BF2S Forums 5.56 v.s. 5.45 Velocity

Lai wrote:

Dang, I thought this thread was dead. Something is wrong with the topic reply notifications I tell you.

Nah, not dead. Just wandered off the path, died, rose again as something completely different.

Rather have a friendly 'gun geek' session here, than wade back into yet another Israel/Palestine thread

Lai wrote:

Having put these quotes one after the other, I think you'll see my point.

The AK is designed from the ground up to be a "reliable peasant conscript weapon", the M16 series was designed for trained professional soldiers.  They were designed to match the armies they're issued to, and they do so brilliantly.  It's part of their inherent design, and can't be completely removed from consideration.

A Marine, or US Army SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) can get an M16 to live up to its maximum potential accuracy.  Their equal Russian counterpart isn't going to be able to make an AK perform similarly.  A comparable Russian marksman will quickly reach the limits of an AK's performance, long before his talents are at their limits.

The M16 has issues left to fix, yes.  It could be more effective with a slightly larger round in the 6.0-6.5mm range.  It could be made cleaner running , as the HK416 does but with too many unnecessary sacrifices in other areas.

The AK, though, isn't going to be made into a substantially more accurate rifle with the addition of better sights.
The fundamental design of the AK platform just isn't adaptable to good inherent accuracy.

To fix those issues, you'd have to change the mechanism, layout, and design to such a radical degree that it'd no longer be recognizable as an AK.
I'd estimate that the absolute best AK evolution could be made into a 400m-500m rifle.

To paraphrase a saying I've heard repeatedly in other circles, "You can't ever miss fast enough to win".

rdx-fx wrote:

The AK is designed from the ground up to be a "reliable peasant conscript weapon", the M16 series was designed for trained professional soldiers.  They were designed to match the armies they're issued to, and they do so brilliantly.  It's part of their inherent design, and can't be completely removed from consideration.

A Marine, or US Army SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) can get an M16 to live up to its maximum potential accuracy.  Their equal Russian counterpart isn't going to be able to make an AK perform similarly.  A comparable Russian marksman will quickly reach the limits of an AK's performance, long before his talents are at their limits.

Maybe that's also part of the reason why the M16 initially failed, the troops they were issued to were conscripts. I suppose a professional soldier would have spotted the maintenance issue himself, despite the low-maintenance advertising. But anyway, yes I do agree with you on this. And the AK's limitations were the reason for the SVD being developped in the first place.

rdx-fx wrote:

The M16 has issues left to fix, yes.  It could be more effective with a slightly larger round in the 6.0-6.5mm range.  It could be made cleaner running , as the HK416 does but with too many unnecessary sacrifices in other areas.

The AK, though, isn't going to be made into a substantially more accurate rifle with the addition of better sights.
The fundamental design of the AK platform just isn't adaptable to good inherent accuracy.

To fix those issues, you'd have to change the mechanism, layout, and design to such a radical degree that it'd no longer be recognizable as an AK.
I'd estimate that the absolute best AK evolution could be made into a 400m-500m rifle.

I think that's about exactly the maximum effective range of a AK-74m.

Regarding the M16, do you think its worth it, fixing the remaining issues? When fixed, what would be the remaining lifespan of the M16? Because that weapon has been in service for over 40 years now, isn't it about time to innovate?

Again returning to the original topic: what do you think of the AEK's counter balanced system and the AN-94's "blowback shifted pulse" design? Surely at least the AN-94 isn't a peasant's weapon, which is also one of the reasons its not widely fielded with the Russian army, even though it has been officially adopted as the new standard issue rifle.

rdx-fx wrote:

I'm actually trying to tread very lightly on #3.  I have my perspectives on their training, methodology, tactics, and performance - but they're very much biased by my backround as a US Army Soldier.  Sticking to objective design criteria each side used for their primary assault rifle platform seems to be the safest course for that.  Comparing US to Russian army.. sausage measuring festival.

Hahaha,.. hmmm,.. well I'm afraid my opinion on that matter would be rather biased too, except I'd go for the chipolatas rather than the merguez.

What fucking remaining issues are you talking about Lai? Have you even fired a M16/AR15 or an AK?

The AK family was conceived in 1947, hence AK-47. The AK-74 was 1974, all it is is a re chambered AKM.

rdx-fx wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

What fucking remaining issues are you talking about Lai? Have you even fired a M16/AR15 or an AK?

The AK family was conceived in 1947, hence AK-47. The AK-74 was 1974, all it is is a re chambered AKM.

I think he's referring to my statement "The M16 has issues left to fix, yes.  It could be more effective with a slightly larger round in the 6.0-6.5mm range.  It could be made cleaner running , as the HK416 does but with too many unnecessary sacrifices in other areas.

Think we've exhausted "M16 vs AK" , and have wandered on to "What would make the perfect infantry rifle" wish-listing.

Personally, I'd rather be wasting time in here instead of any of the other current threads.
This sheepdog is quite tired of trying to explain what a wolf looks like to a bunch of sheep.

I am beginning to think he is just stupid and has played too many video games. The HK416 is fricking awesome, all that would be required was a upper swap out, and if I am not mistaken they have it in 6.8mm. So, that ends all of it!!

thtthht wrote:

Guys I have a quick question-

Does the ak-74m by any chance have accuracy improvements over the previous AKM and AK-74 series?

Not really, same cheap sheet metal stamped parts and basic leaf sights. Only improvement maybe comes from the round.

According to wikki it is. They don't say how much more though.

Last edited by SgtHeihn (2009-02-08 21:11:18)

SgtHeihn wrote:

thtthht wrote:

Guys I have a quick question-

Does the ak-74m by any chance have accuracy improvements over the previous AKM and AK-74 series?

Not really, same cheap sheet metal stamped parts and basic leaf sights. Only improvement maybe comes from the round.

According to wikki it is. They don't say how much more though.

Really?
I knew the sights were crappy, but I thought the m version recieved some overall accuracy improvements...

@Lai.
Russians tend to be EXTREMELY biased about their AK from my experience.

I have shot the AK family of weapon's. Both single shot and full auto. They are shit. The SVD is shit unless you have the special made sniper ammo, then it equals a M16A4 with a RCO(the A4 has a heavy barrel)

Lai wrote:

Yeah, but I figured with the sarge hanging around we would achieve a nice equilibrium.

Both your friendly neighborhood USMC Sgt and Army Sgt have our admitted bias in favor of the M16 over the AK.  Some to do with familiarity, a little to do with NIH (Not Invented Here), and mostly to do with being professional soldiers with the time and training necessary to learn the M16.
If we have on our 'rose colored glasses', our Russian counterpart is going to be wearing horse blinders...

The HK416 is pretty cool, for close range (1m-250m) and full-auto mag dumps.  Beyond that, the whole point of the gas-piston system makes the M16 move in the direction of an AK in general terms.  Less sensitive to fouling from number of rounds expended, less heating from automatic fire - but in exchange, the offset piston system hurts the accuracy of the system beyond 300m.  The compromise is especially noticeable at 500m-600m.

HK416 (or any of the more reasonably priced piston conversion kits available) is best suited to an upgrade for a door-kicker CQB M4.

The SVD was arguably the first true DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle), but it has been surpassed by the feature-set of the standard issue M16a4;  Heavy match barrel, precision rifling, free-floating barrel, better stainless steels & the ability to make barrels from same, more solidly attached & repeatable scope base (M1913 rails vs. screwy SVD monkey-mount into stamped steel). 
SVD only has one thing over the M16a4 - kinetic energy leaving the muzzle.  This isn't a negligible point, to be sure.

At a friendly target range, I'll take my M16a2-based DMR/SAMR-like setup against anyone's SVD, at any distance they care to shoot.  Hell, I'll even make it fair by using my iron sights versus their optics.  In a combat situation, however, I wouldn't be as keen to trade shots with an SVD though.  In a combat scenario, with a hostile SVD pointed in my general direction - I'm calling in Artillery on his head, if at all possible.  Never fight fair & balanced - always go for overmatch.


Another key point worth remembering about the Russian arms market;  Russian equipment comes in Russian Grade and Export Market Grade.  Very rarely does any of the truly adequate gear get out of Russia.  Saddam's tanks during Desert Storm - Export Grade T55, T72.. sans the Russian fire-control and addon equipment.  One major exception to this was Fallujah, where many cases of Russian Match/Sniper SVD ammo were found, by many US/allied units.

I op for the 6.8mm over the 5.56 rounds.
Barrett, Armalite, & Stag Arms have AR-15 rifles that shoot 6.8 mm rounds. The Barrett M468 (military)/ Rec7 (civilian) rifle is bad-ass.
I wouldn't mind buying it but it comes with a hefty price tag.

5.56 vs 6.8

Last edited by loubot (2009-03-25 11:12:57)

loubot wrote:

5.56 vs 6.8

Well an issue I don't agree with very well with that video is the targets they use. Bassically it's a steel plate on a swing leaned toward you. The lower you shoot the harder it will be to knock it down. If you shoot high you might be able to drop it, but not at the center mass like he was with the 5.56mm.  The 7.62 is very powerful but if he shot the bottom aswell he wouldn't have even twitched the target.

amirite? imrite

Between the 6.5x39mm Grendel and the 6.8x43 SPC, I'm favoring the 6.5x39mm

• 6.5x39 Grendel, based on the exceptionally accurate 6mm PPC, (Which was based on the not-so-accurate 7.62x39 Russian...).
• Smaller flash hole = more consistent ignition characteristics = more consistent velocity = tighter long range groups, more repeatable
• proper power-volume:powder-column-length ratio = more consistent burn characteristics, as above
• proper neck-length:caliber-diameter ratio, = consistent neck tension on bullet, neck holds bullet from the rear, bullet not intruding on the powder space
• proper powder volume for the caliber of bullet = flexibility in powder choices & bullet weights
• Lapua is making brass for the 6.5, not the 6.8
• 6.5 uses the small rifle primer, 6.8 uses the large rifle primer.  For the powder volume, the small rifle primer is probably more consistent.

For the not so esoteric reasons in favor of the 6.5x39 Grendel over the 6.8x43 SPC;

6.8 is a larger diameter but the case design is so long, that the heaviest round it can really be used with in an AR platform is a 115gr.
Using a bullet longer than a 115gr Sierra OTM MatchKing, and the neck of the case would be grabbing the ogive (curvy front part) of the bullet.
6.5, however, has a shorter case length allowing for a longer bullet to be safely used.  Up to a 147gr round.
To put it another way, the 6.8 design uses up so much space for the powder that there really isn't enough space left for the bullet.


6.5, with a longer heavier round, a smaller frontal diameter = less energy lost to drag at any range. 

Common loading for the ;
6.8 is 115gr Sierra bullet, launched at 2625 fps, with 1760 ft lbs of energy
6.5 is 123gr Sierra bullet, launched at 2650 fps, with 1917 ft lbs of energy.
6.5 wins on velocity, energy, and downrange retained energy.

6.5 Grendel .com
Shows some charts comparing the 6.5x39 Grendel, 7.62x51 NATO, 5.56x45 NATO, and 7.62x39 Russian.
The charts show the 6.5 'winning' in trajectory, wind drift, velocity, and retained energy across the board.
(though they did stack the deck by using the 147gr .308 round, rather than the 168gr or 175gr match .308 rounds...)

Wiki 6.5 Grendel
Wiki 6.8 SPC
FAQ at 65grendel.com

If you want match-grade ammo for the 6.5x39, buy Lapua brass.
If you just want cheap plinker ammo for your 6.5x39, use surplus 7.62x39 Russian brass for your reloading.
6.5 does either high-end, or low-end.  6.8 just does mid-grade.

Personally, I'm looking at giving a 6.5x39 AR-15 upper a try.   
123-144gr Sierra MatchKings, CCI BR-4 Primers, Lapua brass, and as-yet-undetermied powder.
The 6mm PPC pedigree was a large selling point. Most winning benchrest round in history?  yeah.. good line to follow.
The wind drift characteristics were another selling point.

Edit:  really good source for info on the 6.5 Grendel at 6mmbr.com 6.5 Grendel page

Now, if I could just figure out how to reliably stuff the 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser into an AR-15 lower... THAT would be a nice combination.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-03-25 22:35:55)