weekly news and updates

Email address:

Your name (optional):

9mm vs .223

Posted by & filed under Exclusives.

Find out how your home-defense hardware stacks up against today’s criminal element.

personal-home-defense
When trouble comes through the door, the savvy homeowner is fully armed with the proper hardware, information, and self-defense training. Ichiro Nagata Photo

Prudent homeowners understand that the best form of defense for themselves and their families against assault is a firearm. I was privy to a conversation at a local gun shop where a man was pondering the purchase of a long gun for home protection. He had just about convinced himself to buy an AR platform carbine, but was having second thoughts about the .223 Remington cartridge and whether or not it was “safe” to use inside a home. Specifically, he was worried about over-penetration. He was considering an AR carbine chambered in 9mm instead of .223.

To the casual reader this might seem like a very reasonable compromise. Surely the 9x19mm pistol cartridge would represent a reduced over-penetration hazard when compared to the .223 Remington centerfire rifle round. My goal in this review would be to compare the two from a ballistic standpoint, as well as provide a realistic downrange damage assessment.

The Contenders
For this review it seemed logical to secure both a 9x19mm carbine and nearly identical version in .223 Remington. CMMG, Inc. of Fayette, Missouri, happened to have a near matching set in both calibers.

Presented for your consideration are M4 style carbines with 16-inch barrels. One model chambers the 5.56mm/.223 Remington round and the other the 9x19mm round. Both have flat-top receivers, 4-way rail aluminum forearms, and retractable stocks.

The free-floating 5.56mm barrel has 1 in 7 right hand twist rifling. The 9mm version used 1 in 10 rifling. Both barrels were capped with a NATO-style birdcage flash suppressor. Also, each carbine used a Picatinny rail gas block.
As for operation, the 5.56mm model was CMMG’s new gas-piston carbine and the 9mm version used a straight blowback, recoil-operated mechanism. All external controls for both carbines were standard AR configuration, including the bolt catch, magazine release button, manual safety lever and trigger.

Lower receivers varied in that the 5.56mm model used a standard AR configuration and was fed by all AR style magazines. The 9mm lower was a dedicated receiver, not a plugged or modified AR-type. Metalform 32-round stick magazines fed the 9mm carbine.

For sights, I installed the new EOTech XPS3 HWS on each one. The XPS3 uses only one CR123 Lithium battery and is more compact than older models. The dual “circle and dot” reticle was used. These sights were zeroed a practical range of 50 yards.

The ammunition for this review would be that specifically designed from personal protection. Training and target ammunition are great for the range, but when it really counts we need to spend the cash on high quality ammo designed for the task at hand.
enough-gun
Both CMMG carbines that were tested use four-way aluminum rail systems.

  • Jay C.

    Nice article.

  • http://tacticallife Ron

    Buy a shotgun

  • Mike Reed

    Did I read that right? The 9mm penetrated twice as far as the 223? If true, then pistols have a greater chance of over penetrating than rifles. That seems counter intuitive. Still, I recall an episode of Mythbusters that found pistol bullets were more likely to penetrate pool water and strike a swimmer than rifle rounds.

  • Jess

    Mike, The way I read it, both were from carbines.

  • Oz

    Very informative article, we need more like it!

  • George

    Hey Mike Reed ,
    What the didn’t hit on was bullet style & weight the .223 60gr test bullet while it is a rifle round the bullet is designed to fragment on impact. If a fmj bullet had been used it would of had considerably more penetration. The 9mm shooting a 115gr to 124gr bullet no matter if it’s fmj or hollow point will penetrate more than a 55gr to 60gr that is designed to break apart on impact it’s just a matter of the bullet design and weight being used

  • Joakim Henrikson

    Will this debate never die? I remember 20years ago when everybody said that ”the nine” just didn’t cut it at all, I HAD to be 357magnum, or you where doomed! Well it could be OK if was a .45 but NO WAY a nine! We have seen this debate since .30 carbine in the little M1 Carbine was declared useless, funny ha? Still more M1 Carbines out there in service than the 30.06 M1 Garand’s everybody swore by, and later it was the M14 vs. the ”Mickey Mouse Mattel” rifle, well we all know what happened there. So, a high speed light bullet vs. a lower speed heavy bullet. Well here is the bare truth without getting in to details and specific bullet designs. Which one makes you hit better? Has the lightest recoil? Lowest muzzle flash? Which weapon can safely be used by YOU? This isn’t about which calibre, hell it’s not even about what type of weapon it is! It’s about WHO is using it and WHERE and how PROFICIENT the user is, first! Then understand the limitations of YOUR system adapt to it and over come these problems with knowledge and skills. Home defence issues don’t stop or even start with issues such as over penetrations alone. If you only have one set of tools you adapt the whole situation accordingly! Or, change the situation so that it suits YOU. If you live in a ‘’hood’’ where you need a fast shooting carbine then you FIRST need to create sufficient cover! If not for your self then for your loved ones, then its time to start worrying about over penetration or not and what calibre or tool to use, and there are special solutions for both the 9mmP and .223. Should none of them work for you, get a shotgun!

  • peblair

    If you DON’T want penetration through interior walls, by GLASER ammo.

  • http://Tacticallife Eric

    I appreciate the article. I learned a lot! I am new at to the sport of shooting. I was considering buying a 9mm carbine (Bushmaster) because I am also going to buy my wife a Glock 17. I thought it would be more practical to have the same ammunition. I’m not really interested in hunting, as some do with carbines. I am interested practicality, as I said, cost of ammunition, accuracy and personal defense.

    I also appreciated some of the opinions of the readers who responded to the article, especially the point regarding FMJ vs non-FMJ rounds. I’m not an expert but that made perfect sense to me. Why didn’t you choose more similar ammunition. The results may have more similar. It which case who cares about muzzle velocity if both bullets produce the same result a dead home intruder.

    Not to beat a dead horse but what if the rounds you tested were more similar and both penetrated the to approximately the same depth of a human body they would both be at about in the middle of a human heart or an aorta provided you hit the target at center mass.

    Thanks,

    Eric