.223 too powerful for home defense?

CraigC said:
FMJ is a terrible performer on flesh, that's the reason for its use according to The Hague Convention. Use a good expanding bullet and the 5.56 is extremely effective and less likely to penetrate multiple walls.
Click to expand...

You are referring to .30, 7/8/9mm, and .45 ball, not the "modern" M193.

M193:

The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet [M193} was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 turn in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[43][58] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration into flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet.

The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were caused by bullet fragmentation created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[60] These wounds were so devastating that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.[61]...​

... The original ammunition for the M16 was the 55-grain M193 cartridge. When fired from a 20 in (510 mm) barrel at ranges of up to 300 feet (100 m), the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2,900 ft/s (880 m/s))...

that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber.[142][143]

These wounds were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[146][147][148] ​

As the 5.56 mm round's velocity decreases, so does the number of fragments that it produces.[24] The 5.56 mm round does not normally fragment at distances beyond 200 meters or at velocities below 2500 ft/s, and its lethality becomes largely dependent on shot placement.[24][143]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPGSiDs5_k

M16_5.56x45mm_wound_ballistics.gif

​
 
Last edited:
Ugly Sauce said:
were to build a house, or have one built, I think it might be wise to put something in the walls to make them "bullet proof"
Click to expand...
As a person with significant experience in both design and construction (and firearms) this is not as simple as it can seem at first blush.

Ideally, across the wide range of projectiles, we would want a number of laminations with void spaces between to quickly (we really only have about 4" of space, and for projectiles distance becomes time; at 150fps, or 1800 inches per second, 4" is 1/450 of a second). What that leaves us with is finding "single thickness" solutions which do not "rob" us of interior space.

The only "sure" material would be polycarbonate sheets or heavy FRP panels. These would want to be over an inch thick (teller window spec for point-blank handguns is 1 5/8"PC or 1 5/16" laminate glass). This is going to be an inelegant solution as we want the wall space to also pass electircal wires, plumbing, ductwork and the like. Metal sheeting is a problem, as it's remarkably not bullet resistant, even at considerable thickness. It's also expensive and heavy to complicate your construction (Installing 1/2" face-hardened steel sheets on a second floor means beefing up the floors and walls considerably).

There is a compromise, but, like most compromises, it does not leave everyone "happy." That would be in using "cementitious board." This is a portland cement product poured over a nylon mesh with glass fiber infill. This is used as a backing surfcae for heavy tile and stone veneer applications. This, because it only is 3/8" or 1/2" thick, and installs in 4x8 sheets, rather than building up a 1 5/8" mud bed over lath. It's more bullet resistant than "plain" drywall (which is gypsum plaster between paper sheets). Installing rock wool insulation batts would help slow any penetrations, too. (Yes, this is right around the tornado-resistance design spec recommendations, which are meant to resist 8 foot 2x4 at 150 mph, perhaps 10-15% of the way to "bullet resistance.") And, each wall you did this to is going to be around 4x to 5x more expensive to build or renovate.


Ks5shooter said:
Frangible ammo is an option.
Click to expand...
It's also pretty expensive, which means you are not going to practice enough with it, like as not. There is something to be said for, when the chips are down, knowing that you have shot the ammo currently in the chamber a thousand times versus a dozen, or six, or just the once. It's a choice--all things are a choice.
 
CapnMac said:
As a person with significant experience in both design and construction (and firearms) this is not as simple as it can seem at first blush.

Ideally, across the wide range of projectiles, we would want a number of laminations with void spaces between to quickly (we really only have about 4" of space, and for projectiles distance becomes time; at 150fps, or 1800 inches per second, 4" is 1/450 of a second). What that leaves us with is finding "single thickness" solutions which do not "rob" us of interior space.

The only "sure" material would be polycarbonate sheets or heavy FRP panels. These would want to be over an inch thick (teller window spec for point-blank handguns is 1 5/8"PC or 1 5/16" laminate glass). This is going to be an inelegant solution as we want the wall space to also pass electircal wires, plumbing, ductwork and the like. Metal sheeting is a problem, as it's remarkably not bullet resistant, even at considerable thickness. It's also expensive and heavy to complicate your construction (Installing 1/2" face-hardened steel sheets on a second floor means beefing up the floors and walls considerably).

There is a compromise, but, like most compromises, it does not leave everyone "happy." That would be in using "cementitious board." This is a portland cement product poured over a nylon mesh with glass fiber infill. This is used as a backing surfcae for heavy tile and stone veneer applications. This, because it only is 3/8" or 1/2" thick, and installs in 4x8 sheets, rather than building up a 1 5/8" mud bed over lath. It's more bullet resistant than "plain" drywall (which is gypsum plaster between paper sheets). Installing rock wool insulation batts would help slow any penetrations, too. (Yes, this is right around the tornado-resistance design spec recommendations, which are meant to resist 8 foot 2x4 at 150 mph, perhaps 10-15% of the way to "bullet resistance.") And, each wall you did this to is going to be around 4x to 5x more expensive to build or renovate.



It's also pretty expensive, which means you are not going to practice enough with it, like as not. There is something to be said for, when the chips are down, knowing that you have shot the ammo currently in the chamber a thousand times versus a dozen, or six, or just the once. It's a choice--all things are a choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, I figured it would only be an option for someone very rich. And then, if one has good enough security in the first place, no one is going to get in the house in the first place. Great information!
 
Ugly Sauce said:
it would only be an option for someone very rich.
Click to expand...
Well, not so much rich as "able to plan." Retrofitting a tract house is tough, as they are built for speed and low construction cost. If a person can afford to pay for design, which might only be $5K-10K, less if temed in with a good Design-build firm, then getting a "tornado room" (scans more commonplace than "safe room" does) is not a huge cost addtition. That's 4" CMU with a 2" partition wall and a 16" corrugated metal sheet ceiling over the "appearance" ceiling, yields a fairly 'normal' looking room.

Now, "armoring" bedrooms, will get spendy--and that will want risk balancing before spending the dosh.
 
Okay, taking a totally different track here. And, I suppose it does not address the op's original question, but here goes: Doesn't/wouldn't planning for shooting in the house, in the dark, and what weak and ineffective ammo to use show a total lack of planning as far as securing the house so that evil dudes don't just appear in your bedroom and wake you up in the middle of the night? Or the old: "honey, I think someone is downstairs". !!!

If your primary, static security sucks that bad...perhaps one is "asking for it"? Well that's kind of harsh, but what excuse for such a insecure dwelling??

What is not expensive, or difficult, is reinforcing the door and door jambs, reinforcing the hinges, and putting cross-bar brackets on the doors to be used at night. Extra dead-bolts. Extra hinges. (the hinge side is the weakest side of a door) Windows I'm not sure about, but I am sure there are a dozen ways to at least give advance warning that someone is trying to breech them. I'm thinking that's a better way to go, then anticipating a gunfight in the house at night. ?? That would sure give one more control over the encounter, instead of the evil dude or choice of ammo. ?

Just a thought, asking for a friend. :)
 
I've read the responses and can't comment on what firearm to use but I can attest to this the muzzle blast and concussion of a 223 fired indoors is something you'll want to experience only once. I go to an indoor range that allows rifles up to 50 BMG and been around with someone firing an AR and even with hearing protection it's border line painfull.
 
Last edited:
highlander 5 said:
I've read the responses and can't comment on what firearm to use but I can attest to this the muzzle blast and concussion of a 223 fired indoors is something you'll want to experience only once. I go to an indoor range that allows rifles up to 50 BMG and been around with someone firing an AR and even with hearing protection it's border line painfull.
Click to expand...
Yep!I learned this in 1995 while working at a gun shop with an indoor rifle range. It left an impression on me then just how loud a Mini14 was firing indoors.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Doesn't/wouldn't planning for shooting in the house, in the dark, and what weak and ineffective ammo to use show a total lack of planning as far as securing the house so that evil dudes don't just appear in your bedroom and wake you up in the middle of the night? Or the old: "honey, I think someone is downstairs". !!!
Click to expand...

Might makes right?

Interesting considering that planning on shooting weak ammo shows a lack of planning for security. Many SWAT teams use comparatively weak and ineffective ammo in their guns opposite of what you suggest. It shows planning and security concerns for non-combatants. The point here is that the power factor of the ammo does not justify or refute that there is planning for the security of the home. Different people have different wants and needs.

Are you less planned for your home security because you are using the weak and ineffective .223 compared to your neighbor that has a powerful and effective 30.06?
 
In reality, unless you are spending some serious money on doors and windows, they are fairly easy to breach. Getting in quietly is hard, but a pick ax will open an arcadia door or large window in a few seconds.

As far as 223 being to powerful for HD I disagree. Ive seen a lot of people shot over the years with various guns. Assuming a good COM torso hit (limbs and low angle hits are much more likely to pass through) Ive seen far more handgun and shotgun rounds go completely through than 223. 223 FMJ will many times go all the way through but a "defensive" load like a hollow point or a known fragmenting load rarely do. Handguns using FMJ go all the way through most of the time and even expanded hollow points will pretty regularly.
 
Gun-Reck said:
On the contrary.

All the GKR supporting data is RE: the M855 62 gr. "green tip" penetration round, stabilized in 1:7" high-twist rate barrels.

The M193 55 gr. ball round mentioned, was not supported.

Here is the Wound Profile for the M193 round:

M16_5.56x45mm_wound_ballistics.gif

​
Showing upset at a little past 4", followed by massive damage to 10", consistent with the results of the gel test provided.

Both the test rifle and Ruger Mini-14 have lower 1:9" twist rate barrels as well.
Click to expand...
The graphs are about M855, yet his data supports his statement "When M855/193 fragment quickly, they can be very effective. Unfortunately, they could just as easily exhibit poor performance without the end user really knowing how well his particular rifle/ammo performs."
 
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as too powerful for home defense with any handheld or shoulder fired firearm. RPG might be a bit much but if there was a .460 double rifle handy I would not hesitate to use it to repel boarders. Be aware that I live in the sticks.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Might makes right?

Interesting considering that planning on shooting weak ammo shows a lack of planning for security. Many SWAT teams use comparatively weak and ineffective ammo in their guns opposite of what you suggest. It shows planning and security concerns for non-combatants. The point here is that the power factor of the ammo does not justify or refute that there is planning for the security of the home. Different people have different wants and needs.

Are you less planned for your home security because you are using the weak and ineffective .223 compared to your neighbor that has a powerful and effective 30.06?
Click to expand...
Oh no, I'm not really taking sides on the ammo issue, that just seemed to be where the conversation was going. Just puzzled that everyone seems to "expect" intruders to get into the house quietly, which I do believe shows lack of planning.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Oh no, I'm not really taking sides on the ammo issue, that just seemed to be where the conversation was going. Just puzzled that everyone seems to "expect" intruders to get into the house quietly, which I do believe shows lack of planning.
Click to expand...
How would the amount of noise they make getting in or how long it takes be relevant either way? The question remains the same regardless.
 
If the round you’re using for home defense won’t penetrate walls, it’s insufficient to stop a threat. Period
 
C-grunt said:
In reality, unless you are spending some serious money on doors and windows,
Click to expand...
I will agree to disagree there. :) It is not expensive to make a door extremely difficult to breech. Windows I don't know about, but I'm sure there are solutions.

Indeed, "normal" doors you find in most houses and certainly apartments, are extremely easy to breech.

Not sure how often pick-axes are used in break-ins. ??? Homie-G and his gang of fools have probably never used one! :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
5.56/.223 for Home Defense?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
8K
Robert
Robert
K
  • Locked
AR-15 for home defense?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
1stmarine
1stmarine
C
  • Locked
.223/5.56 carbine for self defense
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
chaim
C
P
  • Locked
  • Poll
Rifle as Home Defense?
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
4K
Gator
G
D
  • Locked
.223 ammo for home defense?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
BADUNAME37
B
Back
Top