.45acp Vs .223/5.56

[JWJacobVT]

AT close range YES. As for muzzle energy read this http://www.chuckhawks.com/myth_muzzle_energy.htm

At long range Neither.

also all the pistol velocities are out of short barrels vs rifle out of long.

Just did the math. A 12 inch 556 is worse then a 40S&W and only slightly better then a 9mm. If you go to a shorter barrel 556 it gets even worse.

 

[n00bdave]

This, at first, seemed like a silly thread to me, but then it got me thinking...is this why Personal Defense Weapons like the FN P90 and HK MP7 never really caught on with people "in the business"? When you fire such a small cartridge through such a short barrel, it just isn't as effective as a carbine or a larger assault rifle round.

As far as the 5.56 versus .45 ACP debate, at close distance the .45 would be my uneducated choice. But against >1 attacker/intruder or at a distance of more than 25 yards, give me the M4/AR-15 every time.

 

[spyderdude]

I would not even want to be shot with a .22LR, never mind a .45 ACP or .223/5.56. Any of them will be fine for self defense, but I think the .223/5.56 would be reserved for home defense or emergency situations.

 

[alelks]

A 5.56 (.223) is a VERY POOR round when compared with a 7.62x39. Our troops are out gunned in this area when it comes to the damaging effects of the two different rounds.

There have been many instances where insurgents were shot with a 5.56 round and not even flinch (partially due to the adrenalin). When hit with a 7.62x39 round it's typically a different story.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Is that why spec ops are going back to 45 handguns and 6.8 or 7.62 rifles????

But they're not doing so.

The super cool kids in Delta actually mostly dropped their .45 1911s in favor of (prepare to have world turned absolutely upside down ) Glock 19s. Not just 9mm, but kind of short barreled 9mm's. (They later did switch or partially switch to 40 cal Glocks.)

As for long gun caliber -- they're probably the only unit that could actually make a switch to 6.8 SPC at this point . . . and haven't. They shoot 5.56mm and shoot it mostly through short barreled rifles to do it. The did spend the money to switch to the HK416s, but were happy enough with 5.56mm they didn't bother to switch caliber while they were at it.

Those guys know more about gunfighting than most anybody else in the country, up to and including even the better writers whose works turn up in the gun rags and such. Kind of makes you wonder how seriously anyone should take someone who wants to talk about how 5.56mm or 9mm won't do the job when the highest end professional gunfighters don't seem to have much problem with them.

Anyway, more generally SOCOM would have gotten new 45 caliber pistols if the Big Army had not jumped on that band wagon, but having been in that community at the time that program was going on and trying to follow all the twists and turns it took, I got the sense that the 45 caliber angle was kind of tacked onto the program as an after thought -- the main priority was ditching the Beretta M9. Ditching the M9 was also a big consideration with units that managed to scrounge up 1911s or purchased non-M9s at the unit level (though 45 ACP has its fans who'd consider the caliber change a plus too).

 

[HorseSoldier]

A 5.56 (.223) is a VERY POOR round when compared with a 7.62x39. Our troops are out gunned in this area when it comes to the damaging effects of the two different rounds.

Strangely enough -- and a review of just this thread will make the point -- the guys who are actually killing bad guys these days with long guns seem to almost never have noticed how "outgunned" they are with their wimpy 5.56mm short-barreled carbines facing manly men with thutty-cal AKs . . . .

 

[C-grunt]

I was never outgunned with my M16. In my opinion the only thing 5.56 gives up to the x39 is barrier penetration and even then not that much with the green tips. In 03 we would "prep" buildings we believed enemies might be hiding with the SAWs. Being a M249 gunner at the time I prepped more than a few. My rounds would fully penetrate almost every building I shot up, excluding large office buildings.

Ive said it here before a few times. In 05 we had a SF group with us on our FOB. We befriended them and hung out with them, playing video games, and talked a lot. Only one guy carried a 1911. The rest carried Berettas, not M9s. They were the Centurion models I believe, dont know the difference, and had upgraded parts. I asked one of them why they still carried it and he said "9mm works and I can get parts and ammo from you guys." They all used full auto M4s too.

 

[C-grunt]

As for which I would choose for self defense? It would be the 5.56 any day of the week. I have never seen a pistol round penetrate a chest and shatter a scapula leaving an exit wound almost the size of a baseball. I have seen an M4 do that.

 

[mljdeckard]

I absolutely agree, I have never felt that the 7.62x39 had any definitive advantages over the 5.56, particularly steel-core ammo. Especially for military uses, I have always felt confident about that round shredding light armor. And in a more controllable weapon, this gives it a use advantage to just about anyone. This is why we still use it. Some of the new rifle innovations are cool, I particularly like the SCAR, but not enough to whine about dropping my M-4 because I wish I had one.

 

[Mello]

JWJacobVT

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

GregGry

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?

No less a personage than Jeff Cooper used numbers like you see in that chart. They show momentum of the bullet.

He found through decades of personal experience that momentum was a far superior correlation to bullet effectiveness than kinetic energy. He also considered bullet design (diameter, configuration, mass, and to some extent expansion or frangibility).

All defensive handguns and the 5.56 may be considered by knowledgeable shooter as underpowered. That is why it is taught to shoot those rounds twice (or more depending on the round) to the center of mass.

Under 25 yards I'd take either, over 25 yards I'd prefer the 5.56.

If I know there was trouble brewing I'd take my HK91 in 7.62 and my 10mm.

 

[ArmedBear]

No less a personage than Jeff Cooper used numbers like you see in that chart. They show momentum of the bullet.

Yup.

Energy is BS, used specifically to make a little bullet look like a big one on paper. Keith knew this, and he bagged the big game to prove it.

If you want to know what a bullet will do, momentum is a much more meaningful measurement than energy.

Yes, Roy Weatherby used high-energy high-velocity small rounds where Keith used big ones, but Roy's velocities were VERY high, and the small bullets were still a good deal bigger than .223 bullets.

Bottom line? If you have the momentum, you don't need the energy.

 

[willbrink]

"the comparison is scorned as being apples to oranges, which means nobody has to give an answer."

The answer was 100% given in this thread. You either don't like the answer and are ignoring it, or you didn't understand the answer. I will summarize again however: A well designed 5.56 at the velocity it was designed for to 'cause it's optimal terminal performance is going to have much better lethality then a .45 ACP from a pistol. Anyone who says otherwise has simply not done their research on the topic. One more time: for a pistol rnd, the .45 ACP is a good "man stopper" but NO PISTOL in standard duty loads (9mm,.40, etc) are very effective man stoppers unless something vital is hit. The 5.56 (and the .223 is not an identical rnd to the 5.56...) is going to have superior terminal ballistics* then ANY handgun rnd in standard duty loads. Was that clear enough? :banghead:

* = assuming of course bullet is traveling at it's designed velocity for bullet upset characteristics which is another issue...

 

[willbrink]

"The super cool kids in Delta actually mostly dropped their .45 1911s in favor of (prepare to have world turned absolutely upside down ) Glock 19s."

Do you have a cite for that? I would be interested in reading that info.

 

[Walkalong]

Ljnowell is right. Comparing a pistol round, no matter how good, with a high velocity rifle cartridge is absurd. The .45 would be fine for home or self defense in civilian life. But anyone in military combat who would carry a M1911A1 instead of an M4 or an M16 is just not thinking.

Jim

Yep, Question answered 2 pages ago.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Do you have a cite for that? I would be interested in reading that info.

I don't, but it's been that way for a while. My understanding is that they were issued both 1911s and Glock 19s, and the majority of guys ended up only using their 1911s for shooting IPSC at home station, while the Glocks were working guns they took downrange. They liked the Glocks enough that version 2.0 of that plan was just to issue everyone a Glock 22 and 23.

 

[Guns and more]

id take a .45 handgun over one of those mall ninja ar pistols, seriously conceale dcarry of 223?

Can someone please translate this?

 

[willbrink]

Hmmm, OK. That does not jibe with my info and sources. Thanx

 

[willbrink]

"Can someone please translate this?"

See:


http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_carbon15_AZ-C15P97.asp

 

[n00bdave]

A Marine Force Recon guy that posts on a car forum I frequent most certainly had a Glock 9mm pictured alongside his M4A1--"showing off" his gear and such. He did comment on it and mentioned liking it much better than the M9 that it replaced.

I know, I know...friend of a friend stuff. But I'm no Glock fanboy by any stretch--never owned one, but might someday. I cannot deny that they are rugged weapons though...and I don't doubt that some in the high speed community has replaced their standard issued M9 with a polymer pistol.

As far as 5.56mm vs 7.62x39 goes...I think in the hands of the vast majority of shooters the 5.56 is going to be a much more accurate, easier to control and therefore more lethal weapon. Let's not get into how much more damage the AK does than the M4 in Call of Duty 4, OK?

 

[alelks]

Strangely enough -- and a review of just this thread will make the point -- the guys who are actually killing bad guys these days with long guns seem to almost never have noticed how "outgunned" they are with their wimpy 5.56mm short-barreled
carbines facing manly men with thutty-cal AKs .

That's because our boys are WELL trained and can shoot.

Most of the bad guys shooting the 7.62 are not shooters.

Given the choice between a reliable, accurate 7.62 and a 5.56 round I can guarantee you most of the SOF personnel would choose the 7.62 (or a round larger than the 5.56) if it's stopping power they want. If it's volume of fire then hands down it's the 5.56.

Let's not get into how much more damage the AK does than the M4 in Call of Duty 4, OK?

Not Quite! I served twenty years in Special Forces with the majority of that being on an ODA (A-team).

AL

 

[GregGry]

The answer was 100% given in this thread.


Yes some people gave their opinions, but most people came up with reasons not to answer the question.

 

[schatzperson]

Hello everyone, this my first post here even though I often read some interesting posts evry now and then.
In fact what prompted me to register is exactly the question of 45 vs 223 effectiveness.
I do not doubt one bit that a .223 rifle is a far more efficient fight stopper than a .45 ACP handgun, but my question takes a slightly differnt direction.

A while ago while developing loads for my Thompson smg's, I found that using 200 grain semi wad cutter, hard cast bullets I could not get a 1928 A1 to cycle properly; The load that worked very well in a 1911 pistol was not strong enough to work the bolt far enough for the sear to engage in the TSMG.
While working up the loads, I found out that the 1928A1 can handle the 200 grain SWC bullet @ 1275 fps with no problem at all; The gun functioned flawlessly and I could barely observe a very very tiny bulge on the case.
Well, 200gr at 1275 fps (722 ft #) is well into 45 super !!!
(A 230 grain load might better this in super brass)
So the question is this:
Given the same carbine barrel length of say, 10.5 inches is there a significant shift of effectivenness ?
Disregarding weapon weight factors, will a 45 at these levels offer competitive stopping power to a 223 in 10 inch carbines ?

Very likely flight ballistics will favour the 223, but inside 75 yards or so, we might be looking at a differnt story.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

should be a seperate thread for this que, a total different matter altogether.
I have a Marlin Camp .45acp that I replaced the recoil spring with a heavier and have fired +P ammo in. I don't own a chrono but the 200gr Hornady C/T slug really 'whacks' 1/4" steel plates at 100 yards. I assume the round gains some velocity from the longer barrel, loads are Power Pistol powder.

 

[schatzperson]

This is not really a "totally different matter" because it is related to the 45/223 sage, but Marlin is correct, this is not the rightb thread and place, so I am re-locating to "Rifle Country".

 

[cubesmoothie]

editted because i didnt read up to page 3

Great thread btw one of the best topics i've seen GreGry