Is a .223 really more lethal than 9mm at close range ? - Page 6

Is a .223 really more lethal than 9mm at close range ?

This is a discussion on Is a .223 really more lethal than 9mm at close range ? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Chuck R. Agree 100% IF you don't believe in hydro-static shock, just dress out a deer (or any other medium sized game) ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 93
Like Tree213Likes

Thread: Is a .223 really more lethal than 9mm at close range ?

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck R. View Post
    Agree 100%

    IF you don't believe in hydro-static shock, just dress out a deer (or any other medium sized game) hit with a HV round VS a slower moving projectile such as a handgun or muzzleloader. All are "lethal" but the terminal ballistics a greatly different. I've killed deer with all 3, you just don't get he "goo effect" with the slower moving bullets, not to mention the 2nd order wounds from fragmentation.

    It's mentioned briefly in an old FBI paper: Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:



    http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

    Another example from "Gunshot wounds: A review of ballistics related to penetrating trauma":



    and they even mention the speed boat analogy:



    https://ac.els-cdn.com/S222161891460...01dc1273ce75f0
    The late great Elmer Keith wrote about shooting game with many bullets, he favored a big slow slug as it did not destroy much meat. What is great for hunting may not be great for self defense.
    OD*, msgt/ret and Chuck R. like this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  2. #77
    Senior Member Array Gunnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by CavemanBob View Post
    My little 3.5" 500 isn't bad to carry at all. It's not one I'd hang on my hip but when I put it in the chest holster, it's barely noticeable but still very convenient.
    Well in that case you should carry it. It was simply meant as the point look at typical carry pistols one uses for defense? Would you rather have that or a 5.56/223 as Cooper said a pistol is to fight you back to the long gun you should have had in the first place. Plus I can't imagine follow up shots are very nice. The 500 much like many of the other excellent pistols for woods defense in bear country isn't exactly something you can make accurate precise follow up shots with. As a defensive handgun all the ones people use to combat 2 legged predators typically are much weaker then a rifle caliber even the deminutive 223.

  3. #78
    Distinguished Member Array CavemanBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kalirado
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    The late great Elmer Keith wrote about shooting game with many bullets, he favored a big slow slug as it did not destroy much meat. What is great for hunting may not be great for self defense.
    Lotta truth in that. A 45-70 tends to make a neat hole in, neat hole out. I've seen entire quarters ruined by 300 magnums.
    Bad Bob, OD* and msgt/ret like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,634
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    Hydrostatic pressure waves are just not existent.

    So say those who have never stood near a supersonic pass by an airplane. Or never served in the Navy and went through shock trials aboard ship.

    Attachment 247665

    Aside from the sound, there is a direct effect on your body when the compressed wave of air hits you. That shock wave, when radiating from an explosion, has a carefully studied effect on human tissue. Many people have died from the "concussion" of an exploding bomb - air or water makes no difference. Their bodies bear no outwardly visible injuries.

    Shock waves are a primary cause of the effectiveness of weapons designed to destroy ships and especially submarines. There is a direct effect on your body when hydrostatic pressure waves encounter your body if you are swimming near an explosion.

    The human body is 80% (roughly) water. Only people who believe they are tough enough to vacate the laws of physics discount pressure waves. And one of the major sources of those waves are supersonic speeds.

    That is a little bigger pressure wave than a 9mm parabellum, even with magic bullets.
    OD*, msgt/ret and OldVet like this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  6. #80
    Senior Member Array Gunnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,160
    Also don't recall the article maybe it was handgun magazine they compared many of the big bore pistols in vogue for bear country and after shooting each recommended most people to stick with 357/44 in a revolver or 10MM for ease of practice to gain the familiarity and the accuracy required to make life saving shots on large deadly animals. Then prefaced that with the fact many "professionals" simply use big bore rifles or pump guns with slugs.

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post

    That is a little bigger pressure wave than a 9mm parabellum, even with magic bullets.
    True, but a 200 pound body is a considerably smaller mass than a 15,000 ton warship. And in the final analysis, the pressure wave is not caused by the mass it strikes, but by the medium the projectile travels in and it’s speed.

    It is just strange to me when I hear “gun people” dismiss hydrostatic shock, which is the effect of the pressure waves generated by high speed projectiles in a body. It’s like no one ever wondered what causes the supersonic crack of a bullet down range.
    Bad Bob, msgt/ret and maxwell97 like this.

  8. #82
    Distinguished Member Array DownInTheDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Flat side of Montana
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by CavemanBob View Post
    Lotta truth in that. A 45-70 tends to make a neat hole in, neat hole out. I've seen entire quarters ruined by 300 magnums.
    300 win mag vs mule deer. My friend ended up with a lot of hamburger.

    Is a .223 really more lethal than 9mm at close range ?-1103171751.jpg

  9. #83
    Distinguished Member Array CavemanBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kalirado
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DownInTheDark View Post
    300 win mag vs mule deer. My friend ended up with a lot of hamburger.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1103171751.jpg 
Views:	172 
Size:	144.6 KB 
ID:	247762
    Yep, that's what I'm talkin' about!

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,126
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    True, but a 200 pound body is a considerably smaller mass than a 15,000 ton warship. And in the final analysis, the pressure wave is not caused by the mass it strikes, but by the medium the projectile travels in and it’s speed.

    It is just strange to me when I hear “gun people” dismiss hydrostatic shock, which is the effect of the pressure waves generated by high speed projectiles in a body. It’s like no one ever wondered what causes the supersonic crack of a bullet down range.
    I think the question is mostly about whether handguns get the effect to any great degree. Lots of experts opined that they couldn't, but they probably hadn't seen a lot of wounds from really powerful handguns with expanding bullets.

    For example, compare this video to the ones I linked on the first page. I have to think getting hit with one is bad news:

    OldChap and Bad Bob like this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  11. #85
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    33,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post

    That is a little bigger pressure wave than a 9mm parabellum, even with magic bullets.
    Clearly it was a .45.
    Bad Bob likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,390
    @maxwell97 Yes. The difference between subsonic and supersonic shockwaves is substantial. That is usually around 1100 feet per second. Those things were not well understood until aircraft started to go supersonic and wind tunnels were developed that could generate those wind speeds.

    At that speed, all kinds of weird things happen - compared to slower flight regimes. Every time you watch a rocket launch they always talk about the vehicle reaching “maximum dynamic pressure”, which is engineer speak for when the rocket’s shock waves get piled up on the nose and cause a great deal of resistance against the structure. I know you guys don’t want to hear all this, but you can look it all up.

    Needless to say, bullets, airplanes, rockets, artillery shells, everything has to deal with those piled up pressure waves. Even in water. Designers have been trying to develop a supersonic torpedo, but they face some huge obstacles. Like the shock waves prevent any guidance commands getting to the torpedo, so it’s back to WWII guidance.

    Bullets moving over that 1100 fps threshold generate the same pressure waves. The waves are generated by the “mostly water” part of our body. The shock waves travel slower than in water and air, but they are there.
    Bad Bob and maxwell97 like this.

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    12,634
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    @maxwell97 Yes. The difference between subsonic and supersonic shockwaves is substantial. That is usually around 1100 feet per second. Those things were not well understood until aircraft started to go supersonic and wind tunnels were developed that could generate those wind speeds.

    At that speed, all kinds of weird things happen - compared to slower flight regimes. Every time you watch a rocket launch they always talk about the vehicle reaching “maximum dynamic pressure”, which is engineer speak for when the rocket’s shock waves get piled up on the nose and cause a great deal of resistance against the structure. I know you guys don’t want to hear all this, but you can look it all up.

    Needless to say, bullets, airplanes, rockets, artillery shells, everything has to deal with those piled up pressure waves. Even in water. Designers have been trying to develop a supersonic torpedo, but they face some huge obstacles. Like the shock waves prevent any guidance commands getting to the torpedo, so it’s back to WWII guidance.

    Bullets moving over that 1100 fps threshold generate the same pressure waves. The waves are generated by the “mostly water” part of our body. The shock waves travel slower than in water and air, but they are there.
    A buddy of mine, a retired homicide cop is fond of saying " Handgun bullets do interesting things once they hit 1300 FPS".
    OldChap and maxwell97 like this.
    Check out the CR-12 - wilkinsontactical.com

  14. #88
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    A buddy of mine, a retired homicide cop is fond of saying " Handgun bullets do interesting things once they hit 1300 FPS".
    A wise officer. Yes. Anyone who watched the performance of the .357 Mag understands that saying. Same today, and one of the reasons I like the hot .357 Sig loads.

    You know, you can see when a bullet makes the transition from supersonic back to subsonic in those gel tests with enough distance. Rifle bullets, at least.

    Edit: Just ran some figures in my head. A .223 55 grain bullet at 3,300 fps is moving at Mach 2.9 - at sea level and normal temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity. That almost the speed of an SR-71 spy plane. Useless fact.
    Bad Bob likes this.

  15. #89
    Senior Member Array PO54yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I don't want to support arguments that make me sound like an idiot. .223 vs 9mm would be one of those arguments.
    Yeah. Sums it up. Then again my deer rifle is far more lethal then either as is my duck gun.
    A Man's house is his castle

  16. #90
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,744
    I don't know. I think a 9mm moving better than 2700 feet per second would be fairly destructive too. Don't know of any that exist though.
    Bad Bob likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

.223 bullet vs 9mm
,

223 vs 9mm

,

223 vs 9mm killing power

,
5.56 clpse range
,

9mm ballistic vs 223

,

9mm vs .223

,

9mm vs 223

,
ar 15 has less power than9mm
,
compare 9mm to 223
,

https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-guns/416713-223-really-more-lethal-than-9mm-close-range.html

,
make 9mm p from 223
,
what has more stopping power 9mm or .223
Click on a term to search for related topics.