Cheap .223 plinking ammo vs. premium defense handgun ammo

**Caskalefan** · 03-25-12, 15:13

I'm curious as to the effectiveness of the imported barnaul, wolf, tula, etc. ammo. Not because I want to actually rely on it for defense.

I've heard for years that pistols and shotguns/rifles are in completely different categories in terms of effectiveness.

With that said, how much of a difference in terminal performance does a superior constructed defensive handgun round such as 9mm, 40sw, and 45acp compare to a cheap .223 Russian made round of ammunition?

**SteadyUp** · 03-25-12, 16:33

That's an apples to oranges comparison if I ever saw one. In general, handgun rounds suck compared to rifle in terms of terminal ballistics.

If you read through the stickied threads at the top of this subforum, it will explain the differences between handgun and rifle terminal ballistics.

**CumbiaDude** · 03-25-12, 17:37

Originally Posted by SteadyUp

That's an apples to oranges comparison if I ever saw one. In general, handgun rounds suck compared to rifle in terms of terminal ballistics.

If you read through the stickied threads at the top of this subforum, it will explain the differences between handgun and rifle terminal ballistics.

That's probably why in the original post he said:

Originally Posted by Caskalefan

I've heard for years that pistols and shotguns/rifles are in completely different categories in terms of effectiveness.

(emphasis mine).

Pistols are supposed to penetrate to between 12 and 18 inches in depth, crush as much tissue as they do it, and hopefully penetrate barriers on the way if needed. Any rifle will penetrate barriers better than a pistol, and even the low-end 5.56 rounds like M193 penetrate to around 12 inches, with the added possibility of fragmentation (adding damage).

I doubt any of the foreign rounds are worse than bottom of the barrel stuff like M193. I'd say the answer is "they probably don't suck any worse than a pistol round".

**DocGKR** · 03-25-12, 19:38

It does not matter if a projectile is launched from a handgun or rifle, it still needs to penetrate 12-18". If a cheap, poorly designed .223 bullet fails to upset in tissue it will cause minimal tissue damage; in that situation a robust expanding service caliber projectile will crush more tissue. Of course if the rifle projectile does have early upset in tissue, then there is no comparison in the amount of tissue damage when contrasted even with the best service caliber handgun projectiles.

**Clint** · 03-25-12, 21:42

Doc pretty much has it.

I routinely shoot cranberry juice jugs filled with water.

The are rectangular and approximately 4" thick front to back and quite sturdy.

They provide some indication of early upset performance potential.

One interesting thing with these is you can visually gauge the impact of various rounds on these.

A "very powerful" .357 magnum with lead semi-wadcutter bullet shows virtually no effect. Just a .35 cal hole front and back.

M193 does the same thing. No visible effect. Did I hit it??? Yep, just a .22 cal hole front and back.

60 grain NBT explodes the target. .22 cal entrance hole and softball sized exit hole. Container just shredded.

#7 birdshot rocks the container, but only penetrates the front face. All of the shot gets caught in the container and rolls around in the bottom.

20 ga. Slugs blow the shit out of the jugs too. Thumb sized entrance hole and the whole back is shredded.

The only combo that I haven't shot is premium handgun ammo.

**MegademiC** · 03-26-12, 01:06

Originally Posted by Clint

Doc pretty much has it.

I routinely shoot cranberry juice jugs filled with water.

The are rectangular and approximately 4" thick front to back and quite sturdy.

They provide some indication of early upset performance potential.

One interesting thing with these is you can visually gauge the impact of various rounds on these.

A "very powerful" .357 magnum with lead semi-wadcutter bullet shows virtually no effect. Just a .35 cal hole front and back.

M193 does the same thing. No visible effect. Did I hit it??? Yep, just a .22 cal hole front and back.

60 grain NBT explodes the target. .22 cal entrance hole and softball sized exit hole. Container just shredded.

#7 birdshot rocks the container, but only penetrates the front face. All of the shot gets caught in the container and rolls around in the bottom.

20 ga. Slugs blow the shit out of the jugs too. Thumb sized entrance hole and the whole back is shredded.

The only combo that I haven't shot is premium handgun ammo.

The problem with 193 is its variable. if it upset relably, early, it would be pretty good for a non barrier load. I've shot a rabit with 193 and it must have upset about 3"in. Exit hole was quite large.

I've also blown up a water jug with it. Apparently, your barrel/angle/specific bullet combo resulted in delayed upset. Its actually pretty interesting IMO.

**tpd223** · 03-26-12, 10:15

Have you seen this test and commentary?;

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_wolfdef.html

It appears that at close range Wolf FMJ act like an M193 round at longer range, no fragmentation, yawing is the primary wounding mechanism (and their HPs don't expand so they basically do the same from what limited testing I have seen).

I have heard anecdotally that some of the other HP bullets in the Bear ammo (Silver, Brown, Etc) do seem to expand or fragment, this feedback comes from guys using cheaper ammo for volume hog shooting.

**PA PATRIOT** · 03-26-12, 19:03

Buddies of mine in Texas had been shooting good numbers of wild hogs with Wolf 55gr Copper (Not Bi-Metal) H/P's with very good results. I have also been told that the Wolf 62gr Bi-Metal H/P's rarely up-set and act like FMJ's 95% of the time.

All information is word of mouth only as I have not yet been down to Texas to see actual results but these guys are serious Hog hunters and would not be using the Wolf 55gr Copper H/P's if they were not proving effective.