Home defense carbine: 9mm v. 223

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Personally, the difference between a 9mm pistols indoors with no hearing protection and 5.56mm with no hearing protection isn't that big a deal to me. Both are going to be plenty loud, both are well past hearing safe and I'd just as soon someone in my house illegally feel like I am hurling thunderbolts at them.

However, I have noticed that some shooters can be sensitive to flash and muzzle blast, even on cartridges that don't have that much recoil. To use one example, I often find new shooters handle 9mm or even .45 better than say .40S&W or .357 SIG. Since putting rounds on target is problem #1, I think it is usually best to figure out what weapons you can shoot well and then work on the other considerations.

 

[tlr683]

What it comes down to is we will all have our own opinions on what's best. For me its my 12 ga. I can swep my house in several seconds and handle it very accurately. And the way my house is set up my neighbors will not be in my shooting lanes. Any over penetration will go to my garage or a parking lot to a building that is empty at night.

Now what's best for you. Just think what gun do you want in your hands when your family is in danger. Witch one are you more confident in. Remember protect your family first apologize to your neighbors later.

 

[Trent]

I've got 5 kids, guardianship of my mentally disabled sister, 2 large dogs, and several of my wife's cats running around a multi-level (5 level/ 3 story) house.

Overpenetration is not an option here.

I keep a PS90 by the bed at night.

Just so happens I still have a pic on my clipboard from the thread I just opened.

200 yards, 20 shot group, prone.

It's not just a short range gun, contrary to popular opinion.

 

[mavracer]

Um.....NO. If racking a shotgun is so effective, why load it at all?

It might not work, duh.
If it works great, if not awe buck.

And the way my house is set up my neighbors will not be in my shooting lanes. Any over penetration will go to my garage or a parking lot to a building that is empty at night.

Knowing where your shooting lanes are before hand is an important factor.

As to the OP It's a toss-up to me either is going to require proper ammo and placement for good effect. pick one and practice.
For me I went in the middle and have a M1 carbine and a 12g.
No slugs for me, switched all my slugs for Flite controlled buck

 

[JustinJ]

Personally, the difference between a 9mm pistols indoors with no hearing protection and 5.56mm with no hearing protection isn't that big a deal to me. Both are going to be plenty loud, both are well past hearing safe and I'd just as soon someone in my house illegally feel like I am hurling thunderbolts at them.

I'm not so sure. .45 ACP out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet. The first time i shot my HK USC i thought it might have been a squib. I would expect 147 grain subsonic 9mm rounds from a 16" barrel to be waaay quieter than a 16" AR. Obviously a 147 grain 9 mm is going to penetrate far more though.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A subsonic pistol cartridge out of a 16" barrel will be quieter; but nowhere near hearing safe. OSHA recommends no more than 15 minutes exposure at 100db and allows no more than 2 hours exposure @ 100db (which is like being 15m from a jackhammer according to OSHA).

An MP5SD firing subsonic 9mm is 126 decibels. The threshold of pain is 140 decibels. Pretty much any type of handgun, centerfire rifle or shotgun will exceed 150db unsuppressed. So even a 10db drop using a pistol cartridge in a 16" barrel (which would be optimistic I think) would still put you around 140db.

 

[tuj]

If you have to use it, its going to be loud no matter what you use. 10dB up or down won't make a difference; your ears WILL be ringing unless you have a suppressor. I made the mistake of shooting a .44mag without hearing protection once. One shot had my ears ringing for days and that was outdoors.

I personally like the expansion of the TAC-XP Barnes solid copper bullets, which you can get in .223 or 9mm. That said, the 9mm round has been shown to penetrate many types of barriers and still expand in gelatin.

Therefore I would go .223 with some type of expanding load. While the standard .223/5.56 FMJ round will generally tumble and stop in a barrier, I'd rather have an expanding load.

I'm a big fan of 9mm but if you are using a carbine, might as well use .223.

 

[JShirley]

In order, I'd want a 12ga loaded with #1 Buck, a 9mm carbine, a rifle in 5.56

My own reasoning for the 9mm carbine over the 5.56 is that IMO, generally speaking, an errant 9mm is going to go about 100 to 150 meters before it falls to Earth and the 5.56 can hypothetically go a lot longer distance...

How exactly will that 9x19mm go 100 meters inside your home? In real life- not hypothetically- if you miss the target, the 5.56x45mm will penetrate less in structural materials than the 9mm. If you do hit the threat, the 5.56 will tend to effect a sooner stop.

John

 

[mavracer]

an errant 9mm is going to go about 100 to 150 meters before it falls to Earth

I think you might want to look at a ballistics table a little closer with a meager 4 degrees of elevation a 9mm will go 1000 yards.

 

[tlr683]

Although I prefer my 12 ga. For my house. Your circumstances are different then mine. Over penetration isn't an issue for my house, so for maximum devastation 12 ga. Is it for me. But you said 9mm or 223, pick the one that you can clear your house with safest. It doesn't matter witch one it is to us, its not our family in your home. The best one is the one you can handle and maneuver the best. As for over penetration their is ammo for both designed for home defense, with over penetration and stopping power in mind. ( 9mm hornady has critical defense ammo) ( 223 barnes has mpg. Multi Purpose Green, designed for police ) in the end what ever you choose is up to you, just protect your family with your life, as all of us would.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I use a 12 gauge and when I had one a old 30/30.

 

[JustinJ]

A subsonic pistol cartridge out of a 16" barrel will be quieter; but nowhere near hearing safe. OSHA recommends no more than 15 minutes exposure at 100db and allows no more than 2 hours exposure @ 100db (which is like being 15m from a jackhammer according to OSHA).

An MP5SD firing subsonic 9mm is 126 decibels. The threshold of pain is 140 decibels. Pretty much any type of handgun, centerfire rifle or shotgun will exceed 150db unsuppressed. So even a 10db drop using a pistol cartridge in a 16" barrel (which would be optimistic I think) would still put you around 140db.

I'm not arguing it would be hearing safe but the degree of damage is directly related to how loud a noise is. So yeah, 145 dB could do some damage but would be less than 165 dB. Of greater importance though, in a HD scenario, is the amount of disorientation one inflicts upon himself and I believe it would be much less with a pistol caliber carbine than an AR of equal barrel length.

 

[mljdeckard]

So mavracer, what you're saying is.....it isn't that effective. Why have that step in the process at all?

Keeping the chamber empty so you can rack the slide and scare someone delays your reaction time, gives away your plan and position, may not be a deterrent AT ALL, and may just as easily invite aggression from someone who may have been deciding whether or not to attack you.

 

[mavracer]

So mavracer, what you're saying is.....it isn't that effective. Why have that step in the process at all?

A: I prefer to store my shotgun cruizer ready
B: If it does detour them it's a great success.
C: If I'm worried about how long it's gonna take to rack the slide, I'm just going to engage with the 1911.
D: I'm sure the dogs will have already given my position away.
E: like I said already there's buckshot ready if they wanna come on.

 

[tlr683]

 

[Warp]

Ok so for home defense only, inside the house, short ranges, which would be the better choice? a 9mm carbine such as the Beretta CX4 or just stick with the trusty old Colt 6920?
Assume both are equipped the same with, with a red dot, light, and 30 round mags.

The 223 prob gets the nod for effectiveness? but would the low recoil/low flash of 9mm make up for the difference?

I chose the Colt LE6920

 

[MattShlock]

A 12 ga. with BB Shot or #4 Buckshot ("Hamburger Helper" in Vietnam) is as lethal as it gets closeup.

I also like a pistol for defense.

There is a reason about 20% of my .223 is Hollow Point -- the Geneva Conventions don't apply on my property and quality rounds feed well. Bullet weight should be defined by twist but if you can use 55 gr., why not? Expect all except the lightest shotgun pellets to go through the first average wall they encounter like they're not even there -- with the shotgun, the safest probably, at least the mulltiple wound channels and Central Nervous System trauma are spread out and are clearly the highest single-shot stopping round.

 

[Warp]

A 12 ga. with BB Shot or #4 Buckshot ("Hamburger Helper" in Vietnam) is as lethal as it gets closeup.

More effective than #1 buck or 00 buck?

I don't think so.

...besides, it isn't about killing. Not at all.

 

[JShirley]

Killing ain't the goal, but the things that accomplish a rapid stop are likely to result in death.

Matt, I'd disagree. The most dramatic stops I've seen have almost all been rifle shots, with the exception of my first buck...who was so close I shot him from the hip.

 

[C-grunt]

Rifle all the way. From experience as a LEO and as an Infantryman the rifle tends to drop people like they were hit by a truck. Especially with a good hollow point load. At work we use the Federal Tactical 55 grn HP and it is VERY effective.

Also at work I have seen far far more people run away or continue fighting after good COM hits with any handgun than have fallen down and died where they stood. Handguns are carried because they are convenient, not because they are terribly effective.

Also having shot rifles indoors, you probably will hardly notice it if the time comes.

Ive shot hundreds, if not thousands of rounds without hearing protection, been blown up with 3 direct hits on my vehicle with IEDs, taken a few close range rockets/mortars/artillery, been around armored vehicles for four years and lost my right eardrum during a training accident. I can still hear decently. Not great but not bad. Your body is tougher than you think.

The last thing you should be worrying about during a gunfight is future hearing loss. What you should be worrying about is shooting and maneuvering on your enemy. Because if you don't then you wont have to worry about your future.

 

[Texan Scott]

Personally, I would start from the ASSUMPTION that ANYTHING you fire has the POTENTIAL to pose an overpenetration hazard. Assuming otherwise encourages careless behavior. Of course, if it really WOULDN'T go through sheet rock, I wouldn't trust my life to it.

As far as noise goes, ANY gun fired in the house will damage your hearing. Wear hearing protection or resign yourself to the idea of partial hearing loss as the potential price of protecting your loved ones.

If you have a 6920, that'll do as well as anything. If you really want a 9mm carbine, go for it.

My personal options include buckshot, 7.62x39, and two handgun calibers. My PREFERENCE would be ... whatever's closest. Usually, I'm WEARING one.

 

[coloradokevin]

There's little doubt (whether this comes from anecdotal shooting reports, or ballistic studies) that the .223 is far superior to the 9mm in terms of its ability to stop an attacker. You're comparing a rifle cartridge to a handgun cartridge, and there's a world of difference between these two in terms of terminal ballistics. A lot of the hype about .223 in-home over penetration is simply that: hype. A .223 with a carefully selected bullet will stop a fight, and not go ripping through your neighbor's house afterwards (at least not any more than any other effective defensive cartridge/bullet combination).

The only advantages I could think of for a 9mm carbine vs a .223 carbine are these: 1) The 9mm might yield faster follow-up shots, and 2) the 9mm may be less deafening when fired indoors.

If you want raw "stopping power" for a single intruder who isn't protected with body armor, I'd say you'd still be hard pressed to best a 12 gauge with 00 buck or slugs. And, you'd probably preserve more of your hearing by firing that gun indoors.

I carry an M4 style AR-15 at work. It's a great versatile gun for work, but I'd still choose the 12 gauge if I had to stop a single unarmored attacker at less than 25 yards, and only got one shot to do it. I've also strongly considered the addition of a suppressor to my rifle. My department doesn't provide suppressors, but I started thinking about it after attending a wound ballistics class with some officers from a better equipped department elsewhere in my state... all of their rifles are suppressed due to their consideration for hearing protection if they need to fire their rifles in the close quarters environment of a house or apartment. Really, that's not an unreasonable concern in my opinion (an AR-15 is darn loud when fired in a small bedroom without hearing protection).

 

[2@low8]

Originally Posted by MattShlock View Post
A 12 ga. with BB Shot or #4 Buckshot ("Hamburger Helper" in Vietnam) is as lethal as it gets closeup.

Response In Post #43 - More effective than #1 buck or 00 buck? I don't think so.

The poster said, “… as lethal as it gets close up.” #4 Buck will kill you just as dead as #1 or 00 buck up close. Dead is dead. My preference is for the #4 Buck for less wall penetration than larger shot sizes.

I only mention "killing" (as in lethal) because that was the reference in both the quoted posts. As JShirley said, "Killing ain't the goal, but the things that accomplish a rapid stop are likely to result in death." #4 Buck up close will accomplish a rapid stop.

 

[Warp]

There's little doubt (whether this comes from anecdotal shooting reports, or ballistic studies) that the .223 is far superior to the 9mm in terms of its ability to stop an attacker. You're comparing a rifle cartridge to a handgun cartridge, and there's a world of difference between these two in terms of terminal ballistics. A lot of the hype about .223 in-home over penetration is simply that: hype. A .223 with a carefully selected bullet will stop a fight, and not go ripping through your neighbor's house afterwards (at least not any more than any other effective defensive cartridge/bullet combination).

The only advantages I could think of for a 9mm carbine vs a .223 carbine are these: 1) The 9mm might yield faster follow-up shots, and 2) the 9mm may be less deafening when fired indoors.

If you want raw "stopping power" for a single intruder who isn't protected with body armor, I'd say you'd still be hard pressed to best a 12 gauge with 00 buck or slugs. And, you'd probably preserve more of your hearing by firing that gun indoors.

I carry an M4 style AR-15 at work. It's a great versatile gun for work, but I'd still choose the 12 gauge if I had to stop a single unarmored attacker at less than 25 yards, and only got one shot to do it. I've also strongly considered the addition of a suppressor to my rifle. My department doesn't provide suppressors, but I started thinking about it after attending a wound ballistics class with some officers from a better equipped department elsewhere in my state... all of their rifles are suppressed due to their consideration for hearing protection if they need to fire their rifles in the close quarters environment of a house or apartment. Really, that's not an unreasonable concern in my opinion (an AR-15 is darn loud when fired in a small bedroom without hearing protection).

Why are you limiting the scenario to a maximum of one shot?

 

[fireside44]

Because when I have to defend my life and the lives of my families I'm worried I might have a little ringing in the ears afterwards.