45acp vs .223


PDA






memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 05:46 AM
ok heres a question
i keep reading the .223 is just a wounding round and that no pistol has real stopping power so at say 10 yards which round would have better stopping power?

ok i realize its game over with the perfect shot from each
so more the question concerns the less than perfect shot

If you enjoyed reading about "45acp vs .223" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sarduy
August 17, 2008, 05:51 AM
i dont want to get hit by any of those 2 from 10 yards away... but just remember.... the bigger the caliber the bigger the wound.

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 05:52 AM
what about the energy and tumbling of the 223

Rich K
August 17, 2008, 06:10 AM
Like sarduy said, at 10 yards I don't want to be hit with either round. The bigger the hole going in, the more damage it will cause.

Majic
August 17, 2008, 06:17 AM
what about the energy and tumbling of the 223
Unless there is a problem with the bore's rifling or someone purposely rifled the bore wrong for the caliber the .223 shouldn't tumble.

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 06:20 AM
majic the .223 was designed to tumble when it hits resistance thus making a .7 " hole instead of a .223" hole...

however when it comes to rifle vs pistol and you have access to a rifle a rifle is usually better (easier to shoot, normally carries more rounds, and usually contains more power) however like i have said at least a million times stopping power is all relative... each person reacts differently...

Kind of Blued
August 17, 2008, 06:21 AM
The .223 has twice the energy, although I think a softpoint would go through a human at 10 yards, therefore not transferring all of its energy.

Regardless, they both win.

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 06:25 AM
so does this .7 hole make it superior to the 45acp?

Majic
August 17, 2008, 06:47 AM
majic the .223 was designed to tumble when it hits resistance thus making a .7 " hole instead of a .223" hole...
The .22 caliber bullet was not designed tumble and the .223 chambering did not reinvent the .22 caliber bullet. The original M16s bullets tumbled because Colt purposely rifled the barrels wrong. The idea was to increase the wounding because it was a big step to go from a 150 grain .30 caliber down to a 55 grain .22 caliber bullet. The Army then requested the rifling to be corrected for the caliber and that was the end of the tumbling. Ask any hunter using the .223 if their bullets tumble. Now those using bullets that expand will have extra damage, but those using FMJs, such as a pelt hunter, will have a .22 inch hole going in the animal and coming out.

loop
August 17, 2008, 06:48 AM
I'm thinking the obvious is obviously being ignored.

We have no ballistic or range info other than .223 vs. .45?

To the OP, think about it before you post.

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 07:02 AM
i have personally tested this before...
if you would like i will do the test again and document it for your approval

the russians developed an improvement on the .223 btw which is 5.45 x 39 which does the same thing as .223 just does more damage due to it being a longer bullet and making a larger wound cavity

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 07:08 AM
ok does the 223 tumble or does it not?

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 07:15 AM
it did when i tested it multiple times... now i will clarify it does not tumble until it hits resistance ... im not saying that it keyholes as soon as it leaves the barrel

i am also not saying that im never wrong either i more than welcome suggestions when i do my ballistics testing... i for 1 want to be the most informed on what to carry etc...

so if you have any ideas to help during my tests i would like it and i have no problem posting my results with pictures, video, or whatever you would like to see

Majic
August 17, 2008, 07:33 AM
so if you have any ideas to help during my tests i would like it
Fire the full metal jacketed bullet (any weight as long as it's correct for the rifling as the .22 caliber bore has different twist rates) for the .223 into a medium and see if it tumbles. Ballistic gelatin is not needed. Modeling clay or even styrofoam should be sufficient.

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 07:44 AM
i normally perform most of my tests with newspaper that has been soaked in water to give it the same resistance as ballistics gel..

however i have also done the bullet test tube before as well its just newspaper gives me the same results as all the other more expensive test medias... i will test it again and present my results

i will also test it with different barrels to see if i can produce different outcomes with the differing twist rates

Majic
August 17, 2008, 07:55 AM
Although I'm hyjacking this thread I think the OP may have an interest in this. Mr or Mrs/Miss (however it applies) hotshotshoting,
Since the .223 inch bullet is loaded in a variety of .22 caliber centerfire firearms with no special attention given to the .223 or 5.56 chambering. A barrel maker will just need to know the bore size, number of lands and grooves, the direction and rate of twist. You cut your own chambering and leade. How does the bullet of the .223/5.56 chambering knows to tumble after it has met resistance when any other .22 caliber firearm using the .223 inch bore barrel does not tumble it's bullets?

Double Naught Spy
August 17, 2008, 08:07 AM
The original M16s bullets tumbled because Colt purposely rifled the barrels wrong. The idea was to increase the wounding because it was a big step to go from a 150 grain .30 caliber down to a 55 grain .22 caliber bullet. The Army then requested the rifling to be corrected for the caliber and that was the end of the tumbling.

Source?

novaDAK
August 17, 2008, 09:00 AM
so does this .7 hole make it superior to the 45acp?
A .45 JHP usually expands to .7-.9" so going by that, the .45 is still better because it makes a larger entrance wound.
That said, rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols... :)

Deus Machina
August 17, 2008, 09:13 AM
I'd figure it would depend on if the bullet dumps its energy in the target.

With ball and minimal loss of energy, a .45 would make a bigger hole front to back.

With good expanding rounds, the .223 has more energy. The .45 would hardly be gentle, but I think the .223 would have a hands up in the total volume of wound channel.

That said, at ten yards, dead is dead.

Titan6
August 17, 2008, 09:20 AM
I am learning all kinds of new things in this thread.

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 09:27 AM
ok ive heard time and again
"your pistol is to get you to your rifle"
should this be ammended to "your rifle is for when the bg is out of range for your pistol"?

Double Naught Spy
August 17, 2008, 09:43 AM
I am learning all kinds of new things in this thread.

Are you believing them?

Water-Man
August 17, 2008, 09:45 AM
At 10 yds. I'd say the .45

eflatminor
August 17, 2008, 09:54 AM
It depends entirely on the load. One can load a round to go very slow or very fast. The faster a bullet goes, the flatter it's likely to shoot (up to a point) and the most destructive it will be on impact. The comparison is impossible to make without load and chronograph information and you must know the type of each bullet. Which will expand and at what speed?

But, there is one rule of thumb to consider: if you have a chance to bring a rifle or a pistol, choose the rifle. It's almost always faster shooting, more accurate, and more deadly with typical loads. Bigger holes are good but faster, expanding bullets are usually better.

230RN
August 17, 2008, 10:05 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yikes.

earplug
August 17, 2008, 10:18 AM
The velocity imparted to the various bits of tissue, bone, organs hit will cause secondary missiles within the body. Witness the exploding melon, water jug.
The higher the velocity the more damage.
Terminal target Tumbling is a function of bullet design, not twist rate.
There is a world of differance between 850FPS and 2800FPS.

Dustinthewind
August 17, 2008, 10:18 AM
Back in the early 1980's Soldier Of Fortune magazine did an extensive article on the wound cavities caused by the .223 during Viet Nam. It was pretty impressive. The cavitation properties of the .223 far surpass the .45.

tblt
August 17, 2008, 10:35 AM
223 any day,it is moving so fast speed does make a difference when you get up around or over 3000 fps. a 45 is only 1000 fps big difference
Have you guys saying 45 every shot water jugs or anything with a 223,it will blow the jugs up.They will fly 10 feet in the air sometimes.I have never shot a deer with a 223 but a 243 and it does masive damage just from the shock of the bullet moving so fast,it turns internal organs to mush

bluetopper
August 17, 2008, 10:43 AM
Absolutely no comparison at any distance.

A person who has shot both in anything besides paper would know.

.223

230RN
August 17, 2008, 10:52 AM
^ Thank you.

scrat
August 17, 2008, 03:13 PM
Absolutely no comparison at any distance.

A person who has shot both in anything besides paper would know.

.223


Thank you

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 03:38 PM
nova the op did not specify hollowpoints so i assumed fmj tbh this thread lacks in the specifics of the question... which is necessary when discussing ballistics...

and to the person who said 45 is 1000 fps.. sometimes manufacturers advertise over 1000fps 45 but in the 230grain its rare to see.... and when talking about 45 i think the 230 grain is the best 1... but thats a different discussion as well


finally majic why do you insist on arguing i already said i would test it again... why dont we just let the test do the talking.. but to asnwer your question as far as i know it "knows" to tumble based on the length of the bullet the angle of the point, and the speed to weight ratio (not to mention the weight, being a lighter bullet will loose momentum faster than a heavy bullet when it meets resistance

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 04:01 PM
hollow points for the 45

Louisiana Carry
August 17, 2008, 05:47 PM
Energy:

5.56mm: 1700-1830 Joules

.45 ACP: 500-700 Joules


Rather be hit with neither but if you gotta get hit, I would rather take a hit with the .45...

divemedic
August 17, 2008, 06:09 PM
I have seen and treated quite a few GSW's in the last 20 years. Not as many as a combat medic, but my partner is a Navy Corpsman who has seen quite a bit of combat duty, and has seen more GSW's than I have.

The two of us both feel that in our experience, .223 makes a far larger hole than does .45ACP. I think that this is due to the MUCH higher velocity of the .223.

itgoesboom
August 17, 2008, 06:20 PM
Man, there has been some bad info posted lately, but there has also been some attempt by some to correct it.

1. Yes, .223 will tumble. Actually, all bullets that are longer than their width will eventually tumble in. There are factors that determine the distance it will pass through a medium before it will tumble.

2. The statement that .223/5.56 tumbles because of the twist rate isn't correct. The twist rate determines if it will be stabilized through air, it doesn't determine if it will tumble through flesh.

3. Tumbling is only part of the equation. Fragmentation and penetration are the two key components when talking about .223/5.56. Many, not all, 5.56/.223 bullets have the potential to fragment above certain velocities. The fragmentation creates a larger Permanent cavity, which is important.

4. As mentioned, penetration is important. Fragmentation is good, but only if the bullet penetrates to the required depth. Most testing agencies recommend 12" in calibrated ballistic gelatin.

As for the initial question:

A properly designed bullet for the .223/5.56 will do significantly more damage to an attacker than a .45ACP will do, even up close.

I have posted these links prior, and I know others have as well. Anyone interested in Terminal Ballistics would do well to go here.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

http://www.tacticalforums.com

Deer Hunter
August 17, 2008, 06:29 PM
Are we really discussing this?

memphisjim
August 17, 2008, 06:38 PM
i just had to ask to see the responses i pitted the 2 calibers with the greatest fanatical following against each other

to further expound what hand gun if any would it take to meet or exceed the 223 at a close range? 500s&wmag
or would it just pass through?

big_bang
August 17, 2008, 06:45 PM
I would rather have an M4 than a .45 in CQB anyday. Of course, I'd rather have a shotgun than either of those in that situation...

Stopping power is nebulous.

itgoesboom
August 17, 2008, 07:03 PM
i just had to ask to see the responses i pitted the 2 calibers with the greatest fanatical following against each other

to further expound what hand gun if any would it take to meet or exceed the 223 at a close range? 500s&wmag
or would it just pass through?

I am sure that the answer to your last question could be answered fairly easily with some ballistic gelatin, and a few rounds.

grendelbane
August 17, 2008, 07:51 PM
Kinetic energy does not tell the whole story, and neither does bullet diameter.

At 10 yards, any spitzer type bullet is capable of tumbling, they really don't stabilize until they are out a bit further than that. You can be shooting north, and a short distance from the muzzle the bullet can be pointing northwest.:what:

So, even in a best/worst case scenario, (.45 JHP fired from a 16" carbine barrel vs. SS109 fired from a 7 1/2" barrel), the .223 is going to come out on top.

Now, stretch it out to a 100 meters, and the situation reverses itself. Yes, I know many will argue with me. Think about it, though. At that range, the .223 bullet has stabilized, will possibly make an ice pick type injury, with yawing. (Yaw is the word that most people mean when they say tumble).

The .45 hollow point is still going very close to its intended velocity window. The carbine length barrel accelerates it some what, and being sub sonic, it does not slow down very much within that distance. (It does start to drop a lot, though).

Its a funny world.

mugsie
August 17, 2008, 08:12 PM
10 yards? Then you're asking about a human target. I was in Vietnam in 68 & 69. I saw, VC and NVA shot with both calibers from close range. They both dropped the intended target every time. The 223 did leave a small hole on the entry and did not always exit directly in line with the the entry wound. The exit wound was somewhat larger. The 45 also made a small hole going in and a somewhat larger one upon exit. Sometimes there was no exit wound, but that was true with the 223 as well. As I said, and as people said before me - they both stopped the intended target equally well. I don't think it made any difference to the target what they were killed with. They were both designed as man stoppers and they both worked well. In VN, we used, I believe a lighter bullet, which was designed to tumble since the VC and NVA were so small and thin. It did as the designers envisioned.

230RN
August 17, 2008, 10:09 PM
....

Geronimo45
August 17, 2008, 10:32 PM
Look as these two links and decide for yourself.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/M855bareblock1.html
http://www.brassfetcher.com/230grHornPlusP.html

High velocities (such as 2500 fps+) make a big difference to wounding characteristics. The M855 doesn't expand, the .45 linked above does.

This .303 soft-point is a little more impressive, though:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Sellier%20&%20Bellot%20150gr%20Soft-point.html

browningguy
August 17, 2008, 11:26 PM
Firstly, the .223 is not a wounding weapon, who makes this stuff up anyway?

Now remember the first rule of gunfighting, take a rifle!!!

As mentioned by plenty of peoplem excepting some of the really minor caliber rifles the .223 and up have loads more energy, or whatever you choose to measure, than any defensive pistol round. I have 16" carbines in .223, 9mm and .45 ACP, in a self defense situation you can bet the one I go for first is the .223 loaded with 55gr. softpoints.

As for the argument at 100 yards it's just nonsense if using an expanding bullet. The .223 has plenty of velocity to expand, I haven't measured mine at 100 but I'm thinking it's close to non-expanding velocity by then. Even if using .223 FMJ it will still have enough velocity to fragment.

Titan6
August 18, 2008, 02:19 AM
Are you believing them?

I am not learning about firearms and terminal ballistics but about people.

MTMilitiaman
August 18, 2008, 02:45 AM
I can't believe it took two pages to finally get some common sense in this topic.

The .22 caliber bullet was not designed tumble and the .223 chambering did not reinvent the .22 caliber bullet. The original M16s bullets tumbled because Colt purposely rifled the barrels wrong. The idea was to increase the wounding because it was a big step to go from a 150 grain .30 caliber down to a 55 grain .22 caliber bullet. The Army then requested the rifling to be corrected for the caliber and that was the end of the tumbling. Ask any hunter using the .223 if their bullets tumble. Now those using bullets that expand will have extra damage, but those using FMJs, such as a pelt hunter, will have a .22 inch hole going in the animal and coming out.

Wrong, on all accounts. You said a lot there, and yet nothing at all. That takes a lot of practice and revision. Usually, people who say that much say at least something right, even if it is on accident. It is the theory of probability. Like a broken clock being right twice a day. But not you. Wrong. Just wrong. You should be a politician.

All spitzer (pointed) bullets have their center of gravity towards their base due to their shape. This makes them naturally inclined to fly base forward. This tendency is why rifles have rifling, which imparts a spin on them that makes them stable, like spinning a top. However, they are only stable as long as they are spinning above a certain rotational velocity, and the necessary rotational velocity depends on the density of the medium being traveled through, and the length of the projectile. The longer the projectile is, or the more dense the medium is, the faster the bullet must be spinning in order to stabilize.

All spitzer bullets then can be stable in air but unstable in tissue, because tissue is more dense than air. So all spitzer bullets have a natural tendency to yaw and travel base forward in tissue. The variable is how long it takes them to do this. Some, like the standard 7.62mm M80 ball round can penetrate 8 inches or more in tissue before displaying any significant yawing. Others, like both M193 and M855 ball for the 5.56, start yawing in about half that distance, as observed by Fackler in both calibrated ballistic gelatin and his observation of actual battlefield wounds.

Now, if my understanding of the 5.56's history and development is correct, the original twist rate for the M16 was 1:14. The military observed that this twist rate was not fast enough to stabilize the projectile in artic conditions. Colder air is more dense than warm air and requires a faster twist rate. So it was changed to 1:12, which is still pretty slow for the caliber. When the military switched to the heavier 62 gr M855 round, a faster twist rate was needed because the bullet is longer than the lighter 55 gr M193, so the standard twist rate was changed to 1:7, which is pretty fast, but assures the bullet is adequately stabilized for all atmospheric conditions. It also comes in handy when using the heavier 77 gr Mk 262 Mod 1 rounds.

The 5.56 does yaw, and within a certain velocity threshold, out to about 140 to 160 yards, does fragment on a regular basis.

But the heart of the issue and the most disturbing trend I see in this thread is that people don't realize that rifles and rifles, and pistols are pistols.

As a pistol round, I am big fan of the .45. As a rifle round, I am not a huge fan of the 5.56. However, if I ever have a choice between the two, I am picking the 5.56 without hesitation. Because it is a rifle round, and even a borderline anemic rifle round is worlds better than a moderately powerful handgun round.

This was a true and false question. There were two choices and even if you didn't know, you had a 50% chance of getting the right one. If you picked the .45, you're wrong.

hotshotshoting
August 18, 2008, 03:19 AM
ok mt you win the thread now thank you for explaining it better than myself!

Titan6
August 18, 2008, 04:29 AM
Itgoesboom explained it first but he posted supporting links.

Do you know how hard it is to click on a supporting link and read the associated material? It is like doing homework that dosen't get graded. Who is going to do that?

Double Naught Spy
August 18, 2008, 05:13 AM
They were both designed as man stoppers ...

No, they were not. However, feel free to cite sources that show how the design of the .223 or .45 acp bullets were developed specifically to stop people.

The were specifically put into use by the military to stop people, but I have yet to see any documentation to substantiate that they were "designed" to stop people.

Just curious, how does a people stopping design differ from that of an animal stopping design?

As noted by others, specifically lastly by MTMilitiaman, the .223 is nothing more than a spitzer round and it performs as preceding spitzer rounds perform. To that I will add that the .45 ACP was nothing more than just a ball round, in no way significantly different than other ball rounds.

itgoesboom
August 18, 2008, 12:21 PM
Itgoesboom explained it first but he posted supporting links.

Do you know how hard it is to click on a supporting link and read the associated material? It is like doing homework that dosen't get graded. Who is going to do that?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. ;)

Water-Man
August 18, 2008, 12:51 PM
What about the Momentum factor?
Weight(in grains)xVelocity

mk70ss
August 18, 2008, 12:57 PM
I would not want to be shot with anything, including a .177 pellet gun
That being said, I'd much prefer to take my chances with the .45 rather than the .223.

Wild Deuce
August 18, 2008, 01:11 PM
Thank you MTMilitiaman for your post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4825261&postcount=48). I was wondering when someone was going to explain what almost everyone here calls tumbling. Of course there are other considerations ... bullet weight, bullet velocity (linear/rotational), bullet construction, fragmentation, etc. So many people don't have a real grasp of what a bullet actually does in flight and what it does in tissue.

Everyone here should bookmark MT's post for future reference ... just in case there's another debate about this later on. :rolleyes:

MTMilitiaman
August 18, 2008, 03:30 PM
Momentum is important, I agree. And a 230 gr +P .45 is capable of producing more of it than the standard 62 gr military load for the 5.56. But it's not going to change the fact that unlike the .45, or most other pistols for that matter, the 5.56 is capable of creating enough shock trauma to cause damage to vital organs beyond the permanent wound channel of the projectile. That and the fact that the tumbling and fragmentation effect of the 5.56 is going to produce a vastly superior wound channel. It isn't even close.

Water-Man
August 18, 2008, 03:37 PM
MTMilitiaman..Is this relevant at 10 yds.?

MTMilitiaman
August 18, 2008, 04:58 PM
Yes. At 10 inches, at 10 feet, at 10 yards...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

.45 JHP:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpg

5.56 M855:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

And keep in mind that while most .45 JHPs are going to perform more or less the same, with only relatively minute variations in expanded diameters and wound profiles, the M855 isn't even close to being the best performer for the 5.56.

If you enjoyed reading about "45acp vs .223" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!