I was doing some reading about the usefulness of soviet rounds. Every where I look there's some mention the 5.45 as some sort of crazy super bullet that has a inordinately long list of abilities including being poisonous and creating cavitation bubbles and bullets that naturally splinter. I thought this was a isolated thing until I discovered all the stuff they say about the 7.62 tok. So I was wondering if any of the stories about any of the Soviet guns and ammo is true or if it's simply the result of new hipster gun owners and Russophiles overstating the abilities of mundane technology?
Soviet rounds myth vs reality
- Thread starter Oolong
- Start date
- Status
unspellable
Member
Myths
Doubt this has much to do directly with Soviet technology. I used to hear the same sort of BS about the 5.56/223 US round. (Maybe I'm giving away my age saying that.) There still some BS around about the 45 ACP.
Doubt this has much to do directly with Soviet technology. I used to hear the same sort of BS about the 5.56/223 US round. (Maybe I'm giving away my age saying that.) There still some BS around about the 45 ACP.
alsaqr
Member
The foremost authority on military rifle bullet wounding patterns is Dr. Martin Fackler:
http://ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf
http://ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf
Carl N. Brown
Member
Parts are true and parts are urban legend. Sorting it out may be difficult.
The 5.45x39 AK74 has mostly replaced the 7.62x39 AK47 so for combat it is probably an improvement over 7.62x39.
In the first half of the 20th century Russian battlefields were likely to be open plains in the winter so 7.62x25 Tokarev pistol round was flatter shooting and more capable of penetrating winter coats than the 7.62 Nagant revolver it replaced.
Are they super duper beyond human capacity to appreciate? I don't think so.
The Russian standard is that their arms be good, reliable, adequate for the job, and not beyond the capabilities or understanding of the average conscript to work with and maintain. That makes them good tools for their job.
If you want real thick Russian mythos, bring up Spetsnaz and their weapons ...
The 5.45x39 AK74 has mostly replaced the 7.62x39 AK47 so for combat it is probably an improvement over 7.62x39.
In the first half of the 20th century Russian battlefields were likely to be open plains in the winter so 7.62x25 Tokarev pistol round was flatter shooting and more capable of penetrating winter coats than the 7.62 Nagant revolver it replaced.
Are they super duper beyond human capacity to appreciate? I don't think so.
The Russian standard is that their arms be good, reliable, adequate for the job, and not beyond the capabilities or understanding of the average conscript to work with and maintain. That makes them good tools for their job.
If you want real thick Russian mythos, bring up Spetsnaz and their weapons ...
David Blane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2016
- Messages
- 34
Ooh yeah.. The ballistic blade is sweet!
But in the case of the .45 I can understand why people overstate it's abilities, it's thee American round. And 5.56's abilities can vary wildly based on what kind if gunpowder is in the round the construction of the bullet and the format of the rifle. This seems to be a bit different. I've seen several posts "documenting" the natural armor piercing abilities of the 7.62 tok when most tests show it to be a slightly harder hitting 9mm.
amd6547
Member
Hmmm, the video I saw portrayed the 7.62 Tok round penetrating a GI Kevlar helmet that withstood 9mm and 357mag. Yes, it can penetrate things that other rounds cant.
The 7.62x25-especially the hotter loadings-is no joke as far as penetration and flat trajectory goes. There are legitimate arguments pro and con regarding its capabilities.
The 5.45 IS effective-but much like the 5.56 -is more suited for the standard carbine and rifle length barrels vs the SBR/pistol length barrels.
Oddly enough,the 7.62x39 gives up less in an SBR/pistol format,as it is less dependent on muzzle velocity.
I know my 10 inch M92 does surprisingly well even without the brace.
The 5.45 IS effective-but much like the 5.56 -is more suited for the standard carbine and rifle length barrels vs the SBR/pistol length barrels.
Oddly enough,the 7.62x39 gives up less in an SBR/pistol format,as it is less dependent on muzzle velocity.
I know my 10 inch M92 does surprisingly well even without the brace.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Going back to the American Revolution, British officers were claiming that rifle bullets (with twist rates in the mid-60's) "twisted" their way through flesh and made horrible wounds.
lysanderxiii
Member
They all hurt if you get hit by one.....
dogtown tom
Member
I recall an interview with Mikhail Kalasnikov, when asked about the 5.45x39 he said it wasn't as effective as the 7.62x39 and that the Soviets were influenced by the US adoption of the 5.56 round.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Well, at least they weren't the square bullets intended for savage races 
I'm also fairly sure they did indeed 'twist through flesh' as cause terrible wounds, just not in the way the imagery implied
The Soviet/Russian myths generally revolve around;
-Tokarev; legitimately powerful pistol round (especially for the era) going fast enough to shear out some light plate or fiber-based armor, and cause nasty bone splintering in some cases. Generally tough, thick steel jackets that resist deformation against such obstacles. Combined with a respectable BC/sectional density, you get a flat-shooting projectile, which can pierce tough material membranes (if not plates), and doesn't slow down very fast or deviate from its course once it enters a target. Very much like a rapier, designed for narrow, deep, stabbing wounds. Nothing magical, just a set of performance criteria that are somewhat uncommon in today's preference for fat, expanding bullets carrying as much momentum as possible, from guns that do not breath fire. Should be compared to the Nagant pistol round which was the exact opposite ballistic realm, despite being the same diameter bullet (slow, weak, light recoil)
-5.45x39; basically a slightly-higher BC version of what the 5.56 does, especially if compared to the initial lightweight/slow twist NATO bullets. Because of this, it shoots flatter, drifts less in wind, and slows down more slowly at distance. It also has slightly better sectional density that aids in penetration performance. The myths of epic performance at extreme ranges probably grew out of the fact that it retains similar 5.56 high-speed/lightweight projectile benefits to a slightly farther range since it slows down more quickly. The Soviets/Russians also seem to field a greater variety of bullets adapted for different purposes at any given time than we do, which could contribute to the belief the chambering can 'do anything'
-7.62x54r; there's this crazy belief among many that it is notably more powerful or effective than any of the other ~30caliber battle rifle cartridges of WWI/WWII. Probably just due to the fact that Mosin stocks are so terrible.
-9x39; it's special, it's secret, it's mysterious, it's quieter than 300BLK but penetrates better than our new M855A1 EP round. These facts are undebunkable, since we'll never, ever see ammo here.
-9x19 +P+; it's more powerful than 357mag, the guns must be incredibly overbuilt to handle its might, the armor piercing rounds are absolutely devastating. Also scientifically undisprovable, for similar reasons as 9x39. My guess is the guns are built beefier so as to be more controllable for a harder kicking round, because even the new 9mm Tokarevs are more than strong enough to handle the forces involved (so basically the 9mm version of the 460 Rowland conundrum)
Interestingly enough, no one ever appeared to have been very impressed by the Makarov round; I've never heard of it being able to do anything special
TCB
I'm also fairly sure they did indeed 'twist through flesh' as cause terrible wounds, just not in the way the imagery implied
The Soviet/Russian myths generally revolve around;
-Tokarev; legitimately powerful pistol round (especially for the era) going fast enough to shear out some light plate or fiber-based armor, and cause nasty bone splintering in some cases. Generally tough, thick steel jackets that resist deformation against such obstacles. Combined with a respectable BC/sectional density, you get a flat-shooting projectile, which can pierce tough material membranes (if not plates), and doesn't slow down very fast or deviate from its course once it enters a target. Very much like a rapier, designed for narrow, deep, stabbing wounds. Nothing magical, just a set of performance criteria that are somewhat uncommon in today's preference for fat, expanding bullets carrying as much momentum as possible, from guns that do not breath fire. Should be compared to the Nagant pistol round which was the exact opposite ballistic realm, despite being the same diameter bullet (slow, weak, light recoil)
-5.45x39; basically a slightly-higher BC version of what the 5.56 does, especially if compared to the initial lightweight/slow twist NATO bullets. Because of this, it shoots flatter, drifts less in wind, and slows down more slowly at distance. It also has slightly better sectional density that aids in penetration performance. The myths of epic performance at extreme ranges probably grew out of the fact that it retains similar 5.56 high-speed/lightweight projectile benefits to a slightly farther range since it slows down more quickly. The Soviets/Russians also seem to field a greater variety of bullets adapted for different purposes at any given time than we do, which could contribute to the belief the chambering can 'do anything'
-7.62x54r; there's this crazy belief among many that it is notably more powerful or effective than any of the other ~30caliber battle rifle cartridges of WWI/WWII. Probably just due to the fact that Mosin stocks are so terrible.
-9x39; it's special, it's secret, it's mysterious, it's quieter than 300BLK but penetrates better than our new M855A1 EP round. These facts are undebunkable, since we'll never, ever see ammo here.
-9x19 +P+; it's more powerful than 357mag, the guns must be incredibly overbuilt to handle its might, the armor piercing rounds are absolutely devastating. Also scientifically undisprovable, for similar reasons as 9x39. My guess is the guns are built beefier so as to be more controllable for a harder kicking round, because even the new 9mm Tokarevs are more than strong enough to handle the forces involved (so basically the 9mm version of the 460 Rowland conundrum)
Interestingly enough, no one ever appeared to have been very impressed by the Makarov round; I've never heard of it being able to do anything special
TCB
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
That's a given, I believe they were also copying the B52 around the same time. I'm sure they also noticed that their 3rd world flunkies were generally only able to dump a mag or two in ambush in the field before retreating to resupply (for a human:ammo weight ratio, a round of x39 has to be similar to a battle rifle in the hands of a diminutive, malnourished partisan fighter). No reason to suspect they didn't learn the same lessons we did, and draw similar conclusions.
After all, we stupidly tried to copy their AVT40 lightweight automatic rifle concept in the form of the select-fire M14, whereas the Russians had already moved on to the SKS/AK by the time it was ready. We've been chasing eachothers' or the French/Germans tails since like the 1880s
It will be interesting to see what Chinese equipment or strategy we lift first, though it will probably be hard for people inside America to recognize. I forget if their little PDW round came before or after the 5.7x28
TCB
Carl N. Brown
Member
The Soviet's first nuclear capable bomber was a direct copy of our B29, based on samples that they interned after US crews made emergency landings in Siberia before the Soviets decided to declare war on Japan. So they did copy weapons they liked if they thought they were good.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I actually did a lot of research on this at one time, and I concluded there was nothing inherent to 5.45x39 that would make it arbitrarily more effective than any other high velocity intermediate cartridge.
When it comes to wounding capability, the caliber of the bullet (it's diameter) has almost nothing to do with the size of the wound cavity, despite what you may or may not see in gel testing. Basically, you're going to get a crush cavity slightly less than the diameter of the bullet as a given, and any temporary or permanent cavitation in excess of the bullet's diameter is all due to its velocity. This is a fact that bullet designers are only now waking up to.
Thus, smaller bullets going faster produce more dramatic cavities because they have an increased capacity to produce hydraulic tearing of the flesh. The Russians realized this with the introduction of 5.56, and the 5.45 was a direct response to that. However, I would say that the Russians improved the reliability of the concept a little by making the round more likely to yaw, which is vital to its performance.
Now all these myths about 5.45 came out of Afghanistan. You have to realize that the Taliban was using surplus AKs, and that the AK74 was relatively new at that time. Even now, you see far fewer AK74s in the Middle East, as opposed to AKMs. So they had no experience with small caliber high velocity rounds yet, and they were simply surprised that such a little round, with such little recoil, could do so much damage. If you're not familiar with the physics behind how bullets wound, it's counterintuitive to think that a seemingly less powerful cartridge could do more damage. Thus, to them, it was almost magical.
As for the 7.62 Tok, it's just a high velocity pistol round. There's nothing mysterious about it. Any bullet with sufficient velocity will defeat soft body armor. You'd actually be surprised how many common pistol rounds out there can defeat soft armor, especially if we're talking level II. That's why we need to educate the public as to the absurdity behind the whole "armor piercing" pistol ammo nonsense coming from the left. If we were to ban every bullet capable of piercing soft armor, we would basically be left with a handful of moderately powerful pistol cartridges, like 9mm to .45 ACP. All magnum revolvers would be gone, and you couldn't even begin to have any rifles. Giving congress or the ATF the power to pick and choose which bullets are "armor piercing" is a slippery slope that ends with us being relegated to 1870s era cartridge technology.
When it comes to wounding capability, the caliber of the bullet (it's diameter) has almost nothing to do with the size of the wound cavity, despite what you may or may not see in gel testing. Basically, you're going to get a crush cavity slightly less than the diameter of the bullet as a given, and any temporary or permanent cavitation in excess of the bullet's diameter is all due to its velocity. This is a fact that bullet designers are only now waking up to.
Thus, smaller bullets going faster produce more dramatic cavities because they have an increased capacity to produce hydraulic tearing of the flesh. The Russians realized this with the introduction of 5.56, and the 5.45 was a direct response to that. However, I would say that the Russians improved the reliability of the concept a little by making the round more likely to yaw, which is vital to its performance.
Now all these myths about 5.45 came out of Afghanistan. You have to realize that the Taliban was using surplus AKs, and that the AK74 was relatively new at that time. Even now, you see far fewer AK74s in the Middle East, as opposed to AKMs. So they had no experience with small caliber high velocity rounds yet, and they were simply surprised that such a little round, with such little recoil, could do so much damage. If you're not familiar with the physics behind how bullets wound, it's counterintuitive to think that a seemingly less powerful cartridge could do more damage. Thus, to them, it was almost magical.
As for the 7.62 Tok, it's just a high velocity pistol round. There's nothing mysterious about it. Any bullet with sufficient velocity will defeat soft body armor. You'd actually be surprised how many common pistol rounds out there can defeat soft armor, especially if we're talking level II. That's why we need to educate the public as to the absurdity behind the whole "armor piercing" pistol ammo nonsense coming from the left. If we were to ban every bullet capable of piercing soft armor, we would basically be left with a handful of moderately powerful pistol cartridges, like 9mm to .45 ACP. All magnum revolvers would be gone, and you couldn't even begin to have any rifles. Giving congress or the ATF the power to pick and choose which bullets are "armor piercing" is a slippery slope that ends with us being relegated to 1870s era cartridge technology.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
The Soviet Union was an empire built on lies. Do not expect truth-saying about their ammunition.
There is something good to be said about the 7.62 Tokarev round. It was not a very good pistol round but in the longer barrel of a submachine gun (better velocity and penetration) it was good enough to get to Berlin.
Jenrick
Member
We're just a bad here in the US. The venerable M1 & M2 ball .30-06 and M80 7.62 NATO have legions of adherents in the US that don't understand a lick about terminal ballistics. If a M1 Garand or an M14 fired it, then by golly it's a superior round! I can link to a few threads here on THR that basically boiled down to people reposting snippets from articles from Soldier of Fortune magazine to support why the .30 caliber round was effective.
-Jenrick
-Jenrick
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
At the fear of singing a reprise, Oolong, what I said before still holds. There is no magically better or sexier solution. You create a blast pressure behind a channel that leads forward. That is the gun as devised by its inventors (while sipping tea) and the rest is mere refinement.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not really -- not if you understand combat (as MacArthur did.)
My first tour in Viet Nam, my issued M2 carbine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed a Garand off the ARVN battalion I advised and carried that from then on. My second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M 21) and kept one for myself. And I've used other weapons in combat, including a BAR.
The great thing about the .30 Cal and 7.62X51 is PENETRATION. People WILL get behind things when the shooting starts (done it myself) and you have to shoot THROUGH things -- logs, dirt mounds, walls and so on. That is where the heavier calibers shine.
lysanderxiii
Member
Although, MacAurthur's objection to .276 Petersen was on logistical grounds.
He saw an up-coming war with Japan and did not want the infantry platoon to have to deal with two types of ammo, one for the Garand (.276) and one for the BAR (.30-06). The likelihood of developing a .276 BAR in short order was slim.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Lies and insanity; wise words indeed.
That said, they do seem to have quite the variety of bullet designs to choose from over there over the decades (AP, tracer, incindiery, explosive, fragmenting, tumbling, FMJ, on and on) so depending which was in use at the time, it is possible it could at times be more effective than whatever we/oppoents happened to be fielding.
TCB
Vern Humphrey
Member
He is quoted as saying he had been an Infantryman in the Great War and he knew Infantrymen have to shoot through things.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Sounds like you have some stories to tell! The US advisors by far are the most interesting piece of history from the Vietnam war. I can't think of anything more dynamic than embedding yourself with another culture during wartime. Takes a very sharp mind to pull that off.
You hit the nail right on the head. The benefit of larger calibers is range and penetration, or more often than not penetration at range. That's why they'll never remove 7.62 from the battlefield. It's the most powerful cartridge that's still man portable. With that said, I wouldn't want to be the guy who got stuck with the M240B, or the guy who has to carry the ammo.
ETA: Also wanted to say that people are constantly claiming that intermediate cartridges are 600 meter rounds, and that's just not true. Sure, you might hit something at that range, but it had better be out in the open and wearing light clothing.
- Status
