for self defense, and a 223's 500 ft lbs, (with an expanding, 75-77 gr bullet) at 500 yds considered to be so "feeble"?  The 357 revolver has 500 ft lbs, and is considered to be highly likely to suffice, (given a solid chest hit).  The guy hit with a 223 expanding bullet, at 500 yds, couldn't hit you at that range before he got shot, if you are sensible about being prone, or using cover.  At the 5 yds or less of defensive pistol combat, however, he's pretty likely to hit you (someplace on your person) with one of his pistol shots, fired wildly as he falls.

So, it should be obvious that guys are being way out of line disparaging of decent 223 ammo, as to claims that it's "ineffective" beyond 300 yds. With a full length barrel and the right ammo, the 223 is plenty effective enough, even at  600  yds.  Either that, or they are way off base with their claims that the 9x18 rd has "enough power" for defensive pistol use.  Personally, I regard it as being inferior to the .22lr.  It still requires head shots, and it costs 5x as much for practicing those head shots as the .22 practice. Furthermore, the Makarove is as big and heavier than some variants of the 1911.  I can hit 3x as hard with those 1911's, so the only reason to favor the Makarov is that the defender doesn't consider his life to be worth the "extra" $500. That should tell you how much practicing he does with 10c a shot Makarov ammo, don't you think?

For starters, I wouldn't put much stock in .223/5.56 outside of 300 meters and it really loses its magic (fragmentation) past 150 yards.

As for why is 9x18 "enough"? Who said it was? a well placed shot from a .25 auto is "enough" in the right scenario, but how many of us would stake our lives on one given the alternatives out there?


As far as I am concerned

.380 is NOT enough
.38 is NOT enough
9x18 is NOT enough
9x19 is NOT enough

Any one of them might get the job done and all of these have been standard police issue in many places of the world (as was .32). Nevertheless there are calibers available that decrease the margin of error more significantly and since such choices exist (.357, .40, .45, maybe 10mm), I consider the above inadequate.

EDIT: My understanding of what makes Maks great is the cheap price tag and solid design, not that it is a magic substitute for the wide assortment of manstoppers currently in existence.

I think folks like the Mak not because of it's caliber(9x18) but because of it's outstanding durrable, extreemly reliable design. It is a "tank" and is very compact, much more then a 1911 probibly even smaller then the micro 1911's.

I was shooting an Abloy lock which is the toughest lock used in the trucking industrie for locking trailers. I work around semi's and find lots of these locks left behind so I bring them to the range to shoot and test different rounds on them. I was firing a .357, .45, .40 and a 9x18. I don't know how to explaine it but the 9x18 was the only caliber to leave a dent at all and it was a fair sized dent too! All the others(357, 45, and .40)  did was knock the lock down range. The 9x18 acctually penitrated into the lock! All bullets were ball ammo.

I know this does not mean much but it impressed the hell out of me and I would not want to get hit by the 9x18 after seeing what it did to the lock compaired to the other more powerfull rounds!!!

I hold the opinion that no one knows what the hell they are talking about with stopping power. Most experts can't even agree on this issue.

In the county I work in, I've seen people die from one .22 and others take 5 rounds of .45 ACP and live to tell their story. Now, is a .45 ACP a better stopper then a .22? Of course, but I don't think caliber is the most important issue. I believe the shooter, and most importantly shot placement are the deciding factors in a gun fight. That bigbore gun isn't going to do a damn bit of good if doesn't hit any vital organs.

When people ask me about guns, I tell them to find something they are comfortable with first, then picking a caliber they can handle. Because if a person buys a compact 1911, but turns out they are recoil sensitive and are never comfortable shooting it....they probably won't carry it or will think twice before using it to defend the house.

I know all that sounds pretty wishy-washy and I don't mean to say that all bullets are equal. Because of course a .357 mag is going to do more damage then a .25. And if you can handle it, a .45 is better then a 9mm...but I think there are other factors to worry about first.

Energy is utterly meaningless in and of itself when it comes to wounding potential. The only way to know how a bullet will perform is to test it. That is why the FBI, IWBA, and military established performance criteria based on testing results, not on easily derived numbers like velocity, energy, or momemtum.

So... does the .223 lose a lot of power at 500 yards, or what?  500 ft/lbs seems kinda weak to me, but then again, I've heard it's weaker than 5.56 NATO.

And when I say "kinda weak", I mean "kinda weak... for a RIFLE".  Rifles should always do a fuckload better than pistols when it comes to power.

And if you're talking hollowpoints, with ft/lbs and all things being equal, a .35 cal hollowpoint will make a bigger hole than a .22 cal hollowpoint.  Just... for the record.

Energy has jack to do with it at those velocities. Below 2000 fps the wounding factor is tissue crush.

Oh yeah, old military studies said that 70 ft/lb was required to cause a casualty. Too oversimplified for me to believe.

1. 100 % reliability
2. Your ability to put the bullet where needed.
3. The handgun must be convenient to carry (does no good if it is not with you).
If you and your handgun can do the above then you are good to go..... whether it is a Mak or 45 ACP.

+1
on ft pounds not being the deciding factor to even try to guesstimate a bullets so called "stopping power" you haft to try and balance the speed and the energy it delivers which even the experts have trouble doing.

it's crush damage at pistol speeds, that simple. If it crushes the same tissue and goes to the same depth then its as effective because the only way to get a instant stop is to hit the hard to hit cns, and when people are trying not to be shot it's even harder

A pistol and rifle are different things and used for different purposes.
A 2 ton floor jack would be fine at home but a proffessional shop would need far more. A rifle is for longer range engagments and serious combatants. A pistol is a defensive weapon.
A Mak is for personal defense and so 220 FtLbs should be adequate. An "assault" rifle is for short range combat and the .223 is adequate for that.
BTW it takes a maxed out .44 mag load to equal the energy of a .223 rifle round but which would you rather have as protection against a pissed off grizzly in alaska?
Different tools for differents tasks.

In the first place, I SAID a 75-77 gr hollow or softpoint, and such bullets don't need fragmentation.  Furthermore, if you'd shot some animals at 500 yds, or at closer ranges with lighter loads, shorter barrels, same retained velocity, you'd know that the 500 ft lbs remaining to such a 223 bullet is very effective.

As to shot placement, that's bs. When you are shooting for your life, especially with a pistol, you will be doing great if you keep half of your shots somewhere on the chest.  The heart is the same size as the brain.  If you could reliably hit the heart, why not just hit the brain, and get the instantaneous effect you need (but won't get with a heart hit)?

No, the Makarov's 220 ft lbs is not adequate.  It's not even close, except in the same way that the .22lr is "adequate" (ie, as a "bluff", when you don't actually have to fire in order to make the attacker back off).  The further away the guy is, the less need of an immediate stop.  There's no reason to care if a guy flops around a bit, after being shot, at  300+ yds, because he's no threat to you at such a range (after taking a decent hit).   A .45 sized hole, relative to the size of the vitals, doesn't mean a lick of diff (as vs a .22 sized hole). What matters is the tissue destroyed beyond the crush cavity (if your bullet has enough velocity to deliver such performance).

The 223 has plenty of power at the ranges where an immediate stop is needed.  For shtf, why lug around more weight and bulk, in rifle, mags, ammo, and be without the GI gun, parts, mags, and round?  Mobility and stealth will be hyper-important.

Some would say the Makarov isn't enough, then argue that caliber is irrelevant and shot placement is all that matters.

Personally I beleive the Mak is enough for a personal defensive, CCW a.k.a. last resort and in your face weapon. IF, the shots are placed properly. I carry mine ocassionally.

Hell, I would even rather have a .22 than nothing at all.  It ain't the magic pill but it can do the job, maybe not drop him in his tracks but .....



But, IMO the 9mm Para on down is not adequate for on offensive weapon.

AS stated that is my personal opinion nothing more nothing less........

The Maks 220lbs of energy is plenty. Hit the bad guy in the heart, lungs and head he is dead just as much as it it was a 9mm Para, .40, .45 or what ever. If you don't think so lets have you take a 9x18 to the forehead and see if you come out alive.