I have heard people saying the .223 isnt great for defense and have a question

[Handgunner]

Is there anyone here who would let me shoot them in any part of their body, wearing what ever you want, in order to prove that 5.56 is not good at killing people?

I doubt you would get any takers using 22 lr either.

That doesn't mean that the 22 is the best round for the job, nor does it mean the little 22 wont do the job.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Don't forget that shot placement is still king almost regardless of the weapon.

+1000

 

[bhhacker]

I really wasnt wanting this to turn into a caliber war. I promise im not trolling. I just wanted to know why people were poo pooing the .223 round because of military ammo when they are required to use FMJ and not more lethal (once again, ironic) rounds.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

I think what should be said about the .223 is not that it's not effective for self-defense, but rather that you might be better off with something else. The same goes for 308 and whatever other calibers there are. Basically what I'm saying is that if you want a long arm for self defese you're probably better off with a 12 guage shotgun. It would be hard to argue a rifle round being better than 00/000 buck or rifled slugs against the human body.

It would also be hard to argue the handiness of a longarm versus a handgun. A 357 mag revolver is certainly easier to manuever in a "act fast and now" situation than any type of rifle/shotgun.

That said. If you have an AR-15 or whatever and are happy with it and you do not want another gun, it will more than suffice for self-defense. It's really nickle and diming an issue that can and will be disputed forever.

I doubt that there is a terribly big list of people going around saying "If I had XYZ gun I would have been able to save my family but instead I had ZYX and they all died."

Buy the gun you want. Be happy.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I love the way the "ballistics experts" tout their ballistic gelatin approach to wound ballistics. The human body is not made of ballistic gelatin. Neither is it made of red clay or wet newspapers.

Ballistics gelatin is intentionally not designed to mimic the human body. This is why it doesn't have bones, organs, different densities, etc.

The problem with your suggested method is that it has too many variables to control in a scientific setting. For example, I watched a video of a shoat shot with a .50 BMG from about 150 yds. The <100lb pig proceeded to run about 80 yards before pitching over. It had been shot too far back. Now if I compare that to a video of a one-shot stop of a hog with .223, I could easily reach a bunch of questionable conclusions.

The problems get even worse since a bone may deflect a round into a vital organ here and away from a vital organ there. You've got no reliable way to compare two bullets because too many other things affect terminal performance in real life, most notably, shot placement.

The whole purpose of ballistics gel is to be able to compare rounds without all those variables cluttering up the data. This is why ballistics gel is calibrated, velocities noted, etc. It is also why scientists use ballistics gel rather than clay or wet newspaper; because it can be consistently reproduced by different scientists so that results can be compared.

In the meantime, scientists have noticed a strong correlation between ammunition that performs a certain way in ballistics gel and actual shootings of mammals. They know that a round that is capable of doing X in ballistics gel, also tends to do real well in actual shootings.

I know how the M193 round performs on hogs at moderate ranges because I have killed big bunches of hogs with that round. It is my opinion that the M193 round will perform just as well on humans when fired from a 20" or longer barrel at ranges to 150 yards.

Let me ask a few questions to give an idea of some of the variables that might explain why your experience is different from somebody else's on this subject:

1. You say M193; but M193 is not available to the civilian market. What specific bullet/cartridge are you using? You may be buying Prvi Partisan "M193" while someone else is buying Federal XM193 and there could be subtle differences in how those rounds are jacketed affecting their performance.

2. How many different rifles have you used in hunting hogs? Is the effect uniform across every rifle? There is a phenomenon called "fleet yaw." This basically means that two identical M4 rifles firing the same ammunition from the same lot can show totally different performance with regards to yaw/fragmentation (one of the things scientists discovered in the last ten years through the use of ballistics gelatin).

I'm not discounting your experience. I am a big fan of seeing how stuff works with my own eyes myself; but I am pointing out that there are a lot of reasons why people might not have the same experience you have and that without ballistics gelatin research, we wouldn't even be aware of the existence of many of these reasons, let alone understand how they might affect your practical use.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I love the way the "ballistics experts" tout their ballistic gelatin approach to wound ballistics. The human body is not made of ballistic gelatin.

Yet one can take the wound profile produced in ballistic gelatin and directly correlate the wounding effects it accurately depicts to ballistic trauma produced in the human body by the same cartridge. The only time there's a significant difference is when the bullet hits bone, which produces unpredictable results.

Whenever there has been a substantial difference observed in wounding effects between ordnance gelatin tests and actual gunshot wounds, further investigation revealed that the circumstances were different. Whenever the exact circumstances of the actual shooting were reproduced using ordnance gelatin, the exact results observed in the actual shooting were replicated in ordnance gelatin.

Is there anyone here who would let me shoot them in any part of their body, wearing what ever you want, in order to prove that 5.56 is not good at killing people?

In a shooting caught on camera, Jamie Martin Wise shot and killed Alexandria PD officer Charles Hill, then pumped the action of his 12 gauge shotgun and shot and wounded police officer Andrew Chelchowski. Wise shot Hill and Chelchowski right after he'd been shot squarely in the torso, in which the .223 bullet, nicked a vertebra, cut his aorta, and damaged his liver. Immediately thereafter Wise was shot and killed in a hail of police gunfire from other officers. See: Sniper Fire A Matter Of Decisions; Va. Gunman's Wound Raised Questions

 

[benEzra]

Is there anyone here who would let me shoot them in any part of their body, wearing what ever you want, in order to prove that 5.56 is not good at killing people?

While I agree with you that .223 is an excellent civilian defensive round, I think this argument is fallacious. I wouldn't let you shoot me with a .177 caliber airgun pellet at 1000 ft/sec, or a .22 Short LRN, or a CCI pistol shotshell. That doesn't mean any of the above are particularly effective defensive rounds.

I love the way the "ballistics experts" tout their ballistic gelatin approach to wound ballistics. The human body is not made of ballistic gelatin. Neither is it made of red clay or wet newspapers.

You're right, it's not.

What gelatin tests DO show, however, is that civilian JHP's can expand/fragment at velocities that military FMJ will not, and that civilian JHP's will often expand/fragment sooner than military FMJ will due to the FMJ having to yaw first.

There is also the issue that in a civilian HD role, military FMJ penetrates considerably more in building materials than most civilian JHP does, meaning that in applications where excessive wall penetration is a liability rather than an asset, JHP is arguably the better choice.

 

[Tirod]

Let's take one element off the table - the military has had JAG look at the hollow point situation. JAG looked at the intent of whatever convention we may or may not have signed - moot point as we follow it nonetheless. They determined that dum dum bullets designed to inflict more tissue damage were the point, especially since the turn of the century medical practices then were less than expert compared to now. A hollow point designed with the intent to improve aerodynamic stability was not found to be a dum dum,

Therefore, hollow points are legal to use in war, loads have been developed and type approved, have been purchased, are fielded, and are being used in SW Asia. That is last years news for those who actually keep up with the military. Hague/Geneva isn't the issue.

Changing the contracts for millions of rounds of ammo in production while plants like Lake City are running 24/7/365 - that's a problem. We don't turn the logistics train around on a dime. The lethality is an incremental issue, the army is still investigating what direction to go with all copper/brass gilding metal bullets, and there's no big rush.

The "long distance" issue in SW Asia isn't about the M4 reaching out further against the AK, it's about responding to the use of .30 cal and .50 cal arms in ambush situations. That's why the M14, M2, and other weapons are moving up to augment the situation. The Army is not trying to fix an issue with the range of the 5.56, it's fine the way it is. It's responding to the apparent respect the terrorists have gained because they don't want to engage us at that range anymore. They get killed. So they've backed off further to get away from the M4. Very few soldiers engaged in fighting the Taliban think they are stupid, it makes sense to get out of the kill zone by using longer range weapons. And the Army is responding by moving up our longer range weapons in reply.

Here's an interesting situation: they apparently don't think being equipped with AK's and engaging us is even a fair fight. Consider that when choosing the 7.62X39 for a HD rifle. Frankly, it has the same ballistics as the .30-30, there's no remarkable advantage to using it other than the temporary cheap price right now as it's dumped on the American market. Considering it has about twice the drop at 300 yards as 5.56, it's also difficult to use.

If someone really wants to pump up the AR performance and sees the proper perspective of an intermediate caliber, move up to an alternative if you want. Claiming 5.56 isn't getting the job done and comparing it to 50 year old C&R battle rifle calibers isn't justification. The armies that used them then abandoned them for good reason.

 

[Hangingrock]

I was in a situation that made a lasting impression with me (nineteen at the time). An adversary was hit center mass with a 45ACP went down, got back up center mass hits with a M1 carbine went down came back up and center mass hits with an M14 finished it. Our adversary during this up and down confrontation managed to toss a grenade and hose us with a PPS43. (Gunnery Sgt Korea veteran told me that’s what it was.)

I don’t know if the .223 Remington/5.56NATO is deficient or not. Dependent on circumstance it may or may not be effective. The above story from 45 years past proves there are no guaranties and I still have the scars to prove it. Reality and preconceived notions clash on occasion.

 

[Jaws]

Here's an interesting situation: they apparently don't think being equipped with AK's and engaging us is even a fair fight. Consider that when choosing the 7.62X39 for a HD rifle. Considering it has about twice the drop at 300 yards as 5.56, it's also difficult to use.

Who cares about external balistics, or bullet drop, in a home deffense situation,when you have to shoot down the hallway or across the room? Using modern bullets can make the 7.62x39mm quite a bit better than 5.56.

 

[benEzra]

Let's take one element off the table - the military has had JAG look at the hollow point situation. JAG looked at the intent of whatever convention we may or may not have signed - moot point as we follow it nonetheless. They determined that dum dum bullets designed to inflict more tissue damage were the point, especially since the turn of the century medical practices then were less than expert compared to now. A hollow point designed with the intent to improve aerodynamic stability was not found to be a dum dum,

Nonexpanding open-tip match bullets that act like FMJ are approved. The military OTM's don't expand, they yaw and fragment (very readily and very effectively, but they are nonexpanding rounds). Expanding JHP's such as those used by U.S. civilians and law enforcement are unlikely to ever be approved for general military use, IMO, unless we declare the Hague accords inapplicable to small-caliber bullets since they were originally written to cover much more powerful rounds.

Here's an interesting situation: they apparently don't think being equipped with AK's and engaging us is even a fair fight. Consider that when choosing the 7.62X39 for a HD rifle. Considering it has about twice the drop at 300 yards as 5.56, it's also difficult to use.

An HD carbine's primary role is going to be in the 0-10 yard range, not 300 yards. While I do believe .223 is the superior cartridge for the HD role (better bullet selection, less penetration, less recoil), 7.62x39mm inside 100 yards is just as capable in most circumstances.

 

[gunnie]

..."Since we are discussing home defense, I think I'd just use a 5.56 round that doesn't rely on yaw/fragmentation if velocity is a concern. As benEzra noted earlier, lots of those rounds do just great."...

i take benEzra's posting as a warning we were getting knee deep in thread robbery. surely inside one's own home, the vanishing HP and ballistic tip rounds he mentioned would be a far better choice than any FMJ which could still be very lethal beyond the perp, and the wall(s) behind him.

so we just agree to not quite agree, actually we aren't that distant in our thoughts. and, as others have brought up, ANY 5.56 loading is more than i want to absorb.

gunnie

 

[gunnie]

..."I love the way the "ballistics experts" tout their ballistic gelatin approach to wound ballistics. The human body is not made of ballistic gelatin. Neither is it made of red clay or wet newspapers."...

i agree for the most part. but please exclude Fackler from this list. due to his unique position Dr. Fackler is far from what i'd classify as just another "jello junky". he uses a vastly superior medium to research his findings also, and it doesn't need refrigeration as it is best stored at 98.6 degrees. please note in some of his drawings mention and charting of location for torn muscle. same in the link you were good enough to include.

but as a stand alone scale for real world shots into hemo-gooh, most agree it is much less than ideal.

gunnie

 

[paducahrider]

Is the .223 good for home defence???

Howdy!
Let me put it like this.
If someone shoots at me with a .223 at home defense range, I'm duckin' and gettin' the heck outa Dodge.
If I don't, I'm gonna die.
If it'll kill a deer or hog, it'll kill me.
It may not be what a hunter would call a "clean" kill, but that's a moot point when I'm goin' into shock and bleedin' to death.
Not only that: "That's gonna leave a whelp!"
I don't even want to be shot with a .22 long rifle, since the death rate from a body shot with that round can be higher than you think, it just takes a week or two, and a head shot is gonna ruin your day real quick,,, forever.
I'm sure there is a perfect weapon for everyone, but I'd rather have anything than nothing.
Learn how to shoot the thing, quickly.
Thanks for your time.

 

[NG VI]

Of course it's a good defense round.

 

[green country shooter]

"Bah, people have been complaining about smaller rounds since we got away from the .30-06."

Long before that, they complained when we dropped down to the .45 -70 from the big muskets, and complained when we went to .30 from the .45-70.

Personally i suspect a lot of modern 5.56 rounds are a little overstabilized and might benefit from a lesser twist rate, but i am no ballistics expert.

 

[Hatterasguy]

I don't know, my theory is any round will do the job as long as you put it on target.

 

[nathan]

I wouldnt stand in front even a 22 LR . Much so if its a .223, i d run like a gazelle!

 

[Byron]

In 1968 I was 20 and knew nothing of ballistics.I was drafted and a grunt in the 4th Inf Div,68-69.Our cartridge was the M193. It created devastating wounds killing quickly. M193 is available such as Lake City. I often wondered why the round has always been put down especially by those who never used it. I have no experience with the M855. I have no problem with the M193 today. Byron

 

[pty101]

I dont know that much about specific types of ammo but as far as the military using the round I have heard that they would like to move to round that penetrates better through brick walls and such that they are encountering in the middle east. I dont think that they would go to a 7.62, it would be far to expensive to replace all 5.56 weapons. This is just my .02 is will defer to the experts on this one.

 

[remingtonman86]

My question is are we defending against 100 V.C. or a neighborhood thief. Why have an AR15 under the bed when you can have a 9mm within arms reach and have it ready to go a lot faster than you could a long rifle to get the same results? if it was me, id have a 9mm or a 380 is also fine. that crook wont know what hit them.

 

[SHvar]

Bart go harass someone else, your behavior is childish.
Just read what you quoted and youll get your answer.
300 plus meters means from 300 meters to way beyond, sometimes it means 400 meters or more, but I guess that takes the ability to add.
I saw 3 deer shot in the same field by the same individual in 3 years by a .223, each time the individual stood in the exact same spot, these were but 3 of many instances over the years. Those deer were from 300-400 plus meters away, not all in the same exact spot.
Have a nice day.
The .223/5.56 works and works fast, it kills humans, deer, hogs, and according to those who live in Alaska/Northern Canada and know the Inuit people (they dont have a alot of money to spend on ammo), many of them use it on everything, caribou, polar bear, moose, even whales that have been harpooned.
Anyone who has seen what it does to our countries enemies does not doubt its killing power.

 

[C-grunt]

My question is are we defending against 100 V.C. or a neighborhood thief. Why have an AR15 under the bed when you can have a 9mm within arms reach and have it ready to go a lot faster than you could a long rifle to get the same results? if it was me, id have a 9mm or a 380 is also fine. that crook wont know what hit them.

I can tell you from experience as a LEO that immediately stopping a determined bad guy with a handgun is the exception, not the rule. Many criminals who are shot get found at the hospital hours later. Even with significant wounds they will many times be mobile, alert and very dangerous for a significant amount of time after being shot.

Shotguns and rifles, not so much.

 

[NG VI]

Maybe I'll get around to asking my buddy who spent three tours (18 months) in Fallujah while he was in the Marines how it worked for him and his squadmates. So far I've pretty much done everything I could to not get into the subject.

I know M193 works extremely well on people at jungle fighting distances, I have no concerns at all about any reasonable .223/5.56x45mm as fired by a competent shooter, but I've heard/read mixed things about M855 from shorter barrels and possibly less competent shooters.

I think my next AR will be an iron sighted 20" lightweight barrel, that's what I like shooting the most, and the ballistics are about ideal out of a 20" barrel. I'm just not fastidious enough to meticulously record the holdovers for various loads and bullet weights with an optical sight, I'd rather just zero irons for whatever I decide to use and be done with it.

 

[Ignition Override]

LS240:
Excellent points.

The original poster mentioned defense, but I read nothing about 'home defense', or fighting only out in the open etc.

Self-defense might not be just inside the home, but with law-enforcement overwhelmed/far away, against gang-bangers in a car, shooting from behind a wooden fence, garbage can, thick bushes etc.
Veterans seem to have told me that 7.62 rounds can better penetrate surfaces in front of a bad guy than 5.56/.223.

During the LA riots, some shop owners stood on their roof with rifles visible. If rioters choose to attack somehow, maybe we should assume that they would mostly decide to remain in the open-even if cover were available as they close in on us, hearing shots from our rifles.

If the OP's question only concerns fighting in the open like in western movies (far from reality), maybe I misunderstood.
Am only here to learn, despite being a deadly Keyboard Warrior , zapping some plastic bottles and fruit from 80', above the river with
the SKS and "Jungle Carbine" or Mauser this afternoon.