Effectivness of Handgun vs Rifle

Noel

New member
OK,

I must admit that I am not an expert in the terminal ballistics of small arms. However, the statements by plusp in the thread [Link to invalid post] go beyond controversial into misleading or at best incomplete and applicable only in limited circumstances IMO.

In a search for the Suter article, I found this quote from Fackler: (http://www.dipr.org/content/papers/assault_weapons_revisited.html)

"Though some have claimed a particular lethality for assault weapons, a literature review finds instead that assault rifle and weapon wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries than rifle injuries:

[note the distinction made between rifles and assault weapons and AW wounds resemble pistol wounds but still does a rifle give a larger wound or not?]

[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is consistent with well documented data from Vietnam... as well as with controlled research studies from wound ballistic laboratories."

[Note that he says wound ballistics simulations can provide good results]

Fackler goes on:

"In general, it is the size and location of the wound that determines the lethality of penetrating injuries. Whether knife or gun, a small wound in a vital area can be deadly, where a much larger wound in a non-vital area may only injure. A larger wound, of course, increases the chance of encountering and injuring a vital structure. For firearms, larger wounds are more likely from larger bullet diameter ("caliber"), from expanding bullets, and, in certain cases, from tumbling, yawing, or fragmenting bullets. It is the location and size of the permanent wound channel, the tissue actually destroyed, that primarily determines lethality; the effects of temporary stretching ("cavitation") of elastic tissues or the sonic "shock wave" from a bullet's passage have been greatly exaggerated.12,13 Obtaining a wound in a vital area, of course, depends upon shot placement which is a reflection of marksmanship mitigated by chance; the more skillful the marksman, the smaller the role of luck."

Fackler also indicates the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 round is largely a result of the bullet yawing 180 degrees in the target tissue and fragmenting. Pistol bullets do not generally yaw IIRC, and most do not fragment.

The below is quoted from http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm

"At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth.

(The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980's. Therefore, the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)

At distances between 100-200 yards, the bullet commonly breaks in half at the cannelure forming two large penetrating fragments, the nose and base.

At distances beyond 200 yards the bullet usually remains intact due to velocity decay. It simply yaws 180 degrees to penetrate backwards through the body.

Both the M193 and M855 bullets demonstrate similar terminal performance as described above, when fired from rifles fitted with a 20-inch or longer barrel.

Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above. A rifle fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel is adequate for close-quarters battle. For engagements anticipated at greater than room distance but less than 100 yards, a rifle fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel should be employed to ensure sufficient velocity."

So, my question is this:

Does anyone besides plusp think a rifle in no more than 3% more effective than a handgun at "real" self-defense ranges?

I will stipulate only short military calibers in rifle .223, 7.62x39 and .308. I will also stipulate "defense" calibers in handgun .38, 9mm, .45, .357, .40 (and similar)

I will also stipulate that I have attended the Thunder Ranch Urban Rifle courses and do not believe that at personal defense distances or say in a house (less than 15 yards) a wound in the torso with a .223 will be only 3% more effective than a wound with a .45.

The effectiveness of shotgun is also of interest to me. I would rate a shotgun as more effective than a rifle to a distance of about 10-15 yards. After that distance, I would select a rifle.

Note the importance of bullet placement in the article quoted above. Placement is a lot easier with a rifle. Note also that soft armor will stop all pistol rounds and no soft armor will stop a .223 (IIRC).

The other article I found was: http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

My bottom line--give me a rifle.

Help me understand, please.

(BTW, plusp if you can give me references on teh web for the data you use it will be helpful)

Noel
 
Comparing projectiles from rifles and pistols is like apples and oranges.
Quite naturally, just about ANY rifle will outperform just about ANY handgun but, as stated above, bullet placement and construction has more to do with it than anything else.

A Hydra-Shok out of a .357 Magnum will almost always do considerably more damage than a FMJ will out of an SKS but put a 110 grain HP in that SKS and things will change.
I once saw a lovely young lady shot with a .30-30 in TX and absolutely assure you that the damage was a hell of a lot more than any common handgun could have done.

Whoever said that you can't get sufficient velocity from a .223 out of a 14.5" bbl has never tried. It is no trick to get 3000+ out of 14" Contender.

BTW, a Threat Level II vest will stop a .223 FMJ or a .308 FMJ for that matter.

THREAT LEVEL III Barrel Length fps
7.62 NATO Ball 150 Grain FMJ (308)28 2750
30.06 PSP 180 Grain 24 2700
.30 Carbine 110 Grain FMJ 18 1950
12 Gauge Rifled Slug 18 1550
.223 55 Grain FMJ (5.56 MM) 20 3075
7.62 x 39 150 Grain FMJ 22 2400



------------------

Desertscout
desertscout@hotmail.com

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
--George Washington
 
Won't penetrate II or III? and, I don't know of anyone (aside from us huah-huah boys)who would wear something that awkward (III or IV). I don't know about the III stopping a .308win. I have put a couple FMJ rounds through some test vests, and I know for certain that a II will not stop it, and it has penetrated the III quite a bit. Good brand-new South African ball. Hot. Accurate, too.
 
Noel: "the statements by plusp go beyond controversial into misleading or at best incomplete and applicable only in limited circumstances IMO."

You said it all right there. Hit the nail on the head.

Plusp's "statistics" are coming from BALL AMMO, which is DESIGNED to only produce a SMALL HOLE in the victim. NO hollowpoints are allowed on the battlefield. NATO specified this restriction due to the MASSIVE BODILY DAMAGE that hollowpoint ammunition imparts on the human body. The goal of war is NOT to KILL the enemy, but to put him out of action. As usual, Darrel's statistics have NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

------------------
The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.
 
Hello, Noel and all. I have seen one person who was hit with expanding .223 ammunition. It was more effective than any hits I've seen with any handgun ammunition. Best.
 
You are trying to confuse your OPINION for scientific fact. You quote Fackler and then claim your OPINION over rides that.
The gun magazine logic is so engrained and constant bombardment of non-scientific information and urban legends, we get stuck on "sounds good" logic.
First of all you ASSUME the hollowpoints will expand. We KNOW 50% or more will NOT. So you are dealing with a FMJ configuration in half of the shootings. There are a lot of reasons for this.
Also expansion is NOT dramatic nor as fast as you think. And if the bullet does expand in ANY caliber it takes time/distance. That means most will expand LATE into the wound channel. The bullet on impact of course does experience rapid and immediate speed dumping(velocity loss.)
Even with rifle bullets the damage by HP designs are not all that dramatic as one might think. You should attend some autopsies and SEE for yourself.
For decades we have used expanding bullets in rifles designed for ANIMALS.
On one hand some want to claim the FMJ is totally anemic in rifle calibers and HP's are magic. With proper PLACEMENT ANY bullet will work. A hollowpoint isn't going to make magic things happen.
Most posts deal with lah-lah land scenarios of what shooters think will be encountered in a self defense shooting that rival third world battles for villages by raiding roving armed bands of unwash peasants. Talk of EXTRA 30 round mags etc., is a receipe for disaster.
Trying to make claims of PERFECT performance of bullet and shooter is really a stretch. And if that could be achieved, it will be the shooter, NOT the bullet that decides the issues. It is only proper to place the TOTAL responsibility for PLACEMENT with the shooter and stop trying to replace that with a magic bullet that doesn't exist.
Not a popular view but logical.
 
You are trying to confuse your OPINION for scientific fact. You quote Fackler and then claim your OPINION over rides that.
The gun magazine logic is so engrained and constant bombardment of non-scientific information and urban legends, we get stuck on "sounds good" logic.
First of all you ASSUME the hollowpoints will expand. We KNOW 50% or more will NOT. So you are dealing with a FMJ configuration in half of the shootings. There are a lot of reasons for this.
Also expansion is NOT dramatic nor as fast as you think. And if the bullet does expand in ANY caliber it takes time/distance. That means most will expand LATE into the wound channel. The bullet on impact of course does experience rapid and immediate speed dumping(velocity loss.)
Even with rifle bullets the damage by HP designs are not all that dramatic as one might think. You should attend some autopsies and SEE for yourself.
For decades we have used expanding bullets in rifles designed for ANIMALS.
On one hand some want to claim the FMJ is totally anemic in rifle calibers and HP's are magic. With proper PLACEMENT ANY bullet will work. A hollowpoint isn't going to make magic things happen.
Most posts deal with lah-lah land scenarios of what shooters think will be encountered in a self defense shooting that rival third world battles for villages by raiding roving armed bands of unwash peasants. Talk of EXTRA 30 round mags etc., is a receipe for disaster.
Trying to make claims of PERFECT performance of bullet and shooter is really a stretch. And if that could be achieved, it will be the shooter, NOT the bullet that decides the issues. It is only proper to place the TOTAL responsibility for PLACEMENT with the shooter and stop trying to replace that with a magic bullet that doesn't exist.
Not a popular view but logical.
Shooting goats, jello, phone books and foot pounds do NOT show nor tell the story of the actual human body. The human body will blow your "theories" out the window if you look.
You ASSUME all HP's will expand and ASSUME proper placement. It also isn't like that in the real world.
 
i don't know much about this but its not always the size of the bullet that matters; its the way it was designed. for example take a .223 and a 7.62: the 7.62 is bigger so you would think it has more stopping power right? not always. when they were designing the .223 they realized that when it hit something hard (like a person) it would start to spin. i mean spin like the tip would now be in the back and then forward again: like a wheel basically. this makes a much bigger and more destructive wound channel sometimes and will cause more damage.
 
Pistols have a big advantage at close range: they are easier to bring to bear on target in a short time. Since multiple shots are likely needed to end an assault, a closed-bolt submachine gun may be a better tool. Of course, that doesn't defeat cover or armor any better than a pistol, so we are back to a .223 select-fire rifle (plenty accurate at 15ft) Since we can't own those in practice ($$ plus regulations being what they are), we are back to the choice of pistol vs. semiauto rifle. I suspectthat most people are better trained to handle handguns quickly than they are to handle rifles and that would decided the matters for close range.

At 50ft or further, I would expect shoulder arms (even whimpy carbines) to win over due to the ease of aiming.

Here's a mini survey:

You are presented with a threat at 75ft: a hostile with a handgun. You have a choice of your favorite pistol or revolver OR an M1 carbine with 15-rd magazines (your choice of ammo, soft points I would assume). Which do you pick?

------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>First of all you ASSUME the hollowpoints will expand. We KNOW 50% or more will NOT.[/quote]

Where did you get the 50% figure? I'd like to research that data for myself, would you post the relevant article or paper name and the journal in which it was published?

Thanks.

LawDog
 
I don't know about 50%, maybe for handguns. But I have shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of prarie dogs and just about all of those hollow or soft points or V-max(ballistic tips) worked pretty damn well. Rifles generally have the velocity to expand, handguns, sometimes no. And bullets are getting better all the time. Obviously, a Barnes-x-bullet or winchester failsafe is not the best choice for use on people. Something faster expanding like a Ballistic tip would work better. Semper Fi....Ken
 
Oleg Volk: I'd take the M-1 beacuse
#1: Shoulder arms are easier to aim due to the larger site radius. and #2 the .30 carbine amunition is equal to or better than the .357 magnum, ballisticly speaking.

bt
 
I missed the other thread where this conversation started so ...

It appears that there are claims that rifle rounds are not much more effective than handgun rounds?
This is nonsense. You could probably sell me on this if we were talking about 7.62x39 in FMJ configuration because the round is relatively anemic and the aerodynamic shape doesn't lend itself to tissue disruption - BUT, I've seen too many animals shot with rifle HP's to buy the whole package.
My son has been hunting deer with a .223 since he was six. I've seen many, many other deer shot with .223's and trust me, when you open that chest cavity its lung soup in there.
I don't have any experience with deer and 7.62x39 rounds but that is the ballistic twin of the .30/30 and gentlemen, that round also (in HP) is poison to a man-sized animal.
I can't comment on whether handgun HP's reliably expand since I really don't have the background, but rifle HP's always do.

I think a man and a deer are similar enough in weight and size to make a very valid comparison. Its certainly a more valid test than ballistic gelatin.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
what's that famous quote:

"if you KNOW you are going to a gunfight take a rifle"

at 75 feet ANY rifle I own is preferable to any handgun I own. Its not just about power of a rifle round over a pistol round.. its the fact that I can hit a moving taget out to 200 yards consistantly with a rifle.. That's really difficult with a handgun at 25 yards. (and again we are talking FIELD conditions not shooting from the bench here guys)

And as others pointed out a 7.62 x 39 Russian round is the ballistic eqivalent of a 30-30, which has probably killed more big game in america than anty other caliber. Would ANY of us volunteer (vested or not) to STAND there and let someone shoot you with one??

A 22 caliber RIFLE riring the same ammuntion as a 22 Pistol can have RADICALLY different wounds (the example is in an old gun digest firing 22 rounds into clay) A 44magnum fired from a pistol is impressive.. and from a rifle barrel its a serious game-getter. But its NOT a 30-30. The longer barrel allow bore of the powder to burn in the gun and you get more velocity.

The power of Rifle rounds is staggering becuase there is usually a LOT more powder driving the bullets of similar wieghts. So a HANDGUN firing a rifle cartridge is almost as lethal as the rifle, even though a lot of powder will be creating smoke and flash instead of pressure to send the bullet downrange.

Imagine that a typical "hot" 45 load can take 9 grains of ball powder and a 185 grain bullet to get to nearly 1000 fps, compared to 56 grains of powder in a 30-06 case with a 165 grain bullet to get 2900 fps.

If the physicists are right (E=mass x velocity SQUARED), then a 30-06 is traveling three TIMES as fast as a 45 with the same weight ITS EFFECTIVENESS should be at LEAST 3 times as great as a 45... and since we are SQUARING velocity the effectiveness should be higher.

ie 310 ft pounds of energy for the 185 grain 45 round vs 2410 ft pounds of energy for the 165 grain 30-06 (source federal cartridge website) by THIS standard the rifle round is nearly 8 times as effective.

Apples and Oranges Indeed.

Dr.Rob
 
I quoted Fackler because that was the source of the article presented by plusp.

The links I gave discuss the wounding mechanism of various military bullets. I don't have acess to the IWBA data about the lethality of rifles and pistols. But based on how the arguments are presented thus far I suspect the comparisons are no where near as sweeping as what plusp indicates. I will try to email Shawn Dodson to get the data mentioned by plusp from the IWBA.

.223 wounds exhibit bullet tumbling (180 degree yaw)and fragmentation, 7.62x51 wounds have tumbling and some fragmentation (German rounds fragment more readily). AK-47 rounds seem to do neither. This aspect of the AK-47 round is the justification I have heard for the Russian adpotion of the AK-74 round.

plusp is correct that in a urban setting the AK rounds penetrating to much stuff is a problem. This does not justify sweeping statements about effectiveness and to inply that needing to penetrate through say a car door is only a hollywood notion is not justified, IMHO. Based strictly on statistics, no one "needs" a self defense firearm, because millions of people go years and do not need them. So do we acceed to this scientific fact and carry pepper spray and loud whistles?

To restate my own opinion:

1. Bullet placement is the most important feature of effectiveness.

2. Rifle rounds will cause more severe wounds than pistol rounds, if placement is equal.

3. Rifles allow more precise placement.

4. In close distances rifles are not a handicap when compared to pistols, given the proper training.

5. Pistols are carried rather than rifles or shotguns for obvious reasons. But the convienience does not change the fact that longarms are more effective.

6. Shotguns provide awsome terminal ballistics because the multiple projectiles actually tear up tissue and remove it in close distances.

Disclosure: this is all nformation I received in the Thunder Ranch brainwashing. Since plusp does not think most current training address the realities of selfdefense wih firearms as well as his does, I thought I should point out my disadvantaged background.

Request 1: I would appreciate that plusp not rant but give the information in a way that people could read and evaluate.

Request 2: Can someone provide reference for body armor penetration that does not include the hardened plates?

Thanks,

Noel
 
I found the information on body armor I was looking for.

Level III protection for .223 and 7.62. Weighs about 17 pounds, and is around $550.00

My use of the term "soft body armor" was not correct. I guess I meant that it could be worn beneath a shirt.

I found no Level III vests that are worn beneath a shirt, all are exterior.

Level IV stops 30-06 AP. WOW!

Noel

BTW, Dr. Rob I have an aversion response to that oft repeated "clincher" about "volunteering to be shot" with whatever. I have heard it so much from those people who argue that the .32 acp, although not a handcannon will "get the job done" because after all "you would not want to be shot with one would you". Or it is said, "well if you think my .25 is so aneamic, why don't you stand there and let me shoot you."

Not your fault. But everytime I hear this now I can not help myself from coming up with similarly logical rejoinders:

"Well lets do a test, you go stand down range 50 yards with your trusty Seecamp, I stand here with my with my FN-FAL. We each get 3 rounds and *then* we can do the test where we are only the 7 yards apart, you holstered and me with rifle slung."

Anyway my point is that the thing I want to get shot with has almost nothing to do with what I want to use to shoot at the 250 lb bad guy. :)
 
Point taken Noel.. but the reality is a true "rifle cartridge" or even midrange "assault rifle round" ala 223 or 7.62 x 39 are a LOT heavier hitters than almost any handgun cartridge. In fact, its pretty well documented that so called "hyrostatic shock" does NOT come into play UNTIL you get to "rifle" velocity

The other thing that is probably true in SURVIVING a shot is the reality (that in america anyway) high tech medicine is closeby. So a single rifle or pistol shot is probably more survivable in general than the massive trauma delivered by a shotgun. IF these percentages are taken IN the ER (ie if we get them in the door what the chances of survival) the numbers might make sense. However it doesn't say a THING about who didn't make it to the ambulance.

Handguns are easier to manuver, etc... but give me a long arm first and foremost.

Dr.Rob
 
NATO was not the originator of requirements that only FMJ would be used. In 1899, the first International Peace Conference was held in The Hague, convened by Czar Nicholas II of Russia.

This was the Geneva Convention.

CONVENTION (II) WITH RESPECT TO
THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
(HAGUE, II) (29 Jul 1899)

Article 23

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--

(a.) To employ poison or poisoned arms...
(e.) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury


Fortunately, I am not in the military, and I choose expanding ammunition whenever I can. .45 FMJ does yaw, unless it is shoulder-stabilized, in which case, it penetrates something like 40% more, for similar weight and velocity.

Most of what Americans currently have for their 7.62x39mm rifles is Soviet HP that has been described as extremely fragmentary by SOF.
 
Autopsies aren't the holy grail either, PlusP. You know why? Because they're all DEAD. The goal is to stop hostile aggression, not "kill".

I've seen small wounds kill, and massive wounds "wound". A dead guy on a slab just shows what killed him, and not always "how fast."

In the real world, sh*t happens, and you gotta deal with it. It doesn't matter whether you're carrying the "Cpl Ed Sanow #1 pistol bullet" or a rifle (which you seem to think is dangerous). You've gotta hit your opponent fast, and some times often, to knock him flat. Maybe, just maybe, you win.

It's not the caliber (.45 vs. 9mm), bullets (HP Golden Saber / Gold Dot / Hydrashock, ad nauseum), holsters (IWB vs. pancake vs. crossdraw vs. shoulder), morgue monsters, jello-junkies, goat shooters...

It's your attitude, preparation, and skill at arms. Pure and simple.
 
If I'm going to use a rifle in a self-defense situation, it will most likely be either my '06 or my .243.

Now, given the damage I've seen on the off-side of jackrabbits, coyotes and deer, I have to assume that the average fella missing a pound or so of meat where some vital part of his precious body used to be is no longer going to be a very effective assailant. I must assume that internal damage is commensurate.

Years ago, I discovered that WW II '06 AP ammo would not penetrate some (5/16" or 3/8", I disremember) WW II armor plate that my uncle had lying around. Funny thing: Handloads with 150-grain Hornady Spire Points would go through it, blowing out a hole some 5/8" in diameter.

I'm far less concerned with Geneva than with saving Arthur.

:), Art
 
Back
Top