223 vs 357

[oldfool]

curious... carbine vs. carbine, at modest range, say 50 yards

ARs have a huge following, obviously, chosen by many as "home defense, etc" gun

so how does a typical 223 FMJ round compare to 357 mag 125 JHP, both out of carbine length barrels ?

not talking about calculations on paper, muzzle velocity, energy, power formulas... but visually observed results of hits on target, damage done

been thinking it might make for a fun range day fun to do some informal evaluation, nothing real scientific, maybe stack up some rows of filled milk jugs, several deep for each, just to see what happens.. how many of those will each round will go on through, see how much visible damage done

somebody here probably been there, done that


PS
many here have shot whitetail deer with calibers both large and small, and proper bullet placement kills, we all know that already, no such argument implied

 

[greyling22]

I've shot .5 inch steel at 50yds with both. 357 leaves no scratch or dent. 223 FMJ goes straight through. that right there rules it out for home defense for me.

 

[kanook]

The BIGGEST flaw, FMJ vs JHP

 

[Tirod]

Look up the results of drywall testing on the box of truth website. .357 will punch through multiple layers, 5.56 will fragment and disintegrate because the bullet is less solidly constructed.

Please don't make assumptions that one kind of material and bullet has the same response in all others. Home defense isn't a sensible discussion anyway, no one really does it, and most homeowners who have used handguns - which are notorious overpenetrators in sheet rock. It also begs the question, why do so many brag about there precision shooting ability, but worry about missing a perp standing six feet away in their bedroom? A center of mass shot will be about 4 feet up, well over the resting height of someone in bed.

The whole home defense thing is mostly internet fantasy.

Back on topic,out to 75 feet, both could be equally effective. Beyond to 400 yards, not so much. Rifles are almost universally better energy retainers due to the better ballistic coefficient. It's why most hunt with a rifle, not a pistol.

 

[browningguy]

Using bullets properly constructed for the task, the rifle will always win out. There is just too much of an energy difference for wishfull thinking to beat.

 

[Art Eatman]

"so how does a typical 223 FMJ round compare to 357 mag 125 JHP, both out of carbine length barrels ?"

Seems to me that this question needs to be applied to some specific use or need.

Comparing the effects on jugs of water would be entertaining, but I'm not sure anything truly useful would be learned.

IMO, if self-defense is of concern, and some distance around fifty yards is the reasonable outer limit to be considered "defense", my personal opinion is that it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. Bullet A cannot make something deader than bullet B. There's no such progression as dead, deader, deadest.

 

[19-3Ben]

The whole home defense thing is mostly internet fantasy.

While I think that people on the internet get carried away with "I shall defend my castle" bravado, home invasions are very real.

Look up home invasion stats in Google. The common numbers are 8k home invasions per day* , and that one in every 5 homes will be subjected to home invasion or burglary.

So the armchair ninja who plans to wake up the moment he hears glass break and start clearing his house slicing the pie in each room and all that nonsense may be a bit carried away. BUT, being prepared and having good equipment to defend one's self is just good common sense in my mind.

*In "N. America"- I don't know if that's just USA or if they include Canada in that. It's USDOJ stats though so I assume just USA.

 

[Oic0]

I think some people here are greatly greatly underestimating the .357. You think its way weaker?

5.56 has what? about 1500-1700lbs of energy from carbine length?


Just looking at the stats for Buffalo Bore ammo, the .357 can do:
180 grain - 1850fps 1369lbs
158 grain - 2153fps 1626lbs
125 grain - 2298fps 1466lbs

Close to the same energies but one has a fatter bullet with a hollow point. The other is small and pointy. Which one would you rather have go through you?

 

[MichaelK]

Bullet A cannot make something deader than bullet B. There's no such progression as dead, deader, deadest.

Oh, I don't know about that! Was shooting a rat crawling along the top of a brush pile when I shot it with a .22 Stinger. It popped like a balloon and the pre-gutted remains sort of wrapped itself around one of the brush branches.

That was much more satisfying than shooting it with a solid and watching it run off before dieing!

To answer you OF, given a choice for just plain old plinking, I'd go with the .357 carbine. It's a more economical choice than the .223, a little more quiet, and chicks love shooting .38 specials in it. It's more economical to reload too if you do that.
Michael

 

[MetalHead]

Well I have grabbed both at times in my life because I thought I heard something. When that happens any gun is better than none but I'dd rather have a shotgun. My old ugly WingMaster fills this role just as well as it covers truckgun and farmgun. I pray I never have to fire a shot.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hornady Critical Defense 125gr .357 Magnum through bare gel and heavy clothing: http://www.hornadyle.com/products/more_detail.php?id=129&sID=144&pID=1

Hornady 5.56 NATO 75gr LE-TAP through baregel:
http://www.hornadyle.com/products/more_detail.php?id=72&sID=75&pID=2

About 13" penetration in bare gel in both cases; but a VERY different sized cavity. I would not be excited about getting shot with either; but there is no question which one does more damage.

See also: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306 for other .223 rounds.

Close to the same energies but one has a fatter bullet with a hollow point. The other is small and pointy. Which one would you rather have go through you?

So, what do you think? Which one would you rather have go through you?

 

[CornCod]

Yeah, but how many of those home invasions are bad guy vs. bad guy drug ripoffs and such?

 

[Enachos]

... it's still a home invasion isn't it?

 

[desidog]

How do these two rounds vary in hydrostatic shock wave? I mean, a hole is a hole, but the P1 and P2 shock-waves that liquefy organs are what spells "lights-out" to me.

I'd be more inclined to compared all options:
-223FMJ vs 357FMJ
-223FMJ vs. 357HP
-223HP vs. 357FMJ
-223HP vs. 357HP

I think the 223HP vs. 357 FMJ might be really close, but the damage of the HP coupled with the shock of 223 would really make a spatula a good thing to have around as well.

 

[greyling22]

my understanding what the OP just wanted to know what they did to stuff at the range, not open a "what is best suited for HD" can of worms. we all know that different bullet types behave differently.

a note about my original post, the 357's were shot out of a carbine. they pick up a couple hundred FPS as opposed to when I shoot them out of a pistol.

 

[Oic0]

Hornady Critical Defense 125gr .357 Magnum through bare gel and heavy clothing: http://www.hornadyle.com/products/mo...&sID=144&pID=1

Hornady 5.56 NATO 75gr LE-TAP through baregel:
http://www.hornadyle.com/products/mo...2&sID=75&pID=2

About 13" penetration in bare gel in both cases; but a VERY different sized cavity. I would not be excited about getting shot with either; but there is no question which one does more damage.

See also: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306 for other .223 rounds.

Quote:
Close to the same energies but one has a fatter bullet with a hollow point. The other is small and pointy. Which one would you rather have go through you?
So, what do you think? Which one would you rather have go through you?

That is from a pistol barrel and its a very anemic load made to be comfortable in lightweight pistols. 1500fps with a 125 grainer from an 8 inch barrel... that is very anemic. It would be doing ~1800fps if it were a decent load. Even that anemic load though would probably be doing 1700+ from a carbine... although it would be doing closer to 2300 if it weren't designed to be tolerable to a sissy firing it from a snubby.
Compare to this http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_27&products_id=63 , 100 more fps from half the barrel... I have some, mostly for home defence. Kicks like a mule and spits flames when shot out of my short python but pleasant out of the rifle. There are also these, http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=103 . I want to get some of their 158s for deer

All of hornady's ammo for .357 mag is very anemic. Even the "Leverevolution" stuff made for rifles. They only get about as much velocity from a 140 grainer as some of the more serious loaders get from a 180grainer!

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think some people here are greatly greatly underestimating the .357. You think its way weaker?

5.56 has what? about 1500-1700lbs of energy from carbine length?


Just looking at the stats for Buffalo Bore ammo, the .357 can do:
180 grain - 1850fps 1369lbs
158 grain - 2153fps 1626lbs
125 grain - 2298fps 1466lbs

Close to the same energies but one has a fatter bullet with a hollow point. The other is small and pointy. Which one would you rather have go through you?

5.56 energies are usually closer to 1,300 FPE. But forget energy here. KE is not completely irrelevant, and is a good way to compare cartridges with more similar traits, such as .357 vs. .38 Spl. But when you're dealing with a rifle cartridge, you're talking velocity and terminal ballistics that don't necessarily reflect FPE in any way. A .300 Rem Ultra Mag with a 180 gr. soft point pill at 3,300 FPS is gonna damage a human more than a .50 BMG 660 gr. FMJ at 2,700 FPS, even though the .300 has only 1/3 the energy. It's the expanding projectile and the higher velocity that create greater permanent and temporary cavities.

Lets just look at varmints. A praire rat shot with my Marlin 1994 .44 Mag is quite dead, usually almost torn in half. You're talking almost 2,000 FPE from the rifle with normal .44 loads. The same sized rat, shot with my .220 Swift, is nearly vaporized at close range, despite the lower energy. It's the hydrostatic shock of a 4,000 FPS impact and a bullet that comes apart.

In summary, while a .357 rifle would do the trick, I'd rather have my 16" Armalite M15 with 62 gr. HP's for defensive use. Especially if there was a possibility of soft armor to contend with.

 

[Oic0]

A .300 Rem Ultra Mag with a 180 gr. soft point pill at 3,300 FPS is gonna damage a human more than a .50 BMG 660 gr. FMJ at 2,700 FPS, even though the .300 has only 1/3 the energy

The .50 would blow right through the target, just as your .44 is wasting a large portion of its energy on the dirt behind the little varmint. What if they were both designed to properly expend their energy in a man sized target? Or heck, imagine a prarie dog shot from the hole under the tail and straight through out of the mouth with a rapidly expanding .44. With more of its energy put to use it would leave you mangled hide with legs. Both the .223 and the .357 have ammo designed to maximize energy put in to a man sized target so ideally neither is going to waste energy with massive over penetration.

 

[R.W.Dale]

PAH! A pox on all you serious sherlies treating every pointless thread like it's a matter of life and death.I'm going to compare these cartridges based on the only criteria important to me.

FUN FACTOR

A 357 carbine will bounce cans,clay pigeons, rotten fruit or put the smackdown on used consumer electronics or appliances with gleeful authority. I liken a 357 carbine to driving your grandfather's 40 yr old 6cyl manual braked farm truck. It may not be the best at anything but it sure is fun to buzz around town in wearing a funny looking hat and "Big Smith" overalls.

A .223 autoloader will do the same things as the 357 although with a much less satisfying thump on appliances. Fruit shot with this cartridge pretty much disappears into a shower of small rotten pineapple chunks in a most gratifying way. The thing with the .223 is it will do so 2 to 3 times farther away. Hearing that faint ring report back from that 11" gong placed 300m away you shot with your iron sighted AR is a real joy. Plus lets face it it doesn't matter how codgy you are about rapid fire deep down inside we all enjoy the occasional mag dump. The .223 autoloader is more the kinda fun you get from a rollercoaster, you just hold on smile and let the machine do much of the work.



ETA: IMO the 357 carbine is MORE fun firing 38's because if loaded properly they're so quiet the pullet impact on an old 5hp briggs and stratton block is louder than the report

 

[MachIVshooter]

The .50 would blow right through the target, just as your .44 is wasting a large portion of its energy on the dirt behind the little varmint. What if they were both designed to properly expend their energy in a man sized target? Or heck, imagine a prarie dog shot from the hole under the tail and straight through out of the mouth with a rapidly expanding .44. With more of its energy put to use it would leave you mangled hide with legs. Both the .223 and the .357 have ammo designed to maximize energy put in to a man sized target so ideally neither is going to waste energy with massive over penetration.

Don't forget about the velocity factor

 

[kenno]

Absurdistan

The post alluded to the Home Deffense advanages of 357 vs 223 and you guys are now talking 44 mag and 50 cal?
Unless you live in a castle Home defence means around 18 feet, at that range neither round has a practicle advantage only the platform would provide an advantage, a semi would be the 'winner'.

 

[The Tennessean]

People hunt bears with .357 Magnum rifles. I would have no problems using them on a bad guy. As for which is better, .357 or .223 for bad guys, I think it's 6 one way, half a dozen the other. If the bad guy goes down what's it matter? We know the bad guy will go down with either.

 

[dom1104]

A 357 carbine will bounce cans,clay pigeons, rotten fruit or put the smackdown on used consumer electronics or appliances with gleeful authority. I liken a 357 carbine to driving your grandfather's 40 yr old 6cyl manual braked farm truck. It may not be the best at anything but it sure is fun to buzz around town in wearing a funny looking hat and "Big Smith" overalls.

A .223 autoloader will do the same things as the 357 although with a much less satisfying thump on appliances. Fruit shot with this cartridge pretty much disappears into a shower of small rotten pineapple chunks in a most gratifying way. The thing with the .223 is it will do so 2 to 3 times farther away. Hearing that faint ring report back from that 11" gong placed 300m away you shot with your iron sighted AR is a real joy. Plus lets face it it doesn't matter how codgy you are about rapid fire deep down inside we all enjoy the occasional mag dump. The .223 autoloader is more the kinda fun you get from a rollercoaster, you just hold on smile and let the machine do much of the work.

Excellent Post.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1500fps with a 125 grainer from an 8 inch barrel... that is very anemic.

OK, if you've got some more .357 ballistics gelatin shots, I would be interested in seeing them. I think you'll be looking awhile to find anything near that Hornday 75gr TAP though.

Unless you live in a castle Home defence means around 18 feet, at that range neither round has a practicle advantage

How do you figure? In the links above, the Hornady gel shots were taken at the FBI-standard distance of 30'. I doubt the Hornady .357 is going to lose a tremendous amount of energy or velocity in the 12' from 18' to 30'; but it definitely is at a practical disadvantage in how it performs in ballistics gel.

 

[NG VI]

1800 feet per second with a 125 from an 8" revolver? Seriously?

That sounds a little dangerous to me, but I suppose I'm not a reloader yet.

How's the life expectancy of that brass?