I’m curious as to the effectiveness of the imported barnaul, wolf, tula, etc. ammo. Not because I want to actually rely on it for defense.
I’ve heard for years that pistols and shotguns/rifles are in completely different categories in terms of effectiveness.
With that said, how much of a difference in terminal performance does a superior constructed defensive handgun round such as 9mm, 40sw, and 45acp compare to a cheap .223 Russian made round of ammunition?
That’s an apples to oranges comparison if I ever saw one. In general, handgun rounds suck compared to rifle in terms of terminal ballistics.
If you read through the stickied threads at the top of this subforum, it will explain the differences between handgun and rifle terminal ballistics.
That’s probably why in the original post he said:
(emphasis mine).
Pistols are supposed to penetrate to between 12 and 18 inches in depth, crush as much tissue as they do it, and hopefully penetrate barriers on the way if needed. Any rifle will penetrate barriers better than a pistol, and even the low-end 5.56 rounds like M193 penetrate to around 12 inches, with the added possibility of fragmentation (adding damage).
I doubt any of the foreign rounds are worse than bottom of the barrel stuff like M193. I’d say the answer is “they probably don’t suck any worse than a pistol round”.
It does not matter if a projectile is launched from a handgun or rifle, it still needs to penetrate 12-18". If a cheap, poorly designed .223 bullet fails to upset in tissue it will cause minimal tissue damage; in that situation a robust expanding service caliber projectile will crush more tissue. Of course if the rifle projectile does have early upset in tissue, then there is no comparison in the amount of tissue damage when contrasted even with the best service caliber handgun projectiles.
Doc pretty much has it.
I routinely shoot cranberry juice jugs filled with water.
The are rectangular and approximately 4" thick front to back and quite sturdy.
They provide some indication of early upset performance potential.
One interesting thing with these is you can visually gauge the impact of various rounds on these.
A “very powerful” .357 magnum with lead semi-wadcutter bullet shows virtually no effect. Just a .35 cal hole front and back.
M193 does the same thing. No visible effect. Did I hit it??? Yep, just a .22 cal hole front and back.
60 grain NBT explodes the target. .22 cal entrance hole and softball sized exit hole. Container just shredded.
#7 birdshot rocks the container, but only penetrates the front face. All of the shot gets caught in the container and rolls around in the bottom.
20 ga. Slugs blow the shit out of the jugs too. Thumb sized entrance hole and the whole back is shredded.
The only combo that I haven’t shot is premium handgun ammo.
The problem with 193 is its variable. if it upset relably, early, it would be pretty good for a non barrier load. I’ve shot a rabit with 193 and it must have upset about 3"in. Exit hole was quite large.
I’ve also blown up a water jug with it. Apparently, your barrel/angle/specific bullet combo resulted in delayed upset. Its actually pretty interesting IMO.
Have you seen this test and commentary?;
http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_wolfdef.html
It appears that at close range Wolf FMJ act like an M193 round at longer range, no fragmentation, yawing is the primary wounding mechanism (and their HPs don’t expand so they basically do the same from what limited testing I have seen).
I have heard anecdotally that some of the other HP bullets in the Bear ammo (Silver, Brown, Etc) do seem to expand or fragment, this feedback comes from guys using cheaper ammo for volume hog shooting.
Buddies of mine in Texas had been shooting good numbers of wild hogs with Wolf 55gr Copper (Not Bi-Metal) H/P’s with very good results. I have also been told that the Wolf 62gr Bi-Metal H/P’s rarely up-set and act like FMJ’s 95% of the time.
All information is word of mouth only as I have not yet been down to Texas to see actual results but these guys are serious Hog hunters and would not be using the Wolf 55gr Copper H/P’s if they were not proving effective.
So basically if the .223 round fails to frag, yaw or expand, its basically no better than a 22lr at very short range?
If a 5.56 mm/.223 fails to upset in tissue, it will make a .22 caliber hole straight through the tissue, somewhat like a target arrow or ice pick…
I presume steel jacketed .223 will have slightly bigger damage potential than .22lr has.
Because of the higher velocity from all the ranges, I think it will most likely cause more damage in bone tissue and (at lest) secondary fragmentation in surrounding soft tissue than .22lr. Especially when the long bones are struck.
“I presume steel jacketed .223 will have slightly bigger damage potential than .22lr has.”
Not necessarily–it all depends on what they do in tissue. If the .223 remains point forward in tissue, there is no difference or perhaps even a larger wound with the .22LR if it upsets.
“Because of the higher velocity from all the ranges, I think it will most likely cause more damage in bone tissue and (at lest) secondary fragmentation in surrounding soft tissue than .22lr. Especially when the long bones are struck.”
Again, it depends on what the respective projectiles do in tissue and in the case of bone, the type of bone and how it reacts to the impact.
Though the long bones are vulnerable, especially in the legs, you are right. Practically the difference would be meaningless if the goal is rapid incapacitation. When looking from the clinical wound care and the damage found from the hospital perspective, I think there might be a difference in some cases between the bone damage made by .22LR (v0 ~380 m/s) and steel jacketed 55gr or 62gr .223 bullet (v0 ~890-930 m/s).
I checked one of my reference for the subject.:
Jussila Jorma 2004: Wound ballistic simulation: Assessment of the legitimacy of law enforcement firearms ammunition by means of wound ballistic simulation
In pages 35-37 the refence claims that there’s virtually no difference between the surrounding soft dissue damage from low velocity 9mm and high velocity 7.62mm bullet in the case of bone struck. The simulated bone seems to be long bone style. Though the tested bullets were 9mm and 7.62mm, it leaves a window open for something different with even higher velocity .223/556 bullet.
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kliin/vk/jussila/woundbal.pdf
I think many of you guys here might be interested about the PDF. It’s a dissertation from Helsinki University made by Finnish wound ballistics researcher Jorma Jussila in 2004. I think I make an own topic so people can take a look at it.
At LAIR in the late 1980’s, projectiles were shot into gel and live tissue at up to 6000 f/s; if the 5.56 mm projectiles remained point forward, little damage was noted…