The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: CDR on January 03, 2009, 02:31:15 PM
-
I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on the recommended type of .223 Rem or 5.56 Nato ammunition to use inside one's home that minimizes the chance of over penetration while providing an effective home defensive round. I'm thinking frangible type ammunition would probably be best but was wondering if there is a better alternative from both a man stopping perspective as well as a safety perspective.
I've read that typical jacketed .223 Rem ammunition tends to yaw in flight and break up into fragments upon impact due to its thin jacketed walls and extreme bullet velocity, whether it makes contact with an individual or a wall, but am not really sure this is fact. I've also read that a .223 round can easily penetrate quite a few walls of sheet rock if a wooden stud doesn't interrupt its flight. This I would certainly want to avoid at all costs, naturally, and therefore am seriously considering frangible for inside the home.
Any and all recommendations or suggestions on bullet type and weight would be welcomed.
Many thanks.
-
CDR,
I highly recommend Hornady 55gr TAP (or the civilian equivalent defensive round).
I have shot this round during several drywall penetration test demonstrations and it has always (without studs) proven to be a better choice in terms of limniting over-penetration worries than any 9mm, .40 or .45 round except Blue Tip Glasers that I have tested.
I first became very interested in this issue when I was a police officer in the 90's and we were not issued patrol carbines because of the traditional, and largely unfounded, thought that a "rifle" was automatically going to be more dangerous downrange to unintended targets than a pistol. Conducting my own tests and studying those of others has lead me to believe that the 55gr .223 is a better choice than any typical defensive pistol round in terms of limiting danger in this area (even with typical .55gr HP or Ball because of the yawing & breaking up phenomenon that you described in your post). Pistol bullets designed to expand in soft tissue but not break up maintain their momentum and pose more of a danger through more layers of sheetrook. Of course, there are many other factors involved in picking the best home defense firearm in general.
In a few days, you'll see the tests that Phil and I conducted a couple of months ago at USSA for The Best Defense during Episode 2.
-RJP
-
Rob,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It was precisely the type of response I was hoping for and confirmed what I had believed to be the case regarding the effectiveness and overall improved safety provided with the .223 carbine round. I always have next to my nightstand in my GunVault a Nighthawk Custom Government size .45 Auto loaded with CorBon 230 gr.+P as well a 4" S&W 686 loaded with .38 spl Gold Dot 135 gr.+P. However, the thought of transitioning to the AR was given serious consideration a year or so ago when I began hearing how much safer an AR 15 is inside a house because of the very reasons we are discussing. The thought of having to fire either the 1911 or revolver inside my house has always given me reason for concern with respect to over-penetraton, despite the use of hollowpoints, as you mentioned.
I will be purchasing the Hornady 55 gr TAP round for my M4, as you suggested, given your personal experiences and successful results. Is this round considered frangible or is this a phenomenon inherent in all .223 or 5.56 rounds due to the composition and velocity of the bullet? If not, should frangible be also considered for evaluation or is there a reason the TAP round would be superior?
Many thanks again and I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday's episode and witnessing your test results. Congratulations on a marvelous and called for series.
-
I realize being alive is better than the alternative, but what about increased potential for hearing loss as a result of firing a rilfe indoors compared to a pistol?
One agency tested M855 rounds fired out of a SIG 552 rifle. It registered 163dB. That's well beyond the pain threshold and three shots will do permanent hearing damage. Dealing with that level of noise will also reduce your effectiveness.
Using hearing protection is the obvious answer, but may only be obvious once you start thinking about it.
-
I realize being alive is better than the alternative, but what about increased potential for hearing loss as a result of firing a rilfe indoors compared to a pistol?
One agency tested M855 rounds fired out of a SIG 552 rifle. It registered 163dB. That's well beyond the pain threshold and three shots will do permanent hearing damage. Dealing with that level of noise will also reduce your effectiveness.
Using hearing protection is the obvious answer, but may only be obvious once you start thinking about it.
Agreed. A 1911 or revolver indoors would also create some level of permanent hearing loss. That's why I keep 2 sets of electronic muffs right next to my nightstand. A set of Sordin Supreme Pro Plus and a set of Peltor Comtacs......one set is for my wife.....I hope I will never need to put them on.
-
The hearing loss issue is a real one, and one that's going to start weighing on LEOs who issue M-4 type carbines as well as civilians. If you're going to use an AR as a primary home defense weapon (and I agree 100% with Rob on the Hornady TAPS as the round of choice), you must have a set of electronic ear protection for each member of your family and a plan on using them.
An expensive alternative but one that I plan to execute in 2009 is fitting the home defense AR with a suppressor. I'm leaning toward SureFire, but that's not a "for sure." Suppressors solve the noise problem, minimizes flash (which is another seldom-mentioned issue on short-barreled ARs in closed spaces) and reduces even more the 5.56's minimal recoil. Yes, you have to get a tax stamp and pony up the $200, but I believe 35 some-odd states allow civilians to have suppressors, and this situation is an excellent and intelligent use of the technology.
There has been a lot written about the potential dangers of using Class III weaponry for self-defense, but I would feel in a very strong position walking into court with the rationale for a suppressed AR for home use.
1) The 5.56 is proven to be less of a penetrator then the typical home defense pistol rounds (you saw the video on TBD, so you know this for a fact).
2) A rifle is demonstrably easier to shoot than a handgun.
3) The 5.56 when fired in a closed room will result in damage on unprotected ears.
4) Even the best headphones can be knocked off in the heat of an armed encounter, while a suppressor is attached to firmly to the rifle.
5) In my absence, I would much rather my loved ones had at least 30 rounds of 5.56 in one of the easiest guns to fire ever manufactured than 8 rounds of .45 or 17 rounds of 9mm.
Michael B
5)
-
Good stuff on the hearing protection issue.
As for Frangible, there are two different types of ammunition that are sometimes lumped together as "frangible". Rounds like the Glaser, which consist of small shot, particles or even powder inside of a jacket are pre-fragmented. True frangible rounds consist of particles that are compressed together and appear as a solid without any type of case. The latter type of round will NOT break up through typical houshold construction materials. In fact,all of the .223 frangible that I tested sliced through the 1/4" mild steel backstops we used at Valhalla like butter (PMC, Remington and others). Those rounds are designed to break-up when they hit hardened steel targets.
-RJP
-
Supressor is the way to go for noise if you can afford it.
Speaking of small defensive rounds, I keep the FN Five SeveN pistol handy in the home due to the penetration issue. I don't want to hurt my wife or boys putting down a threat and I do want the threat to stop.
Rob, what's your take on the efficacy of the 5.7 x 28 MM?
Thanks,
Ken
-
Many thanks Rob and Michael for the information. Given your findings on penetration, I will certainly be loading Hornady 55 gr TAP .223 in my M4 30 round magazines for home protection. Question...given that I have a 1:7 barrel twist in my M4 and therefore capable of handling heavier bullets like a 75 gr., would the same penetration advantages exist or are your findings unique to 55 gr. Hornady TAP?
Michael, with respect to a suppressor I would be delighted to pay the $200 for a tax stamp if I was lucky enough to live in one of the 35 states you mentioned that permits the use/ownership of a suppressor. Given that I live in New York State, I run the risk of the electric chair and simultaneous lethal injection should I attempt to obtain such an "evil and dastardly" accessory. Its electronic muffs for my family for the time being.....until I move to Vermont some day...... :)
Great information guys!! I really do believe an AR, with proper training and practice of course, is one of the safest bets for home protection, assuming the use of electronic muffs or suppressor.
-
Ken,
(Who's "Ron" ? ;) )
I have not done much with the 5.7mm. I do have very reliable information from a BTDT friend who speaks highly of the 4.6mm out of the MP7 which indicates that the round is certainly viable.
Anecdotal stuff and my guess about the 5.7 says that the hollow points are definitely the way to go for defensive shooting. I'm not sure how they would do through sheetrock, I don't think the round is moving fast enough to break apart out of the pistol barrel.
CDR,
I have not done any sheetrock tests with the Heavier TAP, but I would expect that it would pose more danger downrange. It is still a light bullet, but you are increasing the bullets weight by 40% over the 55gr. I have the lighter ones loaded up. I have shot the 110gr .308s into sheetrock and found them to be something I would not be comfortable using inside for home defense in terms of misses. Based on hunting experience with the .308 TAPs however, I would not expect the 110 to carry much energy out of person even at very close range.
When you are talking about a long gun for home defense, keep in mind that there are some serious problems with moving as efficiently as you can with a pistol in the case that you need to.
-RJP
-
Many thanks Rob and Michael for the information. Given your findings on penetration, I will certainly be loading Hornady 55 gr TAP .223 in my M4 30 round magazines for home protection.
CDR can I humbly suggest that you do some testing yourself? Not disparaging RP/MB or anyone else, but to make a decision with legal and lethal consequences based on a couple of posts on an Internet forum seems premature to me. I can just see ya in court telling the jury that "hey I read some post on MB's forum, I didn't expect it to kill my kid/neighbor". No one on this forum is going to testify in your defense.
Why don't you spend 20 or 30 bucks at Home Depot. Buy some sheetrock and 2x4s and drag it out to the range. Shouldn't take more than an hour or two to walk away with some eyeball evidence of your own. Do some wet telephone books also. Get to KNOW your round personally.
This is what makes me nervous about this whole Internet thingy...
-
I can just see ya in court telling the jury that "hey I read some post on MB's forum, I didn't expect it to kill my kid/neighbor". No one on this forum is going to testify in your defense.
Thanks a lot........................ :'(
The Great Don Worsham would come to my defense....right Don?
Actually, the thought of bringing a couple of pieces of sheet rock to the range to test out the Hornady TAP rounds did cross my mind earlier today after reading Rob's post. I was thinking of getting some 55 gr and 75 gr. to see how it performs out of my M4. Your point is valid and well taken. Thanks.
-
No matter the testing, don't forget a HUGE amount of variability. Once the bullet enters the wall, it could hit a stud, a pipe, a couple nails, or anything else that deflects, spins, stops, or splinters the bullet.
Once a bullet penetrates the drywall or plaster, you really don't know what else it could hit.
-
What I would be interested in is a simple and inexpensive protocol for testing of this theory of disintegrating 223 rounds. Can I suggest the following and get some feedback?
Build a closed box (6 sides please, say 2ft square on a side) with one or two layers of sheetrock. Shoot dead center into the box. The round should penetrate the front of the box. Now it is trapped inside the box. Does it breakup? Does it have many fragments? One main frag with some sand? Does anything penetrate ANY side of the box and exit? How does this exit hole look? Is it barely exiting or doing it quite well? If necessary beef up the 6 sides of the box until it is TOTALLY CONTAINED. Now put some 2x4 in the flight path. Record what happens to the bullet then. As previously suggested maybe a few nails in the 2x4 would be worth it as another step. Record how each factor affects the bullet frags and path. (this should be done very carefully as your asking for richocets when hitting metal). If you have a brick face on your house maybe place a brick inside the box etc...
-
No matter the testing, don't forget a HUGE amount of variability. Once the bullet enters the wall, it could hit a stud, a pipe, a couple nails, or anything else that deflects, spins, stops, or splinters the bullet.
Once a bullet penetrates the drywall or plaster, you really don't know what else it could hit.
+1
Good timing with this post.
Bullets do CRAZY things.
Don't believe it? Check out my latest reply on the Hunting Season 2008 thread from today. Not a .223, but a .243 did a magic bullet trick and killed two deer with one shot.
-
When you're testing for this purpose, always use 2 pieces of drywall spaced 4 inches apart to simulate actual wall sections. Usually, I will then space them as if they were in a cross section of a home (hallway widths and typical room widths between them). If you're worried about not penetrating, you don't have to worry about the studs or other things in the walls, as you are testing for the worst case scenario.
As for the "box test" desrcibed above, I can promise you that 1 or 2 sheets of drywall in that test will not significantly affect the bullet inside of 2 feet. The space between the sheets is important in terms of the bullet both breaking up and losing speed as it tumbles and hits the next piece of wall in a position other than point first. The reason the 55gr .223 makes a better choice than pistol bullets in this regard is because it is less likely to pose a threat through interior home walls, especially after 2 or 3, not because they magically "disintegrate" when they hit drywall. ::)
If you are looking for absolutely no risk of penetration through an interior home wall, you are going to have to look at something like rat shot out of a pistol or (maybe) .410 birdshot.... not the greatest known defensive choices! Any firearm/round choice is a compromise of variables that you need to decide how to balance against one another.
The show Wesnesday night will demonstrate the recommended set up and several common rounds.
As for this:
No one on this forum is going to testify in your defense.
I wouldn't be so sure. One of the reasons I pay a significant amount of money to Lloyd's each year for Errors & Ommisions insurance is because of the possibility of ending up in court if a student has a problem after acting on something I taught. That teaching extends to articles, videos and even internet posts like these. Most instructors understand that and are pretty specific about what they write online.
That may not be the case for posts from the annonymity of "toughguy345", but when you see a professional instructor posting under his name, it carries as much weight as it would in a classroom setting or a printed article.
-RJP
-
walls are not 4" apart, they range anywhere from 3.5"-5.75" depending on the actually 2x stock used.
2x4s are not 2" x4" The are 1.5-1.75 x 3.5x3.75" depending on any number of things.
Diffrent thickness and types( yes there are several diffrent types) of drywall also make a big diffrence in how strong they are.
-
That's a good point, TAB.... everyone's situation is going to be a little different. If you really want a 1:1 test, you've got to use the exact materials and spacing that are in your home (including the spacing between the walls for your predictable angles). The room that I am sitting in right now, for example has thin panelling on one side of the wall and drywall with wallpaper on the other.
At the end of the day, even the most exhaustive tests are going to reveal variables and anomalies (such as the magic .243 bullet alluded to above). People often want easy answers that don't exist. We can generalize about the results and make educated decisions however.
When we do the tests for mass audiences to learn from, we have to generalize to the width of the 2x4s we have on hand, 3/4" drywall that is used commonly and "typical" widths for rooms and halls. One of the good things about having done the tests many times with different typical materials is that you can develop general conclusions.
-RJP
-
I wouldn't be so sure. One of the reasons I pay a significant amount of money to Lloyd's each year for Errors & Ommisions insurance is because of the possibility of ending up in court if a student has a problem after acting on something I taught. That teaching extends to articles, videos and even internet posts like these. Most instructors understand that and are pretty specific about what they write online.
That may not be the case for posts from the annonymity of "toughguy345", but when you see a professional instructor posting under his name, it carries as much weight as it would in a classroom setting or a printed article.
-RJP
I would think that your insurance isn't going to pay CDRs attorney fees. Its for your defense againist suit. Your covered if we sue you. If your saying that your insurance extends to us as readers acting on your advice I would love to hear that.
-
walls are not 4" apart, they range anywhere from 3.5"-5.75" depending on the actually 2x stock used.
2x4s are not 2" x4" The are 1.5-1.75 x 3.5x3.75" depending on any number of things.
Diffrent thickness and types( yes there are several diffrent types) of drywall also make a big diffrence in how strong they are.
Also of note, some (rare, but some here do) builders put closed cellulose fiber insulation in interior walls as a sound deadening agent.
Don't know how this would affect a bullet.
-
...If your saying that your insurance extends to us as readers acting on your advice I would love to hear that
No, that would require a bit more discretion on who I taught! :)
Your comment was that no one here would testify in court in the event that someone took our advi ce, I was pointing out that that is not necessarily the case. Part of being in this industry is knowing that you may very well end up in court justifying the actions of a student.
Pegleg,
I have used insulation a couple of times and didn't see any noticable difference.
-RJP
-
One thing you want to take into concederation also is where are your washer / dryer, stove or fireplace. If these items are run by gas it would be a good idea not to be shooting at them :) . So when you are laying out your saferoom or shooting areas remember to take those items into account. You could even say your water pipes, it would suck to be trying to run around shuting gas or water off in an allready difacult time if a round were to hit a gas pipe or water pipe.
-
Check out my latest reply on the Hunting Season 2008 thread from today.
OK you got me, I don't see a Hunting Season Thread, wheres that at ???
-
Rob, is this Hornady TAP (for law enforcement) or TAP FPD (for personal defense) that you're suggesting?
Personally I lean towards Federal LE223T3. It's a 62gr bonded JSP round that would not be a good choice if overpenetration was a concern. But then I don't plan to use an AR for home defense.
-
Rob, is this Hornady TAP (for law enforcement) or TAP FPD (for personal defense) that you're suggesting?
Yes.
-
OK you got me, I don't see a Hunting Season Thread, wheres that at ???
Here ya go
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=3148.msg54445#new
-
Interesting. So if I read between the lines correctly, Hornady TAP and TAP FPD are one and the same. I did not know that.
-
Here ya go
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=3148.msg54445#new
Thanks
-
Ken,
(Who's "Ron" ? ;) )
..............
Hell if I know. OK, OK,...I'm busted. With that dang time stamp I can't say I was asleep. Sorry about that. :-[
Just my typical lack of review of the written word.
I am so ashamed. For penance, can I make this up by stopping by USSA on the way home from work and put 100 rounds of 45 ACP downrange? ;)
-
Since it happened in this thread, I would've let you get away with 50 rnds through your AR.... BUT, 100 of the big & slows ought to cover it!
;D
-
Wow. Finally, my experience as the Quality Dept Manager at USG can be of some good. I can give you some insights on sheetrock and the different boards and wall systems. First, modern 2x4 are 1 1/2 x 3 1/2, and that is pretty consistent with computers figuring out how to optimize lumber usage, and ultra thin blades doing the cutting. Modern studs are not as dense as studs were years ago. Reason? Faster growth rate of modern forests through management techniques, trees reach harvesting height faster than ever.
The sheetrock itself is not solid rock. Voids are intentionally designed in to reduce the weight of the boards, and other materials are added in production. The size of the voids are pretty small and uniform in USG board, tending to be less uniform in most other brands. (Bigger, less uniform voids = weaker board, easier to penetrate). The paper-wrapped edged of the board are denser than the center - less air is mixed in to harden those edges to help prevent handling damage, but while they are harder, the edges are also more brittle to face strikes. The relatively large density differences between the edge and field mix does result in a weak area where they meet, approx 1 1/2 from the edge . The edged are also tapered to allow easy filling with joint compound.
If you have a fire rated board, that board has chopped fiberglass added to it, and the fibers run (mostly) in the length direction, the same as the fibers in the face and back papers. Strength of any wallboard product is significantly higher across the width of the board as opposed to the length, but fiber glass increases the core strength even more.
Why bring all this up? How your board is hung can effect how a bullet might react to striking it. If your board is hung "up and down", a bullet hitting at an angle along the length of the board will meet with more resistance than if your board is hung length-wise with butt joints (where the flat ends meet), and the thinner, brittle edges of the board are directly in front of wood or metal studs. Board run length-wise has a seam about 4' from the ceiling (and another 4' from there if your ceiling is over 8' high) that is both weaker and thinner than the rest of the board. Board hung in this direction should also offer less resistance to bullet strikes along the length. Complicate the seam issue with the tape used. Paper tape = less strength than fiberglass tape.
We could also get into the reaction of the sheetrock core to a bullet strike. CaSO4 releases water in reaction to heat. It's the reason why it's fire resistant. In a fire, the major strength of the board is burned off quickly - the paper. Fiberglass does not directly add to fire resistance, but acts to hold the core together longer by spanning the cracks occurring as water is released in reaction to heat. A Firecode C board has vermiculite in it, in addition to the fiber glass found in Firecode board. Vermiculite pops like popcorn, releasing additional water vapor and expanding to fill in cracks.
Two hour rated walls have a double layer of board on both sides. 1 hour ratings have one. So depending on your local codes, you wall thicknesses may vary.
I know of no study looking at bullets striking sheetrock, but I'm trying to give a reasonable explanation based on what I learned from 15 years in the industry. Maybe someone will test some of this out... ;)
Quick edit: I can see better potential for 5.56 fired at an angle to be deflected off the back of the board in the next room and into a stud based on horizontal construction for the above reasons. Straight on, all bets are based on resistance / tumbling and shattering. A bullet tumbling and hitting the next piece of sheetrock across the width will meet with more resistance than one striking length wise.
-
Fatman most excellent !! I would love to have you on a team to develop a solid PROTOCOL in doing a study on various bullet perfomance within a household envirornment. The ususal "I hung some sheetrock up at the range" doesn't cut it for me. Thoughtful, stepwise, data acquisition are all needed. Report for duty please on Monday ! :)
-
Thanks for that education, Fatman... more than most need to know for sure! It certainly shows the importance of multiple tests with any material to account for the variations and voids.
-RJP
-
Yeah.......after Fatman's report, I just took the piece of sheetrock out of my range bag. :)
-
I think what Fat man said is true as far as wood. Most homes and apartments are made with metal studs. and 1/2 inch wall board with insulation between . Outside wall are 5/8 board with insulation. To get back on topic, no frangible rounds are made to penetrate, period. Thats why they made them. Shallow wound channels and at very best , death by cell shock or bleed out. Absolutley no stopping power. The myth that the SEALS use frangibles has perpetuated this topic. Sorry to say that big bullets and penetration is still king.
-
I personally like frangible ammo (not Glazers) and use it in my carry gun and house AR. Reduced penetration on hard objects and the massive wound channels with 100% energy retention are 2 selling points. If you look at ballistics jelly they outperform corbons hands down. You do need to do some research since there are a lot of "frangible" bullets on the market nowadays. Tailor the bullet choice for what you want it for, hunting, self defense, target and I don't think you'll be dissapointed.
The best I have found is International Cartridge Corperation (ICC). Check out their testing and videos online.
www.iccammo.com
-
Holy Crap :o All I can say is wow
-
2How, 1911 Junkie,
Your posts are either wrong or you are using the wrong terminology. Differing opinions are welcome here, but mis-statements must be corrected. Please review the thread for the terminology difference between Pre-Fragmented Rounds like the Glaser and Frangibles that are designed to break up on impact with objects such as STEEL. The latter do not break up on wood or other similar materials and certainly do not "deposit energy" into people in any way other than that of traditional bullets. We fired many thousands of frangible rounds through wood over the years and a good friend of mine had a frangible round go right through his leg without depositing/fragmenting/etc anything.
Specifically to your post, 1911 Junkie, Valhalla was probably one of ICC largest customers. Over the course of 4 or 5 years we probably shot over 250,000 rounds of it. Their rounds are GREAT for what they are designed to do (turn to dust when they hit steel), but that does not include Reduced penetration on hard objects and the massive wound channels with 100% energy retention are 2 selling points.
.... if you are counting interior house walls as "hard objects".
If there is a misunderstanding, please restate your posts.
-RJP
-
I hope your friend is O.K. He is lucky the round did not fragment. I don't think the leg would have enough mass to break the round up anyway, but I'm not sure.
I would consider "hard objects" block, stone, brick, steel.(my head). There is less chance of (not no chance) shooting through the BG.
When I said 100% energy retention I meant just that. When the round breaks up and all of it stays in the target then all of the energy stays in the target (also reduced penetration). If the round goes completly through the target then in my mind it stands to reason that there is energy being wasted and only a single wound channel to show for it.
It's not a perfect round but I think the good outweighs the bad, IMHO.
I thought I was leaving Glasers out of the frangible category. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do know the difference.
-
1911,
Again, your statements are counter to the observed facts of the behavior of Frangible Rounds.
The frangible rounds that are designed to break up on contact with steel to make training easier cannot be counted on to break up in people (100% energy transfer) or reduce penetration risks inside typical western construction homes.
This thread has run its course ...
-RJP