Doc... a couple of questions for you...

General Firearms Terminal Ballistic Information
1

I’ve been swimming in commentary on the effectiveness of .223/5.56 for defense purposes and reading much of your writing on the subject.

Judging from the world-wide and long-term use and development of the platform and caliber, one would assume that it provides an extremely effective and reliable anti-personnel result. Certainly, MANY have perished at the receipt of .223/5.56 bullets. But a fair bit of anecdotal reports that I read seem to belie this impression.

Considering the best of today’s engineered .223/5.56 anti-personnel rounds (not restricted to military requirements) it almost seems that the AR/M4/M16 platform may well be much more advanced than the ammunition it is fed with.

I think I’m getting the impression that there may not be any present day .223/5.56 defense loads that can be heavily relied upon to yaw early and fragment well (with significant terminal damage) in unobstructed human adversaries. Or is my impression on this incorrect?

Certainly no bullets of any small-arms caliber are fail-safe or utterly reliable in achieving a desired result… but is .223/5.56 any more lacking in this regard than we might expect it to be, all things considered?

I read your recommendations for barrier-blind anti-personnel ammunition for LE use which makes PERFECT sense. You also made a “mild” recommendation for heavy OTM loadings (75gr./77gr. BTHP), that you evaluated as “acceptable” provided no barrier penetration was needed.

A question occurs to me. Absent of a need for barrier penetration, do you feel that the “barrier blind” loads that you recommend are every bit as effective (anti-personnel/defense loads) as the somewhat heavier BTHP loads? (Hornady/Sierra/Nosler 75gr. & 77gr. offerings)?

In other words, do you feel that the barrier blind loads can be expected to yaw as early and fragment as well as the heavier OTM loads, when no barrier is present?

Lastly, how would you rate (in terms of defense effectiveness) today’s state-of-the-art in bullet engineering for .223/5.56 defense loads? Poor, so-so, good, excellent?

I ask because I get the impression that terminal effectiveness of .223/5.56 (caused by early yaw and good fragmentation) against human threats is relatively hit and miss (somewhat unreliable).

Obviously, there is no simple and universal answer to the question, but your thoughts on this would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

2

Your frame of reference is based on how FMJ bullets perform, you need to expand beyond that to understand the better performing 5.56 loads.

Most soft point, HP, and plastic tipped bullets do not need to yaw in order to fragment.

Bullets that perform well against barriers are of the controlled expansion design (at least for smaller calibers like the 5.56) and generally do not yaw and fragment (or at least a significant portion does not fragment).

3

Exactly. Bonded bullet technology has changed the game radically, just as it has in big game hunting. One doesn’t have to give up terminal performance to achieve barrier penetration.

4

Mt dept uses a 55grn JHP (Federal Tactical) and it has worked VERY well so far.

5

So… do the bonded JSP bullets create terminal damage as extensive as the heavy BTHP bullets that yaw and fragment do?

Looking at the Speer chart for one of their JSP loadings, which I presume is considered one of the better loads… it appears as though the bullets perform comparably to a 9mm JHP fired from a pistol… that is, it looks like the penetration and expansion is what you would see with a good JHP defense load from a 9mm pistol.

Not very impressive for a rifle. Of course the fact than an AR can very accurately deliver thirty or so of these rounds in very rapid succession helps quite a bit! :wink:

As I mentioned in another thread, the barrier examples may be slightly better than a 9mm bonded JHP bullet would provide… perhaps. Not sure. Overall, the results look much like small caliber pistol results, not rifle results. Granted, 5.56/.223 is something of a glorified varmint caliber and not a caliber which one would have huge expectations of.

It looks as though the bonded .223 JSP behaves much like conventional pistol JHP bullets - not giving the yaw, then fragmentation, then dramatic terminal damage that one might expect from a heavy OTM bullet if no barrier was involved.

Am I wrong in thinking that if no barrier is present, much more terminal damage is likely to be achieved with the heavy OPM loads (75g. & 77gr. BTHP) than with bonded .223 JSP?

The reason I keep considering barrier vs. no barrier is because for the most part, as a quiet living private citizen/home owner, the likelihood of me needing to penetrate barriers in self defense is very, very low. I am not in the business of chasing down armed criminals who are trying to shoot back and get away. Not that I wouldn’t want to have some ammunition on hand that is good for that.

Given that I am personally not likely to need to penetrate barriers in self-defense, I’m wondering if the yaw and fragmentation one might expect from a 75gr. Hornady BTHP might give dramatically better terminal effectiveness in stopping an assailant than the Speer bonded JSP shown in Speer’s chart. Pistol caliber performance is not real great in stopping threats quickly. But I think early yaw and fragmentation from a 75gr. Hornady may achieve that much more easily?

Please understand, I’m not arguing with you at all… I’m just looking at the results and thinking about it critically. :slight_smile: I may be totally wrong here… I am new to the AR and .223/5.56 (but have decades of pistol caliber and shotgun experience). Looking at the chart, the results look like 9mm pistol results to me. I would hope to see better results than that from 5.56, but I may very well have my expectations set too high. :confused:

What you guys seem to be saying is that the bonded JSP bullets that perform more in a manner like JHP loads from a pistol (mushrooming rather than yawing & fragmenting) are as effective if not moreso than the heavy OPM loads that typically yaw and fragment. I would have expected the opposite, but I’m here to learn. :slight_smile: I just placed an order for Black Hills 75 gr. BTHP defense loads and now I’m starting to question the choice… would I be as well or better off with a bonded JSP load?

6

Many 5.56/.223 rounds may “yaw and fragment” and penetrate as little as 5-7 inches.

7

Would that generally apply to the Black Hills or TAP loadings using Hornady, Sierra, or Nosler 75gr & 77gr. BTHP’s?

8

Docs chart illustrates what I’m talking about:

Compare the 9mm and the .30 cal carbine’s controlled expansion diagram to the 5.56 75gr. OTM yaw and fragment diagram here:

Most of the major damage is between 4-8 inches, but penetration reaches a bit past 12" here. Not stellar in the penetration aspect,
but significantly destructive.

9

AFAIK, in regards to tissue destruction it goes like this, fragmentation > expanding rounds > non-expanding rounds.

10

If barrier performance is not needed your choice is fine.

If barrier performance is needed then choose a barrier blind load.

You now know everything you NEED to know, go get training and practice so you can better put the bullet where it NEEDS to go.

If you WANT to know more about everything (like I do) read and re-read the stickies and continue asking questions.

I’m not qualified enough to answer than question but I think it’s a good one as long as you add “on unobstructed shots” to the end. I think it could be relevant for civilian HD/SD ammo choices.

11

If it were that simple, we could all load Glaser Safety Slugs in our pistols and be good to go…

12

Very well said.

13

As a long time MK262 and Hornady T2 user (for defensive ammo), I am switching to the SPEER 24448. Why? Because I just don’t know.

I don’t know if I am going to have to shoot someone through a barrier or not. What I do know is that none bonded bullets SUCK when you attempt to shoot someone through a barrier. To me, this is a no go.

As with anything, THERE ARE NO MAGIC BULLET’S. So training and the ability to put rounds into key vital organ areas is all that really matters. Shot placement is king, but you FIRST have to be able to get the rounds through some type of medium (cloths, metal, wood, glass, etc).

C4

14

Yes… I’m one of those who seeks to understand as deeply and clearly as I can so I can get things as right as I can… over my lifetime it’s been a little bit of a curse, but mostly has been a blessing to me. :wink: I’m not one to simply take a recommendation and run, I want to really understand the why’s and the reasoning.

Yes, of course… that’s a given (and a side topic), but I’m still interested in seeking more knowledge and understanding here. Great forum!

Absolutely.

15

Do you think lead needs to be involved for the ideal defensive 223 round??

I have been using the Barnes XXX & TSX solid (expanding) bullets with great success in hunting applications but have never heard of any testing done (barrier or otherwise) for defensive means.

Any merit in going this route or is fragmentation an overall goal??

16

Per Doc:

The Barnes all copper TSX bullets are great projectiles (the 55 gr TSX is optimal for LE use–ex. Fed T223S)) and offer good penetration through barriers, however, when first hitting a laminated automobile windshield intermediate barrier, TSX bullets exhibit less expansion than bonded JSP’s, as the Barnes jacket either collapses at the nose, the jacket “petals” fold back against the core, or the “petals” are torn off; this results in a caliber size projectile configured a lot like a full wadcutter, leading to deep penetration.

17

Developments in the 6.8 spc arena (as urged by doc) look promising in bringing improved terminal effectiveness to the ar platform. Does it look like 6.8 spc will become increasingly mainstream in the near future?