Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:47 am

    To start with let me explain where this came from.

    If you read about western experience in Iraq and Afghanistan it seems that the 5.56mm calibre just doesn't cut it in the types of warfare they are engaging in.

    They have the contradiction of forces largely armed with short range ammo (ie 5.56) and their current opponents (especially in Afghanistan) are taking advantage of this by engaging them from 300m or more with PKMs and SVDs.

    The first result was the reintroduction of 7.62 x 51 calibre automatic rifles and the development of new... as they call them now designated marksman rifles.

    They are also redesigning their 5.56mm ammo to improve its lethality at longer ranges but the nature of the ammo limits the progress that they make in this area.

    Respected writers and experts in that field like Anthony Williams suggest new cartridges in the 6.5 to 7mm calibre range with 5.56 bullet velocities with 7.62 x 39mm bullet weights.

    Others suggest going back to 7.62 x 51mm.

    The problem, which originally the assault rifle was supposed to address was short range firepower of a submachine gun with less than full power rifle ammo combined with better range and accuracy that is possible using pistol ammo as used in submachineguns.

    The problem is that while the assault rifle meets those requirements what it doesn't offer is range and accuracy compared with a full powered rifle cartridge.

    Producing a new type of ammo would be expensive... the Soviets were working on a new round in 6.5 x 49mm calibre as a sniper and machine gun round and an assault rifle cartridge but it seems the development stopped, though the new modular gun system they are planning for for after the AK-200 might have new cartridges amongst a family of new weapons.

    Anyway, my idea is based on the 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher idea... simply develop a large semi automatic 7.62 x 54/or in the wests case 7.62 x 51mm cal bullpup rifle with picatinny rails all over it as per modern rifles of that ilk, and instead of a 40mm grenade launcher attached under the front stock simply fit a Bizon or Kedr like SMG.

    The bullpup design provides a comparatively short compact weapon with long range accuracy and power, while the SMG provides short range fire power needed for the close in role with the advantage of using existing ammo and weapon design... a scaled up ADS design would suffice for the rifle itself.

    The Assault Rifle combines the firepower of a submachine gun with the range and knock down power suitable for normal combat ranges of up to 300m or so.

    This new weapon concept combines the range and accuracy and fire power of a full power rifle cartridge with the short range fire power of a submachinegun.

    For the confines of tight places the SMG can be removed and used on its own and the 9mm ammo is strangely similar in weight to modern assault rifle cartridges so they can still be carried in large volumes.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:55 am

    And having written all that and reading it again, perhaps instead of development of a new rifle or new ammo that the improved power powder created for the ADS with the new underwater ammo could be applied to the standard round so that 100 grain bullets (compared with 60 grain bullets used at the moment) could be fired at high velocity... perhaps 950-1,000m/s.

    The small calibre and large weight mean the bullets will be very long and thin so there might be issues with bullet stabilisation... this will lead to nasty wounds but also reducing accuracy.
    The extra bullet mass will greatly improve performance at extended ranges because heavier bullets are less effected by wind, and have more momentum and so lose energy slower over distance... in other words they retain velocity better.

    Of course it would be important to ensure the new powder was safe in existing weapons because the ADS probably has a stronger barrel to enable it to be safely fired under water.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Pervius on Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:48 pm

    The American's adopted their little .22 caliber for military use because some US Air Force General thought the rifle was pretty (retired buddies running the company being contracted was likely a push as well) but didn't want his airmen shooting a man's caliber...the .308...so he had them make it in a little .22 caliber.

    The rest of the US military was forced to adopt it.


    It is, and always has been...a piece of crap. The reason the US military gave away those Dodge chassis'd armored cars their cops used to have was because Russian AK 7.62x39 shot straight thru it.


    The US having to use the little .22 rifles to shoot bad people 8-9.....10 times before they die.....Jesus when do you stop and say that's inhumane. Might as well use Hollow Point bullets.

    ...sorry....I'm no fan of .22 rifles...the .223/5.56 is a 22 caliber rifle. There should be some Hague Convention to ban 22 caliber for war. It's just as inhumane as Hollow Point bullets.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Small arms

    Post  Pugnax on Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:44 am

    Why not just reintroduce the SVT-40 if your looking for an accurate high powered semi automatic battlerifle? The idea of having a snap on smg underbarrel is quaint,would you want to carry a rifle /smg hybrid and two types of ammo?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:41 am

    The American's adopted their little .22 caliber for military use because some US Air Force General thought the rifle was pretty (retired buddies running the company being contracted was likely a push as well) but didn't want his airmen shooting a man's caliber...the .308...so he had them make it in a little .22 caliber.

    The story I heard was that the airforce were looking for a light carbine rifle to replace the M1 carbine with its 7.62 x 33mm super pistol round for air field security.
    New high velocity varmint rounds were popular then and it was believed that high velocity could replace bullet mass as a killing mechanism, so they took the popular at the time .222 and modified it slightly to create the .223.
    The intention was never to wound, it was all about heavier slower bullets going right through most targets and retaining plenty of energy to travel long distances beyond the target.
    In energy terms that is a waste because you want all the energy dumped into the target you are firing at.
    The solution was a tiny bullet with a built in weak point called a cannalure or something which is an indentation around the middle of the bullet that the case is supposed to be crimped into to prevent the bullet being pushed into the case during reloading in the rifle.
    As the bullet tumbles in the target it will get to a point where it is moving sideways and the bending forces on the bullet cause the round to break at the cannalure into two main pieces that causes a nasty wound.
    This only happens when the velocity is high enough... which means the rifle needs a 20 inch barrel to achieve that velocity and the effect will only occur if the bullet is still within the body by the time it has turned sideways... so going through an arm or leg will not likely cause the fragmentation.
    Impacts on target beyond about 200m means the bullet velocity is also too low for fragmentation.
    And of course the shorter barrel carbine doesn't generate enough muzzle velocity for the effect either.

    If the bullet hits bone or anything hard like a belt buckle then it can do more damage, but most of the time it just punches a small neat hole in and out.

    Anyway the point was that these rifles were issued to the soldiers defending airbases in Vietnam (which is where they were needed), and the local Vietnamese saw the light rifles and wanted some too. The smaller stature of the Vietnamese soldiers meant a light weight low recoil rifle was much better than the big heavy high recoil M14s the Americans used.

    Combat experience at short range in the jungle seemed to show very impressive results with rounds fragmenting more often than not in the short range engagements.

    The Army took notice and then ordered them in enormous numbers... which created the problems.

    The new 223 ammo had new much cleaner burning powder which led to the new plastic rifle being called a wonder rifle that never needed cleaning.

    It wasn't even issued with a cleaning kit and of course soldiers being soldiers when told they didn't have to clean the rifles... well they didn't.

    With the Army order however production of the new powder could not keep up with demand, so some official signed off on changing to standard powder and didn't bother telling anyone else about it.

    The standard powder burned faster and generated a much higher rate of fire so parts didn't last as long as they should have.
    The standard powder didn't burn cleanly and left a sticky residue that if not cleaned off would harden into a solid carbon deposit that would jam a rifle.

    No one had cleaning kits and the cleaning kits they did have were for 30 cal rifles and the cleaning rods wouldn't fit into a 223 cal tube.

    Many picked up AKs.

    Why not just reintroduce the SVT-40 if your looking for an accurate high powered semi automatic battlerifle? The idea of having a snap on smg underbarrel is quaint,would you want to carry a rifle /smg hybrid and two types of ammo?

    If you carry a pistol you will be carrying two types of ammo anyway.

    The point is that you may never need one or the other weapon.

    If you are fighting in open desert then you might not need the SMG.

    If you are fighting in a built up area you might be able to sling the rifle and just carry the SMG.

    With a 30 round mag for the 7.62mm rifle you could probably get away with three mags somewhere like Afghanistan, and with an underbarrel Bizon with 4 tube mags with 64 rounds in each is 256 rounds.

    With modern scopes with built in laser rangefinders and thermal and image intensification elements combined with laser wind direction and strength sensors 3 mags with 30 rounds in each could mean 80 odd kills.
    The lower lethality of pistol rounds means that 256 rounds in controlled bursts might get you 20-25 kills assuming no body armour.

    The issue at hand is fighting in environments where you can go from close quarters (ie checking out a village for weapons or explosives) to long range (sniper or machine gun fire as you go to leave the village) without any chance to rearm with heavier longer ranged weapons.

    In many places the opportunity for long range fire fights is common like in mountains and deserts where the 7.62mm rifle would be more useful than a small calibre assault rifle.

    In many other places it makes more sense just to issue standard assault rifles.

    Despite the criticism above of the 5.56mm in terms of lethality it is hard to level the same criticisms at the 5.45 which is specifically designed to tumble on impact to increase wounding potential, but it does not fragment, and does not rely on velocity for lethality, so it can be used in any length of barrel and retain good performance on targets.

    It shares the advantages of the 5.56 in that it is a light round with low recoil and a relatively flat trajectory which makes shooting easier. The tumbling on impact results in adequate lethality, though not as spectacular as the 5.56mm when it fragments, it is much more lethal than the 5.56mm when the latter does not fragment.

    The new 5.56mm round has a steel front section and a solid lead rear and it is pretty clear that this is intended to improve penetration and also to promote the same tumbling effect as the Russian round by using light steel at the front and heavy lead at the back they are shifting the centre of gravity back so it will naturally tumble on impact.

    BTW the SVT-40 would be a bit long and fragile for modern use... much like the SVD is not really designed to fire in the volumes required of a battle rifle.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    small arms

    Post  Pugnax on Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:21 am

    I recognize the limitations of SVT 40,but on the same side i lament the loss of the FNC1,FNC2 in CDN forces,the long range reach out and kill something confidence it instilled in our forces.Perhaps an integrated platoon wherein more long ranged semi-autos augment the high rate of fire assault weapons...a supply clerks nightmare but the model works very well in wargaming.Most modern engagements are 50m or less,most militaries train at 100 and 200m,accurate shooting beyond 200m is extremely rare ....knowing that your weapon is deadly at 400m+ is priceless!


    Last edited by Pugnax on Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : needed to elaborate on concept)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:02 am

    I agree that most soldiers will never fire their weapons at targets more than 300m away simply because they are not issued with the optics to find targets and correctly identify them at that range anyway.

    I am amused that during the 1980s we are told that rifles like the SA80 can engage targets at 600m and we are told by AR enthusiasts that 600m kills are perfectly possible with M16s and M4s, but it seems that military analysis from real combat in Afghanistan seems to reveal what combat stats often reveal that 90% of combat is at 200m or less and that the 5.56mm round lacks effect on target from a 20 inch barrel at more than 250m.

    Modern assault rifles are designed for 300m or less and in the case of the 5.56mm round the barrel length dictates the effective range so for forces equipped with M4s and very short barrelled FN Minimis the actual effective range is even shorter.

    The problem identified is that enemy forces can take advantage of that range limitation and use weapons like PKMS and SVDs to engage the western troops at ranges of 300m to 900m where the western troops mostly equipped with 5.56mm cal weapons cannot effectively reply.

    Now the lack of large numbers of western dead suggest that although the Taleban are engaging the western forces at 300m to 900m that the effectiveness of that fire is not particularly spectacular, but the western forces are looking at a solution to the problem of lack of units to engage short and long range targets effectively.

    The solution often offered is a new rifle calibre in the 6.5 to 7mm calibre with much better long range performance than the current 5.56/5.45 cal ammo, but a change to new ammo would be very expensive and now is hardly a good time for expensive.

    Perhaps a change in calibre could also be taken as an opportunity for a change in bullet composition, with plastic case ammo, or caseless ammo options.

    As I mentioned the change in the underwater ammo for the ADS included the addition of a sabot around a very long projectile that took up most of the case interior, so the improved powder has very little space left so it must be rather powerful to do a good job.

    A 100 grain projectile in the same 5.45mm case would take up far less room than the big long under water projectiles so there would be more room for the new powder to generate normal 5.45mm velocities of about 900 to 950m/s.

    To put it in context the subsonic 5.45mm round for use in suppressed weapons has an 80 grain projectile which travels at subsonic speeds... ie below 300m/s.

    Larger projectiles leave less space for powder and less space for powder means lower muzzle velocities.

    Heavier large projectiles at high speed means better performance on target, longer range because heavier bullets travel through the air more efficiently... it is like the difference between throwing a cricket ball and throwing a balloon... the mass of the heavier object pushes aside the air in front of it more efficiently than a lighter lower mass object.

    For deployment in mountains a new 7.62 x 54mm rifle would be useful for Russian soldiers, especially if it can be made compact but with a good length barrel as with a bullpup design.

    For other operations an AK or AK-200 or its future modular replacement new ammo with higher performance powder and a heavier projectile should allow target engagement at short and medium ranges without the cost of introducing a new calibre.

    A criticism of light fast bullets is that they lack penetration and are easily deflected... a heavy fast bullet should improve penetration and reduce deflection by light material, at the cost of increased recoil.

    The advantage of updated ammo is that existing weapons can be used, though the sights might need recalibrating.
    Special ammo could be set aside for when it is needed with more normal ammo issued and used for most operations and exercises.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    small arms

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:02 am

    It seems that 7.62 Nato was always viable.Im not trying to be a burr,but it seems the calibre of option unfolds itself.No kevlar can withstand battle rifle damage ,id wager on my .75 calibre smooth bore to smash any armoured troops.Of course im bein goofy but lads there were weapons that fill the role ,dont be a sock puppet in the new arms aquisition lies.


    Last edited by Pugnax on Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:06 am; edited 2 times in total

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    small arms

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:03 am

    Followed up by a determined bayonette assault,16 inchers ,triangular.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:06 am

    The argument against returning to the old battle rifles was the lack of fire power in close range combat and the ammo weight restricting the amount that could be carried.

    Perhaps a more radical change might be better... have half the squad armed with assault rifles for close range fire power, but with the other half give them longer range fire support weapons, like SVDs, PKMs and long barrelled assault rifles/LMG like the RPK-74.

    The latter is often criticised in the west because it is not belt fed and it has a fixed barrel.

    The west thinks it is so superior with its belt fed FN Minimi LMGs, yet the Soviets had the full calibre belt fed LMG with replaceable barrel and either belt feed or pan feed in the RP-46.

    They then tried the assault rifle calibre with a belt fed fixed barrel in the form of the RPD, before settling on the magazine fed RPK and then RPK-74.

    Their current LMG is the Pecheneg with a fixed barrel in full calibre rifle ammo with a belt feed.

    Seems to me that they have tried the things the west has tried before and decided that the Pecheneg is the future. The updated rifle to replace the SVD liberally sprinkled in units will likely complete the picture.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:23 pm

    ]b]KEDR'S NEW QUALITIES[/b]

    Author: Vitaly Boyarkin

    Vitaly Boyarkin - Director of MEDIUM STF Ltd

    The KEDR submachine guns (SMG) with a high rate of fire have proved most successful as a compact and a reliable weapon of close combat. However, such rate of fire (1,000 rounds/min), even with a rather lower-powered 9x18PM cartridge, causes a large recoil and, accordingly, a great fire dispersion relative to an aiming point. Indoor firing produces heavy sound and muzzle flash that unmask a marksman and stun and dazzle him.

    KEDR-2 that has been recently developed at the Zlatoustovsky machine-building plant (ZMBP) for higher-powered 9x19 LYUGER cartridge is inherited from its predecessor, alongside with the advantages, still the same large recoil. Moreover, it has no fasteners on the submachine gun for the tactical lights and laser target designators (LTD).

    MEDIUM STF Ltd and the ZMBP have successfully solved these problems by developing the BK-09-3 quick-detachable noise and flash suppressor (QNFS) and the KBK-09-3 recoil compensator (RF patents No. 2402736 and No. 2397422).

    The BK-09-3 layout has the following features, i.e. it is quick-detachable, has a self-cooled surface, a gastight envelope, a vortex separator of stainless steel and allows for quick attachment of the tactical light and LTD to the QNFS body. The suppressor (weight - 330 g) made of corrosion-resistant materials is manufactured in two versions as a tactical suppressor- flash suppressor and an integrated suppressor (provided a part of the KEDR SMG barrel is perforated to reduce a bullet speed up to 279 m/s). A degree of sound suppression by the BK-09-3 is 15 to 20 dB and flash suppression, by 99.8 % (www.u-tube.ru/pages/video/59937/).

    The BK-09-3 suppressor envelope is made of porous aluminum having the through-microholes, through which a portion of gases exits after firing to atmosphere. At a sudden drop of pressure on a boundary line, the gases quickly cool down thus causing a certain cooling of the envelope surface (choke effect). Therefore even when firing in bursts, a marksman may hold the device envelop (as a foregrip) with his hand, without fear to get a burn.

    The vortex separator ensures a multiple vortex of gases in firing, changing their rotation several times. In the process, the gases lose their energy and a certain vacuum occurs in the central part of the suppressor duct, thus causing the gases of the central part to cool down. This facilitates suppression of the sound of fires from the weapon that has a high rate of fire.

    When firing with use of the BK-09-3 suppressor, recoil of the KEDR SMG greatly decreases and accuracy of fire improves (www.u-tube.ru/pages/video/109889/).

    The BK-09-3 suppressor is attached by means an original non-threaded fastener to the base of the SMG foresight that allows a marksman to install/remove the suppressor in a matter of a second.

    Only 1 to 2 seconds will be needed to install/remove a tactical light, a LTD or a video camera to fire round the corner (patent application Ru No. 2009149005) on/from the BK-09-3 fasteners located on the four sides on the side surface of the rear cover. The "Picatinny" or dovetail rails will not be needed in this case.

    If need arises, the auxiliary equipment like a tactical light can be instantly installed on the suppressor to allow fire at night on a light beam. The tactical light can be also promptly removed from the suppressor and hidden in a pocket.

    One of the simplest appliances to minimize recoil and improve accuracy of fire for firing in bursts is the recoil muzzle brakes/compensators (MB/C).

    MEDIUM company has developed the KBK-09-3 quick-detachable compensators used for any KEDR upgrades. It takes a marksman only a second to install them on the submachine guns. Procedure is the same as for the aforesaid suppressors by means of a retaining catch applied to the base of the foresight. The MB/C weight is 54 g.

    If the said suppressor is used for firing in short bursts at a target No. 4 from 25 m, the number of hits will increase by 25 to 30 %.

    The KBK-09-3 is also used for the supersonic mode of fire from the submachine gun as a plug of the barrel perforation in a version of the BK-09-3 integrated suppressor.

    We hope that the new developments of the auxiliary equipment for the KEDR submachine gun will spur interest of the force structures in the old tested KEDR.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:50 am

    Thanks for posting Austin... very interesting.

    I always wondered what they were going to do with "newish" weapons that used 9x18mm calibre ammo like Kedr.

    It is a very compact weapon that looks to be effective enough, which is why I suggested it as an option for attaching to a rifle in the rifle SMG combo.

    Suppressors and lights and lasers, plus a change of calibre up to 9 x 19mm will make it even better.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:39 am

    Of course another option is one I suggested in another thread... how about a belt and magazine fed rifle in standard full calibre rifle ammo (ie 7.62 x 51mm/7.62 x 54mm) with a 20 round box mag with ammo optimised for the 800m range engagement, but also with a belt feed mechanism for say a 100 round belt in a box with sub calibre sabot rounds with small 6.5mm projectiles in plastic sabots loaded to very high velocity.

    For short range targets or perhaps groups of targets at medium range you can use the weapon in belt fed full auto mode, while point targets out to 800m or so can be engaged in semi auto from the box mag with 150 grain bullets at 850m/s or so.

    A switch to change the feed options with the belt feed firing from an open bolt and the semi auto box feed from a closed bolt for accuracy.

    I remember in the 1980s the sub calibre rounds were trendy for a while when everyone thought velocity was everything. The small light projectile meant minimal recoil, but accuracy wasn't very good. In burst fire accuracy wont be great anyway so a burst of 4-5 rounds should provide hit probability at close range without the need for different new calibres or totally new weapons.

    The belt feed is not totally necessary, you could simply have one colour mag with one type of ammo and a different colour mag with the other type with a selector switch that selects full auto with an open bolt and semi auto only from a closed bolt.

    The ammo would be heavy and it is not particularly efficient, but it could be worth a try for situations like Afghanistan or in other mountainous regions where close combat is possible (in a village) and long range combat is possible too (long range visibility across valleys etc).

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:00 pm


    Most of the History Channel and Discovery Channel programs that compare the AK with the M16 use Vietnam era 7.62 x 39mm calibre AKs too.



    And usually (i would hazard a statistic appraisal in the region of 98-99% Laughing Laughing ) it provide data and valutations not only comically wronged but even representing, with embarassing orderliness, the exact opposite of factual reality !!! (just like in that instance)


    Russians criticize the M16 for it's poor reliability and durability in combat conditions.


    Russians criticize M-16 on those basis only because them use correct...and fair Wink ....theoretical and experimental system of evalutation, taking into account only coherent parametrical elements of different designs.

    In this instance Russians compare correctly mechanical qualities inherent to the different foundamental structural design's solutions implemented in M-16 and AK-47 family (exactly like for the aerospace sector where Russians compare correctly the flight qualities and performances generated by the different aerodynamic layouts chosen by different aircraft designers while ,in Western publications ,we see often a subtle attempt to "corrupt" similar comparisons employing homogenous constructive parameters adding totally unrelated elements -like quality of the data links or presence of a radar AESA -,selling even them as the most important, only to attempt to "counterbalance" the results of coherent parameter-to parameter comparison).

    Wanting to employ a less "fair" parametrical comparison one could quietly say that warfighters equiped with M-16(and even more M-4) has been in all the latest conflicts wastly outgunned ,outranged and outpowered by scarcely trained and inexistently protected "insurgents" armed with the most outdated versions of the export versions of AK-47 to the point that ,how anyone informed on the latest threat analysis in the filed well know, in the latest years has grown a very strong pressure in US/UK Army to even abandon completely rifles /carabines designed around 5,56 cartridges !!




    The M16 was shown to hit paper targets at 600m on test shooting ranges, which is clearly superior to any AK-47, yet is that fair... how relevant are 600m shots in modern combat? Especially with hand picked shooters that in no way represent the average soldiers shooting performance?


    GarryB i sincerely don't follow you here .

    Yes ,M-16 family was designed to hit paper targets at this range (but as anyone has discovered in the decades of operations after its introduction it has an effective lethal and suppressive range on less than half of this range) and employing the same type of trial an AK-47 ,even more if that test would have been conducted in the open in operational standard thermal, wind and humidity conditions , would result for unescapable physical reasons significantly superior to it.

    About the standard engagement ranges in all the latest theatres of operation we have that it has demonstrated to sit well beyond 400 m (not rarely up to 900 m when mixed group of rifles and light machine guns are involved ) and just this element was one putting lately in crisis the same western selection of 5,56 cartridge as the centrepiece of its Army infantry main weapon.

    The following article "Biting the Bullet" , by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond (i think that neither of the two need any type of introduction...) expose with great precision and clearity the immense problems encountered by western operatives in all the latest conflicts (i repeat one more time, against scarcely trained insurgents devoid of any type of balistic protections armed at best with downgraded export versions of small caliber rifles 40 years old)

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf




    Please GarryB read it entirely ,and in particular read pag 9 and subsequents - section "Issues arising from operational use" - ; the USA operatives forced to systematically EMPLOY JAVELIN ATGM as a SUPRRESSING WEAPON OF ENEMY INFANTRY POSITIONED UP TO 1000 m FAR will give to you some minutes of laughters , someone should contact KBM for some of those export weapons....







    Naturally this is only one among the dozen of surveys (mostly by US/UK Army, after the operational results in Iraq and Afghanistan) and articles in specialized publications covering that critical subject .

    This ,for example, is an extract (on the facts in questions) from Military Review of July-August 2012 ,from the article Weapon" by Ph."Physics Demands A New Basic Combat D. Joseph P. Avery :


    "The advertised maximum effective range of both the M14 with a 150 gr., 7.62 mm NATO cartridge and the M16’s 62 gr., 5.56 mm M855 NATO cartridge was 460 meters. This equal classification
    is odd considering the dramatic difference in cartridges.
    “Effective” is the key word. In this instance, it denotes the maximum range a projectile is expected to inflict casualties or damage.
    Both projectiles fired at a paper mache mannequin at 460 meters may sail the distance, but one will probably bounce off.
    As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218- 273 yards) .Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective.
    An excellent 2009 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College study, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan, brilliantly summarized the problem, and it is not limited to Afghanistan.

    The study concluded that American military weapons, cartridge lethality, combat optics, doctrine, and marksmanship training are vastly inadequate, costing American soldiers their lives.
    After a mountain of operational evidence concluding that the American military’s BCW was vastly inadequate to address a broad array of battlefield dynamics,the Army finally started to take steps to improve the M16’s maximum effective range and lethality.

    The M16’s weight, range, and caliber proved good for leaf-penetrating jungle warfare, but less so when fighting in deserts, mountains, valleys, and close quarters combat.
    The Army itself demonstrated proof of the M16’s obsolescence when the 101st Airborne and other units started using significantly enhanced 7.62 mm M14s in Afghanistan in mountain battles where the M16A4 and M249 proved basically useless.
    In the interim, the soldiers themselves used captured AK-47s to better compete in the mountainous terrain.
    As the title of this article emphasizes, we are clearly outgunned, and that situation will continue as we fight a geo-diverse global war on terrorism and face advanced new weapons, such as the AK-12, the 5th-generation Russian AK."



    SWAT Pointman
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:10 pm

    As much as I don't like .22 caliber as a military rifle cartridge, I don't think the 5.56 would be worth replacing, and NATO armies will continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come. I think its flaws can mostly be fixed without resorting to a new caliber. What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.

    Mr.Kalishnikov47
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 298
    Points : 341
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 28
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:Wow, I read that post and it read like a naughty schoolboy being told off by teacher...


    I apologise for that.

    No need to apologize. Smile

    Actually since I posted that answer I have seen a few reports and videos showing the PYa in service, and I suspect that the future standard Russian Army pistol will likely remain the PYa.

    I suggested dropping it because the general consensus was that it was bad and it seems not to be the case.

    To me the Pya is sort of like the Russian equivalent of the Berreta M9 that we use over here in the U.S. .

    It's maybe not the greatest handgun on the market, and it's a bit heavy for the round it fires, but it's cheap (maybe a bit less so with the M9) rugged, and reliable, as well as decently accurate. It does the job, which is all a military sidearm really needs to do.

    Of course given the choice between the two I'd take a Pya any day of the week, although that may just be my bias towards Russian guns Wink

    I suspect the VDV and naval infantry will stick with their selection of the GSh-18 for at least now

    So the VDV and naval infantry have adopted the Gsh-18 then, or is this just speculation? And what about the ADS?

    I would suspect the new pistol will fire underwater... most weapons can, it is the special ammo that allows it to fire effectively underwater, so that is it lethal over a useful distance instead of having the projectle land on the river bed a metre in front of you.

    Thank you for the answer.

    If the new pistol passes its tests and proves effective it might start to displace other weapons from service, though its success or failure might have more to do with its political support than any capability it might have

    This is very true unfortunately,

    Mr.Kalishnikov47
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 298
    Points : 341
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 28
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:11 pm

    SWAT Pointman wrote:As much as I don't like .22 caliber as a military rifle cartridge, I don't think the 5.56 would be worth replacing, and NATO armies will continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come.

    I agree with you. Despite all the criticism, the 5.56 is still killing, and most of the former service members I've talked to seem to be satisfied with it's performance. Are there better rounds? Sure! Are they worth the money it would take to replace the 5.56? dunno I guess that's a subject for debate.

    I think its flaws can mostly be fixed without resorting to a new caliber. What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.

    That's because the Russians haven't really had those problems. Whether the target is hit from 50 meters or 400 meters, the 5.45x39 will almost always tumble upon impact, causing a large wound channel. Garry has already gone into detail on the ballistic performance of the 5.45 in the past, so I won't bother describing it here.

    One problem the round does have however is a lack of penetration (a problem also encountered with the 5.56) and a tendency to ricochet when it hits hard surfaces, which is why MVD and FSB Spetsnaz are often seen using AKs chambered in the old 7.62x39 round, as well as compact rifles like the 9A-91 chambered in the subsonic 9x39 round. Neither round ricochets very often, and both are excellent at penetrating light cover (cars, walls, thick shrubbery, etc.)

    SWAT Pointman
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:17 pm

    Mr.Kalishnikov47 wrote:
    SWAT Pointman wrote:As much as I don't like .22 caliber as a military rifle cartridge, I don't think the 5.56 would be worth replacing, and NATO armies will continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come.

    I agree with you. Despite all the criticism, the 5.56 is still killing, and most of the former service members I've talked to seem to be satisfied with it's performance. Are there better rounds? Sure! Are they worth the money it would take to replace the 5.56? dunno I guess that's a subject for debate.

    I think its flaws can mostly be fixed without resorting to a new caliber. What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.

    That's because the Russians haven't really had those problems. Whether the target is hit from 50 meters or 400 meters, the 5.45x39 will almost always tumble upon impact, causing a large wound channel. Garry has already gone into detail on the ballistic performance of the 5.45 in the past, so I won't bother describing it here.

    One problem the round does have however is a lack of penetration (a problem also encountered with the 5.56) and a tendency to ricochet when it hits hard surfaces, which is why MVD and FSB Spetsnaz are often seen using AKs chambered in the old 7.62x39 round, as well as compact rifles like the 9A-91 chambered in the subsonic 9x39 round. Neither round ricochets very often, and both are excellent at penetrating light cover (cars, walls, thick shrubbery, etc.)
    Yes, I've seen quite a few pictures of in Chechneya of Russian soldiers using 7.62x39, also saw pictures Russian police or SF with AK-103. In terms of lethality, the 5.45x39 is much more lethal than the older steel core M43 bullets, and about as lethal as the M67 round. I wonder can the 7N22 match the penetration of a regular 7.62x39?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:46 pm

    As much as I don't like .22 caliber as a military rifle cartridge, I don't think the 5.56 would be worth replacing, and NATO armies will continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come. I think its flaws can mostly be fixed without resorting to a new caliber. What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.


    This is obviously not true. Do you know ,Physics Laws are exactly identical in Russia like in any place of this universe Wink .

    After Soviet conflict in Afghanistan and the data on AK-74's performances coming from ground operatives, became absolutely clear the need for both 5,45 mm rounds (for urban COIN and close ambush operations ) and 7,62 mm cartridges (for battlefield offensive, defensive, counteroffensive ,consolidations and coverage operations).

    This appear evident from the "double route" followed since then : AK-103 and AK-104 with 7,62 mm cartridges and AK-107 and AK-108 with Russian 5,45 mm and NATO 5,56 mm (the last aimed to export) .
    This clear trend is even more reinforced by the modular design of the latest AK-12 capable to employ both 5,45 mm and 7,62 mm cartridges .

    Experimental data ,correctly collected and validated , presented by a Korean physicist at an international Symposium of Impact Engineering can be used ,without any problem, by a Brasilian physicist or a Swedish one or a South African one.
    In the same way NATO 5,56 mm or Russian 5,45 mm rounds performances in an engagement outside a village in Afghanistan would be ,obviously, almost coinciding because the physics fundamentals at the basis of theirs ballistic performances would be almost equal.



    That's because the Russians haven't really had those problems. Whether the target is hit from 50 meters or 400 meters, the 5.45x39 will almost always tumble upon impact, causing a large wound channel. Garry has already gone into detail on the ballistic performance of the 5.45 in the past, so I won't bother describing it here.



    Just this hypothesis (scarcely tested in realistic conditions ,if any, in pre-introduction trials Rolling Eyes ) has been completely disavowed by the unique experimental condition which matter for weapon systems : the Battlefield .

    If you would have read the enlightening article ,in PDF, (by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond ...no further words on theirs prestige among western authoritative specialists in this specific sector) i have pointed out in my previous post


    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf


    in particular pag 5-6 ( Yawing explained) and pag 11-13 (Inconsistent wounding effect) ...but read also the section on the origin of the 5,56 mm round as unified selection by part of NATO, you would be aware that this "yaw-induced expanded wounding" assumption has demonstrated to be repeatedly and largely wronged on the battlefield.

    SWAT Pointman
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:14 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    As much as I don't like .22 caliber as a military rifle cartridge, I don't think the 5.56 would be worth replacing, and NATO armies will continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come. I think its flaws can mostly be fixed without resorting to a new caliber. What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.


    This is obviously not true. Do you know ,Physics Laws are exactly identical in Russia like in any place of this universe Wink .

    After Soviet conflict in Afghanistan and the data on AK-74's performances coming from ground operatives, became absolutely clear the need for both 5,45 mm rounds (for urban COIN and close ambush operations ) and 7,62 mm cartridges (for battlefield offensive, defensive, counteroffensive ,consolidations and coverage operations).

    This appear evident from the "double route" followed since then : AK-103 and AK-104 with 7,62 mm cartridges and AK-107 and AK-108 with Russian 5,45 mm and NATO 5,56 mm (the last aimed to export) .
    This clear trend is even more reinforced by the modular design of the latest AK-12 capable to employ both 5,45 mm and 7,62 mm cartridges .

    Experimental data ,correctly collected and validated , presented by a Korean physicist at an international Symposium of Impact Engineering can be used ,without any problem, by a Brasilian physicist or a Swedish one or a South African one.
    In the same way NATO 5,56 mm or Russian 5,45 mm rounds performances in an engagement outside a village in Afghanistan would be ,obviously, almost coinciding because the physics fundamentals at the basis of theirs ballistic performances would be almost equal.



    That's because the Russians haven't really had those problems. Whether the target is hit from 50 meters or 400 meters, the 5.45x39 will almost always tumble upon impact, causing a large wound channel. Garry has already gone into detail on the ballistic performance of the 5.45 in the past, so I won't bother describing it here.



    Just this hypothesis (scarcely tested in realistic conditions ,if any, in pre-introduction trials Rolling Eyes ) has been completely disavowed by the unique experimental condition which matter for weapon systems : the Battlefield .

    If you would have read the enlightening article ,in PDF, (by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond ...no further words on theirs prestige among western authoritative specialists in this specific sector) i have pointed out in my previous post


    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf


    in particular pag 5-6 ( Yawing explained) and pag 11-13 (Inconsistent wounding effect) ...but read also the section on the origin of the 5,56 mm round as unified selection by part of NATO, you would be aware that this "yaw-induced expanded wounding" assumption has demonstrated to be repeatedly and largely wronged on the battlefield.
    The Russian and American experience with small caliber high velocity rounds is similar some ways, but different in some ways also. The Russians never reported lethality problems with the 5.45x39 cartridge. In fact, ballistic data shows the 5.45x39 to be much more lethal than the M43 7.62x39, and on par with the M67 7.62x39. The 5.45x39 has an air nose in the tip which makes it yaw earlier in flesh. The primarily complaint about the 5.45x39 is that it lacks penetration against cover, which is also a complaint with the 5.56x45. The 7.62x39 is better in some ways, but I think the 5.45x39 is the better cartridge in most instances.

    The Russians are working on a new caliber for the AK-12, it's unknown whether or not this will be an intermediate cartridge to replace the 5.45x39,7.62x39,7.62x54R, or just will it just meant to replace just the 7.62x54R.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:18 pm

    In fact, ballistic data shows the 5.45x39 to be much more lethal than the M43 7.62x39, and on par with the M67 7.62x39.


    Mhh very interesting ; we must,at this point, only render aware of this fact....US Army (and also Dr. Martin L Fackler Laughing ).

    Lethality of 5,56 mm rounds ,or for better say the lack of it, at tactical useful ranges is one on the first complains by US Army Iraqi and Afghanistan conflict operatives and this is highlighted in a mountain of US Army surveys on the subject .

    At example read at pag 25-29 (Equipment issues -M855 5.56mm “Green Tip”-) of this monograph by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart of US Army , "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer"

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331


    You will find very small space for any claim of lethality of 5,56 mm rounds except for VERY REDUCED RANGE (in the area typical of house to house COIN combat and close range ambush ).





    Last edited by Mindstorm on Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

    SWAT Pointman
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:48 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    In fact, ballistic data shows the 5.45x39 to be much more lethal than the M43 7.62x39, and on par with the M67 7.62x39.


    Mhh very interesting ; we must,at this point, only rend aware of this fact....US Army (and also Dr. Martin L Fackler Laughing ).

    Lethality of 5,56 mm rounds ,or for better say the lack of it, at tactical useful ranges is one on the first complains by US Army Iraqi and Afghanistan conflict operatives and this is highlighted in a mountain of US Army surveys on the subject .

    At example read at pag 25-29 (Equipment issues -M855 5.56mm “Green Tip”-) of this monograph by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart of US Army , "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer"

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331


    You will find very small space for any claim of lethality of 5,56 mm rounds except for VERY REDUCED RANGE (in the area typical of house to house COIN combat and close range ambush ).



    What were you trying to say with your first sentence? I didn't understand it. I don't deny the 5.56x45 M885 has lethality problems, it's been shown in the lab and on the field. The US military issued newer loadings like M885A1 to address these issues. I haven't seen any combat reports yet whether or not the M885A1 solves the lethality problems with the M885. What I'm saying is that there isn't any proof that the 5.45x39 has any lethality problems. I think that's because it has a better bullet design than the 5.56x45.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:07 pm

    What were you trying to say with your first sentence? I didn't understand it.

    Sorry , my fault it is a typo, i've missed "er" after rend.


    Sentence is : we must, at this point, only render aware of this fact....US Army

    isn't any proof that the 5.45x39 has any lethality problems. I think that's because it has a better bullet design than the 5.56x45.

    The same identical problems encoutered by NATO 5,56 mm rounds exist in the same measure for 5,45 mm Russian rounds ; it is linked to unescapable ballistic fundamentals .
    The vaunted capability of those rounds to offset lethality problems (wanting to remain silent on the problem of effective engagement range penalities , coverage penetration and aerodynamics stability in response to tangential wind's solicitations) thanks to yawing-induced expanded wounding has demonstrated to be ,except for VERY reduced ranges -outside those tactically useful for classical infantry warfare-, nothing more nothing less than a fairy tale .

    Simple like that.


    SWAT Pointman
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:38 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    What were you trying to say with your first sentence? I didn't understand it.

    Sorry , my fault it is a typo, i've missed "er" after rend.


    Sentence is : we must, at this point, only render aware of this fact....US Army

    isn't any proof that the 5.45x39 has any lethality problems. I think that's because it has a better bullet design than the 5.56x45.

    The same identical problems encoutered by NATO 5,56 mm rounds exist in the same measure for 5,45 mm Russian rounds ; it is linked to unescapable ballistic fundamentals .
    The vaunted capability of those rounds to offset lethality problems (wanting to remain silent on the problem of effective engagement range penalities , coverage penetration and aerodynamics stability in response to tangential wind's solicitations) thanks to yawing-induced expanded wounding has demonstrated to be ,except for VERY reduced ranges -outside those tactically useful for classical infantry warfare-, nothing more nothing less than a fairy tale .

    Simple like that.

    But the 5.45x39 has a different bullet design that is more prone to yaw than the 5.56x45 no matter what the range. One big problem with these gelatin tests like the fackler ones is that they are done at the muzzle and never show farther ranges. I'm reading the article you linked and it is very interesting.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:07 am

    Wanting to employ a less "fair" parametrical comparison one could quietly say that warfighters equiped with M-16(and even more M-4) has been in all the latest conflicts wastly outgunned ,outranged and outpowered by scarcely trained and inexistently protected "insurgents" armed with the most outdated versions of the export versions of AK-47 to the point that ,how anyone informed on the latest threat analysis in the filed well know, in the latest years has grown a very strong pressure in US/UK Army to even abandon completely rifles /carabines designed around 5,56 cartridges !!

    Actually that is not totally fair. The Kalashnikovs that have out gunned and out ranged the western 5.56mm rifles and LMGs were actually PKMs, which are general purpose machineguns in 7.62 x 54r calibre.

    GarryB i sincerely don't follow you here .

    As a reply to the suggestion that testing rifles in extreme cold is not a fair comparison, I am suggesting that the advantage of long range accuracy is not really a fair comparison either for several reasons, including the conditions on a shooting range over a known shooting distance on a nice still day with good ammo and a well rested well trained shooter who is not being shot at and is not in fear of their lives. With a battle sight setting (ie 300m) an AK will hit a target from the muzzle to about 400m with a centre chest aimed shot. You wont be able to pick to hit the eye or a particular rib.

    A hit at 600m is unlikely by either rifle so the conclusions are irrelevant. More importantly the lethality of both rounds at such ranges mean a hit would be largely meaningless anyway.

    The following article "Biting the Bullet" , by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond (i think that neither of the two need any type of introduction...)

    Very respected authors on the subject.

    Please GarryB read it entirely ,and in particular read pag 9 and subsequents - section "Issues arising from operational use" - ; the USA operatives forced to systematically EMPLOY JAVELIN ATGM as a SUPRRESSING WEAPON OF ENEMY INFANTRY POSITIONED UP TO 1000 m FAR will give to you some minutes of laughters , someone should contact KBM for some of those export weapons....

    The latest model RPO would be ideal for such a role... and they would likely get 100 for the price of one Javelin.

    What's funny is the Russians never really reported these same problems with the 5.45x39.

    Well, if you read that article posted above the main problem with the 5.56mm is its inconsistency in wounding, along with lack of cover penetration and a related tendency to be deflected by even light material like twigs.

    The 5.45 has the same problems with deflection, but its design ensures fairly consistent wounding performance, which, though reduced is certainly still effective.

    Personally I think half the problem with the 5.56mm is that the US military and western "experts" really want a long range sniper round, when in actual fact all it is is a short to medium range attack round.

    The problems the western forces came across in Afghanistan are the same issues the Soviets dealt with, except the Soviets were better equipped as each platoon had 7.62 x 54mm weapons like SVD and PKM weapons with them.

    There is a reason the taleban are fighting at more than 300m from coalition forces... it is because they know they will get caned at closer ranges. When the Soviets were there it was 303s, now it is SVDs and PKMs.

    Do you think it is a coincidence that the new LMG in Russian units is not a 5.45mm RPK-74, but is a much heavier and bulkier PKP (Pecheneg) LMG. The 7.62 x 54mm ammo is much heavier reducing the number of rounds carried, but the extra power and range is considered worth the extra weight.

    Giving soldiers ammo to shoot at 600m+ is not enough... they need optics and training to hit targets at such ranges... I think a change in calibre would not be that effective because at the end of the day most soldiers have enough things they need to be trained to use... if the taleban start shooting from 900m I think the best solution is a burst of 30mm grenades from the local BMP-3M, not to have an entire platoon armed with SVDS rifles with 10x scopes and sniper ammo open up return fire.

    Now more powerful ammo types with heavier projectiles designed to tumble on impact certainly wouldn't hurt even if it is not PC to say so.

    A bullet through the chest is a bullet through the chest... demanding every shot kills is unreasonable and naive.

    Of course using underpowered ammo is also an issue too.

    No need to apologize.

    I think it was necessary and am glad I have not offended you. Smile

    We are just sharing opinions after all. Smile

    To me the Pya is sort of like the Russian equivalent of the Berreta M9 that we use over here in the U.S. .

    It's maybe not the greatest handgun on the market, and it's a bit heavy for the round it fires, but it's cheap (maybe a bit less so with the M9) rugged, and reliable, as well as decently accurate. It does the job, which is all a military sidearm really needs to do.

    Of course given the choice between the two I'd take a Pya any day of the week, although that may just be my bias towards Russian guns

    It seems to be a decent gun, just as the Barreta is a good decent gun.

    The problem with the comments and myths that circulate on the web is it makes it hard to find the truth, so you often have to keep an open mind and be critical of the sources.

    I remember back in the 1980s reading books from experts like Hogg and Weeks that called the Stechkin an anachronism... a throwback to the old broom handle mauser machine pistol. I also remember in the 70s a really cool West German pistol called the VP-70Z that was not a full auto pistol but had a 3 round burst fire capability. I also remember in the 1990s that Glock released a full auto model, and it made me curious. Why would they bother if it is so old fashioned. I then found articles and books by Soviet operatives that talked about the Stechkin like it was a wonderful weapon. Finally, in an issue of Combat and Survival, I read an article about a guy who had bought one and was testing it. He said it was heavier than a Makarov, but certainly not as heavy as a 45 ACP colt pistol. He said the trigger was better than on the Makarov and with its long barrel it was actually rather accurate... I think I remember him saying he was getting 3 inch groups at 20m which is very good... not in full auto of course... that was in single shot. He had read the western comments about it and had low expectations for the test and he said he liked the weapon a lot. The full auto mode tended to spray bullets a bit, but keep in mind... this is not some police carbine you would use at 100m plus. This is a weapon for emergency inside a room where a burst of bullets could mean the difference between surviving or not. Experience in Afghanistan with 9mm ammo has shown it is not super lethal, so multiple hits are the order of the day. If you can afford the weight even a small SMG is better than most pistols, but of course there are situations where a pistol is all you can use... personally I would have the suppressed model APS-B with a standard Makarov as a backup weapon. Smile

    So the VDV and naval infantry have adopted the Gsh-18 then, or is this just speculation? And what about the ADS?

    Hard to say for sure... we have seen reports stating both weapons were tested and have passed the tests and are entering service... but no photos yet.

    Are there better rounds? Sure! Are they worth the money it would take to replace the 5.56? dunno I guess that's a subject for debate.

    They have introduced a steel tip round with a rear end made of lead that should improve lethality at any range or velocity. I think it will be the best way to see if the 5.56mm has a future or not. I suspect it will improve lethality, but regarding range I am not so sure. (It was never designed to be effective at more than about 300m anyway).

    One problem the round does have however is a lack of penetration (a problem also encountered with the 5.56) and a tendency to ricochet when it hits hard surfaces, which is why MVD and FSB Spetsnaz are often seen using AKs chambered in the old 7.62x39 round, as well as compact rifles like the 9A-91 chambered in the subsonic 9x39 round. Neither round ricochets very often, and both are excellent at penetrating light cover (cars, walls, thick shrubbery, etc.)

    Very true. Also the quiet nature of the 9 x 39mm round makes it useful for special forces too... phut phut.

    Yes, I've seen quite a few pictures of in Chechneya of Russian soldiers using 7.62x39, also saw pictures Russian police or SF with AK-103. In terms of lethality, the 5.45x39 is much more lethal than the older steel core M43 bullets, and about as lethal as the M67 round. I wonder can the 7N22 match the penetration of a regular 7.62x39?

    It is the old story a .22lr through the brain is more lethal than a 50 cal through the finger tip... unless of course that finger tip is rubbing your eye at the time... Smile

    The 5.45mm is lethal, but only if it makes it to the target. 7.62 x 39mm is less lethal but more likely to get through to the target and with correct shot placement it will kill just like any other round. Its stability in the body is countered by its extra mass and diameter to reach the target... even through quite thick trees.


    This appear evident from the "double route" followed since then : AK-103 and AK-104 with 7,62 mm cartridges and AK-107 and AK-108 with Russian 5,45 mm and NATO 5,56 mm (the last aimed to export) .
    This clear trend is even more reinforced by the modular design of the latest AK-12 capable to employ both 5,45 mm and 7,62 mm cartridges .

    The 5.56 and 7.62 x 39mm weapons are for export. The Russian Army uses 5.45 x 39mm, 9 x 39mm, and 7.62 x 54mm ammo, with a few units in the north or backwaters using 7.62 x 39mm for its better penetration.

    If the AK-12 enters service in the Russian Army it will be in 5.45mm calibre only.

    In the same way NATO 5,56 mm or Russian 5,45 mm rounds performances in an engagement outside a village in Afghanistan would be ,obviously, almost coinciding because the physics fundamentals at the basis of theirs ballistic performances would be almost equal.

    The difference is in the bullet design. The 5.56mm round relies on the bending forces as it travels through the target to rip it open along a point of weakness called the cannilure. This is an intentation around the projectile that the case is supposed to be crimped into to prevent the projectile from being pushed into the case during loading or handling. The 5.45mm round is much larger physically and longer and has a much better streamlined shape and a centre of gravity far to the rear. It also has a hollow tip and a small amount of lead behind that. The mild steel jacket rarely deforms but on impact the lead will move forward into the hollow tip area. Now normally mass moving forward in an object would actually normally improve the stability by moving the centre of gravity forward, but because it moves assymetrically (ie not evenly) it tends to randomise the tumble of the bullet which starts immediately on impact. The result is that after the first tumble the bullet tends to yaw 90 degrees and follow a new path in the target. This angle can't be predicted and might result in a trivial wound, but the added wound track increases the bleeding area and makes identification of the wound very difficult.

    A normal 5.56mm wound from the front to the back clean penetration means the 5.56mm round is just starting to tumble as it is exiting the body, so you have a small wound in the front and a larger wound in the back and a straight wound channel to deal with.

    A 5.45mm wound to the front of the chest might turn up or down or sideways... it could exit behind the shoulder or the hip, or through the rib cage. For a surgeon finding the exit hole and entry hole are a problem because they are not lined up and might be treated as two separate fragmentation wounds. The cavity between the wounds will not be treated and the patient will die later of internal bleeding.

    Within 300m the 5.45mm round is effective... ask Vlad... he seems to be happy with it.

    With better quality control, modern rifles, and a modern scope with ballistic computer and laser rangefinder the 7.62 x 39mm actually might become much more interesting. With such a heavy projectile the problems in the past was that it had a very steep trajectory so if you guessed wrong with the range you will probably miss. But with modern ballistic computers and laser range finders the guess work is removed and the heavy projectile will be less effected by cross winds and is not easily deflected.

    In fact a new loading with more powerful clean burning propellent, and a lighter projectile... say a 100 grain bullet at 950-1,000m/s and you might have a very effective round for assault weapons that might be effective out to 500m. The large calibre will limit its long range potential but we are talking about an assault rifle cartridge, not a sniper round or MG round.

    The 7.62x39 is better in some ways, but I think the 5.45x39 is the better cartridge in most instances.

    And the Russian Army agrees. The AK-103s in Chechnia are in the hands of the MVD and FSB forces for very specific roles. In house to house fighting a round that will punch through walls and still kill is what they want... they don't care about accuracy at 300m.

    The Russians are working on a new caliber for the AK-12, it's unknown whether or not this will be an intermediate cartridge to replace the 5.45x39,7.62x39,7.62x54R, or just will it just meant to replace just the 7.62x54R.

    AFAIK they are happy with the 5.45mm and the new 6 x 49mm round was supposed to replace the 7.62 x 54mm only in MGs and sniper rifles. Of course they might have further developed a new round that could do both jobs, but from what I have read their main focus with small arms is to improve accuracy, and storability of ammo and also improve the propellants for higher velocities with cleaner burning powders, and also to issue the new ammo in clips so they can be more rapidly loaded into magazines, and also for plastic bags to be used to make the stored ammo water proof and storable for much longer periods.

    You will find very small space for any claim of lethality of 5,56 mm rounds except for VERY REDUCED RANGE (in the area typical of house to house COIN combat and close range ambush ).

    There are two important things about a calibre... one is bullet construction, and the other is shot placement.
    The 5.45mm round has the bullet construction to be more effective than 5.56mm ammo at any range. Both have shot placement performance to 400m or so, which is rather more than either will be used operationally.

    The 5.45mm round is acceptable to the Russian Army because they also equip their forces with PKP LMGs in 7.62 x 54mm, and SVDS rifles in the same calibre. If your platoon comes under fire from a target in a house 700m away it simply doens't make sense to equip every soldier in the unit with a powerful rifle with a powerful scope to return the accurate precise fire needed to deal with the threat. What does make sense is for the platoon sniper/designated marksman to locate the threat and engage, and also for the platoon LMG operator to locate the target and fire bursts at the house to stop the incoming sniper fire. If the SVDS armed platoon member can't get the target then the BMP-3M that is operating with them will level the house with a 100mm HE FRAG shell. If the unit is dismounted then the guy with the RPO PDM-A will line up the target, which at less than 1.7km is in range and level the house.
    If there are friendlies nearby then a Metis-M1 cheap wire guided missile could be used too.

    The point is that the Russian soldiers are not just equipped with 5.45mm calibre weapons. 7.62mm weapons are carried as standard. In situations where they might be useful extra weapons are brought in.

    I remember seeing a photo in an english version of the French RAIDS magazine that showed a group of Russian soldiers going to relieve a hill side position. The guys coming out of the base all had beards and looked tired, but of the 5-6 people in view they all carried SVD rifles and the new replacement soldiers carried RPO-A rocket launchers in addition to the SVD rifles they carried. The position they occupied was on top of a hill with a good view 360, so they didn't bother with AKs, they just had SVDs and PKMs and disposable grenade launchers, plus base weapons like ZU-23 AA guns and 30mm grenade launchers.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:42 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:42 am