marine6680
New member
I've yet to see a ballistician recommend it.
Thats because as civilians, we have a much wider array of options, ones that perform better.
That does not erase the fact that for a FMJ, the 55gr load was very effective, even by standards of non-FMJ.
Not as good =/= Not good at all.
Well, we've made some progress
I've never disputed that bigger/more powerful rounds are not more effective.
I am just stating that 223/556 is effective enough when good bullet selection is considered. And that it would probably be the better choice for defensive use due to to factors other than "I need that thing dead right now".
I postulated that effects like hydrostatic shock, make rounds that penetrate less than the 12-18in range most quoted, as still being viable threat stoppers. With the caveat that the rounds at least get 8-10in in gel tests.
I have read a report that during an autopsy, that bleeding in the brain was found as a result of a shot to the abdomen. The reasons for this were cited as being the force of the pressure wave caused by the bullet impact, created high pressure in the blood vessels that caused rupturing of smaller vessels and capillaries in the brain. (any other bleeding located elsewhere in the body was not mentioned, probably as the statement was meant to highlight the fact of how far away in the body the effects of the shot were felt... further mentioning of bleeding would be redundant, and likely not as important as bleeding in the brain would be)
Light weight fragmenting rounds are very good at dumping energy quickly and causing a lot of cavitation in a target. So it stands to reason that they would create a lot of hydrostatic shock as well.
Now this all hinges on hydrostatic shock being an actual thing, but many sources point to it being an actual phenomenon in bullet wounds from rifle rounds.
We also have an anecdotal account in this thread, of how light weight bullets are effective stoppers of game in the 200lb range. Results that are claimed to be from several hunts of live animals.
Given all that, I would venture that the prevailing thoughts and opinions on the suitability of lighter weight 50-55gr ballistic tipped 223 rounds, as being ill suited to effective defense use, to be incorrect.
I of course do not have means to directly test this myself. I must go by the information available, and my knowledge gleaned through study of the subject.
Right or wrong about all that... I am pretty certain that while using the handgun testing criteria methodology (gel, clothing, barriers...) as a way to evaluate rifle round effectiveness is a good way to go; using the same standards used to evaluate for actual performance and effectiveness, (12in minimum penetration, maximum weight retention...) are probably not valid. At least not fully...
Last edited: