7.62 x 39 a medium between 5.56 and 7.62 Nato?

[buck00]

Burnside, buy an AK and don't look back! A basic Romanian AK these days will run you as little as $280. Classic Arms has them. I think I paid $330 for my SAR-1 back in 2003, with two 40 round mags thrown in. I love it.

http://www.classicarms.us/

For a working man, that is a cheap price to acquire a home defense rifle that can throw a lot of lead when you need it. Don't listen to the "well the AR-15 can hit targets out to 600 yards, etc etc" argument. Are you ever going to have to shoot someone that far away? Ask anyone who has been in combat what distance a firefight normally takes place at. Be pragmatic.

7.62 x 39 is light recoil in my opinion, yet it will do plenty of damage when it strikes a perp. Sure prices are high now, but as some fellow THR members have recognized, Wolf ammo will be cheap again once supply catches up to demand. (we never thought we'd see gas cheaper than $2.50 either...)

If you want to shoot your AK every weekend with your pals, it will be expensive right now with the higher ammo prices. However, if you simply want this rifle for home defense and major civil emergencies, you only need a few hundred rounds on hand to stay prepared.

Good luck.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Actually, I don't think too many Soviets were ever on the receiving end of the 5.56mm

Perhaps I was a bit dramatic with that statement, but to suggest that devlopment of the 5.45mm round had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 in Vietnam would be obtuse. While there may not have been many Russian casualties directly resulting from 5.56mm rounds, they were allied with the NVA and saw how devastating the round was first-hand. In turn, they saw how effective their own .22 caliber round was in Afghanistan ten years later.

 

[bruss01]

5.56, x39 and 7.62 nato are all great rounds with their own strengths.

If I wanted a rifle round for home defense and urban/suburban civil unrest, I'd feel ok with either the .5.56 or x39. The only advantage the 7.62 nato has at that distance is penetration of hard cover. Most bad guys turn and start running away once you start firing. Remember, they're not facing a firing squad for deserting like an invading army would be. If they are behind cover, GOOD as long as they stay there. If they come towards you or continue the attack they have to come out. Remember, no matter how bad it seems in any given instant, the law has always come back. Unless you looked up and saw the heavens parted like a scroll and some angel with a trumpet, there will be a reckoning for any action you take and it had better be defensible in court. You never know but that the bad guy has just thrown down his weapon and is begging surrender but you can't hear because you're half deaf from the shots you just fired with no hearing protection. You never know who or what might be behind that "hard cover". Knowing your target and what lies beyond becomes problematic when we're talking about a rifle that can penetrate cars, trees, cinder block walls, and still be lethal on the other side. For a humorous take on this topic, see Burt Gummer in Tremmors 2.

So a light rifle - I would have no issue with someone choosing a 5.56 rifle, it's pretty good at city street distances. Personally I chose the SKS as our house defense rifles because the rifles and the ammo were very affordable. With stripper clips it doesn't take any longer to reload than changing detachable magazines, and the SKS is acceptable in CA provided it doesn't have a detachable mag or a grenade launcher. I bought ammo back when it was more affordable - $100/k I just bought one case every 90 days for a year and am now sitting on 4k.

The problem has been finding an affordable, durable and accurate rifle in 5.56 - and if you live in CA, it has to be a non-assault weapon configuration. The mini 14 is fine for popping rabits or coyotes at 300 yards, but those groups have a tendency to open up pretty fast under repeated fire, flimsy barrel is what I hear. Heavy replacement barrel gonna cost you. SU-16, great concept, but doesn't strike me as terribly sturdy. AR-15, kinda pricey and unlike Visa, not accepted everywhere. So that's really why I chose the SKS because I couldn't find a 5.56 rifle that could compete with it's many virtues. If it came in 5.56, fine, I'd have gone that route, but it didn't (fancy that) so I ended up with a locker full of x39 instead and am happy as a clam.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

MachIVshooter,

I think flatter trajectory, less recoil, and lighter weight of the ammo, thus allowing soldiers to carry more, are more important factors than terminal ballistics when comparing 5.56mm and 7.62x39. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by either.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think flatter trajectory, less recoil, and lighter weight of the ammo, thus allowing soldiers to carry more, are more important factors than terminal ballistics when comparing 5.56mm and 7.62x39. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by either.

Agreed on all points. I was simply making the argument that it wasn't until after the US adopted the 5.56mm and M16 that other countries followed suit and began playing with small caliber, high velocity rounds. Since the USSR was not a NATO country, they devloped their own version.

 

[ilbob]

An SKS is dirt cheap and about as reliable as they get. AKs are more expensive but are also reliable. Both seem to be as accurate as you are likely to need.

ARs tend to be more finicky.

Mini14s seem reliable but less accurate. But they might well be adequate for whatever you think you might need one for.

 

[Gewehr98]

Tinfoil hattery aside...

7.62x39, even with a maximum effective range of 400 meters or so, is entirely adequate as a defensive round. That is, unless you're taking potshots at UN Blue Helmets while they're maneuvering the artillery into position down the street for the assault on your position.

You start "defending yourself" out there much past 100 yards, and you'll have a hard time convincing the judge and jury of the threat to your person.

 

[JShirley]

The 7.62x39mm is slightly more powerful than the 5.56mm. It uses a heavier, fatter, slower round instead of a teeny zippy one.

I personally prefer the 7.62x39mm for general usage, because I'm more comfortable taking deer with a 124 grain 7.62 round than a 62 grain 5.56. If I had an AK or SKS, I'd switch out for a Mojo peep sight, correcting the only real deficiency with the rifles.

Either 5.56 or 7.62x39mm should work fine for close-range antipersonnel use, especially with good ammunition.

 

[MechAg94]

ARs tend to be more finicky.

I would put it this way: AR's require proper cleaning and maintenance to function their best. Shooters should also understand that you don't oil or grease them the same way you do other rifles. AK's are much more forgiving in that area. Different capabilities for my different moods.

 

[fal 4 me]

Clean,

To feed your 5.45x39 rifle, check out Classic Arms. They have 5.45 at the same price as the 7.62x39, $149.99 for 1000 rounds.

To keep on-topic, I think the 7.62x39 is a fine combat and plinking round, but could benefit from a little higher velocity.

 

[Metapotent]

Actually, I don't think too many Soviets were ever on the receiving end of the 5.56mm, but such historical details are unimportant to your point, I suppose.

Soldiers of the Soviet Union weren't on the receiving end, but their allies whom they supported and supplied were. During the Vietnam War, the NVA and the Vietcong complained to their Soviet suppliers that they were being outgunned by American m-16 rifles and that the 7.62x39/AK-47 combination lacked the "overwhelming fire" capability that was essential in small-scale, high-intensity fire-fights that took place regularly in the jungle and in small villages/towns during the Vietnam War.

The Soviets who were previously the biggest advocates of the 7.62x39 came to find that lighter, smaller, more accurate rounds were all-around more effective than the slow, relatively heavy, inaccurate round. The x39 was designed in a time when accuracy meant nothing, and everything was designed to be mass-produced for numbers, not quality and to be suitable for uneducated, poorly trained, conspripted soldiers.

So the Soviets developed a round that was similar to the 5.56 to try and duplicate its performance, yet maintain the pride of using a domestic cartridge. But the fact is that the 5.56 is superior to the x39 if you wish to win a war in the long run, tactically as well as logistically. But these strengths mean little when you are choosing a round for your own personal defense, against assailants who probably are not packing anything comparable in power.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The Soviets who were previously the biggest advocates of the 7.62x39 came to find that lighter, smaller, more accurate rounds were all-around more effective than the slow, relatively heavy, inaccurate round. The x39 was designed in a time when accuracy meant nothing, and everything was designed to be mass-produced for numbers, not quality and to be suitable for uneducated, poorly trained, conspripted soldiers.

Easy with the hyperbole! I don't own an AK, but when my Chinese SKS pings a 12" reactive target at 300 yards from a crappy rest in an outdoor range with iron sights 70% of the time... I'd question the sanity of anyone who says 7.62x39 isn't more than accurate enough for its intended purpose: hitting torso-sized targets.

 

[GTSteve03]

The Soviets who were previously the biggest advocates of the 7.62x39 came to find that lighter, smaller, more accurate rounds were all-around more effective than the slow, relatively heavy, inaccurate round.

Funny thing, current scuttlebutt is that a lot of the Soviet special forces, after experience in Chechnya and Afghanistan, are less than impressed with the 5.45 and are switching back to the more-powerful 7.62x39.

 

[AK103K]

A decent AK is more than capable of good accuracy. Some have a problem with the sights, but if you put a red dot on one, that issue goes away and everyones groups will improve quite a bit. The red dot brings the AK right into the 21st century.

The accuracy thing, along with the ergonomic complaints, just tell me the person complaining never took the time to really learn the platform, which really takes no time at all. I often wonder if they ever actually shot one.

If you cant work the gun, its not the guns fault.

 

[rangerruck]

actually, the 762 russian round came first, then the 308 then the 556. the russian is based on being forced to make a semi auto ak , based on the old 8mm kurtz, which was basically the old mauser round cut in half. Kalashnikov's superiors told him, while handing him the new cartridge," hhhe, you , you make round for gon, look and act like theees, understan?" after he had allready made his prototypes based on the Kurtz.

 

[Metapotent]

Funny thing, current scuttlebutt is that a lot of the Soviet special forces, after experience in Chechnya and Afghanistan, are less than impressed with the 5.45 and are switching back to the more-powerful 7.62x39.

First of all you said "Soviet special forces". There is no such thing anymore the Soviet union no longer exists. I think you mean RUSSIAN special forces.

Besides that, you are refusing to acknowledge the full context of the situation. The 5.45 (and the 5.56 for that matter) or more effective infantry combat rounds for modern conventional battles. This is because they allow you to gain tactical superiority as well as logistical superiority in the long-run in a large-scale war. The smaller, faster, lighter rounds are more effective as fire/manuever/assault rounds in conventional battles that revolve around out-flanking your enemy and claiming the ground that they once occupied and holding it.

But in Chechnya the rebels aren't really concerned with holding ground and really just want to kill as many russians as they can, while maintaining steady propaganda.

It is very rare for the Chechnyans to actually fight the Russians face to face, therefore the Russians are not in need of an all-around more effective cartridge designed to be better suited to win large-scale, long-term wars against professional militaries.

The conflict in Chechnya is non-conventional so consequently tactics, methods and equipment are changed for certain purposes. The 7.62x39 is used by these forces because of its better performance in close-quarters combat than the 5.45 round. But if Russia were to engage in a long-term conventional war it would certainly use strictly the 5.45 as the main infantry round as it does today.

The accuracy thing, along with the ergonomic complaints, just tell me the person complaining never took the time to really learn the platform, which really takes no time at all. I often wonder if they ever actually shot one.

I've owned 2 AK47s and an SKS and sold all of them due to my disatisfaction with their accuracy and range. I took the time to acquaint myself with both platforms, I even had my Bulgarian AK-47 accurized and was still very frustrated with its accuracy past 200yds, even when using ridiculously expensive ammo.

I have come to find through experience, not through irrational bias, that the 5.56/.223 is an inherently more accurate round when fired through almost all platforms (with a few exceptions).

I can pay the same amount of money on .223 wolf ammo as anyone does for .762x39 ammo, put it through an AR or bolt rifle and outperform a x39-chambered rifle at every range in my experience.

I don't mean disrespect but anyone who says they can consistently hit torso-sized targets at 300yds with a x39 ammo is lying or is spending a whole lot of money on ammo.I can however consistently and continually hit silhouettes from 50-400yds with almost any load of 5.56/.223 in my rifles. I've done this with wolf, remington, mil-surp ammo from various countries, black hills, everything, regardless of how much i spent. This is why I favor the 5.56, through experience. If this could be said about any x39/rifle combo I would buy it and keep it. But we all know this isn't true.

With that said, it is unlikely that the average person would need such capability from a closet/defense rifle. But I personally like to have the confidence that I can reach out and touch someone with my rifle/ammo combo

 

[AK103K]

Just curious, but what type of horrible accuracy are you talking about, at any of the ranges? Which AK's were you using and what ammo were you using? What constitutes an accurized AK too?

Either I have had real good luck with my rifles/ammo combination, or yours was really lousy. My Russian Saiga AK conversion with its Aimpoint will easily shoot 6" +/- at 200 yards using Barnaul SP's, and thats with a 14" barrel. At 100 yards, it usually shoots 3" or less with the same ammo. Even my lowly WASR or SAR arent all that far behind. My worst shooting AK is US made gun.

I've found Barnaul to be the most accurate and consistant of the Russian ammo, and I have yet to have a bad lot of it. Wolf is hit or miss from lot to lot. I've had some shoot great, and others shoot terrible. Their HP ammo is just a marketing ploy, and is by no means a match or hunting bullet. I've never shot any of the US commerical 7.62x39 as I never saw the need.

Accuracy improves markedly when you put a red dot on the AK's, as you dont have to deal with the short sight radius and hunting type sights. They also make good hits up close fast and easy.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Absolutely not. It has less range and worse terminal ballistics than either of the NATO rounds. It lacks the velocity and fragmenting characteristics of the 5.56mm, and will not penetrate barriers as well as 7.62 NATO. 7.62x39 is arguably better at getting through barriers than 5.56mm when one discounts steel core 5.56.

Bullpucky.



That pic is of Wolf 122 gr FMJ and JHP shot into and recovered from plastic five gallon water jugs shot with my Romanian AK. Note that even the FMJ yaws quickly, flattens, and loses some core material out the base. I've seen a deer shot with it and that was all she wrote very quickly. The JHP simply turned inside out and didn't even penetrate a single bucket. The water plume was impressive though.

And there is nothing to argue about it. The stubby Russian round gets through cinder blocks, concrete, and wood much better than even the M855 ball round. I recently saw a video produced by the military, I believe to train Marines, that proved just that.

The conflict in Chechnya is non-conventional so consequently tactics, methods and equipment are changed for certain purposes. The 7.62x39 is used by these forces because of its better performance in close-quarters combat than the 5.45 round. But if Russia were to engage in a long-term conventional war it would certainly use strictly the 5.45 as the main infantry round as it does today.

CQB is all that matters. Russian military doctrine puts a 7.62x54 SVD in every squad, so if you need something shot at more than 200 to 300 yards, which either Kalashnikov will do just fine, the Dragunov is going to do it better than either of the shorter rounds.

I've owned 2 AK47s and an SKS and sold all of them due to my disatisfaction with their accuracy and range. I took the time to acquaint myself with both platforms, I even had my Bulgarian AK-47 accurized and was still very frustrated with its accuracy past 200yds, even when using ridiculously expensive ammo.

I don't mean any disprespect, but maybe it is the indian and not the arrow. My Yugo SKS with TechSights can do 2 MOA with Wolf ammo and I find it ridiculously easy to hit with out to 300+ yards. I've printed my Romanian AK with a red dot sight on paper at 200 yards by shooting 30 rounds in about as many seconds from a knee and found that it wasn't all that difficult, even though the red dot sight isn't fully sighted in, to keep 20 of them COM. Most of those were in a nice ~8 inch group a little low and left of the thoratic cavity, but still lethal and certainly unpleasent. There is a rock protruding from a gravel bar into a river that I have lazed at 350 yards from a tressel I walk when I am at my grandparents. The rock is about six feet long and depending on the water level, usually about 18 inches thick. I figure it is about like looking at a proned out male from the side. I can be on that rock with my SKS and my AK within 1 or 2 rounds from the sitting or prone position. Heck, a friend of mine accompanied me and handed me an iron sighted AK I had never shot before, and I hit it 2 out of 5 times. The key is that misses are easily seen as plumes of water, so adjusting is simple. But still, the point is that with a little practice and dedication, an AK is adequately accurate for its intended role--it can and will put someone's dick in the dirt at 300 yards.
That said, a friend's Bushmaster with an Aimpoint is the most ridiculously simple rifle to hit things with that I have ever shot. He was also there and I put 3 out of 5 on that rock my first time shooting the rifle, which was also my first time shooting an AR. We shot plenty of stumps on a hillside a couple days later--all of them were 200+ yards away. It is very easy to hit with and I couldn't imagine an easier rifle to train some urban youth to shoot with, even if they had never shot a gun before. But hitting those same stumps with an AK that has a red dot sight is all that much harder.
The bottom line is that if your fundementals are sound, you should be able to hit out to 300 yards with either system. The AR is flatter shooting and more accurate, and has less recoil. This is definately going to make it an easier task to accomplish with the AR. But don't doubt even for a second that anyone with the will and some practice can consistantly put a .311 caliber 122 gr FMJ in your chest from the same range with an AK or that it will not quickly ruin your day.
If you do better with the AR and trust it, so be it. I'll have enough opprotunity over the next four years to become intimately familiar with the M16. But until then, I have a good deal of experience with the AK and I trust it to do what I need to do with it. In either case, it would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of your opponent or their weapon. And saying an AK can't hit a man sized target consistantly at 300 yards is very much underestimating the capabilities of that platform.

 

[Metapotent]

That pic is of Wolf 122 gr FMJ and JHP shot into and recovered from plastic five gallon water jugs shot with my Romanian AK. Note that even the FMJ yaws quickly, flattens, and loses some core material out the base. I've seen a deer shot with it and that was all she wrote very quickly. The JHP simply turned inside out and didn't even penetrate a single bucket. The water plume was impressive though.

JHP is banned by the hague convention. Therefore as a military round you would be stuck with x39 FMJ which still, even according to your shaky experiment, almost never fragments in combat scenarios. Shooting it into a jug of water and 25 yds is hardly conclusive and is incredulous at best.

CQB is all that matters...

If you said "CQB is all that matters" to anyone who has been educated in military history and modern warfare they will laugh at you. It is true that most engagements take place at less than 200m, but there are also many times in recent history where the extra range of 5.56-armed soldiers have vastly out-gunned opposing forces armed with AK47s at extended ranges. Besides, the x39 is deficient in penetrating armor, in fact I heard a first-hand account of a soldier in a stryker-brigade from Fort Lewis (near where I live) in which he was shot in the back by an insurgent armed with an AK-47, his interceptor vest stopped it, then he made short-work of that unlucky insurgent.

The 5.56 is a superior round for modern battles, and the 5.45 russian is superior to the x39 as well. This is why the only people who still field x39-chambered rifles en masse are 3rd world countries, revolutionaries, drug-lords, or others who have 3rd-rate equipment and training anyhow.

I don't mean any disprespect, but maybe it is the indian and not the arrow.

I seem to do quite well with most other rifles/cartridges.

And saying an AK can't hit a man sized target consistantly at 300 yards is very much underestimating the capabilities of that platform

In my Military Science class I saw the results of an evaluation in which AK-47 from various countries of origin were locked into a vice and shot at various ranges with standard issue x39 ammo, and m16s and other NATO rifles were compared. Taking out all human variables, both the ammunition and rifles are still inconsistent to the point that 300yds (I think it was meters actually) shots with a x39 rifle were all over the place. I think it was something like the average for the lot was about 3/10 hits on a torso at that range.

Then when it was compared to NATO rifles (m16, M4, SA80, Steyr Aug..etc..). Using standard issue m193, m855, and SS109 each of these rifles got 10/10 hits on torso silhouttes and the average grouping was 2 MOA, so around 6.5 inch groups at 300m.

Now when you compare the higher level of marksmanship training undertaken by friendly forces, and compare them to the average 3rd-rate skill of potentional advesaries, especially those armed with AK-47s, you can see why the general concensus among experts is that the 5.56 is more effective as an infantry combat round, even if some claim that the x39 is more effective in close-quarters.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

JHP is banned by the hague convention. Therefore as a military round you would be stuck with x39 FMJ which still, even according to your shaky experiment, almost never fragments in combat scenarios. Shooting it into a jug of water and 25 yds is hardly conclusive and is incredulous at best.

There were two Hague Accords. The US only signed the first and most vague, which doesn't specifically ban hollow points. Additionally, the Accords are only valid for as long as all warring parties are members of the Accords and abided by its provisions. Al Qaeda and the insurgants in Iraq are neither members of the Accords, nor do they abide by their provisions. Therefore, the US is neither legally, nor some would say morally, obligated to use or not use any particular type of ammunition. This is why a Sierra 77 gr Matchking HPBT with a cannelure has been adopted for limited use by some troops with the M16 series of weapon (Mk 262 Mod 1). I believe a similar load exists for the 7.62 NATO.
The water jug experiments were done for my own ammusement. I never intended for them to be the defining source of info on the topic, merely to provide food for thought. I've shot a small muley buck with Winchester's M193 load and it didn't fragment either, so saying that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment is also incredulous at best. So while the 5.56 and 7.62x39 both may or may not fragment, the 7.62 isn't getting any smaller.
You can doubt the applicability of the water jug experiments to real life all you want. The fact is that water is about 800x more dense than air and the human body is 70-some odd percent water. Liquid mediums provide unique stresses on bullets and water happens to be readily available and cheap in most areas, and is pretty much the same anywhere you get it, making the experiments easy to duplicate. Shooting living organisms might be more telling, but the organisms themselves are far too complex for the experiments to have a whole lot of scientific validity. So both have to be taken into account. I've seen animals and water jugs shot with both the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45 and the results in both cases indicate that in terminal performance, the stubby Russian round is clearly superior when bullets of similar construction are used. The 5.56mm may have advantages over the 7.62x39, but terminal ballistics and penetration are not among them, esp once you get past 150 yards or so, when most 5.56mm rounds stop fragmenting reliably in most test mediums.

If you said "CQB is all that matters" to anyone who has been educated in military history and modern warfare they will laugh at you. It is true that most engagements take place at less than 200m, but there are also many times in recent history where the extra range of 5.56-armed soldiers have vastly out-gunned opposing forces armed with AK47s at extended ranges. Besides, the x39 is deficient in penetrating armor, in fact I heard a first-hand account of a soldier in a stryker-brigade from Fort Lewis (near where I live) in which he was shot in the back by an insurgent armed with an AK-47, his interceptor vest stopped it, then he made short-work of that unlucky insurgent.

You are taking what I said and putting it out of perspective to manipulate my argument and gain favor with yours. For the purposes of the Kalashnikov in Russian military doctrine, CQB is all that matters. It is intended to provide automatic fire capability and Minute-O-Capitalist accuracy to the extent of typical engagement ranges. This is right around 300 meters. The Russians put a designated marksmen in every squad to extend the effective range of the squad past 600 yards with a Dragunov SVD. None of the intermediate powered rounds, including your precious 5.56, are going to be able to compare with the effectiveness of the 7.62x54 round, nor will most be able to compete with the level of accuracy provided by a scoped precision rifle.
As mentioned in my first post, I saw a video, linked on this forum not too long ago, which IIRC was created by the military as training for US Marines heading over seas (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6760530260633420235). It stated that the average engagement in Iraq was like 60 feet. It then showed the effects of various weapons on a house constructed of different materials commonly found in an urban setting. The 5.56 was put against the 7.62x39 and the 7.62 NATO. The NATO obviously trumped both of the intermediate powered rounds, but the 7.62x39 also clearly dominated the 5.56mm when penetrating cinder blocks, brick, concrete, and wood. While a short burst from a Kalashnikov was able to easily penetrate the bricks and the cinder blocks and remaing lethal, it took several bursts from an M249 to chew through the same barriers with the 5.56. That is the penetration I am concerned about. My brother's DI in Fort Benning took 7 rounds to the trama plate at across-the-room distances and none of them penetrated. To insinuate that the 5.56 would have done any better is assinine. The trama plate is rated to stop both 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54 as well. In fact there is a very popular video on the net of an Iraqi sniper shooting a US Marine with a Dragunov. He drops but gets right back up and runs around to the other side of his Humvee. This is a testiment to the effectiveness of the armor more than a condemnation of any of the intermediate rounds. But the fact remains that while the 5.56 in its military configuration might have a small advantage penetrating steel, the short 7.62 is vastly superior at penetrating most common types of cover found in an urban setting.

Now when you compare the higher level of marksmanship training undertaken by friendly forces, and compare them to the average 3rd-rate skill of potentional advesaries, especially those armed with AK-47s, you can see why the general concensus among experts is that the 5.56 is more effective as an infantry combat round, even if some claim that the x39 is more effective in close-quarters.

This makes more sense than anything else you've written. I think the problem with the Kalashnikov is that it has seen more use in the hands of untrained 12 year old boys in 3rd world African countries and with poorly trained over-motivated religious zealots than it has in a professional army. The real potential of the Kalashnikov as a weapon of war has yet to be realized by the US as anything other than a utilitarian weapon of mass production. In its most modern forms and in the hands of a professionally trained military force, I think Western forces would be shocked at what the AK is truely capable of. For as long as ragheads continue to spray and pray, it will be sadly deemed by most as a weapon capable of only spray and pray, when this is simply not the case.
As for the adoption of the 5.45, I think it was done for largely the same reasons as the adoption of the 5.56--but I don't think either were really adopted for their terminal effects as much as a) they are lighter rounds and b) they have low recoil and are flat shooting. Since both were adopted in the first automatic rifles the country had adopted, it made since to allow troops to carry more rounds. And since Russian has a conscript army and the US is seeing increased urbanization lead to a decrease in the number of recruits it accepts with prior experiece behind a rifle, it makes sense to adopt a cartridge with low recoil and a flat trajectory to make it easier to train new recruits.
I can't speak for other people or their rifles. But I know that with mine, 300 yards doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Still, I am anxiously awaiting the moment I realize I have student loans and credit cards under enough control to order that FAL I want.
Sorry for the novel. Shoot straight and keep your powder dry.

EDITTED TO INCLUDE VIDEO LINK

 

[JShirley]

Someone called for a historian?

Megapotent,

During the Vietnam War, the NVA and the Vietcong complained to their Soviet suppliers that they were being outgunned by American m-16 rifles and that the 7.62x39/AK-47 combination lacked the "overwhelming fire" capability

Since we're being historical, I'd love to see your sources.

As for an AK round being stopped by IBA, big deal. With the plates, armor-piercing 7.62x62mm (.30-06) will also be stopped. You haven't proved anything with your anecdote, other than that IBA works as advertised.

In my Military Science class

That's an interesting demonstration you describe. What school was this?

John

 

[WeedWhacker]

Link to the video mentioned above, where a US troop is sniped at, but saved by his armor. Also includes a bit of descriptive text.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The accuracy thing, along with the ergonomic complaints, just tell me the person complaining never took the time to really learn the platform, which really takes no time at all. I often wonder if they ever actually shot one.

If you cant work the gun, its not the guns fault.

Actually, I'd say the ergonomics are the fault of the weapon. If you have not realized the limitations of the weapon, I'd say you've not been adequately trained in combat marksmanship.

In the case of the AK, the design leaves a whole lot to be desired as a gunfighters weapon for work at realistic combat ranges. Controls are not well placed, not easy to manipulate, and the magazine change drill is slower and clumsier than with an M4/M16.

That's just how it is. You can train to compensate for poor design to an extent, but you can't train to make a poor design better than a good one. Both weapons have their strengths and weaknesses, the AR's strengths include being an almost perfect weapon for real world combat marksmanship in terms of control layout and other ergonomic aspects. The same considerations are the primary weakness of the AK.

 

[HorseSoldier]

There were two Hague Accords. The US only signed the first and most vague, which doesn't specifically ban hollow points. Additionally, the Accords are only valid for as long as all warring parties are members of the Accords and abided by its provisions. Al Qaeda and the insurgants in Iraq are neither members of the Accords, nor do they abide by their provisions. Therefore, the US is neither legally, nor some would say morally, obligated to use or not use any particular type of ammunition. This is why a Sierra 77 gr Matchking HPBT with a cannelure has been adopted for limited use by some troops with the M16 series of weapon (Mk 262 Mod 1). I believe a similar load exists for the 7.62 NATO.

An accurate description of the situation, but a false read of the underlying motivations.

This issue originally came up with the adoption of M118LR sniper ammunition which is an OTM round. It is also more accurate than conventionally manufactured alternatives. The legal ruling was that the use of open tip match ammunition for sniping is legal because it is used to enhance accuracy, not to increase wounding or suffering of those shot with it. While the OTM format will fragment and break up better than regular ammunition, it is far from a true hollow point in this respect in any case.

The use of Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 is covered by the same legal ruling. The ammunition is used for its superior accuracy when fired at long range. It is not a JHP round, not does it provide any enhanced lethality over M855 because of the OTM format (improved energy retention due to heavier weight does give it more thump, but that's not against any international law). It's use tends to be grossly exaggerated on the internet in any case -- the majority of it is used specifically with Mk 12 SPRs (sniper/DMR variant of the M16 family), and there's not that much of it out there in any case. Most guys, even in the SOF community, have M855 green tip in their magazines when they go downrange.

So, major points --

a) The US continues to abide by the same ammunition restrictions we've respected in previous conflicts during this conflict. While it might be legally defensible to shoot terrorists and insurgents on the battlefield with JHP or similar rounds (I personally would say that it is, for the reasons you gave) it will not be done due to the political ramifications of doing so.

b) We are not using any ammunition in Iraq or Afghanistan against guerillas there that we would not use against signatories of the international agreements we are a party to. In other words, if we went to war with, say, France, tomorrow, we'd be using M118LR and Mk262 in that conflict the same as we are using them now. Neither round was adopted solely for use against those who are not party to various international laws and agreements covering armed conflict.

 

[AK103K]

Actually, I'd say the ergonomics are the fault of the weapon. If you have not realized the limitations of the weapon, I'd say you've not been adequately trained in combat marksmanship.

In the case of the AK, the design leaves a whole lot to be desired as a gunfighters weapon for work at realistic combat ranges. Controls are not well placed, not easy to manipulate, and the magazine change drill is slower and clumsier than with an M4/M16.

I have a number of both AR's and AK's. I've also shot a few M16's and select fire AK's.

At "realistic" combat ranges, both are effective. The AR/M16 is the better target rifle and does have better iron sights for precision shooting, there is no doubt there, but the AK is still capable of good "realistic" combat accuracy. Put a red dot on one, especially a good forward mounted dot on one of the Ultimak mounts, and it will give the AR/M16 a run for the money. With the iron sights, up close, I find the AK easier to shoot well quickly with than the M16, but thats just me.

The AR/M16 does have some ergonomic points over the AK, but not necessarily all that much better.

The M16A2's with a fixed stock are to long, they made a mistake making it longer. The M16/M16A1,s stock was fine, and interestingly, has the exact same LOP as the AK's. I dont know about you, but the AK shoulders and points more naturally for me. I have A1 stocks on most of my AR's.

The M16's safety and mag release are fine if your right handed, but not so lefty friendly. The AK is more ambidextrous, the safety and mag release can easily be operated with either hand, and your hand does not need to leave the grip to take the safety off or drop a mag. All my AK's will drop an empty mag without touching it, and with practice, a quick mag change is not really all that much slower than the M16's. (Yes, the M16 usually wins, but not by all that much, and I dont know that a lefty would win against a lefty using an AK.) The mag release is easily easily reached and pushed with the tip of the middle finger of the hand on the grip.

Yes the M16 has a bolt stop and a bolt release. No, the AK doesnt. I know a lot of people make a big deal out of this, but I dont really see why. The gun stops shooting, you reload, whats the problem? The M16 you pop in a new mag and hit the bolt stop, the AK you rock in a new mag and stroke the charging handle. Both guns are loaded. If your starting from a closed bolt on an empty chamber, I find the AK is easier and more positive to get loaded quickly.

They both do have their pluses and minuses. Is one better than the other, whos to say. Do you think a Russian professional soldier has trouble working his AK? I still think, for the most part, the weapons operator is going to be the weak link more than the weapon itself. Its been my experience when you hand one to someone who bitches about the AK's, they usually have no idea how to properly work them. They try to change mags with the wrong hand and think you have to take your hand off the grip to sweep the safety off or drop a mag. Their whole experience with one has been either a quick weapons familiarization session, or they bump fired a couple of mags at the local range. If you actually take the time to figure them out, most all of the supposed difficulties go away.


As for the accuracy complaints, these two targets were shot this afternoon with a Romanian SAR1 wearing a wire folder using the iron sights. The range was 200 yards. The ammo is Wolf 154gr SP's. The target on the left was from a rest, the top right group was the first fired from a cold gun. The first four were the tight group, the fifth was the flyer as the gun heated up. The other two groups and the few single rounds at the bottom, not circled, were sight adjustments and the gun was still pretty warm.

The target on the right is also 200 yards, this time from both a rest and then cross legged sitting. The three at the bottom were from a rest and a different POA, and the group at the top was from sitting.

This is the rifle that did the shooting. The red dot wasnt used as it was a cheapie Tasco and didnt fare to well from a drop out of the truck a little while back, one reason I was there, to confirm it was still working, and to try out the heavier Wolf. Looks like it will be getting its own Aimpoint.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt want to be standing at 200 yards if this rifle was shooting twice as bad as it did. This is also from a crappy Century SAR1. My Russian Saiga shoots a good bit better.