Everyone knows rifles are better than pistols for everything except size and weight.

But, what about when you take a poor terminal performance round like M-855 and compare its terminal ballistics with one of the best 9mm loads, the 147g Federal HST?

I am not talking against an armored foe, but which one would have greater stopping power?

Uh oh..."stopping power should get some people here riled up.

M855 would be my clear choice. 60% of the time it works every time.

Seriously, there is almost no comparison between a rifle round such as this an a subsonic 9mm round.

It's a pretty clear cut answer. M855 will have something in the order of 3 times as much muzzle energy.

Why would you even ask this question??? You already have it answered.

At what range would the 9mm outperform the M855?



Short answer?  None.  The M855 will be much more destructive out to the 'effective' range of the 9mm.  Beyond that the question becomes moot.

M855 will cause velocity-dependent permanent wound cavities, HST will not.
Tomac

I think people don't give enough credit to the m855 round. I think it comes from people shooting it out of sbr's. That being said, why limit yourself to m855 when theres better ammo.

If not an armored foe, then there's no need for M855 anyway and you should be using M193 which afik has better (more reliable) terminal ballistics.

really



rifle w/ crap bullet>pistol w/ best ammo

Even in the case of the 40 grain Vmax .223 loads?  Whole thread on those and they didn't seem to be good for much other than small varmints like a rabbit.

    I prefer a rifle over a pistol any day and for home defense I would use some of the HSM 5.56 75 HP loads and consider it good to go with that.

Ok... so what about....

A rifle chambered in 9mm?!?



just kidding...

shot placement is really all that matters.  The best rifle bullet in the shin won't be as effective as the worst pistol round through the center of the heart.

Shot placement isn't all that matters. I would rather be shot in the chest with a 22 than a 308.  Shot placement is a critical factor, but acting as if it is the only factor is ignoring the role of good defensive ammo.

I know you still need to pick good ammo, however my point was that if that .22 penetrates enough to go through your heart, as I stated, you'll be just as dead as if it was a .308.  

My point was just b/c it's a rifle doesn't automatically mean it's better.  It really does depend on where you get hit.  Blanket statements like "worst rifle is still better than best pistol" are on their face poorly worded.  

Now if we are talking the same shot placement, then by all means a round with higher energy is better.

If people would worry about practicing and being better shots as much as they worry about 9mm vs 45acp, then hell we would all be master marksman.

your right, never miss and you can use a pellet rifle to the eye
your argument doesnt even make sense
 

You're right... accuracy isn't important... get a 300 win mag and shoot someone in the foot... that will work way better than a 9mm 147gr HST through the heart.

The whole point of my comment was that shot placement is just as important, if not more-so than the great caliber wars/debates we always see.  Assuming you use a round with sufficient energy, doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or 300 win mag when talking about people, shot placement is ultimately what matters.  

It's not uncommon for people to go hunting with a sufficient caliber, make a poor shot on an animal and blame the caliber for not being "big enough".  Then they think they need an even bigger caliber to kill the animal, which is why you see people hunting deer with super magnums, when a simple .243 100gr bullet in the vitals will kill the animal just as dead just as quick.

I'm not saying we don't need to use an "appropriate" round for whatever you want to do, but ultimately it's going to come down to the shooter's skill and ability to actually hit the target.

Here's an example of good shot placement, a Javelina I shot this spring at 320yrds.  Could I have used a larger caliber, sure.  Did I need to, nope... this little bullet dropped the Javelina in it's tracks with a double lung shot, a larger caliber would've destroyed more tissue sure, but it wouldn't have made it more dead.



Here's poor shot placement.  Rsbbit was a little over 100yrds away, using my AR with eotech, first round was to the butt.  It was a .223 50gr vmax, with your logic, being a rifle it should've killed the rabbit better than a pistol, yet it took a second shot actually in the vitals to kill the rabbit.


Weird though that in this example the pistol killed the same target with only one shot, even though the rifle was carrying more energy it wasn't as effective in that instance.  This was a 20yrd shot on a jackrabbit using my Glock 22.  I had it loaded with 165gr Winchester Ranger.  I'm pretty sure this round carries more than enough punch to kill a person with good shot placement.  
entry


exit


to show size of exit


My point is that shot placement is important.  Even though the rifle carried more energy, a poor shot didn't give appropriate "stopping power" b/c the rabbit was still able to hop away almost 50 yrds before I found it and gave it a second shot.  Meanwhile perfect shot placement with the lowly underpowered inadequate pistol dropped the rabbit in it's tracks.

Stop being idiots and going to the extremes.... Accuracy is important just as getting a reliable gun with good ammo. Problem solved.

"problem staying solved"
-Action Figure Therapy, Ranger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOocv7X0t4w

you really suck at making a point
I seriously dont think you even know whats being discussed. Do you know you introduced a variable which most assume constant in the OPs argument, and by the term "most" I mean any rash human.

You realize you are arguing for a false anology  right?





You cannot be guaranteed a perfect shot placement all the time, hence a rifle will give better results over more variables which you cannot control.





example, quartering shot on a bad guy, pistol will never give the penetration you need, while a rifle will, assuming both perfect shot placement.
 

when one cannot be guaranteed perfect shot placement, what would you use, pistol or rifle?



That should be a easy argument for you to content with



 

There are indeed scenarios where a bad rifle round might slightly underperform a good pistol round.

Not worth worrying about on a statistical basis, but I believe they do exist.

M855 vs. 9mm 147 JHP is indeed one of those scenarios.

Not that M855 is indeed that bad, but some times it does find itself lacking.

To better illustrate my point, consider the 6mm Lee Navy vs. 9mm 147 grain JHP.

Now, the 6mm Lee Navy cartridge was decades ahead of its time.  Loaded with spritzer bullets, (which came down the pike just a few years later), it would have been exceptional.

This only works against soft targets obviously.  And it doesn't work all of the time.  Statistics is funny about that.

We now know that pistol rounds over penetrate more than 5.56. I'd be interested to know if this holds true with M855 and a round like bonded 147 gr 9mm.

I can fully understand why this question comes up.  Looking purely at terminal ballistic testing in gel and such it is not super clear that 5.56mm ball is better than a top-end service pistol duty round.  It gets kinda squishy as the rifle hits with 2.5X more energy and does some damage above and beyond what the projectile physically crushes/cuts.  I've read a bit on the topic and it gets even squishier as in actual shootouts on people, all the service caliber loads had somewhat similar likelihoods of stopping a person, and rifles/shotguns also seemed to be similar with respect to one another, albeit roughly 20-30% more likely to stop the event than all the service handguns.  The whole topic is pretty flakey and full of bits of anecdotal evidence.  

IMHO, 5.56mm ball is a better choice at any range verses and handgun round, but the evidence is again, anecdotal.

It somewhat defies belief to think a 147gr subsonic 9mm round outperforms the m855 round in terms of wounding or AP. Our soldiers would not have been better off with mp5s.

What metric are you basing the 147 round being close to the m855?

i think some arent taking into account the damage caused by the temporary cavity of a high speed rifle round.  with handgun rounds, the temp cavity doesnt really come into play as the amount of energy is too little to damage organs and tissue damage is caused by the permanent cavity.  with rifle rounds however, the higher amount of energy gives the temp cavity the ability to damage non-elastic organs it comes into contact with



 

depending on type of bullets used and the barriers

5.56mm AP vs HST 147gr  1/2 steel plate

BTW

I don't think any of the approved handgun and 5.56mm Barrier Blind loads by the Dr. over penetrates

Some people are not as adroit in getting their points across succinctly, however there's no need for you to be such a douche' bag in your replies.  Lighten up Francis...

If the M855 fails to yaw (happens more often than you think,) then the HST will indeed leave a bigger permanent wound cavity.

That said, put a controlled expansion (Speer GD, TSX, TBBC) round in the .223 and it will win, hands down.

People keep talking about the rifle round having 3x the energy of the pistol round.  This may or may not matter.  Yes, at a longer range out of a barrel length sufficient to get the 855 round up to the proper speed where it will perform as designed, it should be more effective than the HST in the majority of cases.

In a short range situation like in a house where the AR is more likely to be a short barrel, the 855 may not get up to proper speed and perform as designed.  It is highly possible that the m855 could go directly through a person without tumbling, fragmenting, or expanding at all. Sure, the temp cavity is a factor, but if the bullet does not stray from its straight ahead position it isn't going to have a giant temp cavity.  The bullet will not transfer its 3X handgun energy into the body, and most of that energy will travel right through. Even with a longer barrel this round doesn't have the best rep for being a reliable tumbler/fragmenter.

The 9mm 147gr HST does not have near the energy, but you can be sure that thing is going to expand, create a large permanent cavity, and probably transfer all of its energy into the person.  Its also going to do this being operated by one hand allowing you to open doors, block a sudden advance, not be huge and cumbersome etc, and its not going to have such volume that you're fucking deaf afterwards like an AR, especially if the rifle is a short barrel.  

I'll take the guarantees of a pistol for indoors at close range, and leave the rifle for outdoors. Add more effective AR ammo to the mix and I still prefer a pistol indoors.

Don't think so. See below. Every single yard farther from the barrel is a reduction in velocity.


Personally I'm not a fan of M855's performance, as you said, results are wildly unpredictable, but not because of inadequate velocity, but rather angle of attack. Improper bullet angle will result in delayed fragmentation.

He might have been thinking of a 7" or 9" pistol.  I think that would be around 2200-2400 fps which I believe is too low to fragment reguardless of AOA.

Yes, I was thinking a shorter barrel in the 12 in or less range.