unwise11
Member
Eh, I'm currently 14, so my living situation is not quite up to me. 
marlin 1894c .357 magnum vs 16" AR-15 .223 rem.
- Thread starter shooter3
- Start date
- Status
zxcvbob
Member
Not in a fair fight...
ChristopherG
Member
If it's a defense gun, I believe it absolutely needs a light and would benefit from a quality red dot. Both the Marlin and the EBR can take a red dot easily enough; but a white light is much easier to mount on an AR.
As for the relative effectiveness of the two: yes, the Marlin is a larger caliber and heavier bullet, but it's still shooting a handgun bullet. I don't know that I'd call the AR obviously superior to the .357 rifle in terminal ballistics, but I don't think it's a clear win the other way either.
If a 30 rd mag in a SD gun seems ridiculous to you, just try imagining yourself in a situation where you want it and don't have it; say, retreating from multiple armed opponents with your family and unable to lay down covering fire because your lever gun works from an 18" tube magazine. No, it's not likely; but as long as we're comparing the two guns, why not think of such things?
I love my 1894c and have shot it in numerous tactical 3-gun comps as well as cowboy action; but it sits in the safe and an AR--with the noted additions--is in the closet. If this is really the question--
--then I guarantee the answer for anyone with comparable training and experience with both guns is AR.
As for the relative effectiveness of the two: yes, the Marlin is a larger caliber and heavier bullet, but it's still shooting a handgun bullet. I don't know that I'd call the AR obviously superior to the .357 rifle in terminal ballistics, but I don't think it's a clear win the other way either.
If a 30 rd mag in a SD gun seems ridiculous to you, just try imagining yourself in a situation where you want it and don't have it; say, retreating from multiple armed opponents with your family and unable to lay down covering fire because your lever gun works from an 18" tube magazine. No, it's not likely; but as long as we're comparing the two guns, why not think of such things?
I love my 1894c and have shot it in numerous tactical 3-gun comps as well as cowboy action; but it sits in the safe and an AR--with the noted additions--is in the closet. If this is really the question--
--then I guarantee the answer for anyone with comparable training and experience with both guns is AR.
Last edited:
I don't even see how you could compare the two guns for this situation. The AR is better in comparison in all regards...capacity, accuracy, ergonomically, energy, effectiveness, you name it. I honestly don't understand some of the previous answers.
ChristopherG
Member
False. I'm surprised at how persistent this perception is, but it's been demonstrated wrong (for all handgun calibers v. .223, or buckshot v. .223) repeatedly.
oldfool
Member
OP named two choices to pick from, neither was a smoothbore
both named guns can be aimed and pointed quite well according to distance and need - preferably aimed with special care if shooting up the hood
if defending home, hearth, God, and country from a platoon of enemy soldiers (and/or Ninja Muntant Turtles and/or an excessively large herd of excessively small varmints), the AR of course - better offensive weapon, rate of fire and capacity in offense mode.. uhhh... you know... like military combat
but for home and self defense within named range (50 yards or less), the 38/357 lever action wins hands down
(just ask any of the whitetail herd that have seen bambi shot with either/both; bambi is tougher on average than two legged varmints of similar weight)
especially given the obvious option of loading up 38 and/or 38+P and/or 357 mag as suits the specific circumstance and backdrop -
and they look really nice when accessorized with a matched pair of 357 mag revolvers, and all three guns can use same ammo mix-n-match
them pointy 223 bullets just don't cycle well in a Glock, you know
PS
a 357 will sure make a mess of ol' possum at 15 yards, no matter how angry ol' possum be
one COM hit pretty much deters escalation
(and it's actually not that hard to miss ol' wunning wabbit with a smoothbore at 10 yards; a way-back-when life lesson, missing wabbit straight on at ~10 yards with a 20 gauge, and twice again in the next few seconds, this-n-thataway, bolt action smoothbore... wabbit "too" close-n-quick, a 12 year old quick enuff, but not practiced enuff... "cover a hallway", no not hardly, "Judge" that as ye will)
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, keeping in mind that the shooter in this equation is by far much more important than the gear, I think Christopher G gave a great answer, except I would say that .223 is clearly superior in terminal ballistics though I can understand the point regarding penetration of the heavier .357.
If you don't need more than 5" of penetration in ballistics gel (i.e. your attacker is facing you, arms at his sides and has no sternum or ribs), then #6 birdshot at less than 21' should be sufficient - although there are examples of where it wasn't sufficient even at that distance even with shots to the head.
With cheap Winchester #6 2 3/4" my open choke Remington 870 patterns about 10" at 10yds. A decent pattern to be sure; but hardly sufficient to cover a hallway. If I use an effective load like Hornady reduced recoil 00 buck, the pattern is actually tighter. I'm also not sure why I'd be hip shooting given that the stock seems so useful for making hits on things.
How are you measuring "power"? .223 55gr FMJ has around 1,282 ft/lbs of energy compared to around 755 ft/lbs of energy for hotter .357 Magnum loads.
As for overpenetration Hornady 125gr .357 Magnum Critical Defense ammo penetrated to about 15" in bare ballistics gel in this Brassfetcher test.
Compare that to these .223 rounds in bare ballistics gel. Out of 8 different .223 rounds, including 55gr FMJ, the .357 Mag outpenetrates 7 of them.
You'll also notice that the holes the .223 makes in gel are uh, "more dramatic" than the .357 gel shots.
stanger04 said:
If you don't need more than 5" of penetration in ballistics gel (i.e. your attacker is facing you, arms at his sides and has no sternum or ribs), then #6 birdshot at less than 21' should be sufficient - although there are examples of where it wasn't sufficient even at that distance even with shots to the head.
With cheap Winchester #6 2 3/4" my open choke Remington 870 patterns about 10" at 10yds. A decent pattern to be sure; but hardly sufficient to cover a hallway. If I use an effective load like Hornady reduced recoil 00 buck, the pattern is actually tighter. I'm also not sure why I'd be hip shooting given that the stock seems so useful for making hits on things.
How are you measuring "power"? .223 55gr FMJ has around 1,282 ft/lbs of energy compared to around 755 ft/lbs of energy for hotter .357 Magnum loads.
As for overpenetration Hornady 125gr .357 Magnum Critical Defense ammo penetrated to about 15" in bare ballistics gel in this Brassfetcher test.
Compare that to these .223 rounds in bare ballistics gel. Out of 8 different .223 rounds, including 55gr FMJ, the .357 Mag outpenetrates 7 of them.
You'll also notice that the holes the .223 makes in gel are uh, "more dramatic" than the .357 gel shots.
The comparison is between a Marlin carbine in .357 mag and the .223 in the AR platform, not a 4" bbl revolver. When fired from a 18" barreled carbine the .357 acts like an entirely different animal and is nothing to be trifled with.
http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/super-x/jacketed-soft-point/Pages/X3575P.aspx
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=102
There is a slew of info on this combo and how well it works in the field here.
http://www.marlinowners.com/forums/index.php/board,32.0.html
http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/super-x/jacketed-soft-point/Pages/X3575P.aspx
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=102
There is a slew of info on this combo and how well it works in the field here.
http://www.marlinowners.com/forums/index.php/board,32.0.html
I have three loaded [strike]guns[/strike] rifles handy. AK, AR, Mini-14.
(Two loaded handguns. .45 ACP. I don't know why I don't have the 2 1/2" 686 or the 3" 696 loaded, or both, but I don't. I guess it's for the firepower, cause I have loaded .45 mags laying by the pistols.)
So my vote is for the AR in .223 over the lever gun in .357. I would love to have one though. It would look good by my other lever guns, and be a hoot to shoot.
Is it a bad choice for home self defense? No, just not as good as the AR for it.
(Two loaded handguns. .45 ACP. I don't know why I don't have the 2 1/2" 686 or the 3" 696 loaded, or both, but I don't. I guess it's for the firepower, cause I have loaded .45 mags laying by the pistols.)
So my vote is for the AR in .223 over the lever gun in .357. I would love to have one though. It would look good by my other lever guns, and be a hoot to shoot.
Is it a bad choice for home self defense? No, just not as good as the AR for it.
Jason_W
Member
I doubt anything or anyone hit COM with a .357 mag from a carbine (the velocity jump is quite impressive over a revolver) or a .223 round at common HD ranges will know the difference.
The AR does have a greater magazine capacity and rapid fire is easier with it, but I'm inclined to wonder how much a person gains with that capability in most circumstances. What is the likelihood of having to lay down rapid cover fire in anything short of a complete societal meltdown?
In deciding between the two, go with whatever won't break or budget and/or whatever you like more.
The AR does have a greater magazine capacity and rapid fire is easier with it, but I'm inclined to wonder how much a person gains with that capability in most circumstances. What is the likelihood of having to lay down rapid cover fire in anything short of a complete societal meltdown?
In deciding between the two, go with whatever won't break or budget and/or whatever you like more.
Blue Brick
Member
Hi-Point Carbine with 9mm +P+
ChristopherG
Member
Bartholomew,
Thanks for the nod. I agree with what I take to be your point regarding shotguns in HD or SD, to wit: in defensive shooting the traditional distinction between 'pointing' a shotgun and 'aiming' a rifle is meaningless. At 10 feet you don't 'aim' a rifle anymore than you do a shotgun--not, that is, if you know your rifle and how to shoot it; and if you 'point' a shotgun at a target 25 yards away, you're not going to make more accurate hits than you would with an unsighted rifle in the same situation. It's a heuristic distinction useful in other situations and for other types of shooting.
On the terminal ballistics question, I make the comparison between the 1280 ft lbs of the .223 with the SD load I use in my Marlin, which is a 158 gr. bullet at 2000 fps, for around 1400 ft lbs. So from the standpoint of kinetic energy, the .357 actually comes out ahead--but the yaw and fragmentation of a good .223 defensive load makes, as you know, a nasty mess of a block of gel; so, I honestly think there are advantages to both. I know I'd rather have the .357 if I'm shooting at someone behind cover or through auto glass. In the open, though--or against an adversary in body armor, heaven forbid--the .223 is the easy winner.
Thanks for the nod. I agree with what I take to be your point regarding shotguns in HD or SD, to wit: in defensive shooting the traditional distinction between 'pointing' a shotgun and 'aiming' a rifle is meaningless. At 10 feet you don't 'aim' a rifle anymore than you do a shotgun--not, that is, if you know your rifle and how to shoot it; and if you 'point' a shotgun at a target 25 yards away, you're not going to make more accurate hits than you would with an unsighted rifle in the same situation. It's a heuristic distinction useful in other situations and for other types of shooting.
On the terminal ballistics question, I make the comparison between the 1280 ft lbs of the .223 with the SD load I use in my Marlin, which is a 158 gr. bullet at 2000 fps, for around 1400 ft lbs. So from the standpoint of kinetic energy, the .357 actually comes out ahead--but the yaw and fragmentation of a good .223 defensive load makes, as you know, a nasty mess of a block of gel; so, I honestly think there are advantages to both. I know I'd rather have the .357 if I'm shooting at someone behind cover or through auto glass. In the open, though--or against an adversary in body armor, heaven forbid--the .223 is the easy winner.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
OK, I retract my comments on the terminal ballistics side of the equation. I had no idea you could get .357 Magnum bullets going that fast out of the 18.5" barrel. Obviously, that makes a difference on their effectiveness.
I still think the stretch cavity of the .223 would give it the edge where intermediate barriers weren't a concern; but it isn't quite as clear cut as I initially thought. Thanks to the various posters (336A/Christopher G) who pointed out the flaws in my reasoning.
I still think the stretch cavity of the .223 would give it the edge where intermediate barriers weren't a concern; but it isn't quite as clear cut as I initially thought. Thanks to the various posters (336A/Christopher G) who pointed out the flaws in my reasoning.
sansone
Member
at 100yds or less the .357 out of 18" brrl is going to have better one-shot stopping power, but as previously stated the AR is going to have much faster follow-up shots
which would deliver faster hits for close quarter combat?
The lever gun is not, regardless of caliber.
Caliber considered, the .357 would be better off in what it was originally made for, a revolver. It's not a rifle round, it does not have 400m capability.
Whether that's a neighborhood/Home Defense necessity is something else. It was suggested a deadbolt could offer more security, but that's too much common sense in HD discussions. HD, SHTF, and TEOTWAWKI are all internet fantasy discussions. Nobody wants to talk about moving out of the bad 'hood, adding security, or simply going on the offensive with camcorders and complaints. It's always a discussion of being a victim and what's the best gun to use after doing nothing has prompted the zombies to simply invade the home.
If that's what's going to happen, picking a gun is way too late in the game. Spend the money on a Uhaul.
The lever gun is not, regardless of caliber.
Caliber considered, the .357 would be better off in what it was originally made for, a revolver. It's not a rifle round, it does not have 400m capability.
Whether that's a neighborhood/Home Defense necessity is something else. It was suggested a deadbolt could offer more security, but that's too much common sense in HD discussions. HD, SHTF, and TEOTWAWKI are all internet fantasy discussions. Nobody wants to talk about moving out of the bad 'hood, adding security, or simply going on the offensive with camcorders and complaints. It's always a discussion of being a victim and what's the best gun to use after doing nothing has prompted the zombies to simply invade the home.
If that's what's going to happen, picking a gun is way too late in the game. Spend the money on a Uhaul.
Shooting 400 yards with a 16" AR carbine is a moot point. few people will ever shoot that far with an 16" AR carbine which the OP is asking about. The few folks that do shoot out to that distance with an AR however are using a 20" rifle. These same folks are more inclined to be target shooters eg... NRA National Match high power shooters.
Last edited:
T191032
Member
Think twice about what you want to do.
"If for some reason I find myself outside (say catch some guys breaking into my neighbors house) and the range may easily ecceed 30 yards, then I am probably more effective with a rifle than a shotgun."
Depending upon where you live, say a very rural area, this could come back to bite you unless you have one of those shiny nice things called a "badge." Even with good intentions, you have to "cya" first and foremost this day and age. Think about that.
Now, are you expecting to be overrun by a gang in your neighborhood? That would sound very AR-15, 30-round magazine with a extra mounted on the gun ready to grab and do a mag swap; though *hits count* not "spray and pray".
I appreciate your choices, as both are "easy" on the body as compared to the 12 bore shotgun (if you are not familiaar with Mr. Arthritis, he can be miserable sometimes) and the jarring effect of a 12 bore don't help. Yea, I know about adrenaline dump, still the OP ruled out shotguns, just acknowledging a good reason for it.
Nothing really wrong with a lever-action for self-defense. A lot less "mean" looking to a jury, "Oh, a gun like John Wayne used to mop up the West" as compared to "OH my God, one of those guns they want to outlaw!" 
"If for some reason I find myself outside (say catch some guys breaking into my neighbors house) and the range may easily ecceed 30 yards, then I am probably more effective with a rifle than a shotgun."
Depending upon where you live, say a very rural area, this could come back to bite you unless you have one of those shiny nice things called a "badge." Even with good intentions, you have to "cya" first and foremost this day and age. Think about that.
Now, are you expecting to be overrun by a gang in your neighborhood? That would sound very AR-15, 30-round magazine with a extra mounted on the gun ready to grab and do a mag swap; though *hits count* not "spray and pray".
I appreciate your choices, as both are "easy" on the body as compared to the 12 bore shotgun (if you are not familiaar with Mr. Arthritis, he can be miserable sometimes) and the jarring effect of a 12 bore don't help. Yea, I know about adrenaline dump, still the OP ruled out shotguns, just acknowledging a good reason for it.
Nothing really wrong with a lever-action for self-defense. A lot less "mean" looking to a jury, "Oh, a gun like John Wayne used to mop up the West"
as compared to "OH my God, one of those guns they want to outlaw!" Sox
Member
The hip firing recommendation just has me scratchin' my head, just wow is all you can say! The birdshot is another poor idea as well. Stanger, I hope those were not recommendations you got at your class! If it was you need to post the class, so we can be sure and avoid it.
I've shot out to 400 yards with my 16" AR and Aimpoint and kept the shots COM.
The AR wins without doubt in my books. Assuming you are going to need multiple shots to stop the threat the AR carries more medicine and allows you to dispense said medicine quicker. Like someone else stated it is also easier to add lights and RDS (might be a wash).
Howdah Pistol....
Ok first off no disrespect here but I'm throwing out the B.S. flag and here is why. I've had the pleasaure of instructing Avanced Rifle Marksmanship, SRM and SRB over the course of 3 1/2 years. We had our students shoot at 400 yards for familiarization with aimpoints on a 200yd NRA style high power target using issued M855. The groups were huge with more than half of their 10 rounds falling outside of the standard 20" wide E-type shilouette. The Aimpoint dot subtends 12" (at 400yd) then factor in the wind drift (18.1"), bullet drop (-22.6") when zeroed for 200 yards and shooter error I doubt it. That is unless you have a tricked out 16" carbine and shooting heavier match grade ammo of course, which leads me to ask COM of what...? a boulder.
There is no doubt that the a semi automatic firearm is going to be faster than a manualy operated firearm for follow up shots. With that being said I'm very doubtful that 30 rounds is going to be needed for HD. If that is the case you need to call a SWAT team as you will be SOL.
As for the .357 fired from a carbine it is very effective in terms of terminal performance. To put things in perspective a bit lets take a trip back in history. There was a very Elite and effective group of soldiers back in WWII called the Alamo Scouts, they are the forefathers to todays Special Forces. Of all the rifles that they had to choose from, their firearm of choice was the M1 carbine. The reason was due to the fact that they were infiltrating far behind enemy lines for days, so weight was a consideration. They also knew that the typical engagement ranges would be <150yd.
So where am I going with this? Compare the performance of the M1 carbine to a .357 mag firing a 158gr JSP and see for yourself. On top of all that even if you have an AR but no training, those 30 rounds won't mean a darn thing in the end.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The AR beats a lever gun hands down in pretty much every measurable way.
I'm not Bratch, nor do I speak for him, but with an ACOG-equipped 16 inch gun I've hit IPSC poppers at 400 yards. With an Aimpoint Micro on the same gun, I've hit IPSC poppers at 300 yards.
This is, of course, with handloaded ammunition, but I'm not using anything special. Bulk Hornady 55 grain bullets.
I'm not Bratch, nor do I speak for him, but with an ACOG-equipped 16 inch gun I've hit IPSC poppers at 400 yards. With an Aimpoint Micro on the same gun, I've hit IPSC poppers at 300 yards.
This is, of course, with handloaded ammunition, but I'm not using anything special. Bulk Hornady 55 grain bullets.
CoastieShep
Member
Of those 2, the .30-.30. You will not need 30 rounds, you will not need to "double tap" or any of that stuff. If somebody is breaking into your neighbor's house, you don't shoot at them, you call the cops, unless you want to go to prison for murder. If somebody is shooting at your house from 200 yds out, you don't shoot back, you call the cops, or you go to jail.
If you want a long gun for HD, get a shotgun in 20ga or 12ga.
If you already have those 2 rifles and you don't want to buy another gun, use the .
357. Much easier to use at 3am when you're woke from a dead sleep by the sound of breaking glass. Simplicity is the key.
If you want a long gun for HD, get a shotgun in 20ga or 12ga.
If you already have those 2 rifles and you don't want to buy another gun, use the .
357. Much easier to use at 3am when you're woke from a dead sleep by the sound of breaking glass. Simplicity is the key.
- Status
