Our good friend Gabor of Kaliber Info sent us this photo. He wrote …

14.5×114 mm API (Armor-Piercing, Incendiary) rounds with a Zoraki M906 9 mm PAK tear gas pistol on the top of them for size comparison.

I shoot these rounds from a KPVT heavy machine gun in Novy Tekov/Slovakia.

I love this photo. The gun looks like a toy compared to those massive cannon rounds.



  • Giolli Joker

    Those are not usually considered cannon rounds.
    They’re either heavy machine gun (as implied in Gabor’s words) or anti materiel rifle rounds.
    Automatic cannons are defined so from 20mm and up.

    Nevertheless, the effect of the photo is all there.
    Waiting for Heizer Defense to chamber one of their “guns” in 14.5x114mm. 🙂

    • TB

      Yes, absolutely. A heavy machine gun is not a cannon. Cannons also fires grenades, while rifles and machine guns fires bullets.

      On another site, this might be considered as just nitpicking, but on a guns/weapons blog like this, you’d better get the weapons terminology right.

    • MrEllis

      I think it was just artistic licensing, such as when people call a large bore wheelgun a “hand cannon.”

    • Wetcoaster

      14.5mm is getting pretty heavily into ‘blurry line’ territory though. The MG151/15 cannon fired… 15mm shells, and there’s precious few ‘ball’ rounds for 14.5mm, IIRC. Most have some sort of incendiary or explosive component, at least that was part of the explanation given for why we never saw 14.5mm ammo imported into Canada to feed the handful of PTRD/PTRS owners

      • Giolli Joker

        It’s purely an academic distinction, there’s no real value in calling them either way, I just wanted to point out the most widely accepted definition.
        (Was it FN that developed a HMG in 15mm, that sadly went nowhere, in the 90s?)

        • Wetcoaster

          Yeah, I think it was. I think the problem is that they were trying to replace the Browning .50 but most NATO countries would just move up to 25mm or 30mm in that case.

          I find the 14.5mm interesting because many users still have 12.7mm guns around, whether NATO or WP calibre.

        • Jay

          The 14.5mm started as a AT gun cartridge, but once the tanks got heavier it lost it’s intended purpose.
          However, with the introduction of the KPVT machine gun, the Russians realized that they could use that on APC instead of their 12.7x112mm machine guns and vastly outgun the western standard .50cal, that was installed on most APCs and light vehicles.
          That was the intended purpose for FN’s 15mm machine gun, to match the firepower of the KPVT that was standard on the huge number of BTRs.

        • roguetechie

          Yes the 15.5 BRG!

          It started out as a 15mm but they added a .5mm polymer driving band around the projectile because it was destroying barrels much too quickly…

          Honestly in the whole what comes next for small arms technology department, my feeling is that the polymer driving band will be indispensable.

          Really with the way threats are evolving, and the way political leaders are choosing to send our forces to deal with them I believe we need to be researching and preparing to bring into service BOTH polymer cased CT or semi CT ammunition and polymer driving band ultrathin stainless cases.

          With this I’d do a 2 caliber solution similar to the one we have now in some ways.

          For the individual weapon and a SAW I’d go with the polymer cases taking advantage of the more efficient burn and theoretically less heat transferred into the chamber walls to cause a cook off. Also for the individual infantry ammo load slightly more bulk in trade for less weight is a decent trade within reason.

          For the heavy round we’ll be using in GPMG and DMR type weapons however would benefit greatly from the benefits of a polymer driving band and the nearly 15% greater usable volume inside of a stainless case over polymer. My biggest rationale for this is summarized in the letters P K & M! The very real disadvantage of the PKM comes down to the bulk of the round it uses. Severely limiting the firepower of the squad.

      • guest

        The reason why there is no ball (copper/lead) round is very simple: there is no need. Unless of course one would fight dinosaurs or something.
        First it was a pure AP round, then it got developed into hotter API/APIT/HEIT(latest development) AAA and anti-armor round.
        And though it’s old, it will punch holes in a whole slew of things including even modern APCs, and thus is an excellent antimateriel round. 40mm RHA in the *first* ww2 version, nowdays probably 50mm and this round has yet to see a SLAP-type upgrade which will bring muzzle velocities to around 1300m/s or more and RHA well over 50mm. So despite old age the round is packed with potential.

  • MR

    Tear gas pistol?

    • Kovacs Jeno

      Zoraki 906: Yes, works with CS or Pepper loaded 9×22 mm blanks.

      (There is also a version of the Zoraki 906 for 9 mm PA Rubber non-lethal traumatic round, called Shark in Russia.)

  • A guy named Joe

    Interesting….I’m in Hungary right now and trying to figure out how to purchase a real gun instead of the tear gas guns.

  • RICH

    WOW…. ! I bet the Obummer administration and BATF&E would have a field day with these rounds….. just like they tried with the M855 5.56mm round ! ! !