47 vs. 74
- Thread starter RaVis
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
RaVis
Oi!
- Jun 19, 2011
- 2,192
Information overload. Exactly what I was trying to avoid.
Ok, so from everything that I've read in this thread and linked in information (or as much as I could handle) for someone who doesn't have space/tools/time to modify a Saiga - buying an Arsenal made Ak is the best step to take for a mid-level gun in the $700/$800 price range (specifically the SLR-107 line-up).
Thanks.
Indiana Jones
Wolverine
Information overload. Exactly what I was trying to avoid.
Ok, so from everything that I've read in this thread and linked in information (or as much as I could handle) for someone who doesn't have space/tools/time to modify a Saiga - buying an Arsenal made Ak is the best step to take for a mid-level gun in the $700/$800 price range (specifically the SLR-107 line-up).
Thanks.
There is no BEST step. Arsenals are great, I had one. Overpriced however. You can get a mac90 or Tantal, or an Egyptian Maadi for hundreds less. Hell my best up ok MISR Maadi is more accurate than m SLR107F arsenal. AND the Maadi was $400.....
-Z/28-
I wanna go fast
What year are you living in? I haven't seen a Maadi under $700 in a while. Shoot, last couple shows I was at WASR-10s were over $500. I'd say $800-900 for an SGL-21 or 31 is pretty decent.
Nemesis
Russian Grizzly Adams
Arsenals are not over priced, add up everything on them vs a standard saiga...you will find that their priced very well
Tactics
Ultimate Member
Nemesis said:
Love mine. It does not like the surplus mags I picked up and instead runs great on cheap tapcos.
Nemesis
Russian Grizzly Adams
as far as this actual topic goes...my opinion is that is just a "pick your poison" matter.
in the intermediate caliber range (with a few exception, most notably 6.5 grendel) all of the three major calibers will serve you as well as the others. i would put all three, 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62 in as 300 yard practical range guns. each is limited to this range by a different factor...for 5.45 its low mass and moderate muzzle velocity though its long design does greatly aid in inducing yaw at lower velocities, for 5.56 its low mass and tendency to shed velocity fast limit it, it is a velocity dependent round...for 7.62 its lower velocity kills it at longer ranges, though its mass (2x+ of the others) gives it a good punch, the compensation needed for drop is its killer.
that all being said there are specific rounds that can be used in each caliber to increase the effective range, however i do not take them into consideration because they are either expensive to stock up on, or availablity is an issue...or a combination of both.
for example 77 gr rounds in 5.56, i would say, are good to 500 yards...however it is a match round and can be costly. in 7.62 the 154 gr rounds suffer a muzzle velocity loss, but around the 300 yard mark their better BC begins to shine...granted it only helps slightly with drop but they do hit a fair bit harder...im yet to really see much for 5.45 but i would like to see what a 70-75 gr round would do.
with current ammo prices, 5.45 is the way to go...but i wouldnt pick it for any practical reason other than cost over the others.
in the intermediate caliber range (with a few exception, most notably 6.5 grendel) all of the three major calibers will serve you as well as the others. i would put all three, 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62 in as 300 yard practical range guns. each is limited to this range by a different factor...for 5.45 its low mass and moderate muzzle velocity though its long design does greatly aid in inducing yaw at lower velocities, for 5.56 its low mass and tendency to shed velocity fast limit it, it is a velocity dependent round...for 7.62 its lower velocity kills it at longer ranges, though its mass (2x+ of the others) gives it a good punch, the compensation needed for drop is its killer.
that all being said there are specific rounds that can be used in each caliber to increase the effective range, however i do not take them into consideration because they are either expensive to stock up on, or availablity is an issue...or a combination of both.
for example 77 gr rounds in 5.56, i would say, are good to 500 yards...however it is a match round and can be costly. in 7.62 the 154 gr rounds suffer a muzzle velocity loss, but around the 300 yard mark their better BC begins to shine...granted it only helps slightly with drop but they do hit a fair bit harder...im yet to really see much for 5.45 but i would like to see what a 70-75 gr round would do.
with current ammo prices, 5.45 is the way to go...but i wouldnt pick it for any practical reason other than cost over the others.
Please read this, especially the conclusion:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf
Basically, Fackler found out that a huge permanent wound cavity is more an accident of shot placement than an inherent characteristic of 5.45. If you hit elastic tissue (and that's quite a lot of your tissue, right?), it's going to snap back into place. Based on this data, I'd much rather take a hit from 5.45 than 5.56 - the latter is much better at fragmenting. I'd be very interested to see the studies that run counter to his findings, because there is a lot of myth out there on the subject. Saying that velocity doesn't matter for yaw-based wounding also seems counter-intuitive; at the end of the day, doing what you describe through human tissue is going to require some energy.
The availability of long/heavy 5.56 is also a huge mark in its favor; I can get Hornady SteelMatch 75gr for ~40c a round. But we're getting off topic here. In other words, 5.45 is cheap and reasonably effective, but that's about the most that can be said for it. If you want more than that, it's not the round for you. (Granted, most people don't require more...) I suppose we're getting off topic here, but 5.56 is a viable AK caliber, so it's not completely insane to discuss it in this context.
As for 7.62x39, I'm not impressed by the lethality of it, but I see its uses in an SBR scenario. (I've often thought about doing a PTR-32 SBR build for this reason.) 5.56 loses lethality fast in barrels below 11.5" or 10.5", and having a bigger bullet seems sensible in that kind of gun. 7.62x51 is massive overkill, and 9mm doesn't hit hard enough, so 7.62x39 would be where it's at.
DarthZed
Ultimate Member
Please read this, especially the conclusion:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf
Basically, Fackler found out that a huge permanent wound cavity is more an accident of shot placement than an inherent characteristic of 5.45. If you hit elastic tissue (and that's quite a lot of your tissue, right?), it's going to snap back into place. Based on this data, I'd much rather take a hit from 5.45 than 5.56 - the latter is much better at fragmenting. I'd be very interested to see the studies that run counter to his findings, because there is a lot of myth out there on the subject. Saying that velocity doesn't matter for yaw-based wounding also seems counter-intuitive; at the end of the day, doing what you describe through human tissue is going to require some energy.
The availability of long/heavy 5.56 is also a huge mark in its favor; I can get Hornady SteelMatch 75gr for ~40c a round. But we're getting off topic here. In other words, 5.45 is cheap and reasonably effective, but that's about the most that can be said for it. If you want more than that, it's not the round for you. (Granted, most people don't require more...) I suppose we're getting off topic here, but 5.56 is a viable AK caliber, so it's not completely insane to discuss it in this context.
As for 7.62x39, I'm not impressed by the lethality of it, but I see its uses in an SBR scenario. (I've often thought about doing a PTR-32 SBR build for this reason.) 5.56 loses lethality fast in barrels below 11.5" or 10.5", and having a bigger bullet seems sensible in that kind of gun. 7.62x51 is massive overkill, and 9mm doesn't hit hard enough, so 7.62x39 would be where it's at.
Very interesting. This is contrary to every other test I've read about. Numerous articles have shown that the 5.45 round tends to rotate 90 degrees, travel a distance, rotate 180 degrees, then continue in that attitude. Granted those tests were using ballistic gel of various densities, not pig bodies. There is always the possibility that the ammo used in the test was out of spec (it was a 30 year old test after all). It seems unreasonable to me that a bullet with a hollow tip could pass through a body traveling over 3000 ft/sec, and not have the tip deform (which is the entire point of the design). Very good article erwos. I need to research this some more.
Edit: The temporary wound cavity you are refering to is generally caused by the hydrostatic shock of the round's impact in the tissue. However, the point of the 5.45 round's design is that it rotates and travels sideways, which maximizes the permanent wound channel. I've read many references from afghan fighters calling the round a "poison" bullet, but I don't recall anyone saying that the AK74 simply punched .22 holes in soldiers. I can't deny the validity of the study you referenced without more research (it certainly looked as if they followed good research proceedures); all I can say is that it runs contrary to what I've read. Sure wish I was a ballistics expert.
Edit2: Just noticed what you said about velocity. From what I've read (there it is again, lol) the 5.45 round will rotate at much lower velocities than the 5.56 needs to achieve fragmentation. The hollow cavity in the nose is supposed to collapse upon impact, and cause the round to immediately rotate. This characteristic is often quoted as an advantage since you don't have to worry about velocity loss at range like with the 5.56 round.
I am familiar with hydrostatic shock effects, yes. The problem is that I've never actually seen any tests that show the behavior you're describing from 5.45. People reference these tests, but never directly. That "30 year old test" would be on basically the same stuff the Soviets were using in Afghanistan; arguably, it's more relevant to this discussion than testing the newer ammo. (I also don't even understand how a bullet that's unbalanced as described could possibly maintain stability.)
I don't really buy into ammo performance hype anymore; you'll see people on the interwebs proclaiming how 7.62x39 is so much better than 5.56x45, when the real life tests and data doesn't seem to bear that out at all. I am not trying to proclaim 5.56x45 as some sort of wunder-round; it has serious limitations, espcially in SBRs.
I don't really buy into ammo performance hype anymore; you'll see people on the interwebs proclaiming how 7.62x39 is so much better than 5.56x45, when the real life tests and data doesn't seem to bear that out at all. I am not trying to proclaim 5.56x45 as some sort of wunder-round; it has serious limitations, espcially in SBRs.
rob-cubed
In need of moderation
7N6 5.45 isn't unbalanced, it simply has an air pocket in the tip with a lead and mild steel core behind it. The difference in mass between the two ends guarantees the bullet will flip around at least once as soon as the nose impacts anything, even soft tissue.
From everything I have read, wounds from the 5.56 can be more difficult to treat due to fragmentation but as others have stated this bullet is also more reliant on velocity to do its damage.
That said I wouldn't want to get shot by either.
I am in the "fast and light" camp so it's 7N6 out of an AK74 as my SHTF choice. While Mr. Kalashnikov still rails against the switch from .30 cal, and reports from Afghanistan still complain about the shortcomings of 5.56. But both rounds have been in use for 40 years now and no one has come up with anything that is dramatically more effective than their combination of low recoil and weight vs terminal effectiveness. That's proof enough of their effectiveness for me.
From everything I have read, wounds from the 5.56 can be more difficult to treat due to fragmentation but as others have stated this bullet is also more reliant on velocity to do its damage.
That said I wouldn't want to get shot by either.
I am in the "fast and light" camp so it's 7N6 out of an AK74 as my SHTF choice. While Mr. Kalashnikov still rails against the switch from .30 cal, and reports from Afghanistan still complain about the shortcomings of 5.56. But both rounds have been in use for 40 years now and no one has come up with anything that is dramatically more effective than their combination of low recoil and weight vs terminal effectiveness. That's proof enough of their effectiveness for me.
I dunno, this doesn't make sense to me. The reason that 5.56x45 fragments is because it starts tumbling when it hits flesh. Even if 5.56 doesn't fragment due to inadequate velocity, it should still tumble somewhat. I just don't see how 5.45x39 is THAT much more effective because of the air pocket. If anything, I would have assumed the air pocket was there to help increase fragmentation. *shrugs* I'd want to see a real study or test that showed it.
The problems with 5.56 in Afghanistan are more with M855 in particular, and partially with the M4 as a platform (lack of standard free float handguards for long distance shots). M855 has less velocity, doesn't fragment as well, and tends to not be as accurate as M193 due to greater manufacturing variation with the additional steel penetrator. The new heavy/long 77gr ammo is supposedly quite excellent for resolving these issues.
Nemesis
Russian Grizzly Adams
Frankly i dont buy into any hype or abrakadabra bullets stuff...be it spinning like a helo blade, or fragmenting like a bomb...i dont buy any of it. Gel tests show you nothing, and i dont see anyone lining up as test subjects for shot placement tests...hell, ive seen reports from hunters of 762x39 hps fragmenting...farthest ive read was 85-95 yards...after hitting bone. I think that is the biggest player in the frag game...bone.
rob-cubed
In need of moderation
Oh, I'm not claiming the superiority of one round over another, simply stating that 5.45 and 5.56 are two sides of the same coin and designed to do the job in slightly different ways. Both are time-tested solutions to the modern ideal of a light, low-recoil round that still has excellent wounding potential. The 7.62x39 round is a different beast entirely. If you were shooting through brush regularly that's where it would shine. For serious distance I'd want .308. But for most other purposes I feel the "fast and light" camp wins. And why I would vote for 7N6 given the OPs initial question of 5.45 vs 7.62. That, and the fact that if I had to trust my wife or kid with the rifle, they'd handle the recoil better.
smores
Creepy-Ass Cracker
Not always, I have an Arsenal SLR-106FR, which is Bulgarian, but considered by many to be just as good as the Russian stuff. I agree, I really can't tell the difference in quality between it and the Russian Izhmash-based Arsenals. I even put the Russian triangle stock on it, and it locks up perfectly.
But as to the point erwos made above, my rifle is in 5.56 NATO. At the time I didn't know much about guns and was talked into it because the rep said 5.45x39mm had been banned by the ATF and no longer imported (typical gun-store mis-info as I now know... lol). Now I'm not too sad about it because I have a couple AR-15s and keep a bunch of 5.56 on hand. Currently I have a pretty limited caliber set, 9mm, 22 L.R., .45 ACP, 5.56 NATO, .308 WIN and 12 ga. The only oddball round I stock is .300-221/.300 BLK. I also usually have some .38 SPL laying around in case I go shooting with some wheelgunners (mom and dad).
My rifle is very accurate, just as accurate if not more than my 11.5" 5.56 AR-15.
RaVis
Oi!
- Jun 19, 2011
- 2,192
What's the quality/reputation of the Polish made Ak's?
Thanks.
Thanks.
yellowsled
Retired C&R Addict
Its US made, with US and some Polish parts. Not "polish made"
RaVis
Oi!
- Jun 19, 2011
- 2,192
Let me rephrase - how's the quality of the Polish parts? Vs. Russian or any of the other soviet block countries that produced/produce them?
The Poles still make theirs, however, unlike IZHMASH - don't make sporting models suitable for import to U.S. Except...
http://en.fabrykabroni.pl/?d=116
http://en.fabrykabroni.pl/?d=100
Thanks!
DarthZed
Ultimate Member
The Poles generally build good quality firearms. I have an Interarms Tantal (built from a parts kit) that is very nice.
DarthZed
Ultimate Member
As I stated, I have no personal experience with the 5.45 round other than punching paper. I've read numerous references to the tumbling of the 5.45 round, and seen numerous charts and graphic representations of this effect, including some ballistic gel tests. To be honest, it never occurred to me to "vet" the information as I would normally do if I had any doubts as to its veracity. I will say that I've read many posts from hunters who were members of other forums (zombiehunters, AKform, etc) and all have commented on the damage done by the round; using both surplus and commercial ammo (Often posting VERY graphic pictures of the deer they have shot, including autopsies showing the internal damage done).
Now this isn't definitive evidence by any means, I'm simply saying that there is significant ancillary evidence to support the 5.45 tumbling, and only one (admittedly very thorough) 30 year old study to contest this. I'm going to research this when I get a chance, I'd like confirmation one way or the other.
And I've often wondered how the 5.45 round can remain stable with an air pocket in the nose myself. Makes you wonder if it will start to wobble at extreme range, as it's losing energy.
