# Rifle versus handgun



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

I'm curious about how a rifle is superior in say, home defense, to a handgun, *strictly based on terminal ballistics*. This may sound like an utterly stupid question, but I'm here to learn.

Take for example, a 1911 chambered in .45ACP with 230gr Federal Hydra-shoks. Enough penetration to hit vital organs, and superior expansion. Now take a .223 from an AR-15. 55 grain FMJ bullets from Federal as well. Obviously the .223 is going to be traveling much much faster, which guarantees adequate penetration, and would probably send the bullet out the backside of the perp. Why would the smaller, lighter, and non-expanding .223 be more effective in taking down a BG versus the bigger, heavier, and fully expanding .45ACP? Obviously for hunting purposes, a rifle round penetrates deeper and offers better accuracy. But if the bout took place with a human at 7 yards...why would the rifle still offer better take-down ability than the handgun?

I realize the rifle is easier to aim with a stock, and has higher firepower. But based on ballistics, why would a rifle round at short range still be superior to a handgun round of a much bigger caliber?


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Because, due to the structure of a non-military (not restricted by the Geneva Covention) self defense round, a bullet fires from an AR-15 has just as low likelyhood of over penetration as a similar civilian defensive 45 ACP, and like you mentioned, superior pointability, and superior capacity.

Strictly on the grounds of terminal ballistics BOTH are exceptionally suited. Based on terminal ballistics, fire power, stress reduced pointability, and reduced (negligible) recoil, the AR-15 is arguably better.

Due to it's non-concealability, it could be agrued the 45 is better all around.

A stock Corvette is better for a race around a pot-holed town than a Formula 1 car.

A Formula 1 car will win hands down around Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

"Best" depends on the guidelines.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

JeffWard said:


> Because, due to the structure of a non-military (not restricted by the Geneva Covention) self defense round, a bullet fires from an AR-15 has just as low likelyhood of over penetration as a similar civilian defensive 45 ACP, and like you mentioned, superior pointability, and superior capacity.
> 
> Strictly on the grounds of terminal ballistics BOTH are exceptionally suited. Based on terminal ballistics, fire power, stress reduced pointability, and reduced (negligible) recoil, the AR-15 is arguably better.
> 
> ...


+1

How much spackling do you want to do after?


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

Being that I own neither a .45 or .223, can't answer that. :mrgreen: Here in a few weeks it would be between a .40 and a 12-gauge.


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

As far as one being better than the other-----that would entirely depend on the circumstances and the applications. I do know the rifle gets the nod for medium to long range scenarios. At a distance of 7 yards---I'd say the rifle is not in it's intended evironment or application no matter how short the barrel or collapsible stock. If you're talking a rifle caliber in a pistol---then that might be a different story not encompassed in this discussion.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I suggest you go shoot animals with a .45 and then a .223. Get back to us with your observations on the wounds.

Rifle bullets have enough velocity to tear tissue they don't physically touch. Pistols are basically just remote-control drills.

You aren't restricted to FMJ ammo, of course.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> I suggest you go shoot animals with a .45 and then a .223. Get back to us with your observations on the wounds.
> 
> *Rifle bullets have enough velocity to tear tissue they don't physically touch. Pistols are basically just remote-control drills.*
> 
> You aren't restricted to FMJ ammo, of course.


That's what I was looking for...so the velocity causes more tissue damage. My question was posed in FMJ as you've stated in other threads that you would not, nor would the other guys in your battalion, choose a .45 handgun over an M4 for clearing a building, which is generally close quarters, similar to the ranges in HD. Being that the military is restricted to FMJ ammunition, that's where I posed my question as FMJ .223 would have inferior ballistics to a JHP .223, yet still have superior ballistics to a .45ACP handgun bullet.

Does the higher velocity create a stronger vacuum behind the bullet?


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

fivehourfrenzy said:


> That's what I was looking for...so the velocity causes more tissue damage. My question was posed in FMJ as you've stated in other threads that you would not, nor would the other guys in your battalion, choose a .45 handgun over an M4 for clearing a building, which is generally close quarters, similar to the ranges in HD. Being that the military is restricted to FMJ ammunition, that's where I posed my question as FMJ .223 would have inferior ballistics to a JHP .223, yet still have superior ballistics to a .45ACP handgun bullet.
> 
> Does the higher velocity create a stronger vacuum behind the bullet?


The low pressure shouldn't have as much to do with tissue destruction as just transferring more energy to the target. The light bullet will slow quickly - transferring large quantities of energy to the tissue and to tissue some distance from it.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

Snowman said:


> The low pressure shouldn't have as much to do with tissue destruction as just transferring more energy to the target. The light bullet will slow quickly - transferring large quantities of energy to the tissue and to tissue some distance from it.


That makes sense...I guess you lighten handgun bullets for the same effect, but they wouldn't have the momentum or velocity to penetrate deeply enough, which brings in the JHP to mushroom and transfer the energy. Cool...learned something new today.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

The damage done by a 5.56mm, especially under 100m, is far greater than a .45ACP. At household distances, it creates hideous wounds, where pistols just drill little holes.

I do not know any soldier who would prefer to clear a building with a .45 instead of an M4. Maybe there are some out there somewhere, but I've never talked to one - at least not one who has actually cleared a structure. Power is a large part of it, but of course things like "eight round versus thirty rounds" also play a part.


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

fivehourfrenzy said:


> That's what I was looking for...so the velocity causes more tissue damage. My question was posed in FMJ as you've stated in other threads that you would not, nor would the other guys in your battalion, choose a .45 handgun over an M4 for clearing a building, which is generally close quarters, similar to the ranges in HD. Being that the military is restricted to FMJ ammunition, that's where I posed my question as FMJ .223 would have inferior ballistics to a JHP .223, yet still have superior ballistics to a .45ACP handgun bullet.
> 
> Does the higher velocity create a stronger vacuum behind the bullet?


No; it's a phenomenon called hydrostatic shock. Quite simply, it's the effect of the shock wave caused by a round that is well into supersonic. Similar to the "crack" you hear from a supersonic round, the bullet causes shock waves as it passes through denser stuff like humans. Those waves compress and expand tissue as they pass through, causing bruising and tearing. Look for high-speed photography of fruit and you'll see what a rifle bullet does. In fact, here's a teaser; a banana smoothie in 500 microseconds:










The bullet used was I believe a .223, which if you stuck it on the end of a rod and pushed it through would drill a rather insignificant hole through it. Send it through the fruit at 2,000 fps and this is the result.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't know about a "shock wave," but rifles produce a temporary cavity in tissue that is big enough to stretch the tissue to the point of tearing. Pistols generally don't. Some good reading here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm. They shoot ballistic gelatin and pigs, not fruit. :mrgreen:

5.56mm is going a lot faster than 2000fps, by the way, especially at household distances. More like 2600-3000 fps, depending on barrel length.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

Cool.


----------



## dallaswood43 (Jan 13, 2008)

looks like a 22lr creates about the same permanent wound cavity as a 9mm fmj. the difference in wound cavity between a rifle round and a pistol round is quite dramatic according to the diagrams in that link. pretty interesting.


----------

