I was absolutely amazed! Now I've gotta jump on the bandwagon and go buy a 'black rifle' in .223, I suppose. Closest thing I have now is an AK pistol, and/or a 9mm carbine. The Business Manager is gonna be peeved , cause I'm "always needing another gun." So, what else is new? One never has enough firearms.
Whattaya think!?
I've recently been reading about the Windham Weaponry CDI direct impingement in .223. One good aspect of it is the bolt's made of Carpenter 158 Steel rather than the somewhat common 8620. Anyone with experience or comments regarding this firearm?
Will post more later if I can find the reports, but the type of bullet makes a huge difference. 10 years ago I tested a number of military and commercial 223 rds for use in an "industry" with very specific needs. We found pistol cal to be completely inadequate, 12 Ga slugs / buck did not penetrate anything like people think it does and 223 rds were very different in their effects depending on what type of bullet they are. I actually worked with a major ammo mfg to develop a 223 projectile that was designed to penetrate hard objects ( think glass, car doors,steel like dumpsters, and steel buildings) and still be effective on personnel. We ended up with a 62 gr heavy jacketed projo with a small exposed lead tip. ONce I digest the referenced report above I will comment further, but the big take away is to understand that all bullets are not "equal" in terminal effects. you need to define what it is that you want the bullet to accomplish.....
Well, my primary question is regarding penetration -- .223 versus 9mm, .45cal, .38spl -- used in home protection. I get no "virus warning" on this link to the information from Olympic Arms at (http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?opt...info&Itemid=27). In the article it shows why a .223 rifle round penetrates less in wallboard, flesh, bone, etcetera, than the other rounds. This is what surprised me. I've always considered the pistol rounds to be less penetrating than rifle rounds. The .223 round supposedly penetrates less because of disintegration, than the pistol rounds.
I see in one test, under the FBI protocol, where the Hornady Critical Defense185-grain FTX at 1,007 fps penetrated 5 walls of plasterboard 5/8" thick, and did not appear to mushroom, and
The Winchester Elite 230-grain PDX1 at 900 fps penetrated 6 walls of 5/8' plasterboard and did not appear to mushroom, whereas
The Federal Premium 165-grain Guard (sic) Dog Home Defense at 1,024 penetrated only 2 walls of the same 5/8" plasterboard, and DID mushroom uniformly.
Only the Guard Dog failed to clog the hollowpoint with plasterboard, so it mushroomed! The other two clogged up with plasterboard and did not mushroom to transfer maximum energy to the target, even though they are designed for personal protection -- that is, in the home setting where over penetration is undesirable. It is possible that other considerations could cause the same effects -- heavy clothing, for one.
If the .223 disintegrates in tissue or wallboard, even though traveling at a higher rate of fps, I can see why it might be a "safer," and therefor better, round for self defense at home or otherwise.
Educated comments?
Carry On!
Gary
><>
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
1919 A4 Forums
545.1K posts
11.2K members
Since 2006
A forum community dedicated to Browning 1919 A4 firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, gunsmithing, restoration, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!