Kalashnikov hated 5.45 because he felt improvements could be made to the 7.62 round. At least that’s what I remember hearing him say once in an interview.
@@tsugumorihoney2288 never shot a 74 but I would assume it’s similar to a 556 AK. I’m just saying maybe Kalashnikov wanted a 7.62x46 that would have been an interesting round.
@@bradborgelt60really??? I think it will be used as much or more than 6.8x51??? I think it’s the most balanced round you could get and still be “intermediate”? What would make more sense for the US would be to neck 5.56 to 6.5 and Jack the pressure to 65,000 psi. Pair it with a 100 grain EPR round plus a 130 grain DMR/sniper round and it would perform.
I don't know if 6.5mm Grendel is an optimal round for a rifle/carbine, but it is definitely in the right range. I think the men designing new rifle rounds after smokeless powder was invented, made some good choices. The optimal rifle round is somewhere between 6 and 7 mm. .30 cal./7.62mm is a compromise between the heaviest practical round for rifles and the lightest effective round for machine guns. By divorcing the rifle/carbine/SAW ammunition from machine gun ammunition, you can design ammo that is optimal for each.
saw a video of Russian Special forces operators in ukraine talking about how the 7.62 AKs were much more effective in Trench, urban combat due to it's ability to chew through concrete and it can deliver more force to targets who's wearing body armor than the 5.45x39 and there was a footage of VDV in hostmel using AKM probably because of the reasons i've mentioned. so don't think kalashnikov not liking 5.45 isn't really all that crazy after all.
yeah shooting through walls and furnitue is underrated in cqb. like say you're gonna breach a house and as soon as you kick the door a hail of rounds or say a slug or buckshot flies through and rips into your chest, what do you even do? and especially now that armor is so popular
@@robertalaverdov8147 The Fedorov Avtomat round had 50% of the kinetic of the StG44 and 40% that of the AK47. It just didn't have the power to function as an assault rifle. The first uncompromising purpose designed intermediate round the British 280 (Enfield 0.280) had about the same kinetic energy as the AK47 but with a much lower drag bullet it had considerably more range. For the Germans there was no possible other choice than 308 inch/7.92mm as it was important to be able to use existing tooling to make the barrels and ammunition.
@@williamzk9083 The lower performance was due to them having to field it with an inferior Arisaka round as the government didn't want to change production mid war. The original plan was for it to employ a rimless 6.5mm with a muzzle energy of 3,140 J as opposed to the 3,550 J muzzle energy of 7.62×54mm.
Basically this the 5mm worked better on 'naked' targets like in a lab. 7mm work better on targets with cover or as you get through the 90s 2000s are wearing armor. Even in the 70s the fact is 7mm is better in a real world sense because no one is standing there letting you shoot them.
Both calibers will make the opponent pull their heads down while you wait for indirect fire or your manouver element to eliminate them. In modern combat rifles cause only a small amount of casualties and the main use is to shoot in the general direction to pin down the enemy and so in most situations it's better to have more rounds... Spec ops and swat might have different needs though.
@@henrihamalainen300 And of course the 5,56mm or 5,45mm allows for lighter assaultrifles wich are easier to handle under many circumstances wich is a asset by its own.
5.45 has superior effective range, generally had better terminal performance on targets, higher carry capacity and in an interesting data point that is rarely covered, actually performs rather well even out of a short barrel rifle like an AK105 similar to the AK104 with its 7.62. As noted by Maxim Popenker, Kalashnikov was NOT a ballistics expert, and the opinion of many Russian troops that they'd rather take a rifle in 5.45 for general use over a 7.62 AK, but 7.62x39 has its uses and probably sees more regular use with Spec Ops units. In regards to newer cartridges being developed to tackle body armour, not all flavours are 7.62 but some are even higher calibre, but there is an understanding that this comes with its own trade offs in terms of cost and carry capacity.
Russian troops prefer the PP-19 Vityaz as a personal weapon to the 5.45 Krinkov in Ukraine because Ukraine doesn't use 5.45. Krinkovs go to the lowest rank soldiers who cannot even give them away
@@luislongoria6621 Both sides in the Ukraine war's primary rifle is an AK-74/AK-74m lol? The PP-19 is rarely issued by Russia, and not used at all by Ukraine? Krinks originally were only really issued to aircraft/armored vehicle crew? That's why the krink was a status symbol within Mujahideen fighters, it meant you took out a BMP? Yes, its not only issued just to armor crew, but there's plenty of people who take it for trench combat lol
Kalashnikov was a good designer but he was wrong on the superiority of 7.62x39 over 5.45x39. This video also makes some really weird points implying that militaries are switching over to 7.62mm cartridges but it's just not really the case. The only 7.62 intermediate cartridge in military use really gaining traction at the moment is 300 blackout and that is purely due to the fact that the cartridge lends itself very well to using both subsonic and supersonic rounds. 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm both offer very significant upsides over 7.6x39 such improved logistics and magazine geometry, significantly better bullet trajectory with less bullet drop at realistic combat distances, superior velocity which means you need to lead less for moving targets and the terminal ballistics on a target are superior to 7.62x39. The current trend for future small arms development is mostly towards 6mm - 6.8mm due to a combination of a need for armor penetration and fighting at longer distances. The US military investing in the 6.8x51mm cartridge is possibly a mistake due to massively increased cost of ammunition necessitated by the huge the pressures generated by the cartridge and heavier rifles. As far as we can tell 6.8x51 can't even penetrate NIJ IV ceramic armor without using some novel tungsten penetrator or similar that wouldn't be mass producible in huge numbers.
On the flip side, small caliber rounds like 5.56 and 5.45 also generally require longer barrels to achieve the velocity needed for significant wounding, or moving towards more exotic “heavy-for-caliber” loads to achieve enough momentum for reliable penetration (it’s why varmint loads for .223 are unsuitable for home defense since they explode and do a lot of surface damage but don’t penetrate sufficiently deep). This becomes an issue if you want a shorter rifle, which is also one of the reasons why .300 Blackout became popular.
6.8 isn't intended to replace battle rifle calibers like 7.62 nato. It might be a substitute for rural warfare but we don't know yet. Ironically the british and us tried to implement 280 caliber 100 years ago but american politics got in the way and they demanded 7.62 nato because it was the closest to 30-06 and the us faction was being jerks and though the opposing us faction wanted the Pedersen 276. FYI the best caliber ever made was the 7.92 cetme telescoping bullet but it got killed off due to military incompetence in which they chose 7.62 nato.
@@luislongoria6621 One of the goals of the ngsw program was to penetrate NIJ IV armor without using materials like tungsten. So far I have my doubts about the M5 rifles penetrating level 4 with any ammunition but I'll wait for more testing.
Absolutely incorrect Info regarding armor penetration. 7.62x39 is horrible at penetrating armor. 5.45 sucks at it to but it's because it has a hollow tip and deforms instead of driving through. 5.56, m855 especially actually does very well at penetrating anything under level IV body armor. Speed is the key to penetrating armor, not diameter and x39 is a brick. Also, most militaries are NOT fielding body armor. Western militaries are and Russia has done some but the cat majority are not
7.62x39 is not horrible. Yes, its not great, but 5.45 7N10 PP and 7.62 PS are both rated the same, for penetrating BR class 4 body armor. 5.45 does not suck at penetrating? Not every 5.45 round has a hollow tip? Like 7N39 and 7N40? They have tungsten penetrators and can allegedly penetrate BR class 5 body armor. M855 is good at penetrating body armor, but is also starting to fall a little bit behind. That's why EPRs like M855a1 or M995. M855 ball falls behind rounds such as 7n39. And most modern militaries are fielding body armor? Yeah maybe not third world countries, but every one else is
I think he confused armor penetration with barrier penetration, which many people not really deep into the subject do. For armor, higher velocity is key, as it requires kinetic energy to penetrate, and velocity plays a way higher role in increasing kinetic energy than mass, which the 5.56 excels at. A smaller diameter projectile exerts more force on a smaller area (higher pressure), ideal for armor penetration is also the reason. Without high velocity, the only viable way is using way harder material like tungsten to basically power through whatever material the armor is made of. Barriers on the other hand, inertia is key, as thick barrier will constantly cause the projectile to tumble and disintegrate while going through, so a higher mass decreases the tendency for the projectile to deviate from its path, thus making the 7.62x39 better in those fields.
Impulse is, not speed. In fact Both Krupp and Thomson terminal ballistics formulas put mass as more important than velocity as soon as the velocity surpasses 60% of the wave propagation speed ( soudn speed) in the solid being hit.
@@jondaniels61 No, all 9 x 39 is subsonic. To make it sonic, you'd need about 50% more mass than an 762 x39 cartridge. Meaning that it would weigh like 32g vs an 762 x39s 16g.
An infantary man can carry more 5.45 bullets then 7.62 due to weight in combat plus 5.45 causes incapicatation in majority cases then casulaties with 7.62.
FEDOROV AR (6.5x47) ballistic properties are very close to modern idea of "ideal" assault rifle and its ammunition like: 6.5mm Grendel (6.5×39mm) .220 Russian(5.56x39) 1950s hunting cartridge is developed based upon the military 7.62x39mm M43 6.5x47mm Lapua (or 6.5x47mm) The 6.8 mm Remington SPC (aka 6.8 SPC, 6.8 SPC II & 6.8×43mm) .280 British 300 AAC Blackout, SAAMI short name 300 BLK, also known as 7.62×35mm Avtomat set the pattern for the whole new class of infantry weapons, which rose to its heights during late stages of WW2 and especially afterwards. Fedorov's "Avtomat" is short recoil operated, locked breech weapon which fires from closed bolt. The bolt locking is achieved by twolocking plates, located at either side of the breech. Those plates are allowed to tilt slightly down and up, locking and unlocking the bolt with special lugs.The barrel is fluted to save the weight and improve cooling.
@@vaninec Then these "experts" do not deserve even minimal vage, give them the college treatment. Even russians didnt give a fuck about it, much less anyone else.
It’s usually logistics that win wars and not a specific weapon system unless they’re nukes. You can transport a lot more 5.45 ammo than 7.62 ammo given the same logistics infrastructure. Even if ammo consumption is low, having a lighter bullet allows frees up capacity for other stuff.
Indian army during independence was on .303 then chooses 7.62Nato round for FN FAL SLR & i 90s go with 556Nato but in 24 while replacing 90s rifle choose AK203 chambered in 762 39
Which round is better all depends on the use case. You use the right tool for the job. Are you laying down suppression fire, or clearing trenches, or something else entirely.
Just because armor stops something doesn’t mean said target hasn’t been taken out of the fight… said target is still absorbing that energy and it does damage to soft flesh
No one talking about the elephant in the room? The logistics are to be considered too. Hitler did not want the MP/STG44 because the concept was to create an entirely new round while the germans had such poor logistics at the time that their 8mm rounds were often made using steel shells instead of brass. The gun was actually a fine idea in hindsight. So after the war, the Soviets figured they wanted something like that gun and they already made the 7.62 mm round for the SKS (a semi automatic rifle) and other guns which seems to be just quite nice for that kind of gun seeing as the MP/STG44 already proved itself in the field. So the AK was going to be easier to integrate into the army because you only needed to concern yourself with the gun, not the ammo.
Yeah, it's very strange to hear Kalashnikov have any opinion on the caliber as he wasn't the one to chose it, he just make the rifle according to the given cartridge.
The Germans choice of 0.308inch/7.92mm Kurz round came out of the necessity of using existing barrel and round manufacturing tooling and machinery. Hitler was more foresight full than the US Army Springfield Arsenal which strongarmed the 7.62 NATO. -The proponents of the MKB42 (soo to become the StG 44) wanted to replace every weapon the squad had. The NCO that lead the squad would trade his MP40 for a StG44, Even the MG42 would be replaced by the StG 44 and be kicked up to brigade level. -There was another group within the German Army that wanted a 300m range sub-machine gun which would use the same 7.92mm x 33mm Kurz round. -There was another group that wanted a ultra cheap semiautomatic carbine called the volksgeware. (peoples rifle) . -Hitler allowed development of the latter two and the 7.92 x 33 Kurz for them. -What in fact happened is that the 300m range sub-machine gun sub-machine merged with the MKB42 group and everybody was happy. -The gun was called the MP43 so it sounded like the replacement for the MP40 as the 300m range sub-machine gun which Hitler was Okay with. -In fact they had hoodwinked the fuhrer somewhat. -Hitler had opposed the MKB42 (StG 44) on the basis that he was thinking of fighting at long ranges in the dessert and because he feared ammunition shortages. (The G.41 was a disaster) -Once the MP43 and MP44 were in production they didn't just replaced the MP40 but whole squads (except for the MG42) -In late 1944/early45 Hitler was proven right and the German army had to stop equipping its squads due to ammunition shortages. The German didn't have poor logistics they didn't have tin and copper for brass cases.
sad there is no word about caseless ammo, the germans have had the G11 ready to serial production, 3x50 round magazines in the gun, manually to switch the two 50 round spares, currently it would be an interesting way to go for high rate of fire and mag capacity - 5-6 round bursts against drones, it was 4,73x33mm though, guess with 30+ years of tech evolution they could make something like the p90 in caseless high capacity mag version 100+ rounds against drones in small caliber and something in 6,5-6,8 mm range as main assault rifle
I remembered that yes caseless ammo would be dope. But ammo would heat off the other rounds. Having 20 bullets off at once would be scary. They have silent velcro would not be hard to believe the fix the problem 😊
The video needs to differentiate between 7.62 mm rounds. The common Soviet cartridge in WW2 was 7.62X54R, a full rifle round. They downsized that cartridge to 7.62X39, an intermediate cartridge, for the SKS then the Kalashnikov AK system. The NATO countries adopted the 7.62X51 round in 1957, again a full rifle round. The US switched to 5.56X45, an intermediate cartridge, in 1963. NATO followed suit in 1977. The Soviets adopted the 5.45X39 cartridge for the AK74 system in, you guessed it, 1974. There are a bunch of 7.62 rounds out there so be clear about the round you’re referencing.
Personally have put thousands of rounds through a 5.45 and a 7.62 AK. For AK's i prefer 7.62x39. The AK is a more close range focused gun compared to the AR15. 74 mags are about 7oz lighter than '47' magazines each. (Assuming AK103 magazine) So about 3 pounds difference for a combat loading. (210) AR15 is about 6 1/2 lb unloaded. 74M is about 1 pound greater in weight. Point being if you want a 22 cal fighting rifle AR15 is going to be lighter in some cases more accurate overall as well as being more ergonomic. The AK on the other hand while being almost 4lb heavier than a AR setup does have that .30 cal punch, although with much shorter legs than a true .30 option. We are talking 1600 ft-lb vs like 1000 with 5.45. M193 is a better round than 5.45 Ball for terminal ballistics. There i said it. Out of a proper twist rate rifle M193 moves faster, imparts more energy and tumbles incredibly well. I guess personally if i am going to get a smaller lighter rifle ill just grab an AR15 before a 74. Were i would still choose a 7.62x39 AK for specific fighting conditions. Just the logic of a Internet Commando.
ummmm yeaaahh, we have seen in ukraine that body armor isn't really a significant factor. After all, soldiers still have to move around to accomplish their objectives, and steel or ceramic plates are heavy. Also, trying to kit out entire divisions in full lvl 4 armor is utopic. And even then, if push comes to shove you will still have a support weapon in .308 or 7.62x54R nearby.
A lvl 4 vest might become the norm but there still a lot of unarmored man around that vest. i'll argue that we'll see more frag rated armor around a lvl 4 core, wagering for survivable over all. After all most wounds are from small fragments not bullets and only bullets to the chest and head kill out right.
You can get lv4 armor and a decent carrier for sub $500 as a civilian in the US. All western militaries equip all their units with lv4 plate. It not utopic. Russia's just poor.
@@lunaticcultist9741 if you knew anything about gun design you know A.K never did anything the stole the ideas from the German engineers who invented the stg 44 he was a moron his design looked like they were made in third world ghetto then the 2 top engineers who invented the stg 44 were force to work for him and suddenly he has good idea the idea of not liking the 5.54 was because the Germans were no longer working for him in the 70s to advise him. I am a licensed arms dealer and gunsmith with 2 patents in Canada and spent a year in Ukraine rebuilding and updating small and mediums arms with 50yrs of shooting where you can't even follow a conversation
Kalash copied and mashed together a bunch of designs. Most of them American. He's been very forthcoming about that in his publications. The action is a Garand bolt and piston. The safety was taken from Browning's model 8. The entire form factor with the pistol grip was drawn on a napkin inside a Soviet hospital before he ever laid eyes on an MKb-42. The M43 cartridge was independently developed by another Soviet bureau as a parallel development to what the Nazis did. They had similar operational requirements and basically arrived at the same solution of "short large caliber cartridge for sub 300m automatic fire".
you're fos. Guys have stayed on their feet after being hit with 12 ga slugs, while armored. The impact is no worse than that on the shooter's shoulder. That's newton's 3rd law.
The 5.56 was built to tumble once it entered the body. The 7.62 was built to go through and perhaps hit a second soldier. Different mentalities. FUI, Kalashnikov came to regret his creation, given how many lives it collectively took.
Given Russian habits of establishing Africa by giving any tin pot colonel or warlord AKs so long as they willing to be corrupted to prevent it from developing stable democracies it certainly has been a foul weapon.
in the US, not being able to shoot 223 and use a 22lr conversion unit is a HUGE mistake. So the AK sucks. given a 223 silencer, the 60 gr Aquila subsonic 22 unit, night sights, night vision and brains enough to remain HIDDEN during daytime, and not show a light at night, you're WAY ahead of any loud gun, or one which does not shoot the most commonly available rds of ammo in the US
Well lets see 5.45/5.56 are marginal for deer and may not be legally used in all states for big game. 7.62x39 is basically a duplicate of tge 30-30 a well regarded deer round for over 100 years. People are deer sized.
6,8x51 is MORE than 7,62x51 in terms of energy and it’s just as stupid as an idea for a primary battle rifle (not a dmr) today as it was in the cold war. Small caliber high velocity ammunition gives too much of an advantage in a fight below 300m and anything above that is artillery, IFV, Tank and drone target
@@Jack72607 I'd agree. For below 300m you want the faster more lightweight bullets. It's easier to hit moving targets and you can carry more ammunition. Also you can still use better armor penetrating rounds, while many conflicts the US has seen since the introduction of 5.56 were against rather unprotected enemy armies. For 6.8x51 Fury rounds we have not seen their performance in a real world scenario yet, so I'd wait with my verdict there, but usually when they try to invent a one-size-fits-all thing it goes wrong.
@@tiberius8390 I remember analysts peddling the idea that 6,8x51 could defeat lvl 4 body armor with a hardened steel core bullet like m80a1 or m885a1 epr rounds. This turned out to be false, a tungsten core is required and a few problems can be outlined: this capability can be reached by 7,62x51 m992, the new AP round costs over 20$ each and strategic tungsten reserves are mainly in mainland China
@@Jack72607 M993 you mean? The 7.62 round also has a tungsten carbide core though. So as I understand in both rounds be it 6.8 Fury or 7.62 NATO you need Tungsten Carbide to penetrate Lvl IV body armor. Generally, yeah. I guess for assault rifles (and DMR) they will go for 6.8 and replace the 5.56 and maybe 7.62. Yet I think both calibers will be around for a couple of more years. For actual body armor penetration if it comes to some conflict with a modern army you will need something heavier like .338 or just use "other means" I guess.
@@tiberius8390 yes m992 is the unicorn 5,56 load. The more I think about it the more 6,8x51 is slightly lighter 7,62x51 with higher muzzle velocity out of a 13” barrel instead of a 18” but witb drastically increased barrel wear. A marginal improvement over 7,62x51 but renouncing 5,56 is really baffling…America and Nato already tried that with the main battle rifle concept and it lost against the assult rifle concept the Soviets brought to the table. Main advantage of full power ammo is for combat above 300m and in modern combined arms combat anything above that is artillery, mortar, IFV, tank, drone, automatic grenade launcher or heavy machine gun target
@@hairydogstail We found out it kinda sucked , and are just now admitting to the mistake , and upgunning the cartridge . From Vietnam on , we found it was lacking . Several thousand body bags later , we figured out that it might be a good idea to give our soldiers something migger . If it were up to me , I would bring back the 30.06 as the standard round .
@@tolik5929 If anything the m16 and 5.56mm kept a whole lot more Americans out of body bags than it put in. There's a reason my the M14 had such a short life. The ammo's heavy, the recoil is heavy, and the ammo is bulky. All things that are significant disadvantages in modern 300 yard or less engagements. That's why the ak and ar platform will possibly see 100 year service lives even in advanced militaries.
no, they dont. All they care about is making money, So they make and sell whatever people want. Most people dont know jack squat about guns, shooting or terminal ballistics and the makers cater to most people.
NEED A 6.5MM GRENDEL WITH A HOLLOW CAVITY LIKE THE 7N1 WITH A TUNGSTEN STEEL CORE BOAT TRAIL AND USE A MAGNUM PRIMERS FOR ALL WHETHER BURN AND RUN 2900FPS TO 3000FPS
When grandfather created his masterpiece the AK47 in the 1960s in Russia went wanna know why America went with the 556 let me modernize the gun in the round and make it better they told them no they knew what they were doing better and they came up with a 5.45x39mm Just think if he went with a 6.5 Grindle the Fitz in an AK47 mad window problem would it get the gun greater range greater accuracy remember that the old round is the 1940 technology to slug
Kalashnikov hated 5.45 because he felt improvements could be made to the 7.62 round. At least that’s what I remember hearing him say once in an interview.
Russians only went for it because of the US 556.
i shoot both AKM and AK-74M, i like 2nd more, more accurate, much less recoil make control of rifle much easier, ammo weight less
@@tsugumorihoney2288 never shot a 74 but I would assume it’s similar to a 556 AK. I’m just saying maybe Kalashnikov wanted a 7.62x46 that would have been an interesting round.
@@tsugumorihoney2288 and less bullet
The 6.5 Grendel would be a good balance between the two and has been adopted by Serbia
In 4 years no one will be using that round.
@@bradborgelt60 But if the Soviets adopted a 6.5x39, you bet your ass that shet would be everywhere(until import bans unfortunately).
@@bradborgelt60really??? I think it will be used as much or more than 6.8x51???
I think it’s the most balanced round you could get and still be “intermediate”?
What would make more sense for the US would be to neck 5.56 to 6.5 and Jack the pressure to 65,000 psi. Pair it with a 100 grain EPR round plus a 130 grain DMR/sniper round and it would perform.
@@bradborgelt60 Why do you say that?
I don't know if 6.5mm Grendel is an optimal round for a rifle/carbine, but it is definitely in the right range. I think the men designing new rifle rounds after smokeless powder was invented, made some good choices. The optimal rifle round is somewhere between 6 and 7 mm. .30 cal./7.62mm is a compromise between the heaviest practical round for rifles and the lightest effective round for machine guns. By divorcing the rifle/carbine/SAW ammunition from machine gun ammunition, you can design ammo that is optimal for each.
saw a video of Russian Special forces operators in ukraine talking about how the 7.62 AKs were much more effective in Trench, urban combat due to it's ability to chew through concrete and it can deliver more force to targets who's wearing body armor than the 5.45x39 and there was a footage of VDV in hostmel using AKM probably because of the reasons i've mentioned. so don't think kalashnikov not liking 5.45 isn't really all that crazy after all.
Seems to recall videos of Israeli troops clearing houses and the terrorists just sends a whole mag through the wall.
yeah shooting through walls and furnitue is underrated in cqb. like say you're gonna breach a house and as soon as you kick the door a hail of rounds or say a slug or buckshot flies through and rips into your chest, what do you even do? and especially now that armor is so popular
@@EstellammaSS those are not AK-47's, they usually use ak-74s
What kind of nonsense is this? Deliver more force to soldiers wearing body armor? That’s irrelevant. 5.45 is better vs body armor.
7,62x39 can't chew through concrete
Actually we split the difference and have gone to the 6mm, 6.5mm, & 6.8mm rounds.
6mm Creedmoor was the grandad of them all
@@HDSME no, we havent. It would cost billions and billions of $, to no benefit at all The US is bankrupt, so the 223 will remain our GI rifle caliber.
The Fedorov Avtomat design team in 1915 came to the same conclusion. Crazy how a century later we're circling back to the beginning.
@@robertalaverdov8147 The Fedorov Avtomat round had 50% of the kinetic of the StG44 and 40% that of the AK47. It just didn't have the power to function as an assault rifle. The first uncompromising purpose designed intermediate round the British 280 (Enfield 0.280) had about the same kinetic energy as the AK47 but with a much lower drag bullet it had considerably more range. For the Germans there was no possible other choice than 308 inch/7.92mm as it was important to be able to use existing tooling to make the barrels and ammunition.
@@williamzk9083 The lower performance was due to them having to field it with an inferior Arisaka round as the government didn't want to change production mid war. The original plan was for it to employ a rimless 6.5mm with a muzzle energy of 3,140 J as opposed to the 3,550 J muzzle energy of 7.62×54mm.
Basically this the 5mm worked better on 'naked' targets like in a lab. 7mm work better on targets with cover or as you get through the 90s 2000s are wearing armor. Even in the 70s the fact is 7mm is better in a real world sense because no one is standing there letting you shoot them.
bro 5.45 was created to injure not to kill just imagine how much more difficult is to heal soldier than just putting him in casket
Both calibers will make the opponent pull their heads down while you wait for indirect fire or your manouver element to eliminate them. In modern combat rifles cause only a small amount of casualties and the main use is to shoot in the general direction to pin down the enemy and so in most situations it's better to have more rounds... Spec ops and swat might have different needs though.
@@Murdo_ Injuring a soldier is of no use when fighting terrorists or armies that don't give a sh*t about their soldiers.
@@Murdo_ myth
@@henrihamalainen300 And of course the 5,56mm or 5,45mm allows for lighter assaultrifles wich are easier to handle under many circumstances wich is a asset by its own.
5.45 has superior effective range, generally had better terminal performance on targets, higher carry capacity and in an interesting data point that is rarely covered, actually performs rather well even out of a short barrel rifle like an AK105 similar to the AK104 with its 7.62.
As noted by Maxim Popenker, Kalashnikov was NOT a ballistics expert, and the opinion of many Russian troops that they'd rather take a rifle in 5.45 for general use over a 7.62 AK, but 7.62x39 has its uses and probably sees more regular use with Spec Ops units. In regards to newer cartridges being developed to tackle body armour, not all flavours are 7.62 but some are even higher calibre, but there is an understanding that this comes with its own trade offs in terms of cost and carry capacity.
7.62×39 any day
Russian troops prefer the PP-19 Vityaz as a personal weapon to the 5.45 Krinkov in Ukraine because Ukraine doesn't use 5.45. Krinkovs go to the lowest rank soldiers who cannot even give them away
@@luislongoria6621 ukraine definitely uses a lot of 5.45 lol
@@luislongoria6621 AKS-74U still way more common to be seen than Vityaz tbh. mostly i saw Vityaz use by SOBR
@@luislongoria6621 Both sides in the Ukraine war's primary rifle is an AK-74/AK-74m lol?
The PP-19 is rarely issued by Russia, and not used at all by Ukraine?
Krinks originally were only really issued to aircraft/armored vehicle crew? That's why the krink was a status symbol within Mujahideen fighters, it meant you took out a BMP?
Yes, its not only issued just to armor crew, but there's plenty of people who take it for trench combat lol
Kalashnikov was a good designer but he was wrong on the superiority of 7.62x39 over 5.45x39. This video also makes some really weird points implying that militaries are switching over to 7.62mm cartridges but it's just not really the case. The only 7.62 intermediate cartridge in military use really gaining traction at the moment is 300 blackout and that is purely due to the fact that the cartridge lends itself very well to using both subsonic and supersonic rounds. 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm both offer very significant upsides over 7.6x39 such improved logistics and magazine geometry, significantly better bullet trajectory with less bullet drop at realistic combat distances, superior velocity which means you need to lead less for moving targets and the terminal ballistics on a target are superior to 7.62x39.
The current trend for future small arms development is mostly towards 6mm - 6.8mm due to a combination of a need for armor penetration and fighting at longer distances. The US military investing in the 6.8x51mm cartridge is possibly a mistake due to massively increased cost of ammunition necessitated by the huge the pressures generated by the cartridge and heavier rifles. As far as we can tell 6.8x51 can't even penetrate NIJ IV ceramic armor without using some novel tungsten penetrator or similar that wouldn't be mass producible in huge numbers.
WOMP WOMP 30Cal is King😂😂
On the flip side, small caliber rounds like 5.56 and 5.45 also generally require longer barrels to achieve the velocity needed for significant wounding, or moving towards more exotic “heavy-for-caliber” loads to achieve enough momentum for reliable penetration (it’s why varmint loads for .223 are unsuitable for home defense since they explode and do a lot of surface damage but don’t penetrate sufficiently deep). This becomes an issue if you want a shorter rifle, which is also one of the reasons why .300 Blackout became popular.
6.8 isn't intended to replace battle rifle calibers like 7.62 nato. It might be a substitute for rural warfare but we don't know yet.
Ironically the british and us tried to implement 280 caliber 100 years ago but american politics got in the way and they demanded 7.62 nato because it was the closest to 30-06 and the us faction was being jerks and though the opposing us faction wanted the Pedersen 276.
FYI the best caliber ever made was the 7.92 cetme telescoping bullet but it got killed off due to military incompetence in which they chose 7.62 nato.
Tungsten is already the military standard for armor piercing ammunition. Too bad all the proven mineral reserves are in Siberia
@@luislongoria6621 One of the goals of the ngsw program was to penetrate NIJ IV armor without using materials like tungsten. So far I have my doubts about the M5 rifles penetrating level 4 with any ammunition but I'll wait for more testing.
Absolutely incorrect Info regarding armor penetration. 7.62x39 is horrible at penetrating armor. 5.45 sucks at it to but it's because it has a hollow tip and deforms instead of driving through. 5.56, m855 especially actually does very well at penetrating anything under level IV body armor. Speed is the key to penetrating armor, not diameter and x39 is a brick.
Also, most militaries are NOT fielding body armor. Western militaries are and Russia has done some but the cat majority are not
7.62x39 is not horrible. Yes, its not great, but 5.45 7N10 PP and 7.62 PS are both rated the same, for penetrating BR class 4 body armor. 5.45 does not suck at penetrating? Not every 5.45 round has a hollow tip? Like 7N39 and 7N40? They have tungsten penetrators and can allegedly penetrate BR class 5 body armor. M855 is good at penetrating body armor, but is also starting to fall a little bit behind. That's why EPRs like M855a1 or M995. M855 ball falls behind rounds such as 7n39. And most modern militaries are fielding body armor? Yeah maybe not third world countries, but every one else is
I think he confused armor penetration with barrier penetration, which many people not really deep into the subject do. For armor, higher velocity is key, as it requires kinetic energy to penetrate, and velocity plays a way higher role in increasing kinetic energy than mass, which the 5.56 excels at. A smaller diameter projectile exerts more force on a smaller area (higher pressure), ideal for armor penetration is also the reason. Without high velocity, the only viable way is using way harder material like tungsten to basically power through whatever material the armor is made of. Barriers on the other hand, inertia is key, as thick barrier will constantly cause the projectile to tumble and disintegrate while going through, so a higher mass decreases the tendency for the projectile to deviate from its path, thus making the 7.62x39 better in those fields.
Impulse is, not speed. In fact Both Krupp and Thomson terminal ballistics formulas put mass as more important than velocity as soon as the velocity surpasses 60% of the wave propagation speed ( soudn speed) in the solid being hit.
Guys, hear me out... 9x39 *super*sonic..
.338 Lapua? It's only just a bit longer 😅
The vss shoots that, it's pretty good, just a bit too heavy.
@@mehmeh1999 Supersonic version? Cause I know the VSS and AS-VAL shoot a subsonic 9x39
@@jondaniels61 No, all 9 x 39 is subsonic. To make it sonic, you'd need about 50% more mass than an 762 x39 cartridge. Meaning that it would weigh like 32g vs an 762 x39s 16g.
@@mehmeh1999 seems perfectly reasonable to me, for the amount of stopping power youd get from it.
Lesson: You shouldn’t just copy the other’s.
the actual lessen is to modernize your ammunition every now and then to not fall behind
7.62x39 За озбиљне борце 5.45 за њежне даме
Nailed it!
An infantary man can carry more 5.45 bullets then 7.62 due to weight in combat plus 5.45 causes incapicatation in majority cases then casulaties with 7.62.
Pretty sure most soldiers get put out of fight way before even emptying one magazine lol
If you are dumping an entire mag in a firefight you are in the wrong profession.
@@liammadden7572 No, thats actually a correct thing to do. You want to establish superiority of fire
In VietNam 🇻🇳 7,62 is Good choose
FEDOROV AR (6.5x47) ballistic properties are very close to modern idea of "ideal"
assault rifle and its ammunition like:
6.5mm Grendel (6.5×39mm)
.220 Russian(5.56x39) 1950s hunting cartridge is developed based upon the military 7.62x39mm M43
6.5x47mm Lapua (or 6.5x47mm)
The 6.8 mm Remington SPC (aka 6.8 SPC, 6.8 SPC II & 6.8×43mm)
.280 British
300 AAC Blackout, SAAMI short name 300 BLK, also known as 7.62×35mm
Avtomat set the pattern for the whole new class of infantry weapons, which
rose to its heights during late stages of WW2 and especially afterwards.
Fedorov's "Avtomat" is short recoil operated, locked breech weapon which
fires from closed bolt. The bolt locking is achieved by twolocking plates,
located at either side of the breech. Those plates are allowed to tilt
slightly down and up, locking and unlocking the bolt with special lugs.The
barrel is fluted to save the weight and improve cooling.
There is just one issue...it lead nowhere. There was no pattern set by it, just an obscure (abeit innovative) weapon.
@alexturnbackthearmy1907
LoL
That an article published by experts
You just f... zero nobody
LoL
@@vaninec Then these "experts" do not deserve even minimal vage, give them the college treatment. Even russians didnt give a fuck about it, much less anyone else.
6.8x39 or 6.5x39(6.5 grendel basically, as stated by another comment), would’ve been great.
The problem is that the 7.62 and 5.56 do not penetrate body armor while the 5.45 does
Do you even realize how many different sorts of those rounds there are?
It’s usually logistics that win wars and not a specific weapon system unless they’re nukes. You can transport a lot more 5.45 ammo than 7.62 ammo given the same logistics infrastructure. Even if ammo consumption is low, having a lighter bullet allows frees up capacity for other stuff.
7n6 or Mk262 for light barriers
M43 and M67 aren't suitable for remanufacturing (staked primers)
That's just my $0.02
Indian army during independence was on .303 then chooses 7.62Nato round for FN FAL SLR & i 90s go with 556Nato but in 24 while replacing 90s rifle choose AK203 chambered in 762 39
Which round is better all depends on the use case. You use the right tool for the job. Are you laying down suppression fire, or clearing trenches, or something else entirely.
I hope you obtained Hickok45’s permission to use his footage of the range day with Anthony Oliver
Just because armor stops something doesn’t mean said target hasn’t been taken out of the fight… said target is still absorbing that energy and it does damage to soft flesh
And no one is wearing juggernaut suits so there are plenty of exposed areas to take advantage of
No one talking about the elephant in the room?
The logistics are to be considered too.
Hitler did not want the MP/STG44 because the concept was to create an entirely new round while the germans had such poor logistics at the time that their 8mm rounds were often made using steel shells instead of brass. The gun was actually a fine idea in hindsight.
So after the war, the Soviets figured they wanted something like that gun and they already made the 7.62 mm round for the SKS (a semi automatic rifle) and other guns which seems to be just quite nice for that kind of gun seeing as the MP/STG44 already proved itself in the field.
So the AK was going to be easier to integrate into the army because you only needed to concern yourself with the gun, not the ammo.
Yeah, it's very strange to hear Kalashnikov have any opinion on the caliber as he wasn't the one to chose it, he just make the rifle according to the given cartridge.
The Germans choice of 0.308inch/7.92mm Kurz round came out of the necessity of using existing barrel and round manufacturing tooling and machinery.
Hitler was more foresight full than the US Army Springfield Arsenal which strongarmed the 7.62 NATO.
-The proponents of the MKB42 (soo to become the StG 44) wanted to replace every weapon the squad had. The NCO that lead the squad would trade his MP40 for a StG44, Even the MG42 would be replaced by the StG 44 and be kicked up to brigade level.
-There was another group within the German Army that wanted a 300m range sub-machine gun which would use the same 7.92mm x 33mm Kurz round.
-There was another group that wanted a ultra cheap semiautomatic carbine called the volksgeware. (peoples rifle) .
-Hitler allowed development of the latter two and the 7.92 x 33 Kurz for them.
-What in fact happened is that the 300m range sub-machine gun sub-machine merged with the MKB42 group and everybody was happy.
-The gun was called the MP43 so it sounded like the replacement for the MP40 as the 300m range sub-machine gun which Hitler was Okay with.
-In fact they had hoodwinked the fuhrer somewhat.
-Hitler had opposed the MKB42 (StG 44) on the basis that he was thinking of fighting at long ranges in the dessert and because he feared ammunition shortages. (The G.41 was a disaster)
-Once the MP43 and MP44 were in production they didn't just replaced the MP40 but whole squads (except for the MG42)
-In late 1944/early45 Hitler was proven right and the German army had to stop equipping its squads due to ammunition shortages.
The German didn't have poor logistics they didn't have tin and copper for brass cases.
Now the Russians are switching to caliber 6.02
sad there is no word about caseless ammo, the germans have had the G11 ready to serial production, 3x50 round magazines in the gun, manually to switch the two 50 round spares, currently it would be an interesting way to go for high rate of fire and mag capacity - 5-6 round bursts against drones, it was 4,73x33mm though, guess with 30+ years of tech evolution they could make something like the p90 in caseless high capacity mag version 100+ rounds against drones in small caliber and something in 6,5-6,8 mm range as main assault rifle
Caseless seems too much hassle just to prove a point. Plastic casings such as used by Hughes Lockless do it all and more.
I remembered that yes caseless ammo would be dope. But ammo would heat off the other rounds. Having 20 bullets off at once would be scary.
They have silent velcro would not be hard to believe the fix the problem 😊
You can get body armor that is proof vs 50 bmg ap, multi strike same spot and no pen…. Pretty wild.
So I’m still wondering what might have been if the US had adopted .276 Pedersen when adopting the m1 Garand
The video needs to differentiate between 7.62 mm rounds. The common Soviet cartridge in WW2 was 7.62X54R, a full rifle round. They downsized that cartridge to 7.62X39, an intermediate cartridge, for the SKS then the Kalashnikov AK system. The NATO countries adopted the 7.62X51 round in 1957, again a full rifle round. The US switched to 5.56X45, an intermediate cartridge, in 1963. NATO followed suit in 1977. The Soviets adopted the 5.45X39 cartridge for the AK74 system in, you guessed it, 1974. There are a bunch of 7.62 rounds out there so be clear about the round you’re referencing.
I think the US Navy had it right with 6mm Lee Navy. 100 grains at 2800+
6.3 6.5 would have a trade off between 5.56 and 7.62 smack in middle
My opinion
the original 7.92x41mm CETME did it all.
@baraka629 yes but that's a hefty bullet
The M1 Garand originally fired the 0.276 Peterson round. MacArthur had them re-chamber for 30-06.
Personally have put thousands of rounds through a 5.45 and a 7.62 AK. For AK's i prefer 7.62x39.
The AK is a more close range focused gun compared to the AR15.
74 mags are about 7oz lighter than '47' magazines each. (Assuming AK103 magazine) So about 3 pounds difference for a combat loading. (210)
AR15 is about 6 1/2 lb unloaded. 74M is about 1 pound greater in weight. Point being if you want a 22 cal fighting rifle AR15 is going to be lighter in some cases more accurate overall as well as being more ergonomic.
The AK on the other hand while being almost 4lb heavier than a AR setup does have that .30 cal punch, although with much shorter legs than a true .30 option. We are talking 1600 ft-lb vs like 1000 with 5.45. M193 is a better round than 5.45 Ball for terminal ballistics. There i said it. Out of a proper twist rate rifle M193 moves faster, imparts more energy and tumbles incredibly well.
I guess personally if i am going to get a smaller lighter rifle ill just grab an AR15 before a 74. Were i would still choose a 7.62x39 AK for specific fighting conditions. Just the logic of a Internet Commando.
ummmm yeaaahh, we have seen in ukraine that body armor isn't really a significant factor. After all, soldiers still have to move around to accomplish their objectives, and steel or ceramic plates are heavy. Also, trying to kit out entire divisions in full lvl 4 armor is utopic. And even then, if push comes to shove you will still have a support weapon in .308 or 7.62x54R nearby.
A lvl 4 vest might become the norm but there still a lot of unarmored man around that vest.
i'll argue that we'll see more frag rated armor around a lvl 4 core, wagering for survivable over all.
After all most wounds are from small fragments not bullets and only bullets to the chest and head kill out right.
You can get lv4 armor and a decent carrier for sub $500 as a civilian in the US. All western militaries equip all their units with lv4 plate. It not utopic. Russia's just poor.
class 5 armor??? what is that?
When you need to pack an APC armor on a human somehow (basically resistant to anything below .50 BMG AP).
he did not have his German engineers to explain things to him anymore
Wtf are you rambling about?
@@lunaticcultist9741 if you do your own research you would know the AK47 was designed by the top german engineers who designed the stg 44
@@vaughanerwin7195 it doesn't use anything from the stg 44. You have a very simple mind. It has more in common with the M1 Garand then a Stg 44
@@lunaticcultist9741 if you knew anything about gun design you know A.K never did anything the stole the ideas from the German engineers who invented the stg 44 he was a moron his design looked like they were made in third world ghetto then the 2 top engineers who invented the stg 44 were force to work for him and suddenly he has good idea the idea of not liking the 5.54 was because the Germans were no longer working for him in the 70s to advise him. I am a licensed arms dealer and gunsmith with 2 patents in Canada and spent a year in Ukraine rebuilding and updating small and mediums arms with 50yrs of shooting where you can't even follow a conversation
Kalash copied and mashed together a bunch of designs. Most of them American. He's been very forthcoming about that in his publications. The action is a Garand bolt and piston. The safety was taken from Browning's model 8. The entire form factor with the pistol grip was drawn on a napkin inside a Soviet hospital before he ever laid eyes on an MKb-42. The M43 cartridge was independently developed by another Soviet bureau as a parallel development to what the Nazis did. They had similar operational requirements and basically arrived at the same solution of "short large caliber cartridge for sub 300m automatic fire".
I watched some dudes test black powder rifled muskets firing .54 lead ball at ballistic dummies recently.
Nobody is walking away from hits like those.
you're fos. Guys have stayed on their feet after being hit with 12 ga slugs, while armored. The impact is no worse than that on the shooter's shoulder. That's newton's 3rd law.
Infographics is g
The 5.56 was built to tumble once it entered the body. The 7.62 was built to go through and perhaps hit a second soldier. Different mentalities. FUI, Kalashnikov came to regret his creation, given how many lives it collectively took.
Given Russian habits of establishing Africa by giving any tin pot colonel or warlord AKs so long as they willing to be corrupted to prevent it from developing stable democracies it certainly has been a foul weapon.
What a weird mish mash, of truths, 1/2 truths and bad info...
in the US, not being able to shoot 223 and use a 22lr conversion unit is a HUGE mistake. So the AK sucks. given a 223 silencer, the 60 gr Aquila subsonic 22 unit, night sights, night vision and brains enough to remain HIDDEN during daytime, and not show a light at night, you're WAY ahead of any loud gun, or one which does not shoot the most commonly available rds of ammo in the US
Thats cool, but the basic bitch AR15 can down you at 300 yards no problem.
But you still wouldn't dare get hit by one
Well lets see 5.45/5.56 are marginal for deer and may not be legally used in all states for big game.
7.62x39 is basically a duplicate of tge 30-30 a well regarded deer round for over 100 years.
People are deer sized.
3:21 🔥🔥🔥😍😍😍👌👌👌
12ga beats them both :D
Packs so much punch that you don't care about armor penetration (cause organs behind armor become salad anyway).
5.45 is underpowered
Jest get a 6.8 spc probably solved
Kalashnikov was right us adopted the sig spear which is almost like 7.62/51 everyone is going back to semi battle rifle
6,8x51 is MORE than 7,62x51 in terms of energy and it’s just as stupid as an idea for a primary battle rifle (not a dmr) today as it was in the cold war. Small caliber high velocity ammunition gives too much of an advantage in a fight below 300m and anything above that is artillery, IFV, Tank and drone target
@@Jack72607 I'd agree. For below 300m you want the faster more lightweight bullets. It's easier to hit moving targets and you can carry more ammunition. Also you can still use better armor penetrating rounds, while many conflicts the US has seen since the introduction of 5.56 were against rather unprotected enemy armies.
For 6.8x51 Fury rounds we have not seen their performance in a real world scenario yet, so I'd wait with my verdict there, but usually when they try to invent a one-size-fits-all thing it goes wrong.
@@tiberius8390 I remember analysts peddling the idea that 6,8x51 could defeat lvl 4 body armor with a hardened steel core bullet like m80a1 or m885a1 epr rounds. This turned out to be false, a tungsten core is required and a few problems can be outlined: this capability can be reached by 7,62x51 m992, the new AP round costs over 20$ each and strategic tungsten reserves are mainly in mainland China
@@Jack72607 M993 you mean? The 7.62 round also has a tungsten carbide core though.
So as I understand in both rounds be it 6.8 Fury or 7.62 NATO you need Tungsten Carbide to penetrate Lvl IV body armor.
Generally, yeah. I guess for assault rifles (and DMR) they will go for 6.8 and replace the 5.56 and maybe 7.62. Yet I think both calibers will be around for a couple of more years.
For actual body armor penetration if it comes to some conflict with a modern army you will need something heavier like .338 or just use "other means" I guess.
@@tiberius8390 yes m992 is the unicorn 5,56 load. The more I think about it the more 6,8x51 is slightly lighter 7,62x51 with higher muzzle velocity out of a 13” barrel instead of a 18” but witb drastically increased barrel wear. A marginal improvement over 7,62x51 but renouncing 5,56 is really baffling…America and Nato already tried that with the main battle rifle concept and it lost against the assult rifle concept the Soviets brought to the table. Main advantage of full power ammo is for combat above 300m and in modern combined arms combat anything above that is artillery, mortar, IFV, tank, drone, automatic grenade launcher or heavy machine gun target
He knew it was a loser . Like the US found out with the 223 .
Kalashnikov realized the advantage of the 5.45 and did endorse it later on..
@@hairydogstail We found out it kinda sucked , and are just now admitting to the mistake , and upgunning the cartridge . From Vietnam on , we found it was lacking . Several thousand body bags later , we figured out that it might be a good idea to give our soldiers something migger . If it were up to me , I would bring back the 30.06 as the standard round .
The US didn’t find out any such thing.
@@tolik5929 If anything the m16 and 5.56mm kept a whole lot more Americans out of body bags than it put in. There's a reason my the M14 had such a short life. The ammo's heavy, the recoil is heavy, and the ammo is bulky. All things that are significant disadvantages in modern 300 yard or less engagements. That's why the ak and ar platform will possibly see 100 year service lives even in advanced militaries.
why kalashnikov hates 5.45? because he was fudd 😄😄
gun manufacturers know better than civilians
no, they dont. All they care about is making money, So they make and sell whatever people want. Most people dont know jack squat about guns, shooting or terminal ballistics and the makers cater to most people.
Kalasnikov only stole/copied the German STG44, what's so great obout that ????
Aren't you a simple minded bloke?
Your knowledge is in the negatives.
NEED A 6.5MM GRENDEL WITH A HOLLOW CAVITY LIKE THE 7N1 WITH A TUNGSTEN STEEL CORE BOAT TRAIL AND USE A MAGNUM PRIMERS FOR ALL WHETHER BURN AND RUN 2900FPS TO 3000FPS
When grandfather created his masterpiece the AK47 in the 1960s in Russia went wanna know why America went with the 556 let me modernize the gun in the round and make it better they told them no they knew what they were doing better and they came up with a 5.45x39mm Just think if he went with a 6.5 Grindle the Fitz in an AK47 mad window problem would it get the gun greater range greater accuracy remember that the old round is the 1940 technology to slug