.45acp Vs .223/5.56
- Thread starter GregGry
- Start date
- Status
texas bulldog
Member
i think willbrink did great job of explaining why this is an apples to oranges comparison.
folks talk about the .45 as a great stopping round in handgun discussions, where it is being compared to 9mm or .40 or .38 or something along those lines.
those same folks may feel that .223 is a questionable SD choice where it is being compared to .308 or 7.62x39 or even .30-06.
it is very rare on THR that folks directly compare .45 and .223 because they are completely different platforms.
i can't help but feel that you started this thread because you got your feelings hurt reading people bashing your pet cartridge. you have staked your ego on the .223 and you either don't like or can't afford a .45 for your handgun. my advice is to get over it. if you like .223 and are comfortable with its effectiveness, then by all means use it. no one's asking you to do otherwise. but don't pretend it's the most effective rifle round you can use. it's not. and don't kid yourself that the .45 isn't one of the most effective SD handgun rounds. trying to compare the two is a false comparison.
look, i own and enjoy both. which would i use in a SD situation? well...whichever one was closest, which would almost certainly be the .45 'cause i can carry it without slinging it over my shoulder. that's why people talk about .45 as the king of the hill (though you might argue for .357 or .41 or 10mm or whatever). because they feel it's the best choice that they can carry daily. obviously, .223 isn't an option in the vast majority of cases where people need a weapon for SD, at least not outside the world of mall-ninjas. if you've figured out how to conceal an AR daily, more power to you.
in your home, use whatever you like. you'll find mountains of discussion about whether shotgun, handgun, or carbine is best for HD. maybe your opinions would fare better in one of those threads.
folks talk about the .45 as a great stopping round in handgun discussions, where it is being compared to 9mm or .40 or .38 or something along those lines.
those same folks may feel that .223 is a questionable SD choice where it is being compared to .308 or 7.62x39 or even .30-06.
it is very rare on THR that folks directly compare .45 and .223 because they are completely different platforms.
i can't help but feel that you started this thread because you got your feelings hurt reading people bashing your pet cartridge. you have staked your ego on the .223 and you either don't like or can't afford a .45 for your handgun. my advice is to get over it. if you like .223 and are comfortable with its effectiveness, then by all means use it. no one's asking you to do otherwise. but don't pretend it's the most effective rifle round you can use. it's not. and don't kid yourself that the .45 isn't one of the most effective SD handgun rounds. trying to compare the two is a false comparison.
look, i own and enjoy both. which would i use in a SD situation? well...whichever one was closest, which would almost certainly be the .45 'cause i can carry it without slinging it over my shoulder. that's why people talk about .45 as the king of the hill (though you might argue for .357 or .41 or 10mm or whatever). because they feel it's the best choice that they can carry daily. obviously, .223 isn't an option in the vast majority of cases where people need a weapon for SD, at least not outside the world of mall-ninjas. if you've figured out how to conceal an AR daily, more power to you.
in your home, use whatever you like. you'll find mountains of discussion about whether shotgun, handgun, or carbine is best for HD. maybe your opinions would fare better in one of those threads.
MikePGS
Member
I think the reason for this is that the same people who think the .45 is a vastly superior round are likely to believe that bigger is better when it comes to caliber. Some people think that (within a certain range of course) that the diameter of the bullet isn't nearly as important as where the bullet is placed. These people tend to think that a high velocity rifle or pistol round is fine, even if its a measly 9mm or 5.56mm. The other camp tends to believe that sure placement is important, but if a bullet is placed in the exact same spot that its better to have a larger diameter. I personally think that placement is the most important thing, so anything bigger than a .380 in a pistol and .223 or larger in a rifle will do the job in my own estimation. I suppose if its a negligible shot that isn't placed well in the first place that a bigger bullet might do a job a smaller one wouldn't though.
"so anything bigger than a .380 in a pistol"
Again, you and others fail to realize how ineffective pistol calibers are, and any expert in the field of terminal ballistics you speak with considers the 9mm minimum SD rnd. 17rnds center mass with .40 is damn good placement, it didn't stop him. If you think under a life and death dynamic situation you are going to put a well placed .380 into the BGs left eye socket, you are living in fantasy. Again, I direct you and readers to post #25 with a report everyone should read
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5272769&postcount=25
Again, you and others fail to realize how ineffective pistol calibers are, and any expert in the field of terminal ballistics you speak with considers the 9mm minimum SD rnd. 17rnds center mass with .40 is damn good placement, it didn't stop him. If you think under a life and death dynamic situation you are going to put a well placed .380 into the BGs left eye socket, you are living in fantasy. Again, I direct you and readers to post #25 with a report everyone should read
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5272769&postcount=25
Maybe he was trying to say the 5.56 was a better handgun round?
It might just be, if only the AR "pistols" out there weren't such abortions.
To conceal it, one would have to dress as one of those goth wannabes from The Matrix.
No thanks. Life is too short to try and carry an ugly, buffer tubed, POS.
It might just be, if only the AR "pistols" out there weren't such abortions.
To conceal it, one would have to dress as one of those goth wannabes from The Matrix.
No thanks. Life is too short to try and carry an ugly, buffer tubed, POS.
MikePGS
Member
I know, that's why i said anything bigger than .380. Most people would read that as being 9mm and up...
"Maybe he was trying to say the 5.56 was a better handgun round?"
The terminal performance is terrible. In that scenario, the .45 ACP is superior. Terminal performance suffers out of an M4, and where most of the complaints about the 5.56 lacking some potency comes from, much less the 5.56 'abortions' as you say. Going to heavier bullets and different twist rates and such has been an attempt to improve the lethality of the M4 carbine length ARs. Below that, forget it.
The terminal performance is terrible. In that scenario, the .45 ACP is superior. Terminal performance suffers out of an M4, and where most of the complaints about the 5.56 lacking some potency comes from, much less the 5.56 'abortions' as you say. Going to heavier bullets and different twist rates and such has been an attempt to improve the lethality of the M4 carbine length ARs. Below that, forget it.
Thomas Garrett
Member
I think he was right in his "thread", I think the website is goin' down. It is sort of a good argument though. personally i think it's a age thing. When was the last time anyone has frequented a "top notch" gun store? You stand in line for about a 1/2 an hour to and hour while "kids" (just legal, more than one I've heard their birthday was just yesterday) buying a SKS, Ak-47, AKM, AR's (any combination), and M-4's, Even a Barrett .50 BMG with scope ($3995.00 + tax, the "kid" was 18 !). Too much Computer games and TV are effecting thier judgement. All i needed was a couple of boxes of .38 Sp. and .45 because I target shoot (for years). If i was their parent I'd make sure they would get one for "FREE". (I'd put them in the Army!). And yes I was in, long time age. Now back to the Thread, I carried both a M1911-.45 and a M-16a1-.223, two different "combat" strategies. we were taught 25 yards and closer, use the .45 because of threat of a hand grenade, farther than 25 yards use the M-16. They both had thier purposes. They were both designed to do 1 thing, Kill! And yes I do own both, and to this day still believe in both equally.
MikePGS
Member
NP
Edited to add: Did you post that in the right thread Thomas?
Thomas Garrett
Member
Yes, The .223 vs .45 argument. it would of been better thread if it was .45 and 7.62 vs 9mm and .223. What do you think?
MikePGS
Member
Now I need to apologize. Sorry Thomas I actually read your post wrong, lol.
ljnowell
Member
How dare those "kids" like those guns! You should embracete younger generation of shooters, they are the future of the sport, not hate on them for liking evil guns.
Thomas Garrett
Member
"Evil" guns, your right! 
, yes. i do embrace the younger generation being involved in shooting. Where can i buy a hunting license for a Volkswagon? overkill is still overkill.
, yes. i do embrace the younger generation being involved in shooting. Where can i buy a hunting license for a Volkswagon? overkill is still overkill.
Last edited:
ljnowell
Member
TO each thier own, IMO. I know an old guy that has a .50bmg. IS it overkill to use on paper targets? To you or me, but not to him. No one should have to explain why they want something, this is america, remember?
GregGry
Member
(((i can't help but feel that you started this thread because you got your feelings hurt reading people bashing your pet cartridge. you have staked your ego on the .223 and you either don't like or can't afford a .45 for your handgun. my advice is to get over it. if you like .223 and are comfortable with its effectiveness, then by all means use it. no one's asking you to do otherwise. but don't pretend it's the most effective rifle round you can use. it's not. and don't kid yourself that the .45 isn't one of the most effective SD handgun rounds. trying to compare the two is a false comparison.)))
I never got my feelings hurt over calibers, that makes no sense. I appreciate you taking the low road on your post. As a FYI I own firearms chambered in 9mm, .40, .45, .223, .308, .22 lr, and 12ga.
Back to my original post:
I am not comparing CCW ability of the weapons that shoot .45acp and .223. I am not comparing the fact one is found mostly in rifles (and some pistols) to a pistol only. I am trying to figure out why people have such a high opinion of the .45 being a "man stopper" and the 5.56 as being anemic. If the object is to stop the threat (a human threat) I fail to see how the .45 would outperform the 5.56 assuming identical shot placement.
Many people I know put the 5.56 below the .45 as far as "man stopping" ability in self defense. Well they won't admit directly to it, most of the time (much like in this thread) the comparison is scorned as being apples to oranges, which means nobody has to give an answer. Its easy to say the 5.56 is anemic when you compare it only to other rifle rounds. Just like the .45 is at the higher end when you only consider pistol rounds. A cartridge is a cartridge, when you go from a .45 to a .223 your not training in smokeless powder, brass, and lead for a lazer beam.
I understand its hard to decide .45 vs 5.56, because if you just compare them to rifle class or pistol class, you don't have to admit to one being better then the other. Nobody wants to say that they would take a pistol caliber over a rifle caliber, since that would go against the common opinion that a handgun is only used to get to your rifle.
For a even easier time, rate these when it comes to your believe "man stopping" ability:
#1 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 pistol, 5.56 Both full metal jacket
#2 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 pistol, 5.56. Both with expanding/hollow point ammo
#3 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 rifle 16inch barrel Both full metal jacket
#4 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 rifle 16inch barrel Both with expanding/hollow ammo
I never got my feelings hurt over calibers, that makes no sense. I appreciate you taking the low road on your post. As a FYI I own firearms chambered in 9mm, .40, .45, .223, .308, .22 lr, and 12ga.
Back to my original post:
I am not comparing CCW ability of the weapons that shoot .45acp and .223. I am not comparing the fact one is found mostly in rifles (and some pistols) to a pistol only. I am trying to figure out why people have such a high opinion of the .45 being a "man stopper" and the 5.56 as being anemic. If the object is to stop the threat (a human threat) I fail to see how the .45 would outperform the 5.56 assuming identical shot placement.
Many people I know put the 5.56 below the .45 as far as "man stopping" ability in self defense. Well they won't admit directly to it, most of the time (much like in this thread) the comparison is scorned as being apples to oranges, which means nobody has to give an answer. Its easy to say the 5.56 is anemic when you compare it only to other rifle rounds. Just like the .45 is at the higher end when you only consider pistol rounds. A cartridge is a cartridge, when you go from a .45 to a .223 your not training in smokeless powder, brass, and lead for a lazer beam.
I understand its hard to decide .45 vs 5.56, because if you just compare them to rifle class or pistol class, you don't have to admit to one being better then the other. Nobody wants to say that they would take a pistol caliber over a rifle caliber, since that would go against the common opinion that a handgun is only used to get to your rifle.
For a even easier time, rate these when it comes to your believe "man stopping" ability:
#1 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 pistol, 5.56 Both full metal jacket
#2 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 pistol, 5.56. Both with expanding/hollow point ammo
#3 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 rifle 16inch barrel Both full metal jacket
#4 .45 pistol 5 inch barrel VS AR-15 rifle 16inch barrel Both with expanding/hollow ammo
Not the Makarov heads.
....which is why I wonder why in hell some guys would go through the trouble and expense of getting an AR SBR. If I go through the NFA hassle, it'll be to get a suppressed handgun, so I can plink without bugging anybody.
I am not familiar with people generally comparing a pistol round to a rifle round. This is truely comparing apples to oranges.
The FBI Miami shoot-out showed that a mini-14 shooting 5.56 can take out people pretty well.
A lot of other shootings have showed that the 45acp works pretty well too.
As complex as comparing rounds to one another already is with confining the task to just handguns or to just rifles, crossing over really complicates things.
Now if you asked about the 45 v the 9mm or the 5.56 v the 7.62 I would understand better.
stalkingbear
Member
it's NOT a fair comparison of .45acp vs 5.56. You have to compare apples vs apples-NOT apples vs cherrys. In handguns the .45acp is MUCH more effective than an 5.56. In rifles, an better comparison would be 5.56 vs 7.62x51.
So the question is?? Which would you rather be hit with a 1 oz jewlers hammer traveling 60mph or a 12 lb sledge traveling 60mph? Rough comparison but this is what we are talking about. Yes I was playing around with a spreadsheet and numbers. Oh and both would hurt you REALLY BAD.
GregGry
Member
I am confused. I am not comparing the platforms that shoot the given calibers. I am comparing the man stopping "ability" of the 5.56 (out of the pistols and rifles) vs the .45. I don't see how this is over complicating anthing. Its only as complicated as a person makes it.
Again I realize this is a pandoras box, because the general gun rule is rifle > pistol However when its a "anemic" considered rifle round VS a "man stopper" of a pistol round, my theory is that people wont want to answer it. Reason being its a rigged question that challanges peoples midset on firearms. If you say your opinion is that the .45acp has more man stopping power for self defense, you just admitted that the .45>a rifle round, and nobody wants to do that. If you say your opinion is that the .45 acp is < the 5.56 then the common argument that the 5.56's man stopping ability is somehow anemic doesn't hold much water since the .45 is touted as such a stopper.
I realize it is not as simple as that. I realize that there are 1,000,000 variables that come into play. We all have an opinion on where the 9mm, 40, and 45 go as far as rank on whats best. We all have an opinion on rifle rounds and what rank they are in. Had I been comparing the 7.62 to the .45 I can see that being a bit out of touch with reality.
Again I realize this is a pandoras box, because the general gun rule is rifle > pistol However when its a "anemic" considered rifle round VS a "man stopper" of a pistol round, my theory is that people wont want to answer it. Reason being its a rigged question that challanges peoples midset on firearms. If you say your opinion is that the .45acp has more man stopping power for self defense, you just admitted that the .45>a rifle round, and nobody wants to do that. If you say your opinion is that the .45 acp is < the 5.56 then the common argument that the 5.56's man stopping ability is somehow anemic doesn't hold much water since the .45 is touted as such a stopper.
I realize it is not as simple as that. I realize that there are 1,000,000 variables that come into play. We all have an opinion on where the 9mm, 40, and 45 go as far as rank on whats best. We all have an opinion on rifle rounds and what rank they are in. Had I been comparing the 7.62 to the .45 I can see that being a bit out of touch with reality.
GregGry
Member
it's NOT a fair comparison of .45acp vs 5.56. You have to compare apples vs apples-NOT apples vs cherrys. In handguns the .45acp is MUCH more effective than an 5.56. In rifles, an better comparison would be 5.56 vs 7.62x51.
When we are comparing "man stopping" ability of two rounds it is a open playing field on what rounds can be used. If I was comparing platforms, cartridge design, or other things similar, then no they wouldn't have much in common. The .45acp doesn't have feelings, I don't think it cares if it is compared to the 5.56. I realize nobody wants to answer my question for the most part, which I was hoping wouldn't happen.
When we are comparing "man stopping" ability of two rounds it is a open playing field on what rounds can be used. If I was comparing platforms, cartridge design, or other things similar, then no they wouldn't have much in common. The .45acp doesn't have feelings, I don't think it cares if it is compared to the 5.56. I realize nobody wants to answer my question for the most part, which I was hoping wouldn't happen.
223 62 FMJ 3100 192200
308 147 FMJ 2800 411600
762x39 123 FMJ 2412 296676
44r 240 SP 1760 422400
30carb 110 FMJ 1990 218900
10mm 200 FP 1200 240000
45acp 230 FMJ 880 202400
9mm 124 FMJ 1181 146444
40 155 FMJ 1200 186000
Look at the last big number. Keeping it simple, Keep in mind all that this is bullet weight times velocity. I know all these will kill somebody, but I also know that it sometimes takes more then one round of X caliber. To me the bigger number would be the best. Yes I had to go there. Sorry
308 147 FMJ 2800 411600
762x39 123 FMJ 2412 296676
44r 240 SP 1760 422400
30carb 110 FMJ 1990 218900
10mm 200 FP 1200 240000
45acp 230 FMJ 880 202400
9mm 124 FMJ 1181 146444
40 155 FMJ 1200 186000
Look at the last big number. Keeping it simple, Keep in mind all that this is bullet weight times velocity. I know all these will kill somebody, but I also know that it sometimes takes more then one round of X caliber. To me the bigger number would be the best. Yes I had to go there. Sorry
GregGry
Member
I am confused, what does that chart prove? I have never seen someone use numbers like that as a comparison since your not comparing muzzle enery.
So what your telling me is you would take the .45 over the .5.56 in both a rifle and pistol when it comes to ability to stop the threat?
So what your telling me is you would take the .45 over the .5.56 in both a rifle and pistol when it comes to ability to stop the threat?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked