357 Magnum vs 5.56x45 in carbines

[Shawn Dodson]

My primary load is 55gr M193.

For a general-purpose barrier blind expanding bullet, I handload 60gr Nosler Partition using H335.

For short-barrels, I handload Hornady 50gr GMX/CX (barrier-blind) and VMax (soft targets). The GMX bullet used to be loaded by Hornady in its "Full Boar" line of ammo.

 

[Armored farmer]

What do you think is better for farm and ranch protection? For a "truck gun"? Assuming a person chooses a carbine for home defense, 357 or 556?

For my farm here in the Midwest, our primary target is varmints. We're talking raccoons, fox, groundhog, coyotes, and lately....Bobcats.
The DNR has been asking us for three years if we have seen any wild pigs....so I expect that to be next.

 

[Space Ghost]

Having both ARs in 5.56, and a lever gun in .357, I say each has a place.
For one thing, due to "straight wall" laws, I can hunt deer in Indiana with my .357 mag.
For defensive use, either will (should) stop a threat at home/self defense ranges with zero problem. (at home I use an AR SBR)
When I travel, (as I'm about to next week) I may pass through areas that are very AR unfriendly. My "Combat Cowboy Carbine" gets to come, the AR stays home.
It is every bit as fast on target as the AR with a red dot sight. I do have to work the lever for follow up shots, but a lever is faster that a bolt and more natural as we all played cowboy growing up...
Thanks to modern ARs, it's easy to even mount a light on one. There are replacement fore-ends (that I find ugly as sin) with Mlok, but I just use an Impact Weapons Systems mount to offset it from the scout rail.
A .357 can also shoot .38 Spl, so there is an additional benefit.


My Chiappa 1892 Alaskan takedown in .357.

 

[DMW1116]

I’ve often thought a PCC lever gun would be a good all around travel gun. 357 Mag, 44 Mag, or 45 Colt would all be suitable for social work and maybe some short range hunting.

 

[DMW1116]

For closer ranges under 100 yards it’s about a draw. A 125 grain bullet from a lever action 357 can be made to behave much like a 300 BO, but won’t maintain its energy very far.

Any chance of needing a shot more than 150 yards moves things to the 5.56/223. 55 grain at over 3000 fps if it’s what you have but some 70+ grain bullets would be preferred if you have a fast enough twist

 

[Hookeye]

For one thing, due to "straight wall" laws, I can hunt deer in Indiana with my .357 mag.

To clarify, Indiana first allowed rifles for deer under the short range concept of "Pistol Cartridge Rifle" (PCR).
The cartridge spec never had a straight wall case mandate.
When the spec was changed (lengthened case to 1.8") the .35 remington trimmed got popular.

PCR spec still needed for public land, but private ground allows "conventional" rifle stuff as well.

 

[horsey300]

I want to know about 223 bullet selection. Like I wrote in the OP, I have both 357 and 223/556. I have a wide variety of bullets in .357" and I'm pretty confident I have a few that have the best terminal performance available for my contingent need. My choices are influenced by my guns too which are revolvers rather than rifles.

For .223", I've done a lot of reading and I did post up in the reloading forum last summer to get some more hints. I had to narrow my choices by the 1:9 twist my barrel has -- no 77 gr. TMK whether it's good or not. I settled on M193 or my own 55 gr. FMJ loads for paper/plinking/practice. For when terminal effectiveness counts, I have to factor in my 16.5" barrel. I was looking for TTSX, or Lehigh Controlled Chaos. I found Hornady CX seconds that afforded me greater quantity. I'm still curious to learn more about other hunting bullets in .223" for 5.56x45 that I could use in small quantities. I'm not sure yet that I would, but I am curious.

Don't rule out the 62 gr scirocco 2! VERY excellent terminal performance so far! Nothing wrong with the monos, I run a 50 gr ttsx in one of my .223s (1-12) when it's not vmax season, there's also the 70 gr accubond that MIGHT ought to stabilize I'm thinking.... I'll run it through a calculator later if you like. We pushed that scirocco 2 above limits on impacts and have yet to recover one, and no tracking required yet. I'd also not turn down the 70 gr Speer or 60 gr hornady sp. The sierra 65 is on the list to try eventually when I get the itch to experiment around again lol.

 

[DMW1116]

Anyone try the 62 grain Lehigh Controlled Chaos? I’ve been eying them pretty hard.

 

[horsey300]

Anyone try the 62 grain Lehigh Controlled Chaos? I’ve been eying them pretty hard.

They were hard on my list to try for a long time, and still haven't written them off yet, but went with the Swifts to gain advantage on the wind.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Wrong again.

5.56 and 6.8 fragmented. .45-70 did not. All have similar diameter temporary cavities.

The point you are missing - is that the 5.56 NATO, along with the crush cavity, also has a sizable Permanent wound cavity, about the size of a grapefruit.

The 45-70 does not.

This occurs not just from tumbling, but high impact velocity as well.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The point you are missing - is that the 5.56 NATO, along with the crush cavity, also has a sizable Permanent wound cavity, about the size of a grapefruit.

The 45-70 does not.

Because the 5.56 fragmented when it yawed.

Whereas the Russian 5.45x39, at the same velocity, yawed but didn't fragment. The bullet remained intact producing an entirely different wound profile.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Because the 5.56 fragmented when it yawed.

Whereas the Russian 5.45x39, at the same velocity, yawed but didn't fragment. The bullet remained intact producing an entirely different wound profile.

An expanding bullet, at the same velocity, will also cause the expansive permanent wound cavity.

The slower expanding bullet will not.

Here is some reading for you if you are interested.

Effective Game Killing​

 

[Shawn Dodson]

An expanding bullet, at the same velocity, will also cause the expansive permanent wound cavity.

The slower expanding bullet will not.

I agree, in general, with your first statement.

However, if 5.56 doesn't fragment when it yaws, its wound profile is very similar to the Russian 5.45x39.

There are a variety of factors that come into play. Velocity is one of them.

 

[mavracer]

Actually, Velocity has everything to do with it, regarding most projectiles and the OP in particular.

Impact velocity - determines whether an expansion wound cavity is either temporary, or exceeds the elasticity of the tissue and becomes permanent.

That impact velocity threshold has been determined to be ~2,200 fps.

Bovine feces.
Unfortunately Fackler was an physician and not a physicists.
The elasticity of tissue can most definitely be exceeded well under 2200 FPS.
If he was better versed he would have put the threshold in terms of kinetic energy as the direct comparison of how much kinetic energy is converted to elastic energy would directly affect the size of the expanded cavity and then determine if tearing would be likely to occur.
As to what is permanent and what is temporary you're trying to measure a line that doesn't really exist.

 

[Rodfac]

For my farm here in the Midwest, our primary target is varmints. We're talking raccoons, fox, groundhog, coyotes, and lately....Bobcats.
The DNR has been asking us for three years if we have seen any wild pigs....so I expect that to be next.

Armored: Good grief...just saw your comment on Hogs coming to IL. We're in KY just east of Louisville, hope to gosh that that particular infestation doesn't head our way. Rod

 

[Shawn Dodson]

That's where scientist & aerospace engineer Duncan MacPherson comes into play.

In April 1976, an article titled "Relative Incapacitation BULListics" was published in Guns & Ammo magazine by MacPherson, in response to an October 1975 article published in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine by James P. Cowgill, titled "The Newest Look at Handgun Ballistics," which was an unquestioning, completely supportive report about the LEAA's Relative Incapacitation Index (RII). MacPherson sent his article to the editor of American Rifleman but the NRA refused to publish it. MacPherson's article was critical of the RII, which rated handgun ammunition based on the size of the temporary cavity.

Fackler read MacPherson's article and began a years long search for him because Fackler understood there were many disciplines involved in fully understanding the complexities of wound ballistics. Fackler finally located him around 1991 or 1992.

Since then, MacPherson has made substantial contributions to the science of wound ballistics, particularly the physics involved, that has led to better performing defensive handgun ammunition.

 

[film495]

but, you can't put a silencer on a .223 and shoot subsonic 200 grain lead slugs out if it, with a whisper. the two catrdiges discussed are just so different, definitely a reason to have both.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

If [Fackler] was better versed he would have put the threshold in terms of kinetic energy as the direct comparison of how much kinetic energy is converted to elastic energy would directly affect the size of the expanded cavity and then determine if tearing would be likely to occur.
As to what is permanent and what is temporary you're trying to measure a line that doesn't really exist.

Kinetic energy is the wrong measure.

According to MacPherson:
"Many individuals who have not had technical training have nonetheless heard of Newton's Law of Motion, but most of them aren't really familiar with these laws and would be surprised to learn that Newton's laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships."

 

[mavracer]

MacPherson's article was critical of the RII, which rated handgun ammunition based on the size of the temporary cavity.

Still the line between permanent and temporary cavities doesn't exist in actual tissue.
IMHO it's foolish to throw out the baby with the bathwater and try to say RII is totally wrong and should be ignored, secondary to penetration absolutely.
Especially when you have someone who still thinks 2000fps is a threshold, I've had too much experience making live tissue into dead tissue to not understand there's no magic threshold.

 

[westernrover]

Does it really matter in an age where we have people shooting clear gel or home-made gel out in the sun and then ooing and awing over the "wound tracks" and using terms like "permanent wound cavity" to refer to the white marks in the gel, on Youtube?

I mean, I know these guys don't take themselves too seriously, but I wonder how many of their viewers can't tell that it's a joke.



I was going to cite Kentucky Ballistics, but I'm pretty sure that guy's graduated from shooting gel blocks a few years ago to shooting toilets full of nacho cheese with a 4-bore -- what an epic channel!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Still the line between permanent and temporary cavities doesn't exist in actual tissue.
IMHO it's foolish to throw out the baby with the bathwater and try to say RII is totally wrong and should be ignored, secondary to penetration absolutely.
Especially when you have someone who still thinks 2000fps is a threshold, I've had too much experience making live tissue into dead tissue to not understand there's no magic threshold.

I agree, there is no velocity threshold.

It depends entirely on the specific tissues involved and where they're located along the wound track.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Does it really matter in an age where we have people shooting clear gel or home-made gel out in the sun and then ooing and awing over the "wound tracks" and using terms like "permanent wound cavity" to refer to the white marks in the gel, on Youtube?

I mean, I know these guys don't take themselves too seriously, but I wonder how many of their viewers can't tell that it's a joke.



I was going to cite Kentucky Ballistics, but I'm pretty sure that guy's graduated from shooting gel blocks a few years ago to shooting toilets full of nacho cheese with a 4-bore -- what an epic channel!

Perhaps the most misleading term most YouTube testers use is "wound cavity" (e.g., Wow! Look at that wound cavity!"). It implies all the disruption depicted in gelatin equates to severely damaged tissue.

They don't have the requisite depth of knowledge to thoughtfully explain the different wounding mechanisms depicted and what they mean.

 

[mavracer]

Does it really matter in an age where we have people shooting clear gel or home-made gel out in the sun and then ooing and awing over the "wound tracks" and using terms like "permanent wound cavity" to refer to the white marks in the gel, on Youtube?

I mean, I know these guys don't take themselves too seriously, but I wonder how many of their viewers can't tell that it's a joke.



I was going to cite Kentucky Ballistics, but I'm pretty sure that guy's graduated from shooting gel blocks a few years ago to shooting toilets full of nacho cheese with a 4-bore -- what an epic channel!

We do live in a world where a lot of people think feelings trumps facts.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

This video is dated but the information remains valid today. It discusses the many flaws of the RII:

Deadly Effects: Wound Ballistics - What Bullets do to Bodies

See - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5AhcuLWIe3A

 

[dranrab]

Any expanding Sierra Game King. The Sierra TMK 69 (probably 60 too) and TGK 64. Fusion. Nosler 64 Bonded and 60 Partition. Swift Scirocco 62 grain. There are others, but I don't have any experience with them.