.45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away

[kcshooter]

I'd suggest you take a close quarters carbine class, you are far overrating the effectiveness of having a free hand when compaired to what you can do with a 3ft long club.

I have. Have you? Remember the part where you drop the rifle to it's sling after firing to be able to control the attacker's weapon hand if you need to? This was taught as part of a transition to handgun.

I can do that while still firing with a handgun. If I had a rifle and a handgun, I could do it while transitioning as was taught, but this scenario was one or the other, not both.

Your 3ft long club should be attached to you by a sling, leaving you less mobility with it than you'd figure.

 

[foghornl]

I'll take the .45 for $400, Alex

Why? I am very familiar with how my "GI-45" shoots, it is my 'Bedside Table Companion', and I don't own a .223 gun

 

[AJumbo]

I love these philosophical exercises, and appreciate everybody's input. In response to those who would the pistol in order to "have a free hand" available for the fight, a couple of questions pop up-

You are in a gunfight; what are you doing with that free hand? It had better be something useful like holding a light. If you are considering hand-to-hand combat as Phase Two of your HD plan, you might want to re-evaluate.

Is there anyone here who physically can't fire at least one round, one-handed, from a .223 carbine or rifle?

If the Bad Guy gets a hand on my carbine and tries to take it away, I believe I can retain it far more easily than I could a pistol.

If one round is all I'm allowed, make mine .223. I'm allowed to dump the magazine, make mine .223. I have no problem with the concept of dropping my empty carbine and drawing my pistol, but I hope that 10, 20 or 30 rounds of .223 should make that unnecessary.

An empty carbine is a far better striking weapon than an empty pistol.

My fondest hope is that none of us ever have to test the validity of our theories!

 

[kcshooter]

If you are considering hand-to-hand combat as Phase Two of your HD plan, you might want to re-evaluate.

Truly, no disrespect, but if you think, at only 10ft away, physical contact it isn't likely, you may want to reevaluate.

He's less than half a second away from stabbing you, or you're less than half a second away from pointing his muzzle away from you.

People don't drop dead upon bullet impact. They fight, until they can't.

 

[mljdeckard]

If you can't maneuver a carbine anywhere you can maneuver a pistol, you need to be trained in how to do it.

 

[NG VI]

.45 ACP versus .223 (comparing FMJ and JHP).

Well. There is no legitimate reason to pick FMJ in any reasonable caliber for defense, seeing as we are private citizens and are perfectly capable of researching and picking a proper bullet for the target in mind.

If I were buying a gun strictly for protection in the home, it would be an AR-15, no questions asked, no caliber confusion, no second thoughts. Honestly I'd probably go with a typical 20" A2 style, and then get a light for it. Maybe I'd get a flat top instead and then I'd throw on any Aimpoint or Eotech. If I did I'd probably get it as a 16" midlength, or maybe an 18" with whichever tube works best for that barrel length.

The idea of going with a pistol over the pinnacle of close-mid range individual weapons is absurd to me. And if you can give someone ONE SHOT, you can give them several, and probably should. People usually are pretty committed to whatever caused you to shoot them in the first place, usually too committed to just run away so no one has to be shot any more.

 

[AJumbo]

KCS, you're correct. I think this is kind of plays into the "1 shot" mindset, however; I would not fire just one shot of either .223 or .45ACP in any case. If my assailant is armed with a gun or a knife (or a bloodstream full of bath salts and a bottle of ketchup), then I will try to present a wall of lead for him to advance through.

Should the Bad Guy come to grips with me, I would prefer to use the carbine as a club or striking weapon than to depend on pistol-whipping him into submission. I guess I'm saying that I want H2H to be as far down the list of responses as I can get it.

Like I said before, let's hope we never have any "I survived" stories to compare.

 

[Captain Brown Beard]

If the Bad Guy gets a hand on my carbine and tries to take it away, I believe I can retain it far more easily than I could a pistol

Also this. It's relatively simple to relieve somebody of a handgun. It is considerably more difficult to wrestle away a long gun.

 

[firesky101]

I know that this is not in the scope of the OP question, but maybe .450 bushmaster is for you. Rifle power, large caliber handgun bullets, beats a .45acp unquestionably anytime with the same bullets.

 

[mljdeckard]

For retention, you do have better leverage with a rifle. But you (everyone) should learn retention with both. The basic principles are the same.

 

[Skribs]

.223. There's a reason assault rifles have been replacing SMGs for many special units around the world, be it police or military. The light, fast-moving projectile has tremendous benefits over a slow, heavy projectile, even if the slower projectile is twice as wide. Those benefits come in the form of greater trauma to the target AND less likely to overpenetrate, both due to how the bullet engineers design the deformation of the bullet.

 

[NG VI]

The much longer (proportionally) bullets certainly give ammunition designers/shooters a lot more options as well.

 

[Stringfellow]

Not to derail the thread, but I think Loosedhorse has it right. Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?

The bright side is that this is a fraction of the cost of either of the other choices...

 

[DefiantDad]

Nobody wants to test these theories in real life. But I am thankful for all the inputs on this discussion, because now I am not going to waver if it was a life/death situation and I had to pick. Based on all the input here, I think I will stay with my red-dot 16" AR, and not worry that I picked the wrong self-defense weapon. The sidearm will remain backup.

By the way, when I mentioned ONE SHOT it was not meant that you are limited to only that shot, but you do need that first shot to be thoroughly effective in terminating the threat immediately, or doing sufficient damage/shock to slow down the assailant so that you can follow up with more shots. Also there is a slim chance of failure to feed, so I wanted to be super sure which is the right caliber to pick.

 

[engineer88]

I would favor the 45. Even in a carbine. From a carbine your fps would be well over 1,000 and even quiter. I like velocity quite a lot, but as long as there is enough of it to get the job done, then density and diameter start to make a round pull ahead. But to each their own. Most important thing is what you feel comfortable with and shoot the best since it is your bacon in the pan at that point.

 

[psyopspec]

I've never shot anyone. I've been around a lot of outgoing and incoming fire though, and seen the damage a rifle and pistol each (typically) do to a human body enough times make a pistol feel like a useless paper weight.

On my third tour, I was a DA Civilian instead of a soldier in Afghanistan. I only had an M9. The one time I had to draw it under stress, somewhere between my hand reaching down to the holster, between the incoming rifle grenades and the outgoing 5.56, and the incoming 7.62x39 and the outgoing 7.62 long, and the front sight entering my line of vision, my only thought was that a pistol had never felt so damn small, and it wasn't because of the caliber. If I get to pick my tool in advance, it'll be a long gun. If you've never had that feeling I know I won't change your mind. It is my sincere hope that all of you who picked the handgun never meet a moment where you find yourself wishing for a rifle, and that your delusion that they're 'pretty much the same' never has to be shattered by reality.

 

[Water-Man]

.223. A long time ago I saw people shot with both.

W-M

 

[NG VI]

I would favor the 45. Even in a carbine. From a carbine your fps would be well over 1,000 and even quiter. I like velocity quite a lot, but as long as there is enough of it to get the job done, then density and diameter start to make a round pull ahead. But to each their own. Most important thing is what you feel comfortable with and shoot the best since it is your bacon in the pan at that point.

You should change your username. An engineer of any type would know that any two lead cored bullets will have practically the same densities, regardless of caliber.

And 3000-3200 feet per second puts the wounding effects of the .223 well above what any .45 ACP load is capable of meeting. At that point it's the mass of the pistol bullet that's been made irrelevant, not the velocity of the incomparably faster .223. Things start happening in liquid media once you get going that quick. Things that make the projectile itself much less relevant.

 

[rondog]

OK, there's some photos on another forum of a leg wound from a .223, fired at across-the-street range. I was going to post them here, but they're very graphic, so I won't. Let's just say this guy's leg looks like a beef roast that Gunney Ermy shot on one of his TV shows. No .45 round gonna do that.

 

[Cosmoline]

Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?

Not anymore. Shotguns have some real utility for certain purposes like breaching or shooting bears. But for close quarter combat the AR type carbines or similar intermediate round platforms are the overwhelming choice.

 

[Auto426]

Single shot to stop the bad guy before he can get a shot off? I'll take a 120mm with a load of M1028 canister shot. 1,000+ 9.5mm tungsten balls should put a stop to the BG in the house, but the neighbors might not like it.

When it comes to the OP's question, a .223 rifle is certainly going to be more damaging than any .45 ACP handgun. However, I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home. A handgun is much easier to get through narrow hallways and doorways. The subsonic .45 round will also be quieter, though they both would hurt indoors.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Rifle trumps pistol, Lizard beats Spock.

 

[mljdeckard]

(Lizard beats Spock.

 

[jimbo555]

The beauty of having 3 dogs is you sleep like a baby knowing nobody is going to sneek within 10 feet of you!The negative is you have 3 dogs to take care of!

 

[Loosedhorse]

Remember the part where you drop the rifle to it's sling after firing to be able to control the attacker's weapon hand if you need to?

No, actually.

I remember transitioning to my handgun if my rifle jams. If I need to deal with his weapon as he approaches, what's the best choice?

1) Shoot him again.
2) Bring the carbine into a one-handed, stock under the armpit, retention position to shoot him again and have a hand free.
3) Use the carbine to fend off his weapon arm, club him, and then shoot him (using the handgun if he takes hold of the carbine).
4) If you really want to deal with his weapon with an empty hand, drop the carbine and use BOTH of your G-d-given hands.
5) Sling the carbine and draw the handgun, so you have a free hand.

Seems like a lot of choices. Not sure your option (#5) is the best for all circumstances. Or any. And if you go back to post #35, I think you can guess what I'd prefer.



Let's see: standard Tueller drill is 21 ft, 1.5 seconds. 10 ft, maybe 0.8-1.0 sec if he starts from a standstill, less than 0.5 sec if he's running. You're going to transition to handgun in less than 0.5 sec, because that's a better choice than 1, 2, or 3? Your draw must be VERY fast.

I think Loosedhorse has it right. Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?

Apparently not, but it's the right answer for me.