When is a .223 Better than an 9mm?


PDA






marklbucla
March 1, 2009, 09:38 PM
I'm trying to rationalize my purchases and sales right now, like so many others are.

For someone:
-who does not use an AR as a "Tool" (That's what my 870s are for)
-shoots strictly paper generally within 50-100 yards max
-lives in an urban environment
-does not compete (for now)

Under what circumstances would a .223 be better than a 9mm?

If you enjoyed reading about "When is a .223 Better than an 9mm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RP88
March 1, 2009, 09:43 PM
well, .223 is better out to 100 yds than 9mm. That's all it would offer for you, based off of your given criteria

SimpleIsGood229
March 1, 2009, 09:45 PM
Aside from price, pretty much always. .223/5.56 is definitely more useful, in my opinion.

It seems to me that a less expensive platform would be order, since I'm assuming you're looking at a 9mm for the cheaper ammo.

nipprdog
March 1, 2009, 09:52 PM
Aside from price, pretty much always.

Agreed.

feudalson
March 1, 2009, 09:56 PM
for paper punch'n and moderate range work i would stock the 9mm

TexasRifleman
March 1, 2009, 09:59 PM
Given the OP's list it seems to me 9mm wins simply based on cost.

The list removes any usefulness or ballistics. If punching paper is what you want, I'd think cost per shot would be king.

For an actual "real" use, the .223 is always going to win.

4Freedom
March 1, 2009, 10:03 PM
IS there a reason why we fight wars with .223s instead of 9mms? hmm..

Handgunner
March 1, 2009, 10:08 PM
For strictly punching paper, definitely the 9mm.

marklbucla
March 1, 2009, 10:13 PM
well, .223 is better out to 100 yds than 9mm.

At what approx distance does the .223 noticeably overtake the 9mm in terms of accuracy?

TexasRifleman
March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
At what approx distance does the .223 noticeably overtake the 9mm in terms of accuracy?

In an AR style rifle for casual target shooting? Probably not enough difference to worry about out to 100 yards. In my opinion anyway.

But, that's about the limit.

High Planes Drifter
March 1, 2009, 10:54 PM
Under what circumstances would a .223 be better than a 9mm?

Pushing out a drift pin, the pointy nose of a .223 has an advantage over the round nose of a 9mm.

Well, that, and fending of a zombie attack.

BCRider
March 1, 2009, 10:59 PM
One of the range rats where I shoot uses a Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm in tactical rifle competitions. Out to 100 yards he has no trouble at all doing the same job as the others that are using the AR clones in .223. If the task is punching paper or knocking down poppers then it would seem that the 9mm isn't a bad option.

Funderb
March 1, 2009, 11:05 PM
when its what you have in a time of need, i suppose.

publiuss
March 1, 2009, 11:08 PM
How about an AR-15 in 9mm.:D

Big Bill
March 1, 2009, 11:57 PM
Under what circumstances would a .223 be better than a 9mm?When you're hunting coyotes and they are 150 yards out.

heavyshooter
March 2, 2009, 12:02 AM
The two rounds have two distinct uses. The .223 is intended to defend oneself from mass attack (i.e. Katrina, L.A. Riots). Frankly, unless you are in the military it has very little use outside of that. (I can think of better target rounds.) The 9mm is intended to fight your way back to your .223 so you can defend yourelf from mass attack. You know what? You should get both.:D

Heavy

heavyshooter
March 2, 2009, 12:15 AM
***Delete***

taliv
March 2, 2009, 12:26 AM
mark,


go here: http://scssa.org/new_page_3.htm

you will have a blast. (there are lots of pics, videos of previous matches on the internet. google away)

rifle/carbine shooting is so much better in every way than pistol shooting.

Beagle-zebub
March 2, 2009, 12:30 AM
If I were the one doing the 100-yard shooting, I'd take the .223. At that distance, the 9mm ought to have a much higher standard deviation from the mean point of impact than the .223--this is to say, the group will be much bigger. The more accurate your implement is, the easier it is to figure out that it is you, not the implement, that is causing less than fantastic groupings, which makes fixing bad shooting habits easier.

Big Daddy Grim
March 2, 2009, 12:31 AM
9mm just for targets and my .223 gives me enough time to get to my AR-10 thats for Zombies.

Kind of Blued
March 2, 2009, 12:42 AM
For paper punching, why waste all of that money on 9mm?

If you don't want to use an AR as a defensive tool, I'd suggest a .22LR upper. Actually I'd suggest something other than an AR.

The only time I would prefer a 9mm AR over a .223 AR is on a suppressed SBR for fun.

sarduy
March 2, 2009, 01:05 AM
if you dont wanto to spend money in 223 try one of the following

- AR-15 22lr conversion kit
- Hi-Point 995 9mm
- GSG-5 22lr
- Kel-Tec Sub 2000 9mm/.40sw

Hostile Amish
March 2, 2009, 01:13 AM
All the time.

rangerruck
March 2, 2009, 01:59 AM
223 does everything better, in my opinion, and the cost ? just get some milsurp.
or silver bear, or wolf, or barnaul, or monarch, or T/c russian.

husker
March 2, 2009, 02:47 AM
when is the 556 better than the 9 you ask. every time i pull the trigger

cratti
March 2, 2009, 03:31 AM
The two rounds have two distinct uses. The .223 is intended to defend oneself from mass attack (i.e. Katrina, L.A. Riots). Frankly, unless you are in the military it has very little use outside of that.

Funny, I always thought the .223 Remington cartridge was initially designed for long-range varmint hunting, and the 5.56x45 NATO cartridge was derived from the .223 Rem for making people dead.

gazpacho
March 2, 2009, 03:37 AM
30 round AR mags are easier to find than 30 round 9mm mags. Easier to load too.

purebred
March 2, 2009, 04:28 AM
the 5.56 is better in regards to penetration against bullet proof vest, knock down power & kenitic energy. I guess you can say more stopping power.
The 9mm ball ammo will penetrate more barriers then the 5.56 because the 5.56 is smaller and travels faster & more prone to fragmenting than the 9mm.
But price wise you'll be able to shoot more 9mm if you don't reload.

C-grunt
March 2, 2009, 05:19 AM
If you want it for just paper shooting, a .22 conversion is the king.

The only thing the 9mm has over the .223/5.56 is its probably easier to suppress.

JDGray
March 2, 2009, 06:16 AM
For pure shooting fun, my AR15 9mm wins hands down! It kicks a little harder so it feels like your shooting something:D If you reload, the 9mm is way easier, and way cheaper. Theres a reason the MP5 is so popular, so a 9mm isn't just a toy. A civilian better not be taking 100yrds self defence shots, either. The military can engage targets out that far, so they actually need a rifle. For most of us, the 9mm is more than enough, and a better choice for barriers:cool:

Art Eatman
March 2, 2009, 12:30 PM
If it's an "either/or" thing, for just one gun for now, I'd first spend some time thinking about scenarios and probabilities. For instance, if it's boogers in the house, a one-hand gun leaves the other free for flashlights and light switches and telephones. And with the usual training and practice, a handgun is usually adequate within the confines of one's yard.

As far as comparing the cartridges, the .223 makes much bigger messes than the 9mm. More shock, trauma, blood and goop and all that stuff. Obviously, a rifle is gonna reach out farther when sending greetings to hostiles.

Girodin
March 2, 2009, 02:35 PM
223 is better every where except the cash register.

Really though for your use a 9 mm sounds fine but one can get cheaper 9mm carbines. I like the sub 2k with glock mags. Of course an AR lets you change uppers

Walkalong
March 2, 2009, 02:38 PM
The 9MM AR is a lot of fun at the range and significantly cheaper to shoot. Ballistically, the .223 has it beat all day. :)

Ranger J
March 2, 2009, 06:22 PM
Are you going to use both in a long gun as opposed to the 223 in a rifle and the 9mm in a pistol? Otherwise all things being equal the rifle will almost always be more accurate than the pistol. At least it is in my case. Also remember that shoot out in California a number of years ago. Cops armed with 9mm pistols had to go to gun shops to get 223 cal rifles to down the bad guys.

RJ

JShirley
March 2, 2009, 07:13 PM
The .223 is intended to defend oneself from mass attack

Rubbish. The .223 was intended to provide a smaller, lighter round which would be effective in the engagement distances real warfighting had been found to actually occur.

John

Dr.Rob
March 2, 2009, 07:28 PM
Real men use 7.62 and 45's!

Kidding. Split the difference get your self an M-1 carbine. Flatter trajectory and longer range than a 9mm, 15 rd mag is standard, light and handy in close quarters. Doesn't look like an 'evil black rifle'. Ammo comes in 50 rd boxes about the same price as premium 9mm/20 rd box.

Oh and it's legal for DCM matches, 3 gun, whatever.

JShirley
March 2, 2009, 07:30 PM
M1 Carbines are indeed the bee's knees, for a lot of reasons.

If you enjoyed reading about "When is a .223 Better than an 9mm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!