Note from JWR: The string is starting to degenerate into one of those endlessly-mired "Ford Versus Chevy" or "Revolver Versus Automatic" debates, so this will likely be the last batch of letters that I post on this topic.
Hey Jim:
The .223 versus.308 [debate] is interesting. I think that several factors should
be examined when selecting a cartridge and weapon. Military and police snipers
shoot .308
or bigger. Why? Killing power. all the hype about .223 boils down to this.
It is a varmint round meant to shoot things under 50 pounds. Jeff Cooper described
the controversy very succinctly. a SWAT team in Alexandria Louisiana found
out about stopping power the hard way. Which brings up the next point. The
SWAT team
could not penetrate a federal housing project steel door with their .223 weapons.
All of the comments on .223 out performing .308 are wrong. That
SWAT team now carries your weapon of choice, the [.308] FAL. Also, if .223
was all that great, why is the military fielding more .308 weapons than before?
And why did the Special Forces community invent the 6.8 mm SPC if they loved
the .223 so much? The .223 was designed to be used for varmints on four legs
and two wings not two-legged ones. People forget that a rifle is not a death
ray. You need all the stopping power you can effectively handle. You also need
the versatility of a cartridge that penetrates cover, which the
.223 does not as the rounds are designed to expand violently. There was a [Discovery
Channel] television show that compared the effectiveness of.223 to that of
7.62x 39mm. On paper
and
in a clean sterile environment, that M16 and .223 look superior. But after examination
of the rounds in combat the 7.62 x 39 was superior. I agree that the .223 is
good for what it was meant to be used for, a varmint gun. Also, I will keep
a
.223 Galil in my battery just because it uses our military forces' cartridge
and
may be around if ammo is in short supply. But, it is very far from my mind as
a
primary
or secondary combat rifle cartridge. - Bret
James:
AVL wrote in praise of the .223, "...it bears repeating, any wound over
2" deep has a very high likelihood of being fatal." I'm sorry, but
I couldn't let this one go by. That statement is utterly false Following the infamous Miami/Dade shootout with Platt and Madix,
the FBI has done extensive testing and found the minimum penetration requirement
for
a given round to be effective. It is 12"
(30.48cm) in 10% ballistic gelatin, not 2" as AVL suggests. The 12" minimum
is agreed to by the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) as well.
This is exactly way you don't use [an instantaneously-expanding] varmint round against humans:
He went on to state: "With this in mind, even explosive varmint bullets
will
penetrate this deep, most likely tearing through soft body armor up to 500
yards." The main kill method for bullets, clubs, and rocks is not penetration,
it's energy
transfer." Wrong again! Energy transfer actually has
little to do with incapacitation. I suggest reading
the following online sources:
Firearms Tactical
BT Ammo Labs
Tactical Forums
Regards, - Krunch
JWR,
In case some of your readers missed the reference in Michael Z. Williamson's
letter, the info available in the Ammo
Oracle reference is well worth
the time reading. All AR15 owners/shooters and potential owners/shooters should
read and digest this info, it gives invaluable info regarding the capabilities
and limitations of the 5.56/.223 round. It is a long read but well worth the
time. Good stuff!
Regards, Keith in Texas
Jim,
Nice ammo dialogue. I am reminded of the old domestic giant engined muscle
car versus slick handling foreign sports car arguments of the 1970s. As Bonehead
reminded us, survivalists are not infantrymen. I would guess that the lighter/smaller
third of our population will find the .223 much more user friendly and therefore
effective in a sustained engagement. I also don't see how many folk can properly
practice with .308 at current ammo prices. I would rather be accurate than
be Macho. - Bruce F.
Jim:
Re: [AVL's comment] "... even explosive varmint bullets
will
penetrate this deep, likely
tearing through soft body armor up to 500 yards." That is laughable. I
have no
doubt that lightweight
varmint bullets would be devastating against an unarmored person at close distance…but
at 500 yards, with a 5.56x45? You might as well be shooting buckshot, IMO,
at least
then you might hit an unarmored place. Controllability in full auto? That is
a non issue - we [aren't he military so we] don’t work that way. Too
much [expense] to buy one, too much to feed one, and too wasteful in the long
run.
Lots of cover here in the northwest and I'll take a 308 for it's versatility
and power. If things were to ever get close, in a situation where many people
would grab an M4, I'll take my 7.62x39 AK - it has enough bullet IMO and I
don’t
have to worry about a short barreled 5.56 "underperforming". I think
it is very informative that the military is looking at calibers from 6.5mm
to .30 as possible replacement for the 5.56, no calibers smaller…hmm.
I hope we do see a compromise in the future, I think one exists. Given the
constraints of the M16 platform the 6.8 SPC is spectacular and with a new platform
the 7x46 in a moderate loading might be ideal.
As far as medics treating 5.56 wounds goes - why are our medics treating 5.56
wounds? Because those we shot with 5.56 and were not hurt really badly--left
to fight another day would be my guess. No doubt the little 5.56 can get the
job done - with the right load but larger calibers offer more flexibility and
a larger margin for error.
Keep up the good work! - A. Friendly
Sir:
As I’ve read the interesting and informative debates here, on .223 vs
.308 vs 7.62x39, I can’t help but think we’re falling into what
Jeff Cooper would call PII: Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments.
Terminal ballistics is only one consideration, among many, and when the differences
in that one metric are marginal, you look at other factors for your decision.
For example, do you buy a $70,000 car if it is only 10% better than a $30,000
car? Not unless you’re independently wealthy. Why? Because the $40,000
price difference is an opportunity cost; it represents $40,000 of
other goods and services you now can’t buy. It is in this context that
I view firearms: they fulfill a survival role, and as such, should be cost
effective. Money
spent on gold-plating firearms is money not spent on other preps.
To many of us, this debate is moot: we’ve already made our choices of
platforms and calibers. We bought our .308 milsurp back when it was $150/case.
But what if I were starting out all over again, with no legacy arsenal? How
would I select? I would define the mission that my firearms would fulfill,
and find the best-for-the-money solution, without undue overlap.
What would I need? I need: handgun; defensive carbine; and, depending on my
area, a longer range solution. I need them all to “get the job done” without
soaking up too much money. I also need to look at the reality of defensive
gunfights: most people are not going to be able to take careful aim and make
one surgical shot after another. You need something easy to shoot, with reasonable
capacity, rugged and light. You also need to afford enough ammo for training
and practice, as well as to stockpile.
For this reason, I exclude MBRs
in .308: at $600 per case, .308 is no longer a serious option for those starting
out. The .308 is analogous to the $70,000 car:
yeah, it might be a little better than the others, but the cost effectiveness
isn’t there. I follow a similar rationale for handguns: .45ACP and .40
[S&W] might be slightly better stoppers than 9mm (though there really isn’t
any evidence of this), but not enough to justify the large price difference
in ammo. The bottom line reality is that all the basic intermediate powered
rifle and “service caliber” handgun rounds will get the job done
within the limits of most people’s ability to hit anything under pressure. Hence,
here is my advice for those starting out:
Handgun = Glock 19 or Glock 17. At least 10 spare magazines. Holster and mag
carrier. 5,000 rounds FMJ 9mm for practice. 500 rounds premium hollow point
for self defense. Minimum of two weekend training classes. Total cost about
$2500.
Carbine = AK47. At least 10 spare magazines. Shoulder-style mag/dump pouch.
5,000 rounds 7.62x39 Wolf ammo for training and also actual use. Minimum one
weekend training class. Total cost about $2200.
Affordable plinking/practice = any rifle in .22 Long Rifle: bolt, lever, or
semi-automatic. 10,000 rounds .22LR. Advantage Arms .22LR conversion kit for the
Glock. Total
cost about $700.
Long distance = scoped bolt action in .308 or .30-06 (a used Savage provides
excellent value, for example). 500 rounds match level ammo. Remember: we’re
looking for usable minute-of-torso shots at reasonable distance, not match
trophies. Total cost about $1,000.
If you have any extra money, buy an extra Glock and an extra AK47.
This covers all essential firearms needs. I consider a shotgun a niche weapon,
whose role the carbine adequately covers. Shotgun is nice to have, not must-have.
I invite readers to calculate similar solutions for .308 MBR-based arsenals,
and decide if the ballistics value-add justifies ammo that costs three times
as much as 7.62x39. - DG in Philadelphia
