Jump to content

Talk:5.45×39mm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture

[edit]

The picture shows the civilian version of that round. The military version has an additional hard metal (tungsten?) insert in place of most of the lead. This penetrator is quite effective against light armor and especially body armor. When this bullet became available on European black markets during the soviet troop widthdrawal in the nineties it created quite some headaches and fear among local law enforcement. Even armored cars in use by most politicians at that time weren't able to reliably stop these rounds at close range.

This article suffers from a nearly complete lack of sources. I can't even find a reference to support the idea the round was inspired by the American experience in Vietnam, as opposed to the American adoption of the round. Bueller? Bueller?--Thatnewguy 12:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some info here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6708147 My attempts to find a full-text version have miserably failed. --Thatnewguy 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me out here?

[edit]

In this page it claims that the balistics study done by Fackler shows "that the AK-74, even at close range, did no more damage than a handgun round". I looked at the PDF file of the report and saw no indication of this, and at this website showing wound illistrations from Facklers findings, it looks to me like the 5.45x39 round creates a distinctively superior wound compared to popular handgun rounds such as the 9x19 Parabellum round and .45 ACP round. Of course I hardly know what I'm talking about, so can anyone help me out here? --Skyler Streng 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal ballistics is the subject of quite a bit of debate, because it's impossible to do controlled studies on the subject (well, maybe at someplace a concentration camp or Unit 731, but if that happened, the data was lost or covered up). The big issue of debate is permanent cavity vs. temporary cavity.
A fast projectile will make a big "splash" when it hits, displacing lots of tissue, even if it's a very small diameter projectile. It's this "splash" that creates a temporary cavity. If this temporary cavity does significant damage, then a big temporary cavity can be a good thing, if it's deep enough and encompasses a vital area. If the temporary cavity does not do significant damage, then it's of no concern, and all that matters is the permanant cavity.
Since military rounds are required to not "expand or flatten in the body", according to the Hauge convention, the standard expanding soft point or hollow point bullet used to limit penetration and increase permanant cavity size is not allowed. Modern rifle bullets (starting in the late 1800's early 1900's) use a sharply pointed bullet to provide superior external ballistics, allowing better energy retention at long range with a lightweight, flat shooting, low recoil bullet (compared to, say, the .45-70 Government). This also means the center of mass is well behind the center of pressre, so the bullets are very unstable, and want to fly back first; they are held straight by the spin, but the will tumble when disturbed. Upon impact, the bullets tend to flip, bend, and fragment to various degrees depending upon the velocity upon impact. The 5.45x39mm test you point to shows just tumbling, with a max penetration of about 55 cm--this is 21 inches, or a bit over the FBI's target of 18 inches for handgun bullets. Even sideways, the wound cavity is pretty small, but the curve gives it more total area than a straight shot. So based on permanent cavity alone, the 5.45x39mm is about as effective as a 9mm FMJ (the 9mm penetration beyond 18-20 inches isn't of use, as it's likely through the body at that point). Of course, the 5.45x39mm has far better range and armor penetration.
If you do think the temporary cavity is important, then the rifle rounds start to have a much greater advantage. Actually simulating or measuring this effect is very problematic, however.
I'm a bit sleep deprived right now, and trying to track down a geometry problem in some image processing code, so I'm going to sign off on this for the time being. Ping me in a couple of days, after I get this release out, and I'll be happy to discuss it a bit more with you, hopefully in a more coherent manner. scot 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand it being the same or inferior if it was being compared to a Desert Eagle .50 pistol,but not a normal 9mm. Dudtz 5/21/06 12:23 PM EST

It has quite weak stopping power, but still more than 9 mm pistol, and is significantly more lethal. To illustrate, in average each tenth 9mm pistol round means a death, while 5.45 injury/death ratio, according to Israel data, is about 3.5. CP/M

This is all ridiculous! All this basis of thought from one man shooting dead pigs, and HAND DRAWING what he "saw". Either he is VERY bias and dishonest or has completely destroyed this experiment. The 5.45 is insanely more powerful than the 9mm and most energy is transferred better, the ripping and tumbling would shred your insides internally, where as the 9mm over penetrates. He most certainly is bias in my opinion, I will NOT discredit 30+ years of world experience and hope somebody actually runs LEGIT testing to stop such banter ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanatronic (talk • contribs) 04:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No picture

[edit]

The picture is gone now.--Ysangkok 18:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

[edit]

I suspect the article was largely written by a 5.56 advocate. It states the 5.45x39 gained a reputation as a "mediocre stopper". This should be properly referenced and/or clearly defined. Since "reputation" is based largely on anecdotal accounts, I submit that it is non-encylopedic information. A cursory web search for this round returns more references to its alleged "poison bullet" performance in Afghanistan than to any accounts of subpar performance, so if anything its reputation seems skewed in the other direction.

If anyone has access to Soviet ballistics data that may prove interesting. They have kept it in front line service for 30+ years for some reason, and I don't think national pride is the only one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.170.119 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Someone please revise this. It's obviously making it's own conclusions out of hearsay. Just to add; the shots in the Fackler study was from 3 metres. Fragmenting bullets are known to only do so at certain velocities, and hence ranges (one thing that everyone agrees upon - but it's atleast for me, not fact yet, haven't seen any tests), the 5.56 for example often said to not do so beyond 150 metres or so. The 5.45 is known to yaw more than the 5.56 at extended ranges and atleast, be less dependant on velocity to do so, hence the 5.45 might actually BE a "good stopper", an equal stopper, or even better stopper, than the 5.56 at ranges where it doesen't fragment. Yawing must, reasonably, be better than overpenetration. This is an relevant angle since 150 metres is a realistic, but long range, shot in modern wars. To add - what's a good "stopper" can hardly be deducted from ballistic tests (hence it has nothing to do with the shooting of pigs in the Fackler study but is only hearsay - and here hearsay contradicts hearsay if you do a google search). What i'm basically saying is that there is more to this than that medical article which is the only basis other than rumours or unconfirmed sources to most what the wikiarticle states. And the unconfirmed facts that I blurt out for the sake of shining light on the complexities of this should no more be in the wikiarticle than what stands now, so dont get me wrong.

The study you ignore is scientific, peer-reviewed, and unrefuted. Please provide your own sources before you tag the article to death. The 5.45 is functionally identical to the 5.56 in modern warfare.--Asams10 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tagged anything. And I dont understand what you respond to seeing the article does not put the 5.45 forward as identical to the 5.56, but just the opposite. Fragmenting good (5.56), yawing bad (5.45), and it being important noting that contrary to some beliefs it was not on par with the 5.56 without cites and said to be an "mediocre stopper" - "However, the rigidity of the 5.45mm bullet prevents fragmentation and gave it a reputation for being a mediocre stopper." Both need citing. I dont see anything about stopping power in the sources. All I see is pigs getting shot showing off wounds post mortem. A study with 500 unique anecdotal accounts from actual incidents in warzones with post autopsys - ok, but this? No. Settling with what we got on an topic that can only be as scientific as an enforced, half side-angle crippled preset can be is.. constructive and honest to the actual purpose? Everything about yawing and how it probably isn't as destructive as the cartridge designers first thought, ok. But it being so important to note the 5.56 superiority without cites, no. 90.230.80.22 13:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fackler's study is not, contrary to the claims of this article, indisputable "proof". His findings and terminal ballistics in general remain heavily debated to this day. Also a problem is that that this article currently seems to be as much about Fackler as about the 5.45x39 cartridge. 71.203.209.0 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources which say otherwise, let's see them. The article currently cites Fackler as a source, not as indisputable proof. Geoff B 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing how many false claims are out about the 5.56 having more stopping power than the 5.45 and being a more efficient killer, almost all based on one man shooting dead pigs. Its amazing how the thousands if not millions of physical reports, autopsy's, and real field examination are overruled by a couple of dead pigs? This experiment is still very debatable and still bring up the neutrality of Fackler himself. To say Fragmenting is good, and saying yawing is bad is fundamentally wrong, the 5.45 tumbles is 2.5in of flesh, and tumbles at extreme rpm through out the body, where as the report says the 5.56's small fragmentation is superior? This article says that it dose not carry enough force to sever and cut through the body tissue and organs in pigs? ABSOLUTELY FALSE, this shows underlying flaw in the experiment or false reporting of facts. Field autopsy and examination have shown the 5.45 can tumble in 2.5 in the human arm and severe the human humorous clean off! We still have living proof and people that can vouch for that! Though not many because this round is so lethal it very rarely has survivors, unless you get hit in a extremity, in which case you might have a CHANCE of survival. The 5.45 is substantially better than the 5.56 and any carbine caliber. It was designed to do so, it was deigned to rip through your flesh, it was designed to be a untraceable bullet wound and it was designed to kill you one way or another,while the 5.56 just punches holes right through its victims with LIMITED damage. Yes the result of the 5.45 could be hyped by Russia propaganda and the same as the 5.56, however the 5.45 was beautifully designed which leads to its huge advantages over any other carbine caliber. Now what about a more accurate and fair article about the "poison bullet" reflecting its true abilities, thats just my $ .02.

size comparison

[edit]

Whats larger, the 5.45x39mm M74 or the 5.56x45mm NATO? 69.76.54.140 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the articles. It's got the dimensions. The Russian round is less powerful.

"The average width of a human torso is 400 mm."

[edit]

With a diameter of 400 mm, the circumference would be pi*400 mm = 1260 mm = 126 cm = *50 INCHES* (even accounting for a serious stomach bulge, that would suggest a waistline of no less than 46). And, yes, the assumption that a 400 mm torso is approximately circular in cross-section is valid, because people of less-than-round builds are unable to achieve a torso width of anywhere near 400 mm. Now, I don't know about the USMC, but the Soviet Army and its successors like the Russian Army are not even allowed to conscript anyone suffering from obesity, much less hire professional soldiers with such parameters. In other words, this seems like utter BS. Aadieu (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the average width of a PIGS TORSO is 400mm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.152.219 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wars" list in the infobox

[edit]

The shown list of wars which the 5.45x39 cardridge has seen is not nearly exhaustive. I don't see the sense in keeping this information. The articles for the 7.62x39 doesn't list wars. The 5.56x45 page cops out and states "Vietnam - present." So I think this is useless text. Does anyone disagree? 97.125.55.30 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hallo, I am from Russia. Bullet velocity is much bigger. In our manuals 1050 m/s is always mentioned. An I think it may be worth mentioning that a plastic bullet is designed for training purposes. This bullet evaporates immediately after leaving the barrel. Lord Mountbatten (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide internet sources (preferably in English) which state differing muzzle velocities and the use of a polymer/plastic bullet in training rounds this information can be added to the article.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Poison Bullet"

[edit]

The round gained a nasty reputation during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The mujahideen nicknamed it the poisoned bullet due to the wounds it could cause compared to it's size. Perhaps this should be put in there somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.143.73 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines section

[edit]

A user recently added a "Large capacity magazine" section about an obscure 100 round magazine used on an experimental light machine gun. However a magazine is a feature of the firearm that uses it, not the cartridge it contains. If there was only one universal magazine designed for the 5.45 cartridge, then it might be relevant to this article; but we do not list every different firearms magazine in the article about the cartridge. It is simply irrelevant in this article. — DanMP5 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced polemic

[edit]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives classified the 7N6 cartridge as "armor piercing handgun ammunition" on 7 April 2014, and, as such, it is illegal to import from Russia to the United States.[1] This decision may have been political rather than legal, because the ban only applies to ammunition manufactured in Russia and the criteria for ban, defined in the 1968 Gun Control Act, were not met. The 68 Gun Control Act contains two construction criteria (either or which would define the ammunition as armor piercing). In addition, there must also be a handgun capable of firing it and legally in the United States. This law has neither criteria nor authorization to ban ammunition based on range testing against actual armor or any other tests other than construction. The 5.45 projectile is not larger than 22 caliber so one of the two construction criteria cannot be considered. The other construction criteria is defined; "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium" . The 7N6 projectile core has a large quantity of lead and an air pocket which can not be interpreted as trace elements. The Fabryka Broni Radom, Model Onyks 89S, 5.45×39mm caliber semi-automatic pistol cited by ATF as being the handgun capable of firing this round, is actually a Carbine with an 8.5 inch barrel, folding shoulder stock and based on the Tantal AK-74 variant. A total of 200 were manufactured at Radom, Poland and never went past prototype. If any were actually imported into the U.S., BATF would be required to categorize them as short barreled rifles (SBR) - not pistols. These carbines would also be taxed as SBRs, the same as silencers and full-automatic weapons.

I've deleted the italicized text because it appears to be making an original argument that isn't found in the sources. If anyone can find a source making this argument then it could probably be rewritten and restored. Rezin (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Test, Examination and Classification of 7N6 5.45x39 Ammunition ATF Special Advisory at www.atf.gov

Why was the section on the "Bulgarian AK-74" reverted?

[edit]

I added a section on an AK-type rifle chambered for 5.45x39mm offered for sale by Centerfire Systems, Inc. of Versailles, Kentucky, USA in their Late Fall 2014 online catalog, page 11 [1].

Thus edit was reverted by another editor, [Francis Flinch]. I did not make that edit gratuitously. It completed the "civil use" section of the article by providing up-to-date information on the availability of semiautomatic firearms in the 5.45x39mm chambering. It was properly sourced using the "Prove It" editor.

Editor Francis Flinch did not cite a reason for reverting my edit. I would like to assume good faith on Francis Flinch's part, but in the absence of any information regarding his reason for reverting my edit, I'm placing my edit content back in the article pending any explanation of the reasons he removed it. loupgarous (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section just points out there have been several non 5.45×39mm AK platform arms developed and some are or have been commercially offered to civilians. You write about a particular 5.45×39mm AK platform rifle made from Bulgarian and US made parts. For years there there have been commercial AK platform offerings around for civilians chambered in 5.45×39mm. Combining parts originating from Eastern Europe and the US is also rather common. Have a look at http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/Rifles/ and this is not the only company that offers Eastern European and US made 5.45×39mm AK platform arms. Companies like Waffen Werks, Krebs Custom, James River Armory, Molot and Kalashnikov Concern are or have been also active in producing (semi-automatic) 5.45×39mm AK platform arms for civilians. If you want to point out that several manufacturers and vendors offer 5.45×39mm AK platform arms to civilian customers that is fine with me. I think the article does not need advertising for these companies by mentioning them. They did not create new arms.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5.45×39mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5.45×39mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 5.45×39mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5.45×39mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 5.45×39mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "Most organs and tissue were too flexible to be severely damaged by the temporary cavity effect caused by yaw and cavitation of a projectile." needs to be more specific and provide a source for its claim

[edit]

This claim is to unspecific and unsourced on top off it, the claim also seem to be referencing an other sentence which i guess is the preceding one, the preceding sentence does provide a citation but while the article talks about the wounding effect on elastic tissues in the comments section the author uses the word "expect" in the context of the discussion and i don't think that provides enough to state the claim as a fact, the article also does not claim anything about flexibility of organs in a human body. BriniestMango (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:5.45×39mm&oldid=1197056512"