[ghost_raven]

oejeffrey- from what I know, you're more or less right. The M-16 had to fight its way through a lot of politics before it saw the battlefield... and many were trying to make sure it failed.

Among other things, a lot of changes were made to it that it was never meant for.

[jmp8927]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ferroflame

...The 5.56mm is an underpowered round, I'm sorry to say. Not that I'd ever want to be shot with one. It just doesn't get the job done. If you only wound an enemy soldier, and it takes 2 others to carry him back, that means 3 of their men may leave that battle, but they'll come back to others later on. If you kill one, then none of them get to leave, which leaves those to also be shot. I'd much rather have an AK-47 or a Steyr AUG at my side than an AR-15. I dunno. That's my take on it.

I'm guessing you know next to nothing about the Steyr AUG as well. It shoots 5.56x45mm just the same as an AR-15/M-16. Not trying to be mean or anything, but you should really do your research before posting something as a definite.

[Ferroflame]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jmp8927

I'm guessing you know next to nothing about the Steyr AUG as well. It shoots 5.56x45mm just the same as an AR-15/M-16. Not trying to be mean or anything, but you should really do your research before posting something as a definite.

Actually, I did research it. And I did notice that it fired the same round. When I said that I'd rather have it, my reason was it didn't have such a bad reputation.

Wikipedia is your friend. =]

[jmp8927]

lol wiki is nice. I also would rather have the AUG, but that's mainly because its in bullpup configuration and uses a gas piston rather than the direct gas system the M16 uses.

[ghost_raven]

Again, the 5.56mm is not underpowered. Its problem is simply size and weight, as shown in the earlier cartridge comparison picture I posted. "Power" when speaking of bullets tends to be a deceptive term. Of course, one of the original questions I posted that got this debate going was whether it made up for its small size and weight by tumbling when it hits the target, as many claim it does.

[Ferroflame]

YouTube - AK 47 vs M16

YouTube - AK 47 vs M16

Need I say more? >_>

[jmp8927]

I don't really like that video. They seem to be biased towards the M16.

[squirrelblaster]

ive seen that chubby guy a lot in these type videos he realy does know what hes talking abut, ive seen him on the history , descovery and military channel, hes a gun video tramp.

[Ferroflame]

I've seem him around too...

[ghost_raven]

Good video. I'd like to do a 6.8mm or a 6.5 Grendel, but the bullets are too expensive/hard to come by. I'll be happy with a 5.56mm as my main, and I can always get another upper half later... hopefully.

[squirrelblaster]

id like to see a test agenst the 5.56 vs the 5.45 and see how much diffrence there is. cant be much..... can it?

[jmp8927]

The 5.56 is more powerful. Standard 5.56x45 is a 62 grain bullet while the 5.45x39 is 50 grain. The 5.56 velocity is 3,100fps as opposed to 3,000 from the 5.45. However, for whatever reason the 5.45 is calculated as having 7 more ft-lbf than the 5.56. Perhaps because it tumbles? I don't know. I would rather have the 5.56mm.

[Ferroflame]

I'm pretty sure that the AK-47 fires a 7.62x39? You're thinking of the AK-74. A common mistake, I'm sure. =]

[squirrelblaster]

thanks for the comparison jmp8927! good info!
yup ferro ak74 fire the 5.45 but was just talking about the 2 rounds in general, not inrefrence to any guns in perticular.
ak47=7.62x39, lot diffrent that the 5.45

[jmp8927]

No we're completely aware that the AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm rd. We're just going off subject and wondering about the 5.45x39 as opposed to the 5.56x45mm. And on that subject, my above post isn't completely accurate(regarding 5.45x39 bullet weight). I was going according to wikipedia in looking at bullet weight, but I just looked elsewhere and everything I've seen is 59grain or more. Largest I've seen so far being a 70 grain. That being said, I'd still rather have the 5.56x45mm for most occasions. Close quarters I might prefer the 5.45 just because it tumbles and makes a larger hole.

[squirrelblaster]

yeah i just pulled out a box of golden tiger 5.45 after reading your post and it says 59 grain.... well im guessing here but id think that with tumbling it would not have the very good penetration power, buy that i mean if it hit a cinderblock or somthing like that it would have more trouble punching a hole in it. thats just the way i thnk it would be...any thoughts?

[jmp8927]

With the less amount of powder behind it, I think you're right. It has less penetrating power when it comes to walls and such. However, against a person, it will tumble and tear up more than a 5.56mm would. Against body armor the 5.56 does better, I imagine.

[squirrelblaster]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jmp8927

With the less amount of powder behind it, I think you're right. It has less penetrating power when it comes to walls and such. However, against a person, it will tumble and tear up more than a 5.56mm would. Against body armor the 5.56 does better, I imagine.

yup thats what i was thnkin too.

[YugoM59/66]

all in all i'd rather keep my M4 for a battle scenario. Even when the AK round went through the wood did you see it spin off course? I would imagine that might sting a little bit but i dont think thats gonna even puncture. That's just my opinion though, i have no proof to back me up. i realize that the AK is more lethal than the AR at close range but he hit the target once from 200 yards. Thats just ridiculous.

[3HOW12-11ACR]

Ok fore all that think the 5.56 is not a good combat rifle there are over 2,000,000 VC and NVA that prove you wrong.

As fore the performance of the AK47 why did the Soviet Union go to the AK74 a 4.54 round?

And fore the best gun the one that has no problems http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b9c_1201440552