.45 vs 5.7 vs 5.56

Status
Not open for further replies.
.45 vs .223 vs 5.7

I see the reason for pistol caliber carbines surpressed but I'm assuming not all swat teams go into a situation with their guns surpessed, I see no reason unless a hostage type situation or military sf. I agree with the 5.56 being devistating but please read on the .223 I have linked in one of my posts early on the second page, it explains what I am getting at in pure gelatin. The 9mm and .45 balistics cause no where near the wound cavity of the .223 overall, but I don't believe they are uneffective. However in the study shown of the .223 the bullet will not yaw or fragment cause that devistating wound untill after it passes through a considerable amount of gelatin, this is where the issue arrises. If you do not hit a vital or a bone and it is a skinny person it may pass through and start to expand the wound cavity as it is leaving the body. Please read the article above to help me understand because a lot of you are posting on the standard oppinion that it is a rifle round and is ultimately better... Enough said, I simply disregaurd your statements for lack of validity. I am not saying one way or the other, put prove it, or prove me wrong. I can honestly say with all evidence provided thusfar... The .45 is as effective as should be but people belive the round to be simply the most inadequet. The .223 to be the most effective because of oppinion and varment slaying "hence the varnint round" and no one has send anything on the statistics I have shown of its possible ineffectiveness at close quarters. And no one has anything negative to say about the 5.7 making it in my oppinion possibly the most effective of the 3 within close quarters as it will tumble and or fragment like the .223 without the setbacks mentioned earlier and the .45 is simply "just" a pistol round and not good enough... Come on guys let's reseach this, each and every one of us and either find a solution we can agree with or solutions depending on situations, everyone who has posted I have seen post many other things before and I believe to be some of the most knowlegeable people on this site. Statistics are within our reach, let's come to some type of an understandiong. Again I really appreciate your effort and responces.
 
5.56 wins hands down. There's a very good reason why combat soldiers aren't issued SMGs or pistols for warfare (at least, not as a primary weapon), and why SWAT teams are generally heading away from SMGs and towards AR platforms. The 5.56 is simply far more powerful than any pistol round, and as a result is far more likely to result in a "one stop shot".

In my view, it's 5.56>.45>5.7 in terms of effectiveness.

. And no one has anything negative to say about the 5.7 making it in my oppinion possibly the most effective of the 3 within close quarters as it will tumble and or fragment like the .223 without the setbacks mentioned earlier and the .45 is simply "just" a pistol round and not good enough...
Click to expand...

Then let me be the first: The 5.7 round is a glorified .22LR. It has just about the same amount of energy, and will end up causing just about the same amount of damage. The only thing that 5.7 has going for it is the fact that you can load a lot of them into a magazine, and that they can punch through light body armor. Except civilians can't even get the benefit of the latter because you can't legally buy the armor-piercing version. So basically, for civilians, it's a centerfire .22LR. Big whoop.

As for the .45, well, it's a good pistol round. Which isn't saying much. Pistols, as a class, are harder to shoot accurately than rifles and their cartridges are extremely anemic compared to most centerfire rifle cartridges. You carry a pistol when you aren't expecting trouble, because a rifle is too heavy to carry around all the time. If you are expecting trouble, you either try to be elsewhere or you bring a rifle. And friends with rifles.
 
Last edited:
I see the reason for pistol caliber carbines surpressed but I'm assuming not all swat teams go into a situation with their guns surpessed, I see no reason unless a hostage type situation or military sf. I agree with the 5.56 being devistating but please read on the .223 I have linked in one of my posts early on the second page, it explains what I am getting at in pure gelatin. The 9mm and .45 balistics cause no where near the wound cavity of the .223 overall, but I don't believe they are uneffective. However in the study shown of the .223 the bullet will not yaw or fragment cause that devistating wound untill after it passes through a considerable amount of gelatin, this is where the issue arrises. If you do not hit a vital or a bone and it is a skinny person it may pass through and start to expand the wound cavity as it is leaving the body. Please read the article above to help me understand because a lot of you are posting on the standard oppinion that it is a rifle round and is ultimately better... Enough said, I simply disregaurd your statements for lack of validity. I am not saying one way or the other, put prove it, or prove me wrong. I can honestly say with all evidence provided thusfar... The .45 is as effective as should be but people belive the round to be simply the most inadequet. The .223 to be the most effective because of oppinion and varment slaying "hence the varnint round" and no one has send anything on the statistics I have shown of its possible ineffectiveness at close quarters. And no one has anything negative to say about the 5.7 making it in my oppinion possibly the most effective of the 3 within close quarters as it will tumble and or fragment like the .223 without the setbacks mentioned earlier and the .45 is simply "just" a pistol round and not good enough... Come on guys let's reseach this, each and every one of us and either find a solution we can agree with or solutions depending on situations, everyone who has posted I have seen post many other things before and I believe to be some of the most knowlegeable people on this site. Statistics are within our reach, let's come to some type of an understandiong. Again I really appreciate your effort and responces.
Click to expand...

You aren't looking at the data and understanding it apparently. Look at Dr. Roberts data again. Read them closer.

What you are describing is well known problem with ALL FMJ spitzer bullets. (Including .308, 7.62 X39, etc)

If the bullet isn't constructed correctly and it isn't going fast enough, it won't tumble when it is supposed to, when it doesn't tumble before it leaves the body it will just make a 1/4" diameter hole "crush cavity" through and through with a stretch cavity "splash" in flesh, just like you see water do when you shoot it. If that stretch cavity is close to inelastic tissue(tissue that doesn't stretch well), damage can occur, if it is near elastic tissue(that does stretch), it just comes back to it's previous shape. If it is going fast enough and the bullet is constructed correctly, it will tumble and come apart sending lots of fragments through the stretch cavity which can cause tissue that is normally elastic to tear within the stretch cavity significantly increasing the damage as well as increased crush cavity damage caused by the smaller projectiles.

Part of what you are talking about (if you delve down into it), Dr. Roberts calls "fleet yaw" with M855 and he describes it as a difference between weapons firing it. Some rounds will perform as expected, and some will not upset within the required zone and will punch right through. I haven't seen the data to delve into it and do statistical analysis, but I think that it has more to do with the variability in the construction of the M855 rather than a difference in guns. If he isn't doing a minimum of 30 rounds across several lots of M855 with a "good gun" and a "bad gun" and having a statistically significant variance between the 2 guns, it is probably the ammo as it is a well known fact that M855 is difficult to manufacture consistently. (The steel penetrator isn't always in the same centerline and it might be shifting forwards and backwards as well).

Compare this to .45 FMJ and all you get is a 1/2" diameter crush cavity and some very minor stretch.

Now if you are talking about HP ammo or SP ammo you get COMPLETELY different terminal ballistics.

All that data is there, I don't understand why you think the .45 is superior at close range to a 5.56. Especially if you are comparing FMJ to FMJ or expanding to expanding. Dr. Roberts even has a list of recommended duty rounds to maximize the .223 effectiveness. All of which are VASTLY superior to even the "best" .45 rounds.

In reference to 5.7, since you are using Dr. Roberts info for this comparison, do a Google search on Dr. Roberts and the 5.7 and see what he has to say.

He isn't a fan.;)
 
For close range I'd take .45 any day over .223, especially in a carbine - something like a full-auto KRISS would be nice. .223 would likely go all the way through without causing as much damage.

Just depends on what your use is. One isn't inherently better than the other. I do wish they'd come out with a KRISS in 10mm.
 
Why would a SWAT team limit itself to military FMJ ammo for its 5.56/.223 carbines? They are going to use a round designed to expand or fragment that will be far more destructive than a .45ACP or a 5.7x28.

I agree with the poster who placed the 5.56 ahead of the .45ACP and the .45 ahead of the 5.7 in terms of potential damage.
 
Crow Hunter, i appreciate your help with the clarifation of his studies, and I really dont prefer one over the other or have any idea besides research i've done and asking questions like this. I simply have not a clue. I "think" the 5.7 is very interesting, i really dont know what to think, I think that it can be a fairly efficient round, not up to specs with the 5.56 but if it tumbles or fragments how could it not neccasarily be worse than a 9mm, more chances to strike a vital right? I believe the .45 to be just as effective as it is. It'll create a large cavity wound, thats about it though, which isnt bad, it also seems consistant which is good, however has problems with clothing but i think from a 16" barrel, it will assist with that problem. The 5.56 i believe to be a better round over all but at the 25 yard range to still be very effective. I just dont have experience with the 5.56 and have heard such mixed things and the .45 is glorified as a handgun round and rightfully so, but are they honestly comparable from a 16" barrel at very close range i guess is my biggest question. Like is it a toss up or would you say the 5.56 is twice as effective which is a huge statement? I honestly dont know and why I am asking all of you. If i had high powered rifles say in a .308 or bigger, i want a lightweight close range fairly accurate carbine. Have a shotgun, want to know about that in between weapon.
 
Crow Hunter, i appreciate your help with the clarifation of his studies, and I really dont prefer one over the other or have any idea besides research i've done and asking questions like this. I simply have not a clue. I "think" the 5.7 is very interesting, i really dont know what to think, I think that it can be a fairly efficient round, not up to specs with the 5.56 but if it tumbles or fragments how could it not neccasarily be worse than a 9mm, more chances to strike a vital right? I believe the .45 to be just as effective as it is. It'll create a large cavity wound, thats about it though, which isnt bad, it also seems consistant which is good, however has problems with clothing but i think from a 16" barrel, it will assist with that problem. The 5.56 i believe to be a better round over all but at the 25 yard range to still be very effective. I just dont have experience with the 5.56 and have heard such mixed things and the .45 is glorified as a handgun round and rightfully so, but are they honestly comparable from a 16" barrel at very close range i guess is my biggest question. Like is it a toss up or would you say the 5.56 is twice as effective which is a huge statement? I honestly dont know and why I am asking all of you. If i had high powered rifles say in a .308 or bigger, i want a lightweight close range fairly accurate carbine. Have a shotgun, want to know about that in between weapon.
Click to expand...

Any round can be effective if you hit in the right spot.;)

The 5.7 was developed to give non-combat personel a weapon that would be more effective than 9mm to shoot through armor. It absolutely does have better penetration in it's AP format (which isn't available to civilians). I don't know if it is better than other handgun rounds with equal shot placement. But since shot placement is the most important component of "stopping power", if it is easier to get rapid, repeated hits in a vital area and has the penetration needed to hit vital organs from many different angles. (Not just frontal shot on naked skin) I would think it could be considered superior, particularly if you are comparing FMJ rounds. Now when you factor in good quality HP rounds, I don't know. I get the impression from people who have actually used it to shoot people, don't like it.

A 5.56 is going to be more effective at all ranges than a .45 given equal shot placement. Even in just FMJ format. Add in expanding round and it will be even more so.

Even if you dismiss 5.56 tumbling and you only get bullet diameter holes we are only talking about the difference between .223 inches and .45 inches. While it is 2x as big, it is very small relative to the size of a person.

But there is also "effective enough" for your purposes. While a .45 out of a 16" bbl might not be "as effective" as a 5.56 when you are looking at raw damage potential. If you can use it well enough to make multiple fight stopping hits in the envelope that you are proposing to use it in.

Dead is dead, whether it is a .22 LR or a 155mm howitzer round. ;)
 
themaliciousone, if English is not your native language, you are to be complimented. If it is, you need to polish your spelling and grammar skills, which will make your posts easier to read, and comprehend.

First off, your question, while interesting in a technical sense, has little or no applicability to the real world. And that is due to all the qualifiers you want us to include in considering our answers. In a way, you are asking for our opinion comparing apples, oranges, and potatoes, and asking which one is more filling given a 2oz serving.

All in a 16" barrel? ok.
Limit 10rnds?...ok
Forget the platform used?...um..ok
Forget shot placement?....I can sort of understand that, if you are looking for an answer about which one is likely to be best with a non-vital hit. BUT, when you are talking about a non-vital hit, the shot placement actually becomes a more important factor, in considering the effectiveness of the bullet.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you want us to look at FMJ bullets, making a "flesh wound" at 25yds, and between the three choices, tell you which one we would least like to be shot with (and not being shot is not acceptable answer for you). Is that correct?

If so, then I would choose the highest velocity round first, and the other two in decending order of speed. Primarily because even a "flesh wound" has the potential to strike bone, and a high speed .22 is much more likely to shatter bone than the .45, creating a mass of secondary wound channels from bone chips.

The reason you are not hearing much bad about the 5.7 is simply because it has not been around very long, and there are very few results of defensive shootings to examine and determine where, (if any) the round failed to perform. Well over a century of use for the .45ACP, and close to half a century of use of the 5.56mm (in combat) provides a much larger data pool, in all directions.

Early in Vietnam, the 5.56mm developed a reputation for not being a good stopper at very close range. At the time it was believed that the tiny bullet at such high speeds was simply "blowing through" before the much touted "tumbling effect" came into play. And, to a degree, they were right, but not for the reasons they thought, at the time. Soldiers often come up with reasons for why something works, or doesn't, that do not have any real basis in fact. But the stories get repeated, and become accepted as fact, by those who don't know better. And, they can be devilishly hard to dispell and disprove, once it beomes something that "everybody knows..."

All pointed bullets will "tumble" (yaw) as they pass through flesh. The heavier base will cause the bullet to flip and tumble. Design of the bullet, and the speed of its travel through resistance (flesh, gelatin, etc..) will determine the amount of material traveled through before the bullet begins to tumble. A bullet that does not begin its tumble until after it has left the body of the attacker is less effective than one that does.

They have redesigned the 5.56 bullets several times, trying to maximize the "envelope" of velocity range and target thickness where the bullet will perform to its maximum capabilities. Since there is such a tremendous range of possible combinations in the real world, there is no single solution set that will perform to perfection in all possible situations. In short, there is no magic bullet.

If you include the use of expanding bullets, it becomes a completely different issue, with vastly different factors that must be considered.
 
English is my native language, I am sorry for the gramatical and spelling errors as I generally send the messages from my phone but I am glad I got my point accross to you. Thank you all for your imput and advice. I am not exactly new to shooting but I still have much to learn and I guess wanted to understand the AR craze. I didnt want to jump on the band wagon simply because that is what many people do without thought or research. The research to me is the most fun part. I completely understand what you are saying now. Now that I understand the effectiveness of these round in general, I feel sufficient enough to actually "know" what I am getting. From what I have read and seen, data is data, and can be misinterpreted and why I am glad I posted this to better understand. I look forward to asking more questions of those of you who were very knowledgable and helpful to me, permitted you dont mind. :D You help us who are young to understand beyond movies and video games... Thank God.
 
Wow there is alot of ballistics experts chiming in on this thread.

I personally have zero experiance with the 5.7 other than heresay from armchair experts.

I do however own some 45s and a 5.56....

Keep that 5.56 away from me.

2 months ago I hit a coyote with 55gr 223 in the head at about 30 yards. Blew the back side of its head out. real mess. Imagine a hot and heavy 80gr 5.56 nato load...
 
Line up 5 gallon jugs of water and shoot from about 15 feet away.
Use a 230 gr Ranger T, HST or 185 HP (whatever) in the 45
Load the .223 with a Barnes TSX 55 gr, Federal Fusion 62 gr, Winchester 64 gr PP
The resulting impact on the jugs should remove any doubt.
 
I know it's not scientific, but based on effects on steel targets, the 5.7 doesn't seem to hit much harder than a .22lr at medium to long range. The .45 at least smacks the steel with authority, and the 5.56 can leave craters and even holes on softer steel that the other two won't leave much of a mark on.

I understand that steel is a poor indicator of terminal ballistics, but I just don't see how 5.7 (at least civilian variety) can compare to the other two in just about any measure.
 
I keep a FiveseveN on my nightstand loaded with Elite Ammunition Protector II rounds which are 50gr and IIRC somewhere around 1950 or 2050 FPS. While I certainly dont think the 5.7x28 is the greatest cartridge I like having 20+1 in a handgun that weight about 24oz loaded.

I'm hoping to go hog hunting this weekend and the FiveseveN will be with me so maybe I can see what it does to the pests.

I love the FiveseveN but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the little cartridge. Hopefully I can see what it'll do myself and put that at ease (animals of course).
 
I know it's not scientific, but based on effects on steel targets, the 5.7 doesn't seem to hit much harder than a .22lr at medium to long range. The .45 at least smacks the steel with authority, and the 5.56 can leave craters and even holes on softer steel that the other two won't leave much of a mark on.

I understand that steel is a poor indicator of terminal ballistics, but I just don't see how 5.7 (at least civilian variety) can compare to the other two in just about any measure.
Click to expand...

Obviously people are not made like steel. The round was made to enter, tumble and fragment without shooting completly through its intended target. One of the great reasons to use it for HD. Walls will slow a 5.7x28 down dramtically.
 
i can safely say neither a .45acp, nor a 5.7x28mm will equal the energy in a 5.56mm rifle from any barrel length, and the sheer energy from the impact will be devastating...

heres something to try with a ballistics calculator sometime.... pick any grain bullet, and any velocity, type it in and youll see how much energy it produces.. the actual "power" of the cartridge... then using those same base figures, double the weight.... the energy doubles... now keeping the original weight, double the velocity instead... the energy quadruples.. thats why little meteors no bigger than a car hit with the explosive force of a nuclear weapon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top