5.45x39 Ballistics

KChen986

New member
.223s and .308's seem to get a lot of discussion regarding ballistics and lethality (what is the best twist rate, what FPS does the bullet need to be at in order to fracture properly etc.) But I never seem to see any discussions regarding the 5.45 round.

I read in Larry Kahaner's book "AK-47" that when the AK-74 was used during the afghanistan-soviet conflict, the majority of those with battle wounds from the 5.45 and survived were those who were shot in the extremities--the reason being that the 5.45 had a hollow brass tip (there was an air pocket beneath the tip of the brass jacket). Those who were shot in the center of mass usually died...

I would really like to see a discussion of the 5.45 ballistics, and any thoughts or comments that more knowledgeable members of TFL can impart about the 5.45 would be great.
 
The 5.45 was designed to have the range and velocity of the .223 with 1/2 the recoil pulse. The hollow cavity in the nose and steel core behind it were designed to destabilize the bullet; thus, when it hits the target, it is quick to yaw (one yaw cycle is completed in half the distance as the 7.62 X 39). The long bullet yawing through the body causes severe wounds. The Afgans refered to the 5.45 as the "poison bullet".
 
5.45x39 is a fun round to shoot

I like the 5.45x39 and I too would like to hear more about this round. It's as accurate as I am and has very little recoil in the AK74 I built a while back. For a while ammo was really scarce but now it's fairly easy to find. I only wish reloading equipment and components were more available. I heard somewhere that brass could be formed from 222 rem and that 223 bullets could be resized to .221 using a Lee cast bullet sizing die. At one time MidwayUSA had the dies as a special order item for around $200. For now, I'll stick to milsurp and Wolf ammo.
 
The 5.45x39 has a lot to offer.
It's flat shooting, has a very high velocity, and very minimal recoil, especially when used with the AK-74 muzzle brake.

The Russians took a long look at the .223/5.56x45 US M16 in Vietnam, and liked what they saw.
They especially liked the idea of a more controllable rifle in full-auto, and the fact that the soldier could carry MUCH more ammo if it was lighter.

In Afghanistan the Russians were having problems with the standard 7.62x39.
It wasn't very good at longer ranges, had heavier recoil, and the amount of ammo the soldier could carry was limited.

Worst of all, they were facing the Afghans who are small, skinny, scrawny men.
The 7.62x39 does tumble after hitting, but it doesn't start to tumble until after about 8 inches of penetration, and only has time to tumble once in the average size person entering point first, tumbling over and exiting butt first.

The Afghans were so thin, the 7.62x39 didn't begin to tumble before it exited, and unless a bone or vital organ was hit, they could survive the strike, even though they had minimal to no medical care available.
The 7.62x39 was basically "paper punching" them and they were surviving.

So, the Russians essentially found a way to "cheat" the Hague Conventions which regulate military ammunition.
The Hague Accords ban the use of hollow point, exposed lead, or other type of bullets that are designed to expand and cause maiming of humans.
Because of the Hague Accords, military bullets are full metal jacketed and specifically built NOT to expand.

The Russians heard about the early Vietnam experiment in which several thousand of the then AR-15 full-auto rifles and one million rounds of Remington .223 ammo was sent for field testing.
The early AR-15 and it's Remington ammo quickly developed a reputation for reliability, and for the "killing power" of the ammo.
This was due to the bullets tendency to tumble after striking.
The Army more or less ruined the reliability of the rifle and the killing power of the ammunition in the famous "development" program for the M16.

The Russians took the idea of a small caliber bullet that was very stable and accurate in flight, but that destabilized once it hit, and tumbled, causing greater wounding.
They developed the 5.45x39 round which was specifically made to tumble wildly on impact.

The bullet has a mild steel outer jacket with a copper plated coating to prevent rust and to lubricate the bullet during feeding.
Inside the outer jacket is a slightly harder steel core, which is NOT an armor piercing core, even though it's reported to be able to penetrate both sides of a US steel helmet at 300 meters and author David Fortier was able to put a 5.45x39 through both sides of a US Kevlar helmet at 300 yards.
This mild steel core is flat on the ends and slightly tapered on both ends.
On top of the steel core and surrounding it on the sides, is a soft lead cap.
In the tip of the bullet is a hollow air space.
This produces a bullet that's weighted toward the rear, and makes it very stable in flight, but which causes it to destabilize once it hits.

When the bullet hits, the soft lead cap and the steel core slide forward into the air space, and this causes the bullet to destabilize, and it tumbles wildly.
Where the 7.62x39 begins to tumble around 8 inches, the 5.45x39 begins to tumble around 2 1/2 inches, and tumbles so wildly, it can tumble inside an arm or leg.
The 5.45x39 typically can tumble at least twice in the average size person.

While the bullet tumbles, it's also pitching and yawing, describing an almost corkscrew-like erratic course through the body.
One quirk of the 5.45x39 is a near 90 degree veer off course near the end of it's travel.

This erratic path, along with the weird veering off at an odd angle makes finding and treating the wound path almost impossible, especially with primitive medical means.
With the 7.62x39, an Afghan medic could hope to probe the path to find and extract the bullet.
With the 5.45x39 probing was useless.

Due to the enhanced wounding and maiming abilities of the bullet, the hard to impress Afghans nicknamed the bullet "The Poison Bullet" or "The Devil's Bullet".
With the 5.45x39, the "paper punching" of the bullet stopped, and Afghan soldiers started dying from the un-treatable and maiming wounds.
Gangrene became a major killer among the Afghans.

All this is born out by experiences of American hunters using the 5.45x39.
One writer is hunting the small Georgia deer with the round, and others are reporting shooting coyotes with it.
They all say that the 5.45x39 seems to perform as well as American commercial soft point, expanding bullet sporting ammunition.
The writer reporting on shooting a Georgia deer showed photos of major internal damage, including clear evidence of the tumbling bullet.
He reported that the bullet had veered off at an odd angle when it had slowed, had not exited, and he had been unable to find it so far.

While the 5.45x39 is not as accurate or powerful as the US .223/5.56x45, it does appear that the Russians have succeeded in fielding a bullet that out performs the US bullet.

The Russian military including Spetznaz prefer the 5.45x39 and consider it the best rifle and round in the world.
They are reported to be using the 7.62x39 in house to house fighting in Chechnya, due to the increased penetration of the heavier bullet.
In every other case, they use the 5.45x39 by choice.

Here's a sectioned 52 grain 5.45x39 7N6 PS bullet.
Note the mild steel outer jacket, the slightly harder tapered and flat ended steel core, the lead cap on top and around the core, and the hollow air space.
PICT0001.jpg
 
The "Poison Bullet" story looks a lot like it's just Soviet era propaganda (at least I've never heard of that story coming from a non-Russian source . . .). 5.45x39 has a lot of good features, but its terminal effects and wound ballistics aren't very impressive. The Russians developed the round based on their copying of us and our ultimately mistaken belief that tumbling made 5.56mm lethal. They built a super tumbling round -- sadly for 5.45mm, fragmentation is the feature that lets 5.56mm punch above its weight. Of course tumbling is not a bad thing, but scientific analysis of the round including shots at pig cadavers and such, has not really supported anecdotal claims concerning lethality.

Inside the outer jacket is a slightly harder steel core, which is NOT an armor piercing core, even though it's reported to be able to penetrate both sides of a US steel helmet at 300 meters and author David Fortier was able to put a 5.45x39 through both sides of a US Kevlar helmet at 300 yards.

From first hand experience, the steel core provides pretty decent light AP capabilities similar to M855.

While the 5.45x39 is not as accurate or powerful as the US .223/5.56x45, it does appear that the Russians have succeeded in fielding a bullet that out performs the US bullet.

I'd question the validity of that claim.

Gangrene became a major killer among the Afghans.

Without antibiotics and the surgical skills to thoroughly debride and clean a wound (neither of which were in great supply) any penetrating bullet wound that passes through clothing is likely to become gangrenous. Deaths from gangrene did not begin with, or increase, with the introduction of 5.45x39 in Afghanistan as far as I know.
 
Since the jacket of the bullet is steel, is there any increased wear on the barrels that fire this round? I read that they coat the steel with copper, but is it thick enough for a trip down the barrel to be all copper on steel, and not become steel on steel half way down the tube?
 
I must also point out that the 5.45mm was not the first round to have the air pocket in the nose. In fact, the Chinese experimented with a round for the 7.62x39 that had plastic beads in the forward section in order to increase yawing potential. The Yugos took it a step farther and dramatically increased the wounding potential of the 7.62x39 by adding an air pocket in the nose of a conventionally weighted and shaped spitzer flat-based bullet. In doing so, they created a round that tumbled effectively, often as soon as 9 cm. This was in 1967, years before the adoption of the AK-74 or its 5.45mm round.

Wolf FMJs seem to be constructed similarly to the Yugo ball round.
WolfFMJoutside.jpg

WolfFMJinside.jpg

I shot a deer hit on the side of a highway. It was a small doe with a broken rear leg. It offered me a broadside shot from about 50 yards away. I shot it with a Yugo SKS and a 122 gr Wolf FMJ. The round entered the crease of the onside shoulder, penetrated both lungs, and exited through the offside shoulder. The exit wound was oblong, about 2 inches in length and an inch in diameter, about the size and shape of an egg, and filled with jagged bone fragments. The shape of the bullet was clearly evident in the exit wound through the shoulder--the bullet was tumbling when it exited.

At that point I became sufficiently curious to try some other tests in an attempt to recreate the wound profile I witnessed in the deer. I put two 5 gallon plastic water jugs, uncovered, and tandem one behind the other, directly in front of a third bucket filled with sand. I shot it at a range of 25 yards with a round of Wolf 122 gr FMJ, then repeated the test with a Wolf 122 gr HP. The results surprised me. I was well aware of the standard M43 cartridge's reputation of less dramatic wounding, and of reports that steel cased HP ammunition for the cartridge often exhibited FMJ-like performance with limited or not expansion and fragmentation.
I do not claim these tests to be scientifically valid on the same level as gelatin tests or live combat action. But they did provide interesting results on the relative performance of these rounds that should be falsifiable.

AKtests1.jpg


In "Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets," Fackler tests the 5.45 as well as both the standard M43 and the Yugo M67 ball rounds for the 7.62x39. He states that the wound tract of the Yugo round looked like that of the M43 round with the first 17 cm cut off. Tumbling of the Yugo round was reliable and dramatic, within 4 inches of penetration, and Fackler concludes it produced wound channels in abdominal cavities and extremities identical to those produced by 5.45mm.
The 5.45mm may not be as effective as the 5.56mm M193 or M855 rounds within 120 to 140 yards, but its tumbling effect is not as dependent on velocity as the fragmentary effect of the 5.56, and thus, as the 5.56 falls below its reliable fragmentation threshold, the 5.45 becomes more effective. While the 5.56 may still tumble beyond the range at which it reliably fragments, its standard ball projectiles are not as long as the 5.45mm round, and because of this, its effect when tumbling will not be as dramatic.
 
I've shot small to medium size varmints around my 90 acres with my SAR-2. It has killed them much better than I expected. If there was a small CZ style bolt action for sale in 5.45x39, I would buy it. If it was possible to reload the round just like any other round, I would do that as well.

If the USSR had just used the standard .224" diameter for the caliber it would be a heck of a lot easier to experiment with!!

Gregg
 
Trying to dust off this old post

I finally get to do a research paper for a college paper that is interesting. My topic question is: Should U.S. troops be required to use ball ammo? My investigating has brought me to this forum.

Although I typically lurk around The Firing Line, I've officially joined as of today, to find out more about the 5.45 x 39 and how it applies to the hague accords.

Dfariswheel and others, you seem to be well informed on the topic. If you can point me in the direction of any writings, magazine, newspaper articles, books or scholarly essays, etc., that are a good source for this material, I sure would appreciate it.

I'd normally try to PM you but I'm not able to so, either because of my rookie-ness or I haven't figured it out.
 
The Russians took a long look at the .223/5.56x45 US M16 in Vietnam, and liked what they saw.They especially liked the idea of a more controllable rifle in full-auto, and the fact that the soldier could carry MUCH more ammo if it was lighter.
Yeah, I've often wondered why the Russians and Chinese, who apparently didn't read the opinions internet/gun magazine chairborne commandos, would adopt such a 5.56 style round that is obviously VASTLY inferior to every other rifle round in production. :rolleyes: Maybe it's because of all those dead komrades they saw.
 
The 5.45x39 round fit right in with Soviet doctrine.
The Soviet (and now Russian Federation) soldier is a motorized infantryman. This is somewhat like the old Civil War Dragoons.
They rode horses TO battle, but dismounted to fight like infantry.

The Soviet idea is for the infantryman to ride to combat in a armored personnel carrier, then to dismount and charge the enemy, firing bursts of full auto fire.
This hail of bullets will insure that at least some targets are hit and the enemy will keep his head down while the real killing is done by Soviet crew-served weapons.

The smaller, lighter 5.45x39 was a perfect fit for this method of battle.
The smaller, lighter round had less recoil in full auto, and the soldier could carry more ammo, thus more effective fire and more of it, longer.

This also drove the development of the AK-74 rifle. The leadership demanded a lighter rifle to go with the lighter ammo, which was a problem due to the thicker, heavier barrel caused by the smaller bullet.
Kalashnikov has talked a number of times about the efforts to reduce weight of the AK-74, down to cutting the grooves in the butt stock.
The grooves have lead to people thinking they were to identify the AK-74 rifle just by feel, but Kalashnikov himself says they were trying to reduce the weight even more.

However we think of it, the fact is the Russians are thoroughly satisfied with the 5.45x39, and the Russian Spec Ops use it by preference.
It's proven to be an effective round in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia.
It's hard to argue with success.
 
I finally get to do a research paper for a college paper that is interesting. My topic question is: Should U.S. troops be required to use ball ammo? My investigating has brought me to this forum.

Although I typically lurk around The Firing Line, I've officially joined as of today, to find out more about the 5.45 x 39 and how it applies to the hague accords.


Well something you should ask is "since these are the rules of war, is it a war or police action?" The war in iraq was to some extent ended. Last I checked you had to be wearing a uniform of the nation you fight for, for any of that to apply to you. So rebels and others don't get to be fussy over what bullets they get shot with.

That said, FMJ is the most reliable bullet type for a semi... Believe me I make .308 saiga magazines (AK variant), soft points and hollow points SUCK for feeding compared to FMJ

Then there is the whole versatility thing, troops may have to shoot through barriers of one kind or another. Normally FMJ excels at that.


As for the 5.45x39 being an ultimate doom machine. Its not, the bullets are small needles, they do bend when shot into water or anything for that matter but thats not a good thing if your trying to shoot through an auto body to get the BG on the other side.

I'd say they left the air pocket because they are cheap skates and did not want to fill the front of a bullet that balanced ok with an air pocket.

The import commercial ammo is FMJ or hollow point with a lead core, compare the two and we will know if it really makes a difference.
 
I'd say they left the air pocket because they are cheap skates and did not want to fill the front of a bullet that balanced ok with an air pocket.

I think it's been pretty well established that the 5.45x39 tumbles better when shot from a 16" bbl than a 5.56x45 from a 16" bbl and the only logical explanation for this is the cavity as the rounds have comparable velocities and energies.
 
I think the reason the 5.45x39 isn't more popular here in the US is because it has three groups of people rooting against it: 7.62x39 fans, .223/5.56x45 fans, and the anti "mouse gun" crowd who hate anything less than a .308 Win.

The 7.62x39'ers don't like it because it is largely replacing their round in military service. 5.56x45 fans don't like it because it is quite possibly an improvement on their round (I love America too but isn't it possible that the commies got one thing right?). The "mouse gun" guys don't like it because to them it represents a trend away from their type of round and it just doesn't kill things dead enough for them.

Personally I think the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are improvements over anything in use today. But if I had to choose a combat round (other than the 2 above) in a 16" bbl rifle it would either be a .308 Win or a 5.45x39mm.
 
5.56x45 fans don't like it because it is quite possibly an improvement on their round (I love America too but isn't it possible that the commies got one thing right?).

Here is a link to the typical wound profiles of military rounds:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342468

Looking at that link, the only place the 5.45x39 is superior to M855 is that its wounding effect is more consistent (i.e. it will yaw and produce that wound channel reliably) and because it doesn't fragment, it offers mildly better penetration. In contrast, about 25% of the time, M855 will not yaw; but when it does, it will produce a much more significant wound cavity.

However, just using Mk262 eliminates the consistency issue while still retaining the larger cavity.

Tumbling is only part of the equation. The 5.45x39 doesn't work as well because although it tumbles reliably, it still stays together. The 5.56x45 tumbles and then breaks apart at the cannelure, spraying the exposed temporary cavity with tiny fragments. This is why there is a dramatic difference in the wound cavities and the existence of detached tissue in the 5.56 cavity.
 
Looking at that link, the only place the 5.45x39 is superior to M855 is that its wounding effect is more consistent (i.e. it will yaw and produce that wound channel reliably) and because it doesn't fragment, it offers mildly better penetration. In contrast, about 25% of the time, M855 will not yaw; but when it does, it will produce a much more significant wound cavity.

However, just using Mk262 eliminates the consistency issue while still retaining the larger cavity.

So who is the Mk262 issued to? Sounds like SOCOM equipment to me. If so that doesn't help Joe Marine a whole helluva lot.

And isn't performing well consistently better than performing marginally better occaisionally?

I'll take the consistent tumbling and better penetration (the FBI's main crteria for determining effectiveness of a round) over occaisional fragmenting any day.

Of course the 6.8 SPC is my choice out of all of those rounds listed. Would love to see one with the 6.5 Grendel tested.
 
So who is the Mk262 issued to? Sounds like SOCOM equipment to me. If so that doesn't help Joe Marine a whole helluva lot.

Actually, the Marines have not only purchased a ton of 77gr ammo; but are leaders in developing better 77gr 5.56mm ammo that hasn't yet hit the general public's knowledge.

And isn't performing well consistently better than performing marginally better occaisionally?

Well, assuming we use Dr. Fackler's numbers for how often M193/M855 rounds fail to yaw despite having sufficient velocity to do so, then the M855 performs better 75% of the time. Whether you consider that "marginally better" depends on whether you consider the difference in wound cavities marginal. I don't. To me the M855 cavity looks substantially larger since the fragmentation allows it to convert most of the temporary cavity to detached/torn tissue.

I'll take the consistent tumbling and better penetration (the FBI's main crteria for determining effectiveness of a round) over occaisional fragmenting any day.

1. The FBIs criteria for penetration of gel is met by both 5.56x45 and 5.45x39. It is only on specific intermediate barriers where 5.45x39 has an advantage in meeting FBI criteria.

2. The "occasional" fragmenting is 75% of the time, assuming enough velocity.

3. Simply by using a different 5.56 round, you can increase that number to practically 100% (although I imagine a different bullet construction would probably change 5.45x39 a lot too - the big limitation for both 5.45 and 5.56 is there is only so much that can be done with a certain size round - a bigger bullet means more penetration and more potential fragments).
 
So who is the Mk262 issued to? Sounds like SOCOM equipment to me. If so that doesn't help Joe Marine a whole helluva lot.

I believe the USMC tries to issue Mk262 to squad designated marksmen when possible.

It's main use in SOCOM is for SPRs, not for every 5.56mm weapon on issue, though when people can scrounge it up to use in lieu of green tip lots of guys will reach for it. From personal experience, it makes shots beyond 300 meters a whole lot easier. Terminal ballistics are a nice plus, but the point is to get hits at ranges where 3 MOA M855 ammo can't hang very well.

1. The FBIs criteria for penetration of gel is met by both 5.56x45 and 5.45x39. It is only on specific intermediate barriers where 5.45x39 has an advantage in meeting FBI criteria.

My observations are less rigorous than the FBI's methodology, I'm sure, but from what I've seen M855 and the 5.45mm we were issued for familiarization fire (Bulgarian military production, if I recall correctly) were about equal in penetrating automobile bodies, body armor hard plates, and some vehicle armor materials.
 
I have noticed that rounds shot into soft logs tend to bend into funny almost hook kinda things.. Is that what we are talking about? Because if that supposed to be the huge "killer" effect of these bullets I don't really see the big deal. Not like they deform that much its just a little bend.
 
Back
Top