About the 5.8mm bullet

[petty officer1]

In the late 1980s Chinese designers developed a 5.8 x 42 cartridge, apparently designated DBP87, which is claimed to be superior to both the 5.56 mm NATO and the 5.54 mm Soviet. This cartridge develops a muzzle velocity of 930 metres per second from a standard barrel, with a bullet weighing 4.26 gram.
Modern Firearms

Could you guys feed some more info on this cartridge? and Why is it claimed to be "superior" to NATO and Soviet?:confused: Back then in WWII, cartridge are made alot bigger for mainly for size impact (that is why M1 is so strong), today cartridges are alot smaller. where this new cartridge stand?

[Red Guard]

are you asking why the calibre is getting smaller and smaller?? well.. you see in physics.................................
chinese believe 5.8 is better than the others from the testing datas we got on the field. this kind of test with steel plates, that test with kevlar helmet and this and that, so they say ja, i think 5.8 is better than the others, so.....they use it.....

[Red not Dead]

are you asking why the calibre is getting smaller and smaller?? well.. you see in physics.................................
chinese believe 5.8 is better than the others from the testing datas we got on the field. this kind of test with steel plates, that test with kevlar helmet and this and that, so they say ja, i think 5.8 is better than the others, so.....they use it.....


In fact the Chinese round wasn't at all te best it was merely the best compromise.

While it inflicted less damage on internals cavities and organs it conserved a better trajectory (flatter, less bullet drop) and stopping power than the Soviet 7n6 while it was still under the m855 in terms of accuracy, range and energy conservation.

The round was labelled a intermediate range small round...you could shoot it up to 500+m (with opticals) with good hitting probability and very little disspersion. But it was still way behind the 650 m you can reach with the m16+m855 combination (although that range needs a heavier accurized barrel).

The soviet round although the most damaging couldn't be effetively aimed (with opticals) beyond 450m.


But the test was biaised since the soviets are using the 7n10 round wich can reach somewhere near 500m with opticals.

[MadMax]

the 5.8 mm is easier to design a gun to use because the tappered shell casing is easier to extract from the chamber but this is a double edge sword becaus tappered cases are less acurate then a straight case like the 5.56 mm NATO round

[sumdud]

The soviet round although the most damaging couldn't be effetively aimed (with opticals) beyond 450m.Which Soviet round? The 5.45, or the 7.62 intermediate?

[Red not Dead]

Which Soviet round? The 5.45, or the 7.62 intermediate?


the 7n6 5.45x39mm

[Kampfwagen]

I personaly think Chinese reports are seriously B-Sing when it comes to the power of the 5.8MM bullet. It is likely superior in firepower when it comes to the 5.56 NATO and the 5.45 Soviet/Russian, but to say it outdoes both NATO AND Soviet 7.62MM in the power department?

I call shenanigans.

Besides, not to offend China in any way, but I wont beleve a word of what is said about anything new from China untill someone else feild tests it. All world governments, not just Chinese or 'Red' countries (although I realize China isint technicaly Communist any more.) but America as well as many others, especialy from a country as famous for it's secrecy as China tend to put in little white lies about what they make. By no means a bad thing; it scares the other guys. So...I dont really think we can count for sure anything the Chinese say except that it is AT LEAST slightly superior to the 5.56MM round, which as one author put it eloquently "A Varmint Hunting Calliber in Military Clothing."

[Red not Dead]

I personaly think Chinese reports are seriously B-Sing when it comes to the power of the 5.8MM bullet. It is likely superior in firepower when it comes to the 5.56 NATO and the 5.45 Soviet/Russian, but to say it outdoes both NATO AND Soviet 7.62MM in the power department?

I call shenanigans.

Besides, not to offend China in any way, but I wont beleve a word of what is said about anything new from China untill someone else feild tests it. All world governments, not just Chinese or 'Red' countries (although I realize China isint technicaly Communist any more.) but America as well as many others, especialy from a country as famous for it's secrecy as China tend to put in little white lies about what they make. By no means a bad thing; it scares the other guys. So...I dont really think we can count for sure anything the Chinese say except that it is AT LEAST slightly superior to the 5.56MM round, which as one author put it eloquently "A Varmint Hunting Calliber in Military Clothing."

Actually they've never stated that. And the tests have been conducted by a canadian sniper magazine not the chinese. The mood actually in Chung Kuo is to small rounds. And I never proclaimed the round to be even better to the Us m855. It's a better round for frontline engagment but never the less it has flaws when compared to what exists. It is a sort of compromise between the two small round logics NATO and Soviet.

Actually most people that have used small rounds (soviet and US) feel the soviet is a better wounder overall but lacks range (due also and mainly to the weapon used to fire them). While the US system gives you surgical precision and a better finished weapon better suited to long ranges (not to mention ergonomics and the numerous instruments that can be incorporated-sights, bipods, scopes) the russian stands higher on reliability, simplicity and staopping and wounding power.

[sumdud]

Simplicity? I don't think it is represented in this round.
It should be easier to mold full bullets and fit on a copper top than making a hollow in it.

[Kampfwagen]

And I never proclaimed the round to be even better to the Us m855. It's a better round for frontline engagment but never the less it has flaws when compared to what exists. It is a sort of compromise between the two small round logics NATO and Soviet.


I seem to remember a statement like that...Oh well, you would certantly know more about this than I would. And I myself never really intended to accuse you of anything, so sorry if I made it sound that way. :)

But I understand that much about this being the middle ground, which is a good thing.

[dannytoro]

........Actually the .223 Remington (5.45 x 45) is a tapered case:

http://www.again.net/~steve/jpg/cd223remington.jpg

..It's also not very effective much beyond 400 meters, where it's energy rapidly falls off . I'd like to see more on the 5.8 Chinese round. I would not think it would be much better then 5.56. Personally I concur with the british study which found bullets near 7mm to be the ideal trade off. In particular, 6.5mm bullets of 120 grains weight offer low recoil, high velocity,high ballistic co-effecient,ideal sectional density for good penetration and normally very good accuracy. As an added bonus, snipers can move up to the excellent long range qualities of low drag 140 grain bullets.........

[UCSDAE]

if i m not mistaken, China is the only one with the 5.8mm right now. in another word, shall other factions(like terrorist org.) get their hands on it, they can't use their own ammo clips on it. (remeber the sino-vietnamese war and the AKs?)

[Red not Dead]

if i m not mistaken, China is the only one with the 5.8mm right now. in another word, shall other factions(like terrorist org.) get their hands on it, they can't use their own ammo clips on it. (remeber the sino-vietnamese war and the AKs?)


China can't affort such a spreading. Pollitically. Since they're the only to use the round the finger would be pointed towards them pretty quickly. Guess the m43 has still some bright days to come.

[soaringsoul]

Oh no, how could chinese spread their weapons to terrorists? The terrorists trying to make several chinese province independent...

[Red not Dead]

Oh no, how could chinese spread their weapons to terrorists? The terrorists trying to make several chinese province independent...

Yeah but they could help other terrorists like the Iraqi resistance groups or the south Asian cells.

[SAWGunner89]

[QUOTE=dannytoro]........Actually the .223 Remington (5.45 x 45) is a tapered case:

..It's also not very effective much beyond 400 meters, where it's energy rapidly falls off . QUOTE]

Do you mean the lethality of the cartridge or the actual accuracy of the cartridge. If you mean the accuracy, then I am afraid that you are wrong. I participate in long-range high-powered rifle meets, and have used the 5.56x45mm NATO round out to 600 yards with much accuracy. There is no doubting that it is not lethal even at close range. Reports of the failing lethality of the SS109 round having been coming back to the US since 1993, when during the US intervention in Somalia. Troops were having to shoot people multiple times before they would even go down, if they did at all. The SS-109 rounds have a tendancy to continue through the target before destabilising enough to cause any damage. Unless it hits a major organ or the spine, the victim of the wound would not go down.

Also, the NATO round was never really lethal. The new Mk.262 77-grain round is the closest it has ever gotten to being as lethal as many other weapons (i.e. AK-47, AK-74, QBZ-95).

However, the 5.56x45mm was at one time just as lethal as the other contendors, specifically during the Vietnam Conflict era. US weapons were then chambered for the 5.56x45mm M193, a more ballistically unstable round that often resulted in gapping wounds in the target. The change was made to the NATO round in the early 1980's to make the 5.56 round more accurate in artic conditions. I bet the US Military Acquisition board regrets making the change now, after reports of the terrible lethality of the round were started anew during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and now in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[RedMercury]

I personaly think Chinese reports are seriously B-Sing when it comes to the power of the 5.8MM bullet. It is likely superior in firepower when it comes to the 5.56 NATO and the 5.45 Soviet/Russian, but to say it outdoes both NATO AND Soviet 7.62MM in the power department?


I haven't read claims that it outdoes (let's be specific here, in terms of accuracy at range and penetration at range) the NATO 7.62mm. I have heard claims that the heavy version (sniper/gpmg/saw) of the 5.8mm, not the regular version, is as good as the soviet 7.62 full rifle round (which version? dunno. I suspect the latest and greatest soviet 7.62 are still better).

[monitor]

if the target(S) is more than 400 metres away from you just pass it on to the sniper or artilleryman.

[MrClean]

Man, a bullet is a bullet. When you get up into the .30 calibers when you hit what you are shooting at you are going to blow the crap out of it. I know, from personal experience that a .30-06, which happens to be VERY ballistically similar to the 7.62x51 NATO, can punch through damn near a third of an inch of solid steel plate at 300+ yards with EASE. And I was using 150 grain remington boat-tail rounds, which is the standard.

I am not so sure about the performance specifications of the 7.62x54 Russian round, but you could probably say with confidence that it and the two rounds I mentioned above would all have VERY similar performance. Especially in penetration of steel and wood etc, but when it comes to accuracy I happen to know that the 7.62x51 NATO is very accurate out to 450+ yards, and depending on who you ask is a 'little bit' more accurate than the .30-06 7.62x63. We are talking inches out to about 600 yards, and then these bullets begin to drop ALOT, and unless you are a super trained sniper with an Uber sniper rifle, scope, spotting scope etc, you are not going to be able to hit anything delibrately. I am sure that this is true when it comes to the Russian round aswell, but I really wouldn't expect it to be any better than the 762x51 NATO. Because from what I have heard, the Ruskies haven't always been known for their quality of ammunition, 7.62x39 casings are made of tin to reduce cost, but I don't know if it is the same case with all Russian ammunition.

As for the 5.8x42 Chinese versus the 5.56x45 NATO versus the 5.45x39 Russian, it is probably the same case of similarity. Because what the manufacturers of all of these bullets were trying to achieve was basically the same thing; smaller, lighter rounds makes it easier to carry and cheaper to mass produce, but still kill people. If you ask me these smaller rounds are inferior, and that is the same opinion of some of the SF guys that are in country right now. That is why they are considering replacing the 5.56x45NATO here in the U.S. If it is replaced, it will probably be replaced with something similar to the 6.8x43 remington, which has the accuracy of the lighter rounds out to 500 yrds, but the knockdown power of the heavier rounds, which is exactly what the SF guys are looking for. I think that it would be a better combat round than the smaller rounds, coming from someone who has never been in combat before. But I have shot plenty of pretty much all of the rounds mentioned above except 5.8mm Chinese, 5.45x39 USSR, 7.62X51 NATO, and 7.62x54 USSR.

Well, theres my 2 cents:D

[Gollevainen]

Nice post there Mr Clean...


if the target(S) is more than 400 metres away from you just pass it on to the sniper or artilleryman.


well we artillery arent going to be shooting anything under horizon...maybe mortarfire, but not artillery

[sumdud]

Anyone know how many types of 5.8mm bullets there are.
I know there is your usual lead core bullets, but as I was reading the article on the type 88 sniper rifle, and it was mentioned that it uses primarily a steel core bullet, but could also fire the standard, meaning that both bullets are of the same sizes. And then the type 88 MG is also mentioned.

So, does anyone have an article or comment on the 5.8?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

It should be easier to mold full bullets and fit on a copper top than making a hollow in it.

Hollowed bullets are illegal for use in war. However, they are used by most modern police forces around the world, due to the fact that they tend to not richochet and hurt bystanders. Interestingly, a single hollow bullet is/was used in China for executions by firing squad.

[The_Zergling]

Hollowed bullets are illegal for use in war. However, they are used by most modern police forces around the world, due to the fact that they tend to not richochet and hurt bystanders. Interestingly, a single hollow bullet is/was used in China for executions by firing squad.

Hmm. Color me uninformed, but could you explain exactly why hollowed bullets are illegal for use in war? I mean, any bullet's role is to kill by punching a nasty hole in the unfortunate target.

Also, could someone explain what exactly are full-metal jackets, lead points, hollow points, soft points(?) and why there are these distinctions, and what the effect is?

[darth sidious]

Hmm. Color me uninformed, but could you explain exactly why hollowed bullets are illegal for use in war? I mean, any bullet's role is to kill by punching a nasty hole in the unfortunate target.

Also, could someone explain what exactly are full-metal jackets, lead points, hollow points, soft points(?) and why there are these distinctions, and what the effect is?

they cause terrible damage to the target so if the person surives they will be changed forever the taliban called them posion bullet

[Kampfwagen]

Actualy, I if I remember correctly Sidious, the Afghan Muhadjeen said that about the Soviet 5.45MM bullets in the AK-74's, because of the fact that the bullets had an increased tumble-rate.

Hollowpoints arent exactly all that efective ether, as most Hollow-Point bullets can not penetrate body-armor all too well, as they smash flat when they hit the armor. As we know, most world armies use Body Armor and most of the insurgents and terrorists, or those you can lump into that category, can get body armor easily.

[darth sidious]

Actualy, I if I remember correctly Sidious, the Afghan Muhadjeen said that about the Soviet 5.45MM bullets in the AK-74's, because of the fact that the bullets had an increased tumble-rate.

Hollowpoints arent exactly all that efective ether, as most Hollow-Point bullets can not penetrate body-armor all too well, as they smash flat when they hit the armor. As we know, most world armies use Body Armor and most of the insurgents and terrorists, or those you can lump into that category, can get body armor easily.

the red cross tried to ban the soviet 5.45mm round/AK-74 they say its hallowpoint

this claim is questionable offcourse but that gives you an idea

[MrClean]

Anyway......

I have already stated my opinion on the 5.8mm and similar rounds a few posts up.

But does anyone have any really reliable sources of info when it comes to the performance of the 5.8mm? There must be statistics from a field test or something somewhere. Doesn't matter if it's in english or not, it can be translated.

Like accuracy at 100 yards is: whatever.

I happen to know that the .223 Remington, which is virtually the same thing as 5.56 NATO, is extremely accurate. I can hit a poker chip size target at damm near 75 yards, both with my Ruger mini-14 and my uncles VEPR AK-47, that happens to shoot a .223 Remington. And any good AR-15/M-16 model is guranteed to shoot atleast and inch and a half groups at 100 yards plus.

I don't know how much better you can get, but that's why I would like some stats for the 5.8mm.

[RedMercury]

Here's what I can dig up from CDF. Posted by xinhui.

楼 主：北约5.56mm、俄5.45mm、中国5.8mm枪弹评测

20 世纪60年代,自美国著名枪械设计师尤金·M·斯通纳设计成功M16小口径步枪后,小口径班用 武器便以体积 小、质量轻、精度高、后坐力小及弹头初速大、杀伤效果好而受到各国军界的青睐。至今，世界各国 步枪小口径主 要形成三大系列，即5.45mm、5.56mm、5.8mm。与之相对应使用的枪弹有俄罗斯 5.45mm枪弹；北约5.56mm SS109枪弹；中国1987式5.8mm枪弹。
　　在此，我们对这3种枪弹作一评测，看谁更胜一筹。
　　侵彻力对比分析我们知道，步枪威力的大小，主要取决于枪弹在终点弹道上对目标的侵彻杀伤效 应，而杀伤效 应的大小与枪弹的口径、质量、结构、初速、命中目标时的速度和释放的能量、射击精度、目标的防 护能力等密切 相关。
　　试验之一:对640m距离上3.5mm厚的A3钢板射击,其结果是:5.8mm枪弹和5. 56mm枪弹 穿透率均为100%，5.45mm枪弹穿透率为18.2%。

640m处3.5mm厚的A3钢板射击情况(左:5.8mm枪弹穿透率 100% 中:5.56mm枪弹穿透率 100% 右:5.45mm枪弹穿透率 18.2% )
　　试验之二：对700m距离上3.5mm厚的A3钢板射击，结果是：5.8mm枪弹穿透率为 100%。5 .56 mm枪弹穿透率为72.7%,5.45mm枪弹穿透率为0

对300m处10mm厚的A3钢板射击情况(左:5.8mm枪弹穿透率 100% 中:5.56mm枪弹穿透率 0 右:5.45mm枪弹穿透率 0 )
　　试验之三:对300m距离上的10mm厚的A3钢板射击,其结果:5.8mm枪弹穿透率为 100%,5 .56mm和5.45mm枪弹穿透率均为0。

对700m距离上3.5mm厚的A3钢板射击情况(左:5.8mm枪弹穿透率 100% 中:5.56mm枪弹穿透率 72.7% 右:5.45mm枪弹穿透率 0 )
　　综合上述结果,在中远距离上国产1987式5.8mm弹的侵彻效果要优于北约5.56mm SS109式弹,而5.56mm SS109枪弹又优于俄罗斯5.45mm枪弹。因而从3种步枪弹侵彻力的对比中不难看出:步枪弹并不是口 径 越小、质量越轻就越好,口径、质量只能小到或轻到某一程度,综合指标形成优势,才能称之为佳。
　　传递能量及形成的空腔容积对比从创伤弹道学的角度讲，造成肌体致伤的决定因素，除了靠增大 弹头初速，使 之具有冲击目标的高速度、高动能外，还要设法使弹头在肌体中翻滚或变形，以增强杀伤效果。为此 ，与中口径枪 弹(如7.62mm)相比较,小口径枪弹的初速要大得多(中口径枪弹初速约为720m/s,小口径枪弹多在1 000m/s左右)。此外，为了确保小口径步枪获得最佳杀伤威力，小口径枪弹的形状与中口径枪弹也有诸多不 同之处,如 :弹头呈细长状,长径比较大,以此来增大枪弹的翻滚力矩,提高贯穿目标时的空腔容积。
　　试验中测知:5.45mm枪弹在近距离上侵彻软目标时，向目标传递的能量为228.3J， 形成的空腔容 积为59.7cm 3, 5.56mm枪弹在近距离上侵彻软目标时,向目标传递的能量为129.4J,形成的空腔容积为48.2cm 3;5.8 mm枪弹在近距离上侵彻软目标时，向目标传递的能量为133.3J，形成的空腔容积为34.8cm 3。
　　可以看出：5.45mm枪弹在近距离上侵彻软目标时，向目标传递的能量最多，形成的空腔容 积也最大。
　　撞击目标速度对比既然弹头触及到目标以后，靠的是动能来致伤目标肌体，那么弹头撞击目标时 的速度也成为 影响枪弹威力的因素之一。因为在其他条件时相同，弹头撞击目标时的速度越大，撞击目标的动能也 就越高。
　　试验表明:5.45mm枪弹、5.56mm枪弹、5.8mm枪弹在近距离上对目标的撞击速 度分别为84 7.1m/s、846.5m/s、885m/s。从试验结果可以看出5.8mm枪弹在近距离上对目标的撞击速度及动能要高于5.45mm和5 .56mm 枪弹,而5.45mm枪弹又高于5.56mm枪弹。

三种枪对肥皂射击出口显示(左5.8mm枪弹 中5.56mm枪弹 右5.45mm枪弹)

三种枪对肥皂射击入口显示（左5.45mm枪弹 中5.56mm枪弹 右5.8mm枪弹）
　　当然,世界各国对弹头杀伤目标的评定指标是不同的,但以杀伤动能作为评定标准的方法已被多 数国家所采用 。
　　因此,从综合指标衡量,可以说,国产1987式5.8mm弹要优于北约5. 56mm SS109枪弹及俄罗斯5.45mm弹;而北约5.56mm SS109枪弹和俄罗斯5.45mm枪弹相比较,各有优劣,难分伯仲

[RedMercury]

An article in English that probably refers to the same source as above:
http://artclub.csuhayward.edu/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=2556

China's New 5.8x42mm Weapons Complex Revealed
by David M.Fortier
The Small Arms Review - Vol.5 No.12 - September, 2002

Since the Communists came to power Chinese small arms development has always been "A riddle wrapped in a mystery behind the Bamboo Curtain". All we in the West suspected was that the Chinese military was mostly armed with domestic copies of various obsolete Soviet designs. While there is truth in this, the rest of it may surprise you. The Chinese began extensive research and development on domestic designs as early as 1958. This led to the 1st (Type 63 and Type 74) and then 2nd (Type 81 and Type 87) generations of Chinese small arms. In the last 20 years, especially since the Open Door policy, China has made significant progress in small arms development. This has culminated in the design and adoption of their unique 5.8x42mm weapons complex. A system, they claim, that outperforms both the current NATO 5.56x45 SS109 and Russian 5.45x39 7N6 cartridges.

China historically had relied on foreign designed weapons to equip her vast armed forces. Germany in particular was a major player in China from the turn of the century until signing the Anti- Comintern Pact with Imperial Japan in 1937. After 193 7 another country's influence was strongly felt in China, that of the Soviet Union. As early as 1932 the Soviets began supplying weapons to the Communist forces in China. Over time this aid greatly expanded. However, relations began to sour between the Chinese and Soviets after the Korean War and took a nose dive after Khrushchev came to power.

Using their experience with the Soviet designs, the Chinese undertook extensive research and development work beginning in 1958 to improve their small arms. It was based on their combat experience with full power battle rifle cartridges, as well as the less powerful 6.5 Arisaka and 7.62x25 sub-machineguns. They recognized the potential of the new intermediate 7.62x39 cartridge and admired the reliability of the Kalashnikov design. However they were not impressed by the AK-47's accuracy or ergonomics. To fit their tactical needs they wanted a rifle as reliable as the Kalashnikov but with increased accuracy. It was intended to be used primarily in the semi-automatic mode for ammunition conservation. They also felt it must be useful with a bayonet for hand to hand combat. This was due to their doctrine calling for fighting very close to an opponent to negate his superiority in artillery or air support.

The result of their efforts was a weapon that outwardly resembled the Soviet SKS-45 carbine. Internally however it was quite different from Simonov's design. It was adopted for service in 1963 and designated simply Type 63. The Type 63 rifle (incorrectly identified in the West as the Type 68) and the Type 74 Squad Auto represent the First Generation of domestically designed Chinese small arms. Not a battle rifle nor true assault rifle, it was outclassed by the M-16 during combat operations in Vietnam. It remained in service up until approximately 1974.

Seeing the changes in modem warfare, the Chinese went back to the drawing board. The Second Generation of Chinese small arms is seen in the Type 81 weapons series. The goal of the design team of the Type 81 rifle was to provide a modem assault rifle with the reliability of the Kalashnikov but with superior accuracy and ergonomics. After studying in detail the Soviet SVD Dragunov sniper rifle (Chinese Type 79) the Chinese came away quite impressed with its system of operation. They eventually used a modified short stroke gas system and a bolt/carrier system gleaned from it. It should be remembered however that the bolt/carrier system of the SVD is itself derived from the Kalashnikov. The culmination of their work was a rugged and reliable rifle with a few features not offered on the Kalashnikov. Unlike the AK-47/AKM the Type 81 features a bolt holdopen, a selector lever accessible by the operator's thumb, an integral capacity to launch rifle grenades, and an adjustable gas system. The Type 81 weapons series includes the standard rifle weighing 7.49 Ibs, a 7.7 Ibs folding stock model, and an 11.4-pound squad auto. These three weapons maintain a high degree ofinterchangability with 64 parts common between them. Overall they are a well thought out and reliable design chambered for the venerable 7.62x39 cartridge.

However just as the Chinese were quick to appreciate the 7.62x39 intermediate cartridge they were also quick to take notice of the 5.56x45. As soon as the M-16 rifle appeared in Vietnam, the Chinese noted the advantages of the 5.56x45 cartridge. They appreciated that it allowed a compact and lightweight weapon, produced a low recoil impulse, was controllable on full auto, and allowed a larger basic load of ammunition and supplementary equipment. This increased a soldier's survivability on the battlefield. What the Chinese were not impressed with was the reliability of the M-16 rifle itself, compared to their experiences with the AK- 47.

Noting the advantages of the small, high velocity round, they began extensive research and theoretical studies based on their combat observations of the war in Vietnam. Their goal was no simple one. They desired to find the ideal caliber to satisfy the Chinese military requirements ranges (400m) as well as in the supporting roleofamachinegun(upto 1000m). Their intention was not just to build a series of weapons based on an existing cartridge but rather to build a weapons complex using the ideal cartridge. This "Universal caliber" had always been a Holy Grail for which many have sought but none had found.

After extensive calculations they concluded that the ideal caliber would be 5.8mm, 6mm, or 6.2mm. They then designed a vast assortment of prototype cartridges for use in comparison testing. This is similar to our own SAW project which tested over 1000 configurations in calibers ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Our final result was the 6x45mm SAW round which was never adopted due to logistical reasons. This shows that the U.S. and Chinese designers came to a similar conclusion as to the ideal caliber. Based on their test results the Chinese came to the final conclusion that the 5.8mm best fit their needs. The result is their new small caliber , a heavy projectile loading for use in their GPMG, and a specialty loading for use in sniper rifles.

The standard loading features a 64-grain FMJBT projectile with a 22.6-grain AP core loaded into a copper washed steel case. The overall cartridge length is 58mm, case length is 42.2mm, and the projectile is 24.2mm long. The cartridge case in that it is tapered; however, the case neck is shorter. It bears no outward resemblance to the 5.56x45. While straightwall cases like the 5.56 are inherently more accurate, tapered cases aid feeding and extraction. The projectile also exhibits a substantial sectional density, although not as great as that of the 5.45x39. Muzzle velocity from the Type 95's 18.2-inch barrel is 3,050 fps. Out of the Type 95 Squad Auto's 21.9-inch barrel it clocks 3.182 fps. The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56x45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45x39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange.

Although the Chinese had developed their ideal cartridge they still had one major hurdle to overcome, the Chinese military. During the last Sino-Japanese war the Chinese had made extensive use of captured 6.5 Arisaka rifles and machineguns. From their combat experience they felt that this cartridge performed poorly, lacking penetration and killing power. They felt this was especially true when it was used from machinguns firing at long range. Recent combat experience, on the other hand, had proven the effectiveness of 7.62x39 assault rifles and 7.62x54R GPMG's and sniper rifles. Due to this the Chinese military wanted nothing to do with a small caliber cartridge intended for use in machineguns as well as rifles.

So in order to convince the military, the Chinese Armament Bureau produced a quantity of transitional 5.8x42 assault rifles. These were based upon the Type 81 and were designated the Type S7. They were then siihnntteil to the military for extensive testing and Held trials against the existing 7.62x39 weapons. During these trials the 5.8X42 weapons outperformed the 7.62x39 weapons in every way. They proved superior enough for the Chinese military to adopt the new cartridge for use in the next generation of Chinese small arms.

With the problem of a suitable cartridge out of the way, during the late 1980's the Chinese set to work designing the weapons to use it. The result of their work is not just a new assault rifle but an entire weapons complex. This includes an assault rifle (Type 95), Light Squad Auto (Type 95), Sniper rifle (Type KBU88), and surprisingly, a belt fed GPMG (Type QmS). Obviously lollowing the current trend in small arms development, they chose to use the bullpup configuration (except for the GPMG).

I was told that in designing the Type 95 they again took a long hard look at the SVD Dragunov design. This can be seen in the Type 95's 3 lug rotating bolt, carrier, and adjustable short stroke piston gas system which is similar conceptually to the SVD's. The main features of these new weapons are their extensive use of high tensile aluminum and modem high impact synthetic materials coupled with improved human engineering. In addition they feature cold hammer forged barrels for superior accuracy. The design emphasizes keeping as close as possible the distance between:

1. The center of gravity of the whole weapon and the center of gravity of the axisof the barrel.

2. The center of gravity of the bolt assembly and the axis oi'the gas piston.

3. The center of gravity of the barrel and the axis of the gas tube.

4. The center of gravity of the bolt carrier and the center of gravity of the whole gun.

They state, "This design brings a combined effect of compact structure, minimiz- ing the supplementary force of inertia, ensuring a stable and smooth movement of the bolt carrier, minimizing the overall weight of the rifle, increasing shooting accuracy, and promoting reliability." It is also interesting to note that they claim a reliability rate equal to that of the Kalashnikov. That in and of itself would be quite a feat.

These weapons were designed to use the following accessories:

1. Fixed or variable power telescopic sights with quick detachable mount.

2. Their latest star light night vision scope with quick detachable mount.

3. Quick detachable 35mm grenade launcher that mounts to the forend.

4. Multi-purpose bayonet which can be used as a bayonet, field knife, wire cutter, or a dagger.

While I personally do not care for bullpup style rifles, the Type 95 appears ergonomic and well balanced. The rear sight is mounted on an M-16 style carrying handle, which also accepts optical sights. The front sight assembly reminds one of the familiar AK unit. The charging handle is located inside the carrying handle, AR-10 style, and is ambidextrous. Feed is from 30 round synthetic magazines. The Type 95 Squad Auto shares the same bolt assembly, trigger assembly, upper and lower receiver, and magazines with the rifle. For its fire support role it's equipped with a longer, heavier barrel to which a bipod is directly mounted. To increase its practical rate of fire, 75 round drum magazines are issued for it, although the standard 30 rounders will also work. In my experience Chinese drums are usually quite noisy though, as they allow the rounds to slap back and forth. Weighing in at just 8.7 Ibs it is more of a machine-rifle, along the lines of the L86A1 British Light Support Weapon, rather than like our own M249 SAW.

For reaching out and touching someone, there is the KBU88 sniper rifle. It's equipped with a 25.1" hammer forged barrel, and the carrying handle has been replaced with a 3-9x variable telescope. The aiming holdover points in 100 meter increments. Fold down backup iron sights are also provided. An integral folding bipod, with legs individually adjustable for height, is attached to the barrel just in front of the handguard. Feed is from 20 or 30 round magazines. When tested against the Type 85 7.62x54R sniper rifle (SVD Dragunov) the KBU88 outperformed it in accuracy, higher hit probability at long range, was quicker to get into action, had capacity, and was lighter in weight -thus increasing the mobility of the sniper. We would consider it a Designated Marksman's Rifle, rather than a true sniper fill on the modem battlefield.

The latest member of the 5.8mm family is the QJY88 GPMG. This project be- gan in July 1989 and after extensive testing in freezing cold, hot desert, windy, and sandy conditions to eliminate defects, it was formally adopted in July 1999. Feed is from 200 round belts. The feedway is equipped with 3 rollers, and the feeding during feeding and to aid reliability. It's equipped with a bipod for use in the LMG role but can also be tripod mounted for sustained fire use. The tripod is equipped accuracy and quickly converts for A.A. use. For long service life the core of the barrel is hardened more than the rest during heat treating. Also a special pattern of rifling is used and the chrome plating carefully kept to . 18-.28mm to increase barrel service life. The Chinese claim it to be very simple, reliable, and mobile due to its light weight, coupled with long range and a high hit probability.

So the question is, exactly how well does this new Chinese 5.8x42 round stack up against our 5.56x45 and the Russian 5.45x39? The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56x45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45x39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS 109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange. I was recently able to get my hands on some documents containing some of their test results. Testing was conducted using a 5.45x39 AK-74 and 7N6 ball ammunition, a 5.56x45 FNC and SS109 ball and P 112 AP, and a Type 95 with 5.8x42 ball. Accuracy testing was conducted out to 600m between the three weapons. Projectile Time of Flight was recorded out to 800m. 3.5mm NATO spec hardened steel plates were shot at 640m and 700m. A 10mm hardened steel plate was shot at 310m. Finally, anesthetized livestock between the weight of 26-44 pounds were shot at a distance of 90m. All the infortained in the accompanying charts. For comparison I also included one chart on the performance of typical military rifles against NATO 3.5mm steel plate from tests performed by the USMC Firepower Division in Quantico, VA in the early 1980's.

The Chinese test results indicate that their new 5.8x42mm cartridge is intended to provide an increase in effective range and penetration. The difference is that it is now possible for the high velocity small bore military cartridges to place fire at medium ranges without the weight and re- coil penalties of the older full power car- tridges. While obviously lacking the punch of a 7.62x51 at long range the 5.56x45 has none the less proven itself to be capable of superb accuracy at 600m. This has not been lost on the Chinese. Their 5.8x42 ball round is designed to surpass the per- formance of the 5.56x45 SS109, includ- ing at long range. That the Chinese wish to be able to extend the practical effective range of their small arms can also be seen in the Type 95's ability to easily mount optical sights. While we don't yet have any specifics on the dedicated sniper load for the KBU88 sniper rifle, that it outper- formed the 7.62x54R SVD out to 1000m speaks for itself.

Against steel plate the 5.8 easily out- performed the 5.45 7N6 ball loading as well as the 5.56 SS109. It equaled the penetration of the 5.56 PI 12 AP loading while providing greater retained energy. It should be remembered though that the 5.45 7N6 loading has a mild steel core and a more even test would have been to use the newer 7N10 High Penetration round. While the 5.8 retained more energy and velocity downrange, there is a downside to a light weight, small diameter projec- tile with high penetration. Such rounds can zip right through a man without doing sig- nificant damage. This was first seen on the Italian Front during World War I when it was common for soldiers hit through the lungs at long range by 6.5mm rounds to recover in a matter of weeks. Recently American troops witnessed this first hand in Mogadishu when close range hits on rebels with SS109 ammunition produced no immediate visual results. This was veri- fied in the livestock testing performed by the Chinese. Here the 5.45 7N6 load showed what it was designed to do and produced significantly larger wounds than eitherthe5.56SS109orthe5.8x42. How- ever the range here was short, only 90m. While the Chinese were impressed by, and commented on the tremendous close range wound capacity of the 5.45 7N6 loading, they also stated that by 600m its accuracy, penetration, and wound capability had dropped off significantly due to its light-weight 52 grain projectile. However they also felt the 5.45x39 to be a very economical cartridge to manufacture. The Chinese were impressed by the 5.56x45 SS109 and felt that it was effective up to 600m. However they felt that it had the disadvantages of high chamber pressures, and because it utilized brass cartridge cases, was not economical to produce.

While the 5.8 was superior in penetration to the 5.56 SS109, the same was not true of accuracy. That the new Type 95/ 5.8x42mm combination was more accurate than the 70's vintage Russian AK--74/ 5.45x39mm combo is really no great surprise. While the AK-74 is more accurate than the 7.62x39 AKM, at the time of its design Soviet doctrine relied on massed automatic fire rather than accuracy. By switching to a short stroke gas system, the accuracy over the Kalashnikov while maintaining the same level of reliability. It appears that they have accomplished this. However the FNC/5.56x45mm combo easily outshot the new Chinese system. Straightwall case designs, such as the 5.56x45, tend to be more accurate than tapered case designs such as the 5.45x39 and 5.8x42. The trade-off being that tapered cases feed and extract easier. While troops complain about the M -16A2, it can not be faulted for its accuracy. Also keep in mind when looking at the Chinese data SS109 round out of an M-16A2 is higher than that listed for the test FNC. However they are within NATO SS 109 spec's which call for a 61.7 grain bullet at 3025fps 25m from the muzzle. While the 5.8 exhibits higher retained velocity and energy in their test results compared to the 5.56 SS109, the difference is small.

Why did the Chinese bother with developing an entirely new assault rifle cartridge when they could have simply adopted the 5.56x45 is a question I'm sure many will ask. The only reason I've been given is that the PLA has a defensive doctrine and if China were invaded their unique caliber weapons would prohibit an attacking force from utilizing captured weapons against the PLA. I will let you of this new cartridge based on the accompanying data. How China's new 5.8x42mm series of weapons fares in service or combat remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, the Kalashnikov's service with the PLA appears to be coming to an end. While the Type 95 was officially adopted in 1995 and is standard issue with the Hong Kong garrison force, spread issue simply due to the size of the PLA.

Acknowledgments: Much thanks to Dave Brown at Sierra Bullets for his patience and help making sense of the ballistic data in its original form and to Mark Vorobiev for a Russian point of view.

References:

Bolotin, David. SOVIET SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION. Finnish Arms Museum Foundation, Hyvinka, Finland. 1995.

Cutshaw, Charlie. THE NEW WORLD OF RUSSIAN SMALL ARMS & AMMO. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 1998.

Harris, C.E.. "The M-16A2: New World Standard For Infantry Rifles" GUN DIGEST, 40th Edition. DB1 Books Inc. Northbrook, IL. 1986. SLIDE CAPTIONS

[sino52C]

It should be noted that Ak-74s using 5.45 bullets is very dangerous to the human flesh, as encountered in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Some bullets are designed to pierce body armor while others are used to maim inside the human body. I am not sure about damage that the Chinese 5.8 bullet will cause.

[Nethappy]

Well how effective, is a round really depend on it rifle too.
For e.g. The 1st Cdo Reg army reserve use the AUG, M4A1, and the M16A2, which all use 5.56mm NATO. Nevertheless the is some agurement between servicemen about with one is the best.

[Dongfeng]

It is also interesting to note that China has also developed 5.56mm version of its Type 95 rifle, known as Type 97. Also NORINCO continues manufacturing 5.56mm and 5.54mm (AK-74 copy) rifles for export. It appears that 5.58mm is only for domestic use, while export products will stick to US or Russian calibres

[Kampfwagen]

I knew about the 5.56MM Export model, which also accepts the STANAG M-16 Magazines, but it's the first I have heard of the 5.45MM version. Does it accept AK-74 magazines?

[s24062]

Hmm. Color me uninformed, but could you explain exactly why hollowed bullets are illegal for use in war? I mean, any bullet's role is to kill by punching a nasty hole in the unfortunate target.

Also, could someone explain what exactly are full-metal jackets, lead points, hollow points, soft points(?) and why there are these distinctions, and what the effect is?
The simple reason for this is that the St. Petersburg conference of 1869 banned the use of dumdum (named after the factory in India) and other expanding/explosive rounds in warfare between Europeans (after the Crimean war). This ban did not then extend to 'non-civilized' powers, but was written into the first Geneva conference, and has remained with us ever since.