StG44 vs AK-47

[Soren]

Parsifal,

The problem with the 5.56 NATO is not that it lacks stopping power, far from it infact as it's one of the most devastating rounds in use when it comes to the effect it has upon entering a human body. It litterally explodes inside you.

No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power. Even a thin tree will provide effective cover against it, whilst rounds such as the 7.62x39mm 7.92x33mm Kurz both will go straight through with plenty of lethal energy to spare. This was an issue in Vietnam, but could be lived with because its great wounding effect when a hit was scored. However today where most soldiers wear body armour the 5.56 NATO has reached the end of its usefullness. It wont go through much in the form of cover, and when it does it is often without much energy to spare and in pieces. Against armoured opponents that doesn't work at all, esp. not if your opponent is punching rounds straight through to you with ease.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Parsifal,

The problem with the 5.56 NATO is not that it lacks stopping power, far from it infact as it's one of the most devastating rounds in use when it comes to the effect it has upon entering a human body. It litterally explodes inside you.

No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power. Even a thin tree will provide effective cover against it, whilst rounds such as the 7.62x39mm 7.92x33mm Kurz both will go straight through with plenty of lethal energy to spare. This was an issue in Vietnam, but could be lived with because its great wounding effect when a hit was scored. However today where most soldiers wear body armour the 5.56 NATO has reached the end of its usefullness. It wont go through much in the form of cover, and when it does it is often without much energy to spare and in pieces. Against armoured opponents that doesn't work at all, esp. not if your opponent is punching rounds straight through to you with ease.

Only at 2400 fps at wound entry. Below that threshold it lacks the energy to destabilize and fragment. That limits the M16-A2 to +/- 250 meters of high stopping power and the M4 to less than 100M. Beyond those critical ranges, it punches .22 inch holes and beyond that does no damage. That is one of the main reasons we've been seeing our troops carrying scoped M14s for stopping power on long shots. I've heard reports of soldiers using captured Dragunov sniper rifles for the same purpose.

 

[Soren]

Ballistically it's not as good as the 7.62x51. It fires a bullet with fairly low Cb at medium velocity. The 7.62x51 fires a bullet with higher Cb at higher velocity. The 5.56x45 has a lower Cb bullet, but much higher velocity, which corresponds to greater accuracy (except at 500m+) than the 7.62x51. There are plenty of intermediate cartridges which have bullets with high Cb and high velocity which have better ballistics and stopping power. One of those is the 7x43 British, firing a 9g round at 770m/s. The problem is getting a high power round to be controllable in automatic fire. The 7x43 British manages this

red admiral, it doesn't seem like you know much in this area. The 7.62x51 NATO is a full powered rifle round, no'one ever compared the 7.92x33 Kurz to that round. The 7.92x33 Kurz, 7.62x39 M43 5.56x45 NATO are all intermidiate rifle rounds meant to be fired by assault rifles with an effective range of about 400m, they were never meant to be as powerful as a full powered rifle round as such round are uncontrollable in full automatic fire.

So I will repeat, the 5.56 NATO is no more accurate than either the German 7.92x33 Kurz or the Russian 7.62x39. You claim otherwise but have nothing to base it on at all.

For long range work all nations during WW2 had their own std. round:

Germany: 7.92x57mm IS firing a 198 gr sS FMJ-BT with a BC of .584 at 760 m/s (V1000 = Mach 1.07)
USA: 7.62x63mm M1 firing a 150 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .415 at 853 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.94)
USSR: 7.62x54mm R firing a 148 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .410 at 860 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.94)
Britain: 7.7x56mm R firing a 174 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .458 at 744 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.91)

 

[red admiral]

red admiral, it doesn't seem like you know much in this area etc...

You obviously didn't read what I wrote given that I made exactly the same point. The issue is that there are intermediate rounds which offer high power, long range accuracy and controllability in automatic fire. e.g. 7x43, 6.5x39, 6.8x43

So I will repeat, the 5.56 NATO is no more accurate than either the German 7.92x33 Kurz or the Russian 7.62x39. You claim otherwise but have nothing to base it on at all.

How about basing it on a cursory look at ballistics? The bullet is going to be displaced in two axes from the aim point. Vertically because of the bullet falling under gravity and horizontally due mostly to wind. The much higher velocity of the 5.56mm gives a flatter trajectory resulting in less bullet drop (about half the 7.92x33 at 200m). Horizontally the heavier 7.92 projectile works to minimise wind drift yet the 5.56 projectile has a much smaller side area giving less area for the wind to act over, again resulting in less displacement from the target. There's a couple of free ballistics programs for small arms on the net which can use to calculate your own results.

 

[Amsel]

No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power.

One of the main issues with the 5.56 is the inability to engage soft skinned vehicles. The 5.56 cannot consistantly penetrate a car door and neutralize the occupants. Even the windshield shots are deflected much more. There have been numerous complaints about the mujahadeen in Iraq being able to absorb several rounds of 5.56 and still being a threat. After being tested extensively in combat for 40 years it has proved to be unreliable.

In my opinion one of the main factors in the adoption of the 5.56 has been debunked. The ability to carry enough ammo to 'pray and spray'. The military still holds personal marksmanship as a core skill.

I still see a need for the 5.56 but mostly for the SAW role. The M249 is a flipping chainsaw and the small round enables the squad gunner to carry more ammo.

 

[parsifal]

whay wouldnt the ability to carry more ammo be useful for everyone???

The question like all military hardware questions is whether the tradeoffs of the small calibre round are offset by the additional ammunition and magazine capacities of the 5.56 ammunition.

I really dont know....all I know is that bigger bullets mean less carried, and less in the magazine

 

[Soren]

You obviously didn't read what I wrote given that I made exactly the same point. The issue is that there are intermediate rounds which offer high power, long range accuracy and controllability in automatic fire. e.g. 7x43, 6.5x39, 6.8x43

How about basing it on a cursory look at ballistics? The bullet is going to be displaced in two axes from the aim point. Vertically because of the bullet falling under gravity and horizontally due mostly to wind. The much higher velocity of the 5.56mm gives a flatter trajectory resulting in less bullet drop (about half the 7.92x33 at 200m). Horizontally the heavier 7.92 projectile works to minimise wind drift yet the 5.56 projectile has a much smaller side area giving less area for the wind to act over, again resulting in less displacement from the target. There's a couple of free ballistics programs for small arms on the net which can use to calculate your own results.

It's called sectional density (SD) red admiral, and the higher it is the less wind affects the bullet and the better it penetrates a solid medium, and the 7.92mm projectile is less affected by wind than the 5.56mm projectile. The 5.56mm only has a flatter trajectory, that's it.

5.56mm NATO:
55 grain FMJ-BT, 915 m/s, BC .267, winddrift at 1000m = 20 MOA
7.92x33mm Kurz
125 grain FMJ-BT, 685 m/s, BC .370, winddrift at 1000m = 17 MOA

JBM - Calculations - Trajectory

 

[red admiral]

The 5.56mm only has a flatter trajectory, that's it.

You can't simply discard that fact and only compare ballistic coefficients.

 

[Clay_Allison]

One of the main issues with the 5.56 is the inability to engage soft skinned vehicles. The 5.56 cannot consistantly penetrate a car door and neutralize the occupants. Even the windshield shots are deflected much more. There have been numerous complaints about the mujahadeen in Iraq being able to absorb several rounds of 5.56 and still being a threat. After being tested extensively in combat for 40 years it has proved to be unreliable.

In my opinion one of the main factors in the adoption of the 5.56 has been debunked. The ability to carry enough ammo to 'pray and spray'. The military still holds personal marksmanship as a core skill.

I still see a need for the 5.56 but mostly for the SAW role. The M249 is a flipping chainsaw and the small round enables the squad gunner to carry more ammo.

You say that but all of my buddies that have gone into the army complain that they work out plenty but aren't allowed enough (or in some cases any) target practice. Some pencil pushing accountant always decides to eliminate having expensive ammo "wasted" on practice when they start budgeting.

 

[Soren]

You can't simply discard that fact and only compare ballistic coefficients.

What fact red admiral? So far you haven't posted any.

And I'm not just comparing ballistic coefficients, I plugged in caliber, weight, BC, drag function, pressure, MV etc etc. And there you have the wind drift of both bullets, one is 17 minute of angle at 1000m the other is 20 minute of angle.

 

[lesofprimus]

Quite a difference actually Soren....

 

[Soren]

Yeah, over long range the heavier 7.92mm bullet holds its' path better than the much lighter 5.56mm bullet. This is assuming a 10 mph side wind.

 

[davebender]

The question like all military hardware questions is whether the tradeoffs of the small calibre round are offset by the additional ammunition and magazine capacities of the 5.56 ammunition.

This is an argument for the 1960s and later.

During 1945 the StG45 chambered for 7.92mm kurz was the best infantry rifle in the world. It was far superior to what the American and British armies were using during the late 1940s. On top of performance advantages it was also much less expensive then the competition.

 

[red admiral]

And I'm not just comparing ballistic coefficients, I plugged in caliber, weight, BC, drag function, pressure, MV etc etc. And there you have the wind drift of both bullets, one is 17 minute of angle at 1000m the other is 20 minute of angle.

Well it doesn't help that you've used the wrong loading for 5.56mm Nato or made the comparison at the least favourable point.The 5.56mm isn't particularly good at long range, but very good over normal battle ranges.

62gr SS109 at 3100fps with ballistic coeffient of 0.304

At 1000m 15 MOA from the windage and -43 MOA in the vertical

For the 7.92x33 at 1000m

16 MOA from windage and -69 MOA in the vertical

For the more reasonable range of 300m
3.0 / -3.7 for the 5.56x45
3.9 / -7.7 for the 7.92x33

For another intermediate cartridge, the 6.5mm Grendel the following values can be found;
2.1 / -4.7 at 300m
9.2 / -37 at 1000m

Hence you've got an intermediate round that is controllable in automatic fire and accurate at long range.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

During 1945 the StG45 chambered for 7.92mm kurz was the best infantry rifle in the world. It was far superior to what the American and British armies were using during the late 1940s. On top of performance advantages it was also much less expensive then the competition.

Agree.

Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their rifle divisions iin WW2. The 7,92 x 33, with triple the muzzle energy, despite much more powerful cartridge, allowed for a controllable automatic fire. And the production experience with MP-40 was simply put to a good use for StG-44 production.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Agree.

Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their rifle divisions iin WW2. The 7,92 x 33, with triple the muzzle energy, despite much more powerful cartridge, allowed for a controllable automatic fire. And the production experience with MP-40 was simply put to a good use for StG-44 production.

why are you comparing the submachine gun to the assault rifle? The Russian RIFLE cartridge was a 7.62x54R, ballistically equivalent to the postwar 7.62x51 (7.62 NATO), more than twice the energy of the 7.62x33.

 

[tomo pauk]

7,62 x 54R was a full-power cart ridge, and 7,62 x 25 was SMG cartridge. German 7,92 Kurz was intermediate type, so the comparison with SMG cartridge is as valid as the comparison with full-power one.

Since the Germans managed to create the weapon that was much more powerful then PPSh-41, yet with same weight and with controlable automatic fire, I'd say they made a damn good job. Whatever we call the cartridge.

 

[Clay_Allison]

7,62 x 54R was a full-power cart ridge, and 7,62 x 25 was SMG cartridge. German 7,92 Kurz was intermediate type, so the comparison with SMG cartridge is as valid as the comparison with full-power one.

Since the Germans managed to create the weapon that was much more powerful then PPSh-41, yet with same weight and with controlable automatic fire, I'd say they made a damn good job. Whatever we call the cartridge.

Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their rifle divisions iin WW2.

When you said this it sounded like you were claiming they put a pistol cartridge in the Mosin Nagant 91/30

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the 'rifle divisions' is just a name for usual (Russian in this case) infantry divisions.

 

[Clay_Allison]

While it wasn't in the same echelon as the Stg44, it is interesting to note that the M1 Carbine was halfway to the assault rifle concept. If the US had made a bigger M1 carbine chambered in .30 Remington (slightly more powerful than the 7.62x39) then they'd have had an assault rifle 20 years before the M-16.