Which is More Powerful

[braindrain]

A .223 diameter bullet is automatically going to be more lethal that a .45 diameter bullet? Um...:lamo

Yes a 223/556 is going to be more lethal then a 45 auto. as long as all other factors, IE shot placement, are the same. That you don't know this says a lot about how little you know.

And because I know you like to play dumb games we are talking about a 556 fired from a rifle and 45 from a pistol as that is what the topic of this thread is about.

 

[Rich2018]

The .45 auto will cause a larger wound cavity, with a less lethal bullet.

What does that mean in terms of effectiveness of stopping an intruder ?

 

[Rich2018]

I agree with WP as far as power. It goes to the 5.56 and is much better at that range. Where are living at? The Taj Mahal. But up close and personal I take the .45 which is really moot since I have.22lr ,9mm & 7.62x39mm. 9mm FTW.

I would have thought so too.

A 5.56mm rifle is going to be batter at stopping an intruder at 50' - regardless of the fact a bullet may pass right through him.

 

[apdst]

What does that mean in terms of effectiveness of stopping an intruder ?

More damage to vital organs and a higher volume of blood loss.

 

[apdst]

Yes a 223/556 is going to be more lethal then a 45 auto. as long as all other factors, IE shot placement, are the same. That you don't know this says a lot about how little you know.

And because I know you like to play dumb games we are talking about a 556 fired from a rifle and 45 from a pistol as that is what the topic of this thread is about.

The topic of the thread is lethality at close range. A 45 auto is going to be the most lethal, even with less than perfect shot placement. That's not to say that a .223 won't be lethal, but conditions will have to be more ideal in terms of bullet type and shot placement.

 

[braindrain]

The topic of the thread is lethality at close range. A 45 auto is going to be the most lethal, even with less than perfect shot placement. That's not to say that a .223 won't be lethal, but conditions will have to be more ideal in terms of bullet type and shot placement.

No it won't. No one who knows anything about terminal ballistics would say such a dumb thing.

 

[apdst]

No it won't. No one who knows anything about terminal ballistics would say such a dumb thing.

Obviously you don't know **** about terminal ballistics.

Next you're going to tell us that a .223 is more lethan than a .308, or a .30-06.

 

[DebateChallenge]

There's on ongoing debate as to what guns should be allowed for home defense, some would say any gun you want but to many it's a choice between a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol (or a shotgun)


Ignoring shotguns for right now. which is the more powerful, the common 5.56mm rifle round, found in most AR-15 type platforms or the .45 ACP of the M-1911


I've read that the 5.56mm at a range of about 50' could easily over penetrate, expending very little energy on the target. While a .45 ACP would expend all its energy on target...and a much larger hole besides.
Would this make a difference in power or energy delivered to the target ?


Or is the assertion that the .45 ACP is a more powerful weapon at pistol ranges simply a categorical statement that is false and a display of ignorance ?


What do you think.
Was what I've seen written about a comparison between a 5.56mm rifle round and a .45" ACP pistol total garbage or is there some truth init, that the pistol round will pack a bigger punch and do more damage at shorter ranges ?

You've made it quite obvious time and time again that you don't like guns, so why are you asking about stuff like this?

 

[braindrain]

Obviously you don't know **** about terminal ballistics.

Next you're going to tell us that a .223 is more lethan than a .308, or a .30-06.

Let's see you post any evidence that supports your BS.

It's hilarious. There rarely is a day that goes by on this forum that you don't get proven to not have a clue what you are talking about. Yet you just keep it up. Most people would learn.

 

[Maidenrules29]

The .556 NATO round may be small for a rifle round but it is pretty powerful. It travels at 3250 ft/sec. When it hits the human body it creates havoc not only by penetrating and sometimes tumbling, but it also creates a huge shock wave that can obliterate organs and splinter bone. The fact that it can usually pass all the way out of the body after tumbling around means that it that much longer of a wound channel it creates. The round is designed to kill human beings plain and simple. It is much more deadly than a .45 ACP. Trauma surgeons are on the record as saying that wounds of victims of the AR-15 are devastating and the victims bleed out and die before they can be saved.

 

[apdst]

Let's see you post any evidence that supports your BS.

It's hilarious. There rarely is a day that goes by on this forum that you don't get proven to not have a clue what you are talking about. Yet you just keep it up. Most people would learn.

You're the one making saying I'm wrong. Let's see it, big boy.

 

[braindrain]

You're the one making saying I'm wrong. Let's see it, big boy.

You made the claim that the 45 was more lethal at close range. Prove your claim. That's how this works.

But it is fun to watch you embarrass yourself.

 

[apdst]

You made the claim that the 45 was more lethal at close range. Prove your claim. That's how this works.

But it is fun to watch you embarrass yourself.

You can't prove me wrong. You never can. This is just one of your usual personal attacks.

 

[Rich2018]

You've made it quite obvious time and time again that you don't like guns, so why are you asking about stuff like this?

Because I want to know pthers' opinions on whether a .45" ACP might prove more effective in home defense at pistol rangers.


I've read that, while a 5.56mm from a rifle is more powerful the an M-1911, the rifle round may pass through a human target.

Is this an irrelevance that can be ignored when selecting a home defense gun ?

 

[Rich2018]

More damage to vital organs and a higher volume of blood loss.

So are you saying that the M-1911 is more effective at stopping an intruder ?

 

[apdst]

So are you saying that the M-1911 is more effective at stopping an intruder ?

I'm saying a 45 auto will cause more damage to a human body. There are several other factors involved.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm saying a 45 auto will cause more damage to a human body. There are several other factors involved.

"It does vary, but most of the time a 5.56mm rifle cartridge will have much more destructive potential than a . 45 caliber pistol load does. Much of the difference is the velocity of the 5.56mm bullet, which will be in the neighborhood of 3000 feet per second."

What causes more damage, .45cal pistol or 5.56 mm rifle? - Quora



Comments ?

It seems your knowledge of guns might be questioned.

 

[apdst]

"It does vary, but most of the time a 5.56mm rifle cartridge will have much more destructive potential than a . 45 caliber pistol load does. Much of the difference is the velocity of the 5.56mm bullet, which will be in the neighborhood of 3000 feet per second."

What causes more damage, .45cal pistol or 5.56 mm rifle? - Quora



Comments ?

It seems your knowledge of guns might be questioned.

Marine: .223 May Not Be Lethal Enough for Civilians - The Truth About Guns

 

[Rich2018]

Marine: .223 May Not Be Lethal Enough for Civilians - The Truth About Guns

And don't forget body armor too. The 5.56mm was always a weak round.

I believe the army is testing a 6.8mm round for it's future rifle program:

YouTube



Actually after WWII the British developed the .280" round which the USA quashed with conservatives selecting the older WWI and WWII cartridge which reappeared as the 7.62x51mm and so NATO countries were damned with an unsuitable round....until the USA forced the also unsuitable 5.56mm round on everyone.

The USA got the M-14, instead of the FN-FAL in .280" which should have been the M-14.


Hopefully it's third time lucky and the USA gets it right this time.

 

[RF667799]

"It does vary, but most of the time a 5.56mm rifle cartridge will have much more destructive potential than a . 45 caliber pistol load does. Much of the difference is the velocity of the 5.56mm bullet, which will be in the neighborhood of 3000 feet per second."

What causes more damage, .45cal pistol or 5.56 mm rifle? - Quora



Comments ?

It seems your knowledge of guns might be questioned.

How about your original comment that led to you making this cowardly call-out thread?

Here is what you said: A 5.56mm round will do more damage than any .45" at any range.

You didn't say "generally" or "usually" or qualify your categorical statement in any manner.

Now some more from your own referenced link here:

The range at which the fire is received is a factor along with the type of round used in each case. Full metal jacket vs. hollow point, weight of round and velocity at impact are all significant factors in making such a determination.

45 bullets are very heavy and relatively slow. The further they go the less velocity they carry with them, hence the lower the impact. Inside of 100 yards the .45 ACP will hit very hard but NOT go thru the body. ALL of the Ke (kinetic energy) is transmitted to the body.

.223 or 5.56 NATO rounds are very light and very fast. So fast that inside of 100 yards the bullet is very likely to completely tranverse the body (go in and out) which means not all of the Ke (Kinetic energy) is transfered to the body.

So the amount of damage is determined by the distance to the target, the weight in grams of the bullet and the velocity of the round.

A 5.56 has 3 times the muzzle energy of a 45 ACP. But, it would depend on the bullet and location as to which would do more damage. A through and through 5.56 FMJ would do much less damage than a 45 ACP FMJ since it would make a hole of .039 sq inches versus a 45 ACP hole that is 4 times larger at .15 sq inches.

Note that your own reference supports what I said which was NOT what you dishonestly characterized me as saying.

 

[apdst]

And don't forget body armor too. The 5.56mm was always a weak round.

I believe the army is testing a 6.8mm round for it's future rifle program:

YouTube



Actually after WWII the British developed the .280" round which the USA quashed with conservatives selecting the older WWI and WWII cartridge which reappeared as the 7.62x51mm and so NATO countries were damned with an unsuitable round....until the USA forced the also unsuitable 5.56mm round on everyone.

The USA got the M-14, instead of the FN-FAL in .280" which should have been the M-14.


Hopefully it's third time lucky and the USA gets it right this time.

The U.S. should have adopted the FN-FAL decades ago.

 

[Maidenrules29]

I'm saying a 45 auto will cause more damage to a human body. There are several other factors involved.

the .45 has great stopping power, yes. especially if you are using good hollow-point ammo and your shot placement is good. However for sheer deadlinesss and damage even when not hitting center mass the .556 round tops the .45. You can hit someone in the leg with a .556 and they can bleed out and die quickly because of the wound trauma. A .45 round cannot do that as effectively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[Maidenrules29]

So are you saying that the M-1911 is more effective at stopping an intruder ?

he is wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

The U.S. should have adopted the FN-FAL decades ago.

In it's designed caliber. It is a very fine weapon.

The US military has adopted several firearms since that weren't designed in the USA.

After the pig's ear they made out of the M-60 they seem to have accepted there was no need to re-invent the wheel.

They adopted the M-240 and M-249 designed by FN.

 

[Rich2018]

he is wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

To be clear, suggesting that the .45" M-1911 is somehow better than a 5.56mm rifle at any range is wrong ?