Comparison of NATO 5.56mm and Russian 5.45mm Bullet Performance

When discussing the differences between the NATO 5.56mm round and the Russian 5.45mm round, one cannot separate these considerations from broader economic and strategic factors. The Russian 5.45mm round is a fascinating example of how a nation prioritizes cost-effectiveness over quality in some military products. This article delves into the practical implications of these different rounds, focusing on their ballistic performance and wound ballistics.

Overview of the Rounds

Both the NATO 5.56mm and Russian 5.45mm rounds are chambered in their respective official and widely used cartridges. However, their performance and cost-effectiveness are quite different. The 5.45 Russian round, while adequate for modern battlefield conditions, is significantly cheaper to manufacture in mass quantities compared to the US-made 5.56 NATO round.

Manufacturing and Cost Considerations

While the 5.45mm round may not match the 5.56mm in quality, its primary advantage lies in its cost-effectiveness. Russia’s large land area (6.6 million square miles) and relatively smaller population (about 144 million) mean that they have to produce significant quantities to maintain their military arsenal. The 5.45mm round allows Russia to produce large quantities at a lower cost. This is particularly important for a nation with a smaller economy, such as Russia, which has an economy only one-sixth the size of the US economy. In this context, the 5.45mm round can be seen as a showcase of Russia's ability to produce large quantities of equipment at lower cost.

Wounding and Ballistic Performance

The most significant difference between the NATO 5.56mm and Russian 5.45mm rounds lies in their wounding effectiveness. The 5.56mm round is designed to fragment upon impact, while the 5.45mm round typically does not fragment but tends to tumble as it passes through the target.

Fragmentation and Wounding

When the 5.56mm round hits a target at sufficient velocity, it fractures into smaller pieces that create multiple wound tracks and weaken the surrounding tissue. This process, while lessening penetration, creates a larger temporary wound cavity that can tear the flesh apart significantly. This results in a wound track that is generally of medium depth and considerable width.

In contrast, the Russian 5.45mm round does not fragment. It tumbles end-over-end as it passes through the target. Due to this tumbling, the temporary wound cavity is increased, but the overall damage is less severe. The bullet tends to retain more of its energy, allowing it to penetrate further and sometimes exit the body. While the damage is not as extensive, the penetration is enhanced, making it more likely to wound the target effectively.

Terminal Performance at Low Velocities

At lower velocities, both rounds behave differently. A 5.56mm round at low velocities will typically yaw rather than fragment, much like a 5.45mm round. For a visual representation, consider the 5.56 M995 tungsten-cored AP round, which does not fragment due to its design. The threshold at which the 5.56mm round ceases to fragment varies depending on the specific projectile design. For example, the M855 round has a high velocity threshold of about 2700 fps, while the 77 gr SMK bullet has a lower threshold of about 2200 fps.

In civilian ammunition markets, you can find other bullet designs that perform even better. The 77 gr TMK projectile, the successor of the SMK, retains its ability to fragment at velocities as low as 1750 fps. It also expands in addition to fragmenting, enhancing its overall performance.

Energetics of the Rounds

The muzzle energy of the 5.56mm NATO round is typically around 1200 to 1300 ft-lbs, compared to about 1000 ft-lbs for the 5.45mm round. This higher muzzle energy can translate to a bit more damage even if the 5.56mm round does not fragment. However, at realistic combat ranges, this difference is minimized, and the two rounds perform similarly.

Conclusion

While both the NATO 5.56mm and Russian 5.45mm rounds serve their purposes effectively, the choice between them often comes down to budget and manufacturing capabilities. The 5.45mm round is cheaper to produce in large quantities, making it a practical choice for nations with lower economic outputs, like Russia. Meanwhile, the 5.56mm round, while more expensive, offers superior terminal ballistics in terms of fragmentation, which can significantly enhance its effectiveness in urban and other combat environments. Both rounds have their strengths and weaknesses, and which one is better depends on the specific circumstances and requirements of the mission.