Ammo calibres for Russian Army rifles

Hard to say... many people look at the 14.5mm and 12.7mm and think they are almost the same, but the 14.5mm is twice as powerful as the 12.7mm and could better be considered to be a 20mm cannon with high muzzle velocity for good penetration but reduced shell capacity of HE rounds.

In many ways the 23 x 115mm round would be an interesting replacement as it has good shell capacity for powerful HE rounds, but a APFSDS round would also be rather interesting too.

We will likely get a better idea when the new families of vehicles are revealed... the small APC turret revealed so far seem to have Kord turrets rather than the 14.5mm guns normally fitted on BTRs, but then the IFV turret we have seen so far has Kornet missiles and 30mm cannons... I personally expect the 57mm high velocity gun to be fitted on the IFV and SPAAG, so will the old fit outs of 100mm and 30mm guns be replaced with 57mm guns... is the 30mm gun going to go completely or will it replace the 14.5mm gun on APC like vehicles... there is that light 30mm gun armed turret on 4x4s like the tigr... which suggests the HMG with be becoming more rare.

In terms of man portable weapons the Kord is lighter and easier to drag around the battlefield than the KPV...

GarryB wrote:Hard to say... many people look at the 14.5mm and 12.7mm and think they are almost the same, but the 14.5mm is twice as powerful as the 12.7mm and could better be considered to be a 20mm cannon with high muzzle velocity for good penetration but reduced shell capacity of HE rounds.

In many ways the 23 x 115mm round would be an interesting replacement as it has good shell capacity for powerful HE rounds, but a APFSDS round would also be rather interesting too.

We will likely get a better idea when the new families of vehicles are revealed... the small APC turret revealed so far seem to have Kord turrets rather than the 14.5mm guns normally fitted on BTRs, but then the IFV turret we have seen so far has Kornet missiles and 30mm cannons... I personally expect the 57mm high velocity gun to be fitted on the IFV and SPAAG, so will the old fit outs of 100mm and 30mm guns be replaced with 57mm guns... is the 30mm gun going to go completely or will it replace the 14.5mm gun on APC like vehicles... there is that light 30mm gun armed turret on 4x4s like the tigr... which suggests the HMG with be becoming more rare.

In terms of man portable weapons the Kord is lighter and easier to drag around the battlefield than the KPV...

Yes I agree with the 57mm statement. It's just that I hadn't heard anything about 14.5 future
I think 30mm will be kept due to current pantsir fixed wing aircraft are still not 30mm proof. I know 14.5 has its uses but it's future we will wait a see. Has any btr-80 or bmp-3 been armed with 57mm yet?

We have seen BMP-3 with a 57mm gun turret, but I think the definitive system will be a fully unmanned turret that can be used on all the new vehicle families like Typhoon, Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata.

It might even be useful on small patrol boats and river boats and be mounted on trains.

As I have mentioned I have seen a small turret with Kord mounted on it, which makes me think that perhaps the 14.5mm round might be eliminated from the armed forces logistics train... but as I mentioned it is a useful round in terms of penetration.

Having said that the 23x115mm round used in the chin turret of the latest model Hind would be an interesting replacement for the 14.5 x 114mm round.... very similar size in terms of round and case, but huge potential with APFSDS rounds with very high muzzle velocity matched with a HE round with a heavy payload for its calibre.

20 years ago I would have said no chance because a belt of ammo using APFSDS rounds and HE Frag rounds would have totally different trajectories so the flat shooting APFSDS rounds would print on target and the heavy slow HE shells would hit the ground well short of the target.

Today however with a dual feed mechanism and software based aim point in EO optics means a burst of APFSDS rounds followed by a burst of HE rounds could be very accurate.

There is actually a modification of the KPV HMG called the KPB in 23 x 115mm calibre that would be ideal... simple light and cheap.

Alternatively the twin barrel cannon offers very high rate of fire burst fire which would also be very useful.

Such a calibre would offer good Armour penetration with good HE performance... an APFSDS round offering better AP performance to the 14.5mm and the HE round with much larger HE capacity than the 14.5mm.

Of course they could just move to 40mm and 57mm grenade launchers...

Hi GarryB,

The muzzle velocity of 23x115 mm HE rounds is ~700 m/s so the muzzle velocity of its APFSDS (if be developed) supposes to be maximum at 800 m/s that is still very low kinetic to penetrate anything.

The muzzle velocity of 125mm HE FRAG shells is 850m/s, while APFSDS rounds in the same calibre are over 1,700m/s...

The whole point of APFSDS rounds is that the volume of the shell case is no longer filled with large low density HE material of a heavy projectile weight that takes up most of the shell case.... a much smaller and lighter high velocity projectile leaves much more space for more propellent which means much lighter projectile and much more propellant in the same case so much much higher velocity. And much better armour penetration.

The obvious problem of course is the totally different trajectory of a heavy HE shell moving at 715m/s from a GSh-23L twin barrel 23mm cannon, and a high velocity lighter projectile travelling much much faster from the same barrel.

The main limitation of such rounds is the calibre as that limits the weight and velocity of the round so in theory the 23 x 115mm round should have better performance than the 14.5 x 114mm round because the larger calibre should allow a bigger propellant charge to be used with a heavier projectile leading to much better performance on target.

GarryB wrote:The muzzle velocity of 125mm HE FRAG shells is 850m/s, while APFSDS rounds in the same calibre are over 1,700m/s...

The whole point of APFSDS rounds is that the volume of the shell case is no longer filled with large low density HE material of a heavy projectile weight that takes up most of the shell case.... a much smaller and lighter high velocity projectile leaves much more space for more propellent which means much lighter projectile and much more propellant  in the same case so much much higher velocity. And much better armour penetration.

Sofar, the 23x115mm and 23x152mm are using the same HEI and API projectile so suppose they can use the same APDS and FAPDS projectile too.

In the case of 23x152mm rounds for Zu-23-2 and Zsu-23-4, the muzzle velocity of APDS and FAPDS rounds is ~1,100 m/s vs 970 m/s of HEI and API. There for I don't think there are much diffrences between 2 kinds of rounds (APDS/FAPDS and HEI/API) in the case of 23x115mm rounds.

The steel penetration of 23x115mm API and HEI rounds is 10 mm armour plate, placed at 200m from the muzzle, at 60° towards the firing line (data from Arsernal - Bulgaria). While the other souce from Russia said that the penetration in normal steel of 23x115 rounds was 15mm from the distance of 800m.

Sofar, the 23x115mm and 23x152mm are using the same HEI and API projectile so suppose they can use the same APDS and FAPDS projectile too.

The whole point of the 23x115mm round is rate of fire and hit probability and its primary target was light evading aerial targets where armour penetration was simply not an issue.

Greatly reduced muzzle velocity requirements led to the much smaller compact propellant case, so that the effectiveness of the round comes from the weight of the HE shell and the number of rounds impacting the target area at once.

The 14.5mm round should be able to double the penetration of the 50 cal SLAP rounds simply because it has twice as much muzzle energy... a 23 x 115mm shell should be able to match that being of similar form if totally different original purpose.

A proper APFSDS round should improve penetration even further and eliminate deflection of shot issues too.

In the case of 23x152mm rounds for Zu-23-2 and Zsu-23-4, the muzzle velocity of APDS and FAPDS rounds is ~1,100 m/s vs 970 m/s of HEI and API. There for I don't think there are much diffrences between 2 kinds of rounds (APDS/FAPDS and HEI/API) in the case of 23x115mm rounds.

The ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2 have simple optical aiming systems that don't allow for firing different round types in one belt.

This means the HEI and API rounds had to have a similar trajectory or fired completely separately otherwise one type of round would hit the target and the other higher velocity rounds would miss completely.

These rounds are designed for use against aircraft so there was never any need for very high armour penetration.... all they needed to penetrate was the odd A-10 and AH-64 Apache helicopters... within their 2-2.5km effective range.

The 23 x 115mm does not have to do much better.... it is not replacing the 30 x 165mm rounds.

All we are talking about is using it to replace the older 14.5mm rounds and in that department even without any changes the 23 x 115mm round is already superior in its HE projectile... an APFSDS round with better penetration than the 14.5mm is all that is needed.

The steel penetration of 23x115mm API and HEI rounds is 10 mm armour plate, placed at 200m from the muzzle, at 60° towards the firing line (data from Arsernal - Bulgaria). While the other souce from Russia said that the penetration in normal steel of 23x115 rounds was 15mm from the distance of 800m.

Which for an anti aircraft round is perfectly adequate... BTW penetration would be for the API and not the HEI rounds...

Can someone explain to me what advantage will a 7.62x39 will provide over 7.62x51 NATO round.

I ask this because India is in the final process of buying AK-103 about 6.5 lakh and will be made in India that a huge number. ( https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180917-the-search-for-an-assault-rifle-1334289-2018-09-07 )

SOme stastics posted by posted in Indian thread stated 7.62x39 does not provide any major advantage over 5.56x45 round and most certainly the 7.62x51 would be much better than 7.62x39 round

Link to discussion https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4016&start=4080#p2292522



Thank You

Austin wrote:Can someone explain to me what advantage will a 7.62x39 will provide over 7.62x51 NATO round.

I ask this because India is in the final process of buying AK-103 about 6.5 lakh and will be made in India that a huge number. ( https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180917-the-search-for-an-assault-rifle-1334289-2018-09-07 )

SOme stastics posted by posted in Indian thread stated 7.62x39 does not provide any major advantage over 5.56x45 round  and most certainly the 7.62x51 would be much better than 7.62x39 round  

Link to discussion https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4016&start=4080#p2292522



Thank You

The 7,62x39 is absolutely not comparable with the 7,62x51.
This last is a full power round, its russian counterpart being the 7,62x54R instead.
They are rounds optimized for MG and marksman rifles, not for an assault rifle.
There was however a trend of trying to use it also for individual weapons but it work well only in the hand of selected individuals not for the standard soldier.
Russia uses the 5,45x39 round as a standard caliber but probably India, having 7,62x39mm weapons inits own arsenal has preferred to keep it insead of introducing a completely new caliber.

Thanks for the reply marcellego

It seems between NATO 5.56 vs 7.62×39 – Cartridge Comparison there is not much difference or gain to opt for 7.62x39

https://www.swggun.org/5-56-vs-7-62/

The real question is what are you going to be using the round for.

Is it going to be an assault rifle cartridge, or is it going to be a machine gun round.

For an assault rifle most of the time you will be shooting at targets at 200m or less... perhaps very occasionally firing at 300m but never much more than this.

In such a scenario a 7.62x51mm round is long and has twice the powder charge of a 7.62x39mm round, yet is no more or less lethal against a target within 300m.

In effect both will make a 7.62mm hole in the target and exit.

The main difference is that if you want to use the rifle at close quarters in full auto a lot of your rounds will go near the target with the 7.62x39mm round, while most of the 7.62x51mm rounds will go skywards.

Opinions differ regarding small arms ammo... some people like smaller faster rounds like the 5.56mm NATO and 5.45mm Russian, but if you look at the evolution of small calibre projectiles... the 5.56mm started off as a 55 grain bullet and then became a 62 and then a 65 grain bullet, and the 5.45mm round got heavier too, while the 7.62x39mm started as a 122 grain bullet and seems to currently be a 154 grain bullet that is popular.

And it is not just rifle bullets... 9mm vs 45 cal, is an argument in itself...

In urban combat the Indian Army seems to prefer the heavier 7.62x39mm bullet, whereas in open terrain the lighter higher velocity 5.56mm (or 5.45mm) would probably be preferred... though ironically in open terrain a heavier 7.62 x 51mm would be better in open terrain, but even a sniper rifle with the average soldier and ammo would not hit much beyond about 600m reliably.

The 7.62x39mm round is considered a short range round because as the projectile slows down its trajectory really curves down.

I have had a lot of arguments with American kids about the AK and how useless the 7.62x39mm calibre weapon is.

I have one and can tell you it is fine.

It has a battle setting of 300m and if you zero it at that range and use the battle setting in combat against people you never really have to shift your aim.

With the iron sights set at 300m with a point of aim at the centre chest of the target means that the height of the trajectory of the bullet means at no range from 0 to 300m does the height of the round exceed the distance from the centre of chest and top of the skull of a human.

That means if to target is 10m away your bullet might hit a little above his centre chest... at 50m it might hit him in the throat, and at 150m it might hit him between his eyes... at 250m it might hit him 15cm above the centre chest and at 300m it will hit him in the centre chest point of aim. At 400m it might hit him in the gut or groin.

So if an enemy soldier appears you aim at the centre of his chest and fire... if he is 400m away he will be tiny and bloody hard to see and you probably wont hit him anyway with iron sights, but you don't need to waste time working out range or anything unless you do have time and rather than shift your rear iron sight you can aim slightly high or low.

When you are deer shooting in the mountains you have plenty of time to use a rangefinder and dial up the range and take careful aim. Shooting in the bush and you pretty much set the rifle to 50m and point and shoot... aim a little high or low to compensate if it is closer or further away than where you zeroed the rifle, but no time to click the telescopic sight to range...

BTW perhaps that recently revealed 7.62x51mm AK-103 variant is for the Indian market... in practical terms it would be a sort of replacement for the SLR as a DMR.

A mix of those and 7.62x39mm rifles would provide a unit with short and medium range fire power, with the squad MG providing long range and suppression fire power.

Russian Army may give up 5.45mm rounds for Kalashnikov assault rifles

The Russian Army’s existing small arms system is based on the 5.45mm and 7.62mm calibers

MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. The Russian Army may give up using 5.45mm rounds used in Kalashnikov AK-74, AK-12 assault rifles and other small arms, according to an article published in the thematic bulletin, "2018 Missile and Artillery Technical Provision for Russia’s Armed Forces."

The article was written by a group of authors from the Defense Ministry’s 3rd Central Research Institute.

"In a perspective, the Army may give up using 5.45mm rounds due to the bullets’ insufficient effect to pierce the manpower’s individual protective gear at medium and increased fire ranges," the article says.

The Russian Army’s existing small arms system is based on the 5.45mm and 7.62mm calibers. The article suggests focusing "on modernizing the performance characteristics of 7.62mm cartridges and weapons."

The 5.45m cartridge was developed in the late 1960s. The bullet’s initial velocity equaled 900 m/s and the round’s weight was 10.2 grams or 6 grams less than for the 7.62mm round used in the AKM assault rifle. As its advantages, the new cartridge demonstrated less recoil, the higher accuracy of fire and the bullet’s flatter trajectory, which increased the range of direct fire.

The AK-74 assault rifle was developed for the new cartridge and accepted for service. The Russian Army currently buys new AK-12 assault rifles, which are also chambered for the 5.45mm cartridge.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1043299

The 5.45mm round has always been intended for short range use... less than 200m is normal... with most targets being shot at at less than 100m normally.

The 7.62x39mm does not have a greater effective range so worrying about penetration at medium to long range is a little pointless.

It is like worrying that a TOW missile might not penetrate as much armour against targets at more than 5km range... you are not likely to hit a target with a TOW missile at more than 4km anyway...

Modernising the 7.62mm weapons is an interesting comment because one of the 7.62mm calibres is two centuries old... the 7.62x54mm round entered Russian service in 1891 and is one of the few items of military equipment/weapons in Russian service that is still Russian.

Replacing that would make sense... some sort of 6mm calibre round that retains energy better over greater ranges like the 6x49mm round they developed to replace it... but such a round would not be ideal to replace the 5.45x39mm calibre as it is heavier, with greater recoil, but also capable of effective use well beyond the practical shooting skills of the average soldier, so its extra range performance is redundant.

Of course there was mention of new exotic propellants increasing muzzle velocities to enormous speeds, so the pattern of initially very light projectiles gradually changing to longer heavier projectiles with use might result in starting with existing rounds like the 122 grain 7.62x39mm projectile being slightly lightened to say 100 grain, but fired at much higher velocities like 1,200m/s instead of 700m/s, to increase its effective range and armour penetration performance...

I always laugh when I see comparisons for assault rifles etc information on penetration etc it's all irrelevant. The tests are all done in non battlefield conditions normally the rifle clamped to a fixed structure etc. 

At the end of the day a rifles accuracy it's dependent on the user's skill and under battlefield conditions this can be greatly reduced in comparison to range firing. As for penetration well as long as the round can penetrate a human body it's enough. and occasionally a truck or 4x4 although main objective is to kill humans. As for armour , body protection etc. A helmet is designed against shrapnel and debris not bullets and yes there has been cases it's saved people from.bullets however that person is still injured to the point they need medical help. A British soldier was hit in the helmet and survive but suffered fractured neck he was in no shape to continue to fight. I see tests against armour plate nobody walks around with armour plate on. The body armour I used wasn't actually armour it didn't stop rounds all it did was reduce exit wound size and keep your body together it was made from a thick flexible plastic. on operations you could insert a small kevlar plate that covered the heart and partially the lungs that's it. It could stop 7.62 but not from a general purpose machine or svd and even if you got hit the chances are you would still break a bone. but not all rounds fired at you will hit that small plate face arms legs stomach etc was unprotected a hit in any of them are going to render you useless and need medical help. 

Most engagements happen under 300m anyway so distance isn't that relevant. anything beyond that is what marksmen rifles and sniper rifles as well as LMG MMG/GPMG  HMG are for. The Russians/soviets have always had a marksmen rifle in their units while the west was pretty slow on its uptake and in the British army it wasn't in til afghan and Iraq they saw it's potential. The SLR when coming out of service some tabled the notion of using it as a marksman rifle but it failed. The SAS continued to use it as it suited them well and better than the sa-80 man servicemen complained about the sa-80. 

The Soviets used the SVT-40 with a scope as well as the mosin sniper after ww2 in the role and it's likely that the sks with a scope was also used before 1963 introduction of the svd which was specifically designed for the role. The former three rifles were still likely used in the role way beyond 1963 as svd was being rolled out and in some countries you will likely find it still is and no reason why it shouldn't be used. 

The uk wasted money on having to design a new rifle as it had sold all its SLR to various african and Caribbean countries and the delay in having to design a new rifle meant troops went years without a much needed rifle in this field for afghan and Iraq when they could have easily used the SLR with a new scope to fulfil the role. but like everything in the west older stuff isn't new and sexy and bringing expensive contracts to arms companies or allow politicians backhanders. The Russians are still using improved versions of the svd. I wont go into the whole thing of a rifle is a rifle and it does exactly that reliability and cost it the main things needed rant. As I am sure you all know it.

I totally agree... I often read about people talking about rifle shots at 500m or more... my eyesight is not great but I would never shoot at anything at 500m that is just silly... you need a laser range finder, a good zeroed rifle with a good scope, with good ammo, and you need to know your ammo well... and even then if you are in the mountains a side wind can easily end up with a miss.

From a soldiers point of view if you are looking for potential targets to shoot out beyond 500m the volume of space you will need to search is enormous... and even if you spot someone at 500m can you really identify them as enemy or friendly?

I always laugh when I see comparisons for assault rifles etc information on penetration etc it's all irrelevant. The tests are all done in non battlefield conditions normally the rifle clamped to a fixed structure etc.

It was worse before there was real combat to be sure. I remember in the late 1980s there was talk about the SA80 and the M16 being the best rifles in the world and able to kill out to 800m.

Well possibly without wind and in ideal conditions with a nice clear target that is not moving you might hit the target but the 5.56mm likely would not be that effective at that range even with a hit.

Thing is that the enemy isn't stupid and especially in Afghanistan they realised that a 5.56mm round is a short ranged round so they started using kalashnikovs from 800m or more so they could fire, but there was little return fire.

That would not work against the Soviets because the Soviets in the 1980s had SVD and PKM in every unit, but when a US unit has M4 carbines and FN Minimi LMGs then there is not a lot they can do to you at 800+ metres range...

At the end of the day a rifles accuracy it's dependent on the user's skill and under battlefield conditions this can be greatly reduced in comparison to range firing.

The demands in the west for rifles seems to match the demands for sniper rifles, despite the fact that it is totally unrealistic.

It could stop 7.62 but not from a general purpose machine or svd and even if you got hit the chances are you would still break a bone. but not all rounds fired at you will hit that small plate face arms legs stomach etc was unprotected a hit in any of them are going to render you useless and need medical help.

Indeed... even the heaviest body armour is based on plates that are usually shaped to cover your vital organs in your chest cavity... the rest of the armour is soft armour and can usually be penetrated with standard rifle ammo.

Sadly video games and TV and movies give people the wrong impression about body armour.

Most engagements happen under 300m anyway so distance isn't that relevant. anything beyond that is what marksmen rifles and sniper rifles as well as LMG MMG/GPMG HMG are for. The Russians/soviets have always had a marksmen rifle in their units while the west was pretty slow on its uptake and in the British army it wasn't in til afghan and Iraq they saw it's potential. The SLR when coming out of service some tabled the notion of using it as a marksman rifle but it failed. The SAS continued to use it as it suited them well and better than the sa-80 man servicemen complained about the sa-80.

The British and the American armies pride themselves on the accuracy of their riflemen, and the claims about the accuracy of their rifles probably suggested to their higher ups that they didn't need SVD type rifles... they could hit human sized targets on the range at 800m afterall... but the terminal effect of the bullet was not tested and not considered.

The Russians are still using improved versions of the svd.

Some of the new models look rather nice and include a heavier barrel and a shift in the iron sights and new rails and bipods etc.

The local gunshop got a few rifles in and I had a play, but it seemed shorter and smaller than I had expected. Of course I am quite big, and it always appeared rather long and awkward in the photos... I didn't have as long to play with it as I would have liked either...

Came across this video the other day which I thought was interesting for those who claim the 7.62x39mm calibre AK is inaccurate:



Lots of good points about getting and maintaining a decent zero and even when zeroed... what ammo are you using... and wind and sight settings etc etc.

Riflemen exist mostly to pin the enemy down in one place so that tanks and artillery can finish him off. Its seldom possible to do more than just fire in general direction of the enemy.

Artillery and Machineguns tend to get the most kills statistically, and it is not the bullet with your name on it that you have to worry about, as it is often rounds fired to whom it may concern or fragments from mines or explosive weapons that do a lot of the damage...

With this US shift to new rifles to replace the M16 with a small rifle and an attached 20mm and then 25mm grenade launcher there was a fear that in the future the average soldier will not bother with rifle ammo and will just lob grenades at every target... just to be sure.

If there is a group of insurgents it obviously makes sense to land an exploding round in the middle of them injuring or killing them all to some degree rather than firing bursts of small arms rounds.

HE rounds are bulky however so you can't carry many...

They went the other way of course and looked at very high velocity very small rounds... Flechette rounds are just nail shaped rounds with fins at the rear for stabilisation... bullet weight is 10-15 grain so the recoil is almost zero and the muzzle velocity is very high... 1.2-1.4km/s which means out to 800m range you don't need to worry about bullet drop or wind deflection.

The two primary problems was that they weren't precisely accurate... you could not aim for the heart and hit them in the heart or within a few cms of it even at 100m, but you should hit him somewhere in the chest out to 400m with a burst of 2-4 rounds... recoil as I said was almost nonexistent... but the second problem was lack of lethality... a round would punch straight through a human... even if it hit your heart your heart might continue to beat and you continue to function... if it punched through your lungs you would get a sucking chest wound, but hits in most places cause trivial seeming wounds... like an all the way through injection...

It did penetrate almost all types of body armour rather easily though.

Personally I think with all their testing of hypersonic objects and projectiles a new long efficient shape could be developed that destabilised and tumbled on impact could be developed... but precise accuracy would remain an issue... with I would guess multiround burst fire being the primary solution... but then if adopted in the west I am sure they could still manage to make it really expensive...

The British army sa-80 could hit targets at 500-600m but most hits weren't very accurate on the target and this was range firing the lsw out to 800m but even then it was still hard to hit target. 

@GarryB I think civilian versions of svd could be smaller I am sure I posted a pic on the forum of me holding a svd in Ukraine just before I fired it it was military spec and I remember the kick on was big. everyone I spoke to who has fired it said the same. I think it was under the my pics section or crimea trip/donetsk trip I was there when war started just masked separatists on the street in charge lol

I remember in the late 1980s before they had taken it to Desert Storm, they thought it was wonderful... the addition of an optical sight would make shooting much easier especially at medium range targets... the military magazines of the time like Soldier of fortune and Combat and Survival thought the SA80 was the new way of rifles... particularly the latter being a British magazine.

The fundamental problem is that light bullets are not effective on heavier animals... any experienced hunter will tell you that the light very high velocity rounds have a fearsome effect on small game, but it is cruel and just bad manners to use them on heavier animals where their performance is much less impressive.

Such light high velocity rounds are often called varmint ammo and are used on small game like rabbits or possums, where their effect can be spectacular... though they do ruin the meat...

Against larger animals the light fast bullets tend to leave nasty wounds but don't penetrate heavy flesh deep enough to create lethal wounds so the animal dies slow.

The myth that the new rounds are supposed to wound instead of kill is BS... military ammo is intended to be used against dangerous game... ie armed humans... you don't want to wound, you want to kill to eliminate a threat to your life.

At just over 4kgs the SVD is actually lighter than an FN FAL and the 7.62x54mm round has always been a bit of the thumper... the Mosin carbines are known for their bright orange muzzle flash... about the size of a 2ltr drink bottle... great fun...

I got an old worn out 1944 carbine I was going to use for parts but after I cleaned up the dirt and rust is was actually in a shooting condition except for the wooden stock. So I got a gunsmith in NZ to put a suppressor on it... even with a full sized 308 specific suppressor there is still a little muzzle flash, but you can fire it without hearing protection... which is what I wanted... it also reduces the kick too. And the ammo is cheap enough...

The Mosin rifles have a sharp kick though it is less of a problem with the full length rifles... the SLR (FN FAL) in comparison has a nice smooth push when fired... I could shoot that thing all day... just arrange for some one else to carry it for me...

GarryB wrote:I remember in the late 1980s before they had taken it to Desert Storm, they thought it was wonderful... the addition of an optical sight would make shooting much easier especially at medium range targets... the military magazines of the time like Soldier of fortune and Combat and Survival thought the SA80 was the new way of rifles... particularly the latter being a British magazine.

The fundamental problem is that light bullets are not effective on heavier animals... any experienced hunter will tell you that the light very high velocity rounds have a fearsome effect on small game, but it is cruel and just bad manners to use them on heavier animals where their performance is much less impressive.

Such light high velocity rounds are often called varmint ammo and are used on small game like rabbits or possums, where their effect can be spectacular... though they do ruin the meat...

Against larger animals the light fast bullets tend to leave nasty wounds but don't penetrate heavy flesh deep enough to create lethal wounds so the animal dies slow.

The myth that the new rounds are supposed to wound instead of kill is BS... military ammo is intended to be used against dangerous game... ie armed humans... you don't want to wound, you want to kill to eliminate a threat to your life.

At just over 4kgs the SVD is actually lighter than an FN FAL and the 7.62x54mm round has always been a bit of the thumper... the Mosin carbines are known for their bright orange muzzle flash... about the size of a 2ltr drink bottle... great fun...

I got an old worn out 1944 carbine I was going to use for parts but after I cleaned up the dirt and rust is was actually in a shooting condition except for the wooden stock. So I got a gunsmith in NZ to put a suppressor on it... even with a full sized 308 specific suppressor there is still a little muzzle flash, but you can fire it without hearing protection... which is what I wanted... it also reduces the kick too. And the ammo is cheap enough...

The Mosin rifles have a sharp kick though it is less of a problem with the full length rifles... the SLR (FN FAL) in comparison has a nice smooth push when fired... I could shoot that thing all day... just arrange for some one else to carry it for me...

we were always told it was better maim than kill as the enemy would then have to look after the injured further reducing enemy manpower on the battlefield but I always use to think it was BS because if a friendly soldier is wounded first of all you need to be in a position where you can help him and if your pinned down you can't also and I know it sounds harsh but numberone priority is to take out the enemy first then help the wounded a dead soldier can't help the wounded and the wounded then becomes easy prey to the enemy if all others are dead. Most guys will be all be to administer first aid to themselves depending on the injury we were always trained to do so and every soldier carried first field dressingsand small first aid kit. Our army ID card could be used for sucking chest wounds lol. 

on the same day I fired the svd I also fired a Mosin carbine quite nice although they should have given the bolt a light oil it was very dry and really stiff the Ukrainians didn't look after it at all. had at bit of a kick. I'd expect the SLR to be smoother considering the almost a century gap in design dates lol.

I was referring to the recoil of the SLR in comparison to the SVD as both are full calibre 308 calibre semi auto weapons... the thing is that the SLR recoil spring is huge and occupies the shoulder stock, while the recoil spring on the SVD is only in the rear receiver... both pretty much use a short recoil method... though the SLR pretty much looks like a direct copy of an SKS in terms of mechanism... or am I not allowed to say that?

I personally think the SLR has rather more potential than the M16... everyone keeps talking about the M16s modular design where you can fit different uppers to the existing lower and change calibres... but the M16 design is fundamentally flawed in that the magazine well is included in the lower so what ever calibre you change it to it still has to fit in the space of a 5.56mm magazine.

That 300 blackout calibre and of course the grendel have their shapes artificially restricted so that their magazines will fit in a standard M16 5.56mm magazine well.

In comparison the SLR also has an upper and a lower, but the magazine is part of the upper... so you don't need separate lowers for larger rounds (ie longer than the 5.56 x 45mm NATO round)

The recoil spring is in the lower but you could even have a 12 gauge barrel and under barrel magazine with a pump action that attaches to an SLR lower that contains the pistol grip, the rear stock and a recoil spring that could be used to assist the action, and the trigger mechanism...

Soviet 6x49mm round reborn? or more 6,5 / 6,8 /7mm?

In Russia, they can increase the main caliber of army machine guns

President of "Kalashnikov" Lushnikov: Russia will increase the main caliber of army machine guns

MOSCOW, November 4 - RIA Novosti. Russian gunsmiths are considering the possibility of increasing the main caliber of army machine guns from 5.45 millimeters, Alan Lushnikov, president of the Kalashnikov concern, told RIA Novosti.

"The whole world is working on new ballistic solutions. As you know, the United States has already signed a contract for the supply of a new small arms complex (weapons plus ammunition), and there is already a bullet caliber not 5.56 mm, but 6.8 mm. We, of course, also We are looking in this direction. It is impossible to exclude an increase in the caliber from 5.45 mm to a larger one, because today there are completely different solutions for personal protection, different technologies. We will definitely work in this direction," he said.

According to Lushnikov, a rifle complex with a new caliber can be included in the new equipment of the Legionnaire serviceman.
"As part of this work, we just have to answer this question," the head of the group of companies emphasized.

https://ria.ru/20221104/kalashnikov-1829156249.html