5.56 Vs 5.45 Vs 7.62

[Matt_243]

G'Day there all,

I've been reading with great interest all the forums regarding Jessica Lynch, the M16 and the 5.56 rounds.

Now I beleive that the Ruskie AK74 was chambered in 5.45mm some time ago. Has anyone got any feedback on how they are coping with this change, and are they experience the same problems with the lack of knock down power?

Just some experiences that some Aussie Diggers experienced in East Timor, they found that the 5.56 coming out of our F88's wasn't knocking down the Militia in a hurry. Kinda sucks ass when you manage to shoot someone intent on shooting you, and he gets away with it! :evil:

Look forward to hearing from everyone.

[Mikey]

Matt_243:  You're right about the 5.56, it is not the best of choices for an effective battle round.  My understanding of the Russian 5.45x39 is that it is a much more effective round in that the bullet weight is heavier, in the 60+ grain range and its construction, fmj with an internal hollow nose point, adds to the effectiveness.

The 7.62 x39 AK47 round is my choice over the 5.56x45.  The 7.62x51 nato round is better yet but needs a better battle rifle that is handier for the troops to use.  

Something like the 6.8mm they are talking about, or the 260 Remington (also a 6.5 mm) might be just the ticket.  

However, if someone designs a 6.5x45mm round, which might be a shortened 260 Remington, you could replace the uppers of the M16s and continue to use the same platform.  I agree with the opinion on what those Diggers experienced and would opt for a heavier round.  Just my 2 cents worth though.  Mikey.

[S.S.]

there is already a 6X45 (223 necked up) that would be a pretty effective
combat round. I have seen Ruger mini-14's chambered for it
and all it required was re-Barrelling. Nothing else was changed.
I assume that changing an M-16 would be no more difficult.