User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:27:41 AM EDT
[#1]
rifle rounds always win against pistol rounds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:28:16 AM EDT
[#2]
Rifles out perform pistols everytime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:36:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Are you shooting from a conveyor belt?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:58:40 AM EDT
[#4]
gelatin test? Maybe teh google?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 9:07:18 AM EDT
[#5]
A small bullet traveling 3000 fps will usually kill with deadly force compared to a heavy slow bullet. I think they call it hydrstatic shock which means the bullets going so fast that when it hit flesh the water in the tissue gels up and things start popping apart.
Also, you hit a boney area with a 5.56 like a knee cap or pelvis the shock is superior to any carry patrol hand gun anyday. Another thing if the other side has armor the 5.56 will most likely penatrate over any hand gun. Plus the Ar system will most likely provide 30 rounds of more controllable firepower. Other than the above items a 40 cal hand guns got it's positive's as in small carry package. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 9:53:10 AM EDT
[#6]
Why is it, then, that most of the guys I've seen interviewed, or with whom I have spoken, who walked point in WW2, Korea & Vietnam, usually preferred to do so with a Thompson or a Grease Gun? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:13:47 AM EDT
[#7]
probably because it was shorter, full auto, and had a 30rd magazine capacity?
Remember, assault rifle cartridges didn't really exist until the very end of WWII. Your only other alternative was the 30-06 in either a 8 shot rifle or a heavy ass automatic rifle. The 30 carbine was also another choice but full auto versions didn't exist until way way late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:30:29 AM EDT
[#8]
I understand the caliber thing in WW2. But this doesn't address the Vietnam War era. Most of the guys I have talked to that walked point wanted a full auto .45 over anything else. How, then, can someone say that super light and fast, ala .223, has better killing power than heavy and slow? Up close, say within 50 yards, wouldn't you rather have heavy and slow?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:37:42 AM EDT
[#9]
Oh my mistake, I didn't read your question right (as usual).
 I don't know about the Vietnam era too much...only that Thompsons were HUGELY relegated to rear rear REAR echelon units. The M16 had pretty much replaced the M14, M1 Carbine, and Greasegun. My father was a 2LT at the very end of Nam. His air defense artillery unit had some M1 Thompsons floating around. As far as the debate of 5.56 vs 45 ACP, the 55gr 5.56 generally destroys more tissue than the 45 ACP. Although at point blank range, getting any military caliber bullet shot through your thoracic cavity will cause serious problems. Remember that the .45ACP already had a reputation by that time while the 5.56 was untested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:45:27 AM EDT
[#10]
I still get confused all to hell over the whole caliber debate thing. I've been shooting all my life, and just when I've convinced myself that something works, I switch gears and get interested in a different caliber.
 I've never been involved in an actual shooting, and so I can only go on what I read and hear. It's always struck me as odd how the point guys wanted a .45, when they could have access to an AR-15. I tend to agree with you guys, that the .223 has got to have more killing effect on the bad guys, but the .45 auto thing throws a big curve at me. All things being equal - most importantly shot placement - what would you guys rather have for an up-close engagement: a full-auto .223 or .45?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:47:57 AM EDT
[#11]
My understanding is that the guy walking point had the best chance of making contact with the enemy. If you come into contact first, your goal is to suppress the enemy long enough to allow the rest of your squad to get into position to suppress/maneuver against the enemy. At least in WWII, the best shoulder fired weapon you could carry for suppression would have probably been a Thompson or Grease Gun of some sort. Your buying time, not necessarily assaulting the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:49:59 AM EDT
[#12]
Sorry I think the best shoulder fired suppression weapon at this time was the BAR.  But really you are always going to be better of with a rifle shooting rifle cartridges. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:52:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Rifle. However shot placement is going to be a factor. What kind of ammo are you using?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:57:45 AM EDT
[#14]
I can answer your question.
Contact me directly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:16:24 AM EDT
[#15]
As someone wiser than me once said
"Pistol bullets punch holes, rifles tear shit up." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:43:11 AM EDT
[#16]
I thought that the M1 carbine was the best compact US weapon of WWII and Korea. Wasn't the Thompson pretty heavy for what it did?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:55:28 AM EDT
[#17]
slowtypest,
you can start by looking at these wound profiles: US Military M193 and M855 .45 ACP Winchester 185gr Silvertip .357 Magnum 125gr JSP I realize they don't give a direct example of the .40 S&W, or necessarily the .223 load your agency will be using, but it's the best resource I could find (quickly) to demonstrate the difference between a handgun wound and a 5.56 wound. Note that rather than cutting a straight path like a handgun bullet, 5.56 projectiles will generally yaw and fragment, creating a much larger wound. Couple that with the impact velocity of the 5.56 that is sufficient to cause trauma from the temporary expansion cavity and you can see how the 5.56 has a much better chance of stopping a threat faster than a pistol round. I don't know how duty rifle ammunition selection is handled in Canada. In the US agencies tend to have a lot of leeway with their selection of ammunition (which can be good OR bad, depending on the knowledge of who's in charge of ammo procurement), whereas other countries I've seen stick with whatever their military forces are using. If your agency fits into the former category, as much research as possible should be done before settling on a duty load. Several US agencies have opted to issue lightweight "ballistic-tip" ammunition to alleviate over-penetration concerns despite the fact that they do not meet the penetration requirements set forth by the FBI for duty ammo. The wisdom of such a practice is very arguable, and it cost Dallas, TX PD the life of an officer last year when his ballistic tip bullets broke up on impact with the windshield of a car and failed to stop the attacker within. There is a great deal of information available in the AR15.com Best Choices for Self-Defense Ammunition and plenty of helpful (and a few not so helpful!) folks in the AR15 Ammunition Forum. In the end, remember that as our member Old_Painless says "rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols," and that shot placement and training are key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:22:37 PM EDT
[#18]
I am not in a war situation. Just the mean streets. The only two things, I have is a 40 cal glock hand gun with hollow point 147 grain std canadian police issue or Colt Canada C8A2 ( m-16 style) in .223
Canada is not a big gun place and there is very little real life advice here Which is going to stop the person best? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:28:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Read the items someone linked you to in the post just above this one. There is no comparison, the rifle will make a much better wound. Also you likely carry a 9mm handgun or are mistaken on the bullet weight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:43:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Being in Canada, I'm sure the winters can be very cold. Thus, people/suspects will be heavily clothed. Hollow point bullets tend to act like full metal jackets when travelling through layers of clothing. In this case, I'd go with 223 full metal jackets. Plus, if you encounter a suspect wearing soft body armor, the 223 will penetrate and the 40 will not. A rifle/shotgun will almost always beat a pistol in most scenarios. ETA: noticed the bullet weight also. looks like you have a 9mm, not a 40 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:56:32 PM EDT
[#21]
.40 > .223 through glass
.223 > .40 for soft targets .223 > .40 against body armor .223 > .40 for distance .223 > .40 through heavy winter clothing (a 5.56 FMJ can't get "clogged" and will still frag nastily upon yawing at 2700fps or higher.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:06:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Wow! I am surprised this has gone on for so long. 5.56 will be the best choice hands down period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:11:50 PM EDT
[#23]
The problem is that your taking information from WWII and Vietnam and trying to apply it to the realities of today and your personal experiences. What you need to do is concentrate on what the police and militaries of TODAY is using. We are currently fighting two long and protracted war with heavy urban fighting and many young men patrolling point. The current conflicts we are engaged in are much more relevant to you as a civilian than the heavy woodlands/jungle conditions of Vietnam or the various Theaters in WWII. Simply look up what the men breaking down doors and doing urban patrols are using today and see for yourself. That is more relevant than any war stories told over the counter of a gun shop about an old timer and his M-14 in Vietnam. Back to the original poster question, as someone who have seen literally thousands of wounds caused by a myriad of rounds fired through many weapons and various types of explosives: there isn't even a competition. As posted above, the .40 (or any handgun round actually) would do better through laminated glass, but a slug is a better choice still. Than we have the 62gr penetrator such as the BH option which does quite well through laminated glass and deliver a much greater shock with less deflection than a handgun round. With the right ammo selection (just as in ammunition for handguns) any .223 rifle will be much more superior in almost any situation one might encounter. Now an interesting discussion would be between .223 and the 10mm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:25:14 PM EDT
[#24]
The heavy and slow vs light and fast is usually discussed when the calibers have similar energy. 44Sp vs 9mm would be an example of this. They are both pistol calibers with about the same class of energy. A 223 rifle vs a 35 Remington rifle would be something also to discuss both being rifles with similar overall energy (at least in the same class)
A 223 rifle vs a 40cal handgun is totally apples and oranges,very much different classes of power altogether. Not just one step up in power and effectiveness but several . As is often thrown out as a universal truth by Old Painless---"rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols." The power difference is just astounding and when you factor in that rifles are much easier to get accurate hits with at any distance more than several arm lengths the patrol rifle is a very powerful tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:52:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Yea, what about that? I carry a Glock 20 a lot, and in the back of my mind, I think the 10mm packs a lot more punch than a .45. But again, this is a whole different topic. What about the H&K MP5/10 10mm vs. an AR-15? Let's say, anything within 100 yards. Does 10mm win? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:56:45 PM EDT
[#26]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 2:21:28 PM EDT
[#27]
'old timer and his M-14 in Vietnam'
Damn! We're 'old-timers' already. Hey, slowtypest; as a patrol officer you will need both rifle and pistol. It's not a question of which you will have. When you pull a little old lady for going too slow on the highway you probably don't want to approach the car with a freakin' AR-15, but a good handgun in an opened holster would be good just in case it's really some Hussein character in drag. Then again, you want that rifle/carbine when you respond to any number of situations with armed perps, with the pistol as back-up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 2:30:40 PM EDT
[#28]
I'm impressed that you remembered the quote.  Anyone that has shot rifle and pistol rounds into a medium will quickly be able to tell you that rifles are much more powerful. A rifle in a pistol caliber is just a long-barreled pistol. It is not a real rifle. Given a choice (which the original poster may not have), always take a rifle to a fight, over a pistol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 2:34:54 PM EDT
[#29]
No. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#30]
I will take the 5.56/223rem any day over a 40cal handgun or AR15
Some Handgun ammo can penetrate more than the 223rem Just depends on bullet selection |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:05:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Hell, I've shot Coyotes at 200 yards with my little Sako 223 and gutted them with one round of 55 gr. GI ball ammo.
Take a 40 and if you can hit the critter say at 50 yards see the tinny little wound channel it will produce not to mention the lack of knock down power. There really is no comparison as the 223 is greatly superior anyway you look at it. The 223 (5.56) truely does very well what it was designed for and that is killing people. You can reach out to 600 yards, you can carry lots of ammo, penetrate armor and on and on. The 40 is a handgun round. What else is there to say about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:11:09 PM EDT
[#32]
I totally agree. I have a Glock 20 myself and love it to death. To me the 10mm is one of the greatest handgun calibers ever created......but it's still not going to compare to a rifle round. Here's a great bullet energy calculator that I found that will give you an idea of handgun caliber energies compared to rifle energies: Bullet Energy Calculator The only place I'd prefer my Glock over my AR as far as defense, would be inside of a house......just because it's easier to manuver around, and as much stuff as I've shot with it, I feel pretty well protected with the power that it has. Other than that, the AR wins every time. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:14:44 PM EDT
[#33]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:18:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Moving from the .40 to the 10mm and wanting to challenge a rifle cartridge is like moving to a slightly larger bicycle and deciding now you can play chicken with big trucks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:22:47 PM EDT
[#35]
OMG people, if any of these folks are in your area look them up and slap them immediatly just for posting this retarded babble.
 Everyone knows that phaser guns are the way to go, geesh!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:37:49 PM EDT
[#36]
You get the idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:42:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Not true.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:44:17 PM EDT
[#38]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:49:32 PM EDT
[#39]
DM, pm inbound. While the large MAJORITY of the time rifle round will win out over a handgun round, there have been several well documented cases where the opposite were true. Given the choice, I too would most likely choose the .223, but let's not spread inaccurate information to our friend in blue from the north. Both will kill you, it depends on the application as to which may be more applicable. Bullets of any caliber fail, and always when you need them to do what they do most.
Scott
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:06:49 PM EDT
[#40]
To the OP:
The way it was described to me by an Instructor with 25 years experirnce in LE, about 13 of which was SWAT and who has BTDT was that only 30% of people shot with handguns die, and that only about 30% of people shot with long guns live. From personal experience I've seen people survive multiple COM hits from large caliber handguns. I've seen a headshot from a 45 duty gun ricochet around the skull under the skin and not put the guy down. I saw a guy shot in the forearm with a 5.56 round. Shattered the bone, tore out muscle, fragments went through and hit the guys face messing up his nose and sinus cavity. He went down hard and the fight was over. I also had a guy who walked out to the ambulance after being gut shot with a 25 caliber handgun who bled out on the 5 minute ride to Duke Hospital. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:18:18 PM EDT
[#41]
I agree with you RobNC, You just never know with bullets. I saw a guy shot in the head (and abdomin several times) with a 7.62 NATO live. Seen a guy take a 9mm to the temple and not even know it or notice his eye was half way popped out of sockett. Also seen a guy hit with a 9 mm in the side fall over dead instantly. The body does funny things and anyone who has been around that stuff long enough with enough fequency knows there is no posative in a gunfight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:26:22 PM EDT
[#42]
If you go against Clint Eastwood, be careful about that metal vest hid under the clothing trick. Aside from that, the rifle ought to be great.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:40:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Waiting to hear about the 147gr. .40 cal.
Is there some Canadian conversion going on here?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:44:28 PM EDT
[#44]
I have a PDF file of a gunfight 40 S&W vs 45acp vs 223
Perp had a .45.......he took several hits with the 40 (FBI) and several with a .223 TAP bullet. TAP bullet crushed his ankle bone and pelvis...40 didn't do shit. Penetrated only 1 inch except for his arm, where it broke the bone. If you'll send me an email address, I'll send you the PDF. PDF has morgue x-ray and photo. It's not gory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:07:00 PM EDT
[#45]
I think you need to re-read the report, or get the full version. The PowerPoint by the FBI tells the tale correctly. No offense, but you have it backwards, .40 worked, .223 tap shit the bed for the most part. I have this and shared it already, It was a PA Officer Involved shooting that the FBI reviewed, not the FBI doing the shooting. Bullets fail!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:19:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Rifle vs pistol round or .223 vs .40 what ever it may be is all circumstantial. Like the .45 the .40 has alot of knock down power whereas the .223 has the range. In urban areas you wouldn't usually run into a situation where you needed to snipe a an angry Kanuk of a hockey stadium so if it was my choice I would want a hard hitting pistol round in say a carbine like the Beretta CX4 storm. If the situation was a rural or woodland area I would lean more toward the .223. Thats just IMHO. So I dont think you can say one is more effective than the other unless you include your situational surroundings. Which you may have I didnt make it all the way through the thread before I felt the need to post my .02 in a series of misspelled words and missplaced punctuation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:20:07 PM EDT
[#47]
I see it more of the other way around as well that 40 also failed after reading it all the way through. It was a case of complete failure on all counts. Expansion may take more than an inch but it still ment nothing.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:21:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Is it possible to fail less maybe
?
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:30:30 PM EDT
[#49]
Which TAP bullet was involved? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:33:42 PM EDT
[#50]
55 grain by responding SWAT, 75 grain by patrol. Scott |
||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
