About the 5.8mm bullet

petty officer1

petty officer1

Junior Member
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
R

Red Guard

Junior Member
Re: More on the 5.8 x 42 cartridge

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

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: More on the 5.8 x 42 cartridge

Red Guard said:
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.....
Click to expand...


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

MadMax

Junior Member
Re: More on the 5.8 x 42 cartridge

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

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Re: More on the 5.8 x 42 cartridge

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

Kampfwagen

Junior Member
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

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Kampfwagen said:
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."
Click to expand...

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

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
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

Kampfwagen

Junior Member
Red not Dead said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top