gel tests shown on http://www.firearmstactical.com
I'll post the links tomorrow before work.

 

[NH AR Shooter]

Bullet construction is important here, most of the 5.45x39 tend not to fragment, due to their thicker steel jackets,There are some soft points available from Barnaul, which are said to perform well on small critters, but as far walls, I dont know. If bullets of comparable quality and construction are used, the 5.45 should perform very close.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

With commonly available ammo I'm pretty sure that the 5.45mm would exhibit more penetration against interior walls than 5.56mm, as mentioned already in this thread.

5.56mm ball gets its wounding potential from fragmentation, which has the side effect of reducing penetration. In contrast, 5.45mm ball is designed to maximize wounding through tumbling. It may fragment but that apparently wasn't the goal of the designers.

 

[prohawk]

prohawk

That hollow pointed nose has nothing to do with penetration in that round.
The skin of the bullet blows up like a small bomb when it hits something at speeds over 3000 fps.
With hunting type loads it is a very safe to shoot in the field as it blows up on contact with heavy weeds and brush and will not riccochet off water.
It is intended for game up to deer (well placed Shot) but nothing bigger.

That caliber is used in combat with ball type ammo which is intended to wound rather than kill. It is better to wound because it takes at least 2 more people to care for one wouded soldier.
Geneva convention ruled out soft explosive ammo a long time ago!
Hunting rounds from this and even faster cartridges would be the last thing I personally would want to be hit with.
Shoot a thin skinned animal and you will not believe the damage it will do.
but don't shoot a large heavy skinned and muscular animal because the small thin skinned bullet will not penetrate at all!

 

[ghost squire]

The Afghanis called it the poison widow or something like that, not because it was so deadly, but because you would die of septicemia or other infections days or weeks later.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

5.45x39 will ricochet like any other high-velocity rifle round and it will not "blow up" on weeds, though thicker brush may cause it to deflect or stop.

Prohawk, would you care to point me to the source that says the 5.45x39 was designed to wound rather than kill?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

That caliber is used in combat with ball type ammo which is intended to wound rather than kill. It is better to wound because it takes at least 2 more people to care for one wouded soldier.
Geneva convention ruled out soft explosive ammo a long time ago!

This is simply wrong.

Ball ammo is probably used more because it is cheap and easy to manufacture, and because it provides the best combination of barrier penetration and tissue disruption, but not because military doctrine dictates that the enemy should be wounded. This is a myth, a rumor, an old wives tale. Besides which, what do you think the chances are, seriously, of an Islamic extremist helping a wounded comrade off the battlefield? The whole point for them is to die for Allah.

Lastly, the Geneva Conventions don't deal with ammunition used in combat. It was the Hague Accords that dictated which ammunition was appropriate for warfare. The US only signed the first and most vague of these accords, which basically forbids ammunition designed to cause undue suffering to combatants. The Accords apply only to other signatory members and only for as long as they abide by the conditions of the Accords. Since al Quaeda and various Islamic extremists fail to meet both of these conditions, the US could use whatever ammunition they wanted to. They abide by the conditions of the Accords more for political correctness and favor in world opinion than anything else, and even then several types of hollow-point boat-tail ammunition have been approved for use in 5.56 and 7.62 millimeter rifles.

 

[possum]

That caliber is used in combat with ball type ammo which is intended to wound rather than kill. It is better to wound because it takes at least 2 more people to care for one wouded soldier.

i have often heard this and I will guarantee you that if you have the right people, one man can take care of the downed solider hit by small arms fire, ied blast etc. even if the solider is killed, in our warrior ethos it states that we will never leave a fallen comrade, and even if it didn't say that i wouldn't leave one anyway. so either way at least one solider is gonna be taken out of the fight by either moving the body or helping the wounded . in my experiences, we had the medic work on the solider and the infantry to support and secure the perimiter. and call for medivac.