[Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem.
[ This guest post was written by Aaron Spuler ]
So what exactly is the difference between the .22LR and .223 cartridges? Both can be fired out of rifles, and both can be fired out of pistols. Both have been used historically by civilian and military shooters. Both can be used for hunting (.22LR for animals such as rats, squirrels, rabbits, ground hogs; .223 for larger animals including coyotes, and in some states deer). Both are extremely popular rounds — .22LR is by far the most popular rimfire cartridge, and .223 is near the top (if not at the top) of the list of most popular centerfire cartridges.
Well, there’s one difference right there. Rimfire is an older design, which for the most part has been replaced with centerfire. Almost all ammunition used now is centerfire. With rimfire, the firing pin impacts on the rim of the case. With centerfire, the firing pin impacts in the center of the case. Fairly self explanitory. But it doesn’t really explain the differences between the two cartridges very well.
As mentioned above, rimfire is an older technology than centerfire. The .22LR cartridge was introduced in 1887, while the .223 cartridge was designed in 1964, specifically for use in the M-16 rifle.
Nearly a century separates the two cartridges, but what makes them different? Size-wise, the newer cartridge is slightly larger. The caliber of the cartridge measures the diameter (in inches). So the newer cartridge is 0.003″ larger in diameter — who cares? A human hair is from 0.003″ to 0.005″ in diameter. Is such a slight increase in diameter really going to make a difference?
Below is a cardboard pizza box shot with a .22LR bullet. The entry point can be seen on the left and the exit on the right. A penny is used for reference.
![22 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_cardboard-tfb.jpg "22 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
Now compare that to the same exact pizza box shot with a .223 bullet. Again, the entry point can be seen on the left and the exit on the right, and a penny is used for reference.
![223 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/223_cardboard-tfb.jpg "223 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
Not much visible difference, right?
Instead of a cardboard pizza box, this time the target is a 16-gauge metal pipe. Notice that the pipe is visibly deformed at point of entry (left), and there is no exit point. The .22LR bullet did not pierce the metal pipe. A penny is used for reference.
![22 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_post-tfb.jpg "22 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
Now compare that to the same exact 16-gauge metal pipe shot with a .223 bullet. There is a well defined entry point, and the bullet’s copper jacket peeled off upon entry and stuck. Not only did the .223 bullet have enough energy to pierce the front side of the pipe, it easily pierced the back side of the pipe as well. A penny is used for reference.
![223 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/223_post-tfb.jpg "223 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
To understand why the .223 bullet was so easily able to pierce both sides of the metal pipe, and why the .22LR bullet failed to pierce even the front side of the pipe, a few other factors need to be looked at.
Rimfire cartridges have for the most part been replaced by centerfire cartridges because the thin case walls of rimfires cannot handle nearly as high of pressures as those of a centerfire cartridge. Higher pressure means that the ejected bullet has more energy to deliver on its target because its velocity is greater.
The bullets also vary in size and shape. Availability for .22LR bullets varies from 36 to 60 grains in weight (2.3 to 3.9 grams), while .223 bullets range from 40 to 90 grains in weight (2.6 to 5.8 grams). The .22LR bullet is rounded while the .223 bullet comes to a sharp point.
The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge (maximum pressure 24,000 PSI for .22LR; maximum pressure 50,000 PSI for .223). The .223 bullet is a much heavier bullet, travelling at a higher velocity. This means that the .223 bullet has much more energy to deliver on its target.
Upon impact .223 bullets demonstrate a tendency to tumble, increasing the size of the wound channel. The .223 bullet also delivers additional damage due to hydrostatic shock. The .22LR bullet has neither of these qualities.
The .22LR cartridge on the left, and the .223 cartridge on the right. A penny is used for reference.
![22 penny 223 tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg "22 penny 223 tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
For demonstration purposes, other calibers were shot at the cardboard pizza box and 16-gauge metal pipe. Entry point can be seen on the left and exit on the right. A penny is used for reference.
![9mm cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/9mm_cardboard-tfb.jpg "9mm cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
![9mm post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/9mm_post-tfb.jpg "9mm post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
45ACP
![45acp cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/45acp_cardboard-tfb.jpg "45acp cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
![45acp post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/45acp_post-tfb.jpg "45acp post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
![762x 39 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/762x_39_cardboard-tfb.jpg "762x 39 cardboard tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
![762x 39 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/762x_39_post-tfb.jpg "762x 39 post tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
![all tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/all-tfb.jpg "all tm tfb [Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. photo")
Thanks, exactly what I was looking for to show the holes in a target are essentially the same from a .22 or a .223. The rest of the information was interesting too.
Aaron, nice article and artwork. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have been involved in shooting sports for over 50 years, and still found a surprise or two – i.e., neither the 9mm nor the .45 ACP penetrated both layers of the metal. I think I’ll do some work of this nature on my own, some day. Happy shooting, brother.
Not to be mean, but this is rather ugly. A smoother implementation could be built with wget(which is already in most distros), and a bit of any given scripting language to digest the page… grep works fine, especially in simple cases, but most hacks of this nature will require a great deal more complexity in deciphering the page.
Thanks for great research and surprising results. A lot of people like to debate which is best, which is more powerful etc. but as you have shown some differences aren’t what people were expecting according to comments left. I think it best to think of them all as works of art. You can’t really say any one is better than the other, it all depends on what you want to use it for. You can’t fairly compare apples to oranges when you are partial to oranges. I like both and pick what I want based on if I feel the ‘need’ for an apple or orange. I approach my gun collection in much the same way. All depending on what my needs are for that day of shooting.
Thanks for the informative well illustrated article. Kudos
hey good job on producing original content.
Your article was just what I was looking for to explain the differences between the .223 and .22. The other caliber comparisons were also extremely informative and helpful. Thanks!
Aaron. Good job. As you said, there is always more to learn and the shooting sports field is over-run with details and the endless arguments over them. All of us who shoot have developed our own “correct” opinions based on our experiences, and most of us have something useful to add to the discussion.Your efforts sure stirred up the ant hill! I liked Harry’s comment the best! Keep enjoying the shooting sports, safely!
Gabe- the increased surface area upon expansion allows hollow point bullets to force their way through more tissue. The more tissue that is contacted, the higher the likelihood that some part of the bullet will break something the target needed to stay alive and healthy.
There are only two basic categories of tissue in any mammal, that can be counted on to stop it when they’re hit. Those are some part of the central nervous system, and a major part of the circulatory system: brain, spinal cord, heart, and major blood vessels. Compared to overall size those are all fairly small, so the more surface area the projectile has, the better.
Hydrostatic shock is a myth, and hollow points have increased lethality because they mushroom out and leave a wider wound cavity. Read that link that Nadnerbus posted, I found it very informative.
I was under the impression that the .45 ACP produced significantly more hydrostatic shock than the 9x19mm Parabellum……
And if ‘energy dump’ is a myth than why do hollow point rounds have increased lethality in human beings at close range as opposed to standard jacketed ammunition? (Not trying to be hostile, I’m just asking a question because I’m confused.)
Next up! .40SW vs. 10mm Auto!
Felt recoil begins (for all practical purposes) after the bullet leaves the barrel. Where the bullet goes is determined by what the firearm’s operator does up until that point, FWIW….
classic case of comparing apples to oranges, when you can only draw interesting comparisons between similar fruits. so while i had some of the same chuckles over comparing the .22 to a .22, i read all the way to the end!
definitely was surprised by the .45 not penetrating the pipe, too. that said, i’m a crappy shot with most 9mm i’ve had my hands on and a dead eye with .45acp. think it’s the snappy recoil and/or the smaller frame sizes of the nines.
@ MarcW: Thanks for the link. Very sad whenever a good guy loses to a bad.
We can see the guest is pro big bore! Now, read this. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/04/army-demonstrate-new-green-ammo-maryland/?test=faces
Thanks Tyson.
I’m just a regular average guy. I don’t have access to all the firearms that folks asked for comparisons with in the comments. Nor do I have access to a chronograph or any sophisticated tools. I just did some shooting with the guns available to me and made some observations. It’s humbling to see the wealth of knowledge out there, and reminds me how much I still have to learn.
I really liked the comparison of the 9mm vs the .45 acp.
Don’t get me wrong, the .45 is a battle-tested round that has proven its effectiveness time and time again, but some people act like it is the end-all, be-all of cartridges that is ideal for any situation, while the 9mm is a glorified pea shooter and the .40 S&W is just a neutered 10mm and thus completely useless.
That said, in a home defense scenario, the huge wound channel created by the .45 is obviously preferable to the penetration capabilities of smaller-caliber cartridges.
As for the energy-dump theory: While there is some truth to it – more energy transferred means more tissue being squished – it’s also important *which* tissue is getting destroyed. Glaser safety slugs (essentially hollow-points filled with pellets that are released upon impact) offer excellent energy transfer, yet they never caught on because of the insufficient penetration depth (heck, in the worst case, the bullet may simply dump a good part of its energy in a perp’s thick winter clothing)
It seems that there are a lot of negative comments directed toward this guest post. While I apperciate the concern for technical accuracy, I think that Aaron should also be recognized for the effort it took to make this guest post. I am sure that the shooting, writing, editing, photographing and posting all took their fair share of time. I find the photographic comparisons interesting and entertaining. Thank you Aaron for your time and effort that were involved with this post.
SPQR:
“Hence, .300 Win Mag, .30-06, .308 Win …. but all are actually the exact same caliber by measurement.”
Yes, cartridge names are quite confusing.
Sometimes the number in a cartridge name stands for diameter of the bullet (e.g. .308 Winchester and 7.82 (.308) Lazzeroni Warbird).
Sometimes it stands for the diameter of the rifling of the barrel (e.g. 7.62×51 and .300 Winchester Magnum).
But the number might also just be a number that is close to rifling or bullet diameter. (e.g. .307 Winchester, which is a semi rimmed version of .308W for lever action rifles).
One might think that a cartridge with a name like 7.62×39 would have the same bullet diameter as 7.62×51 but they have actually different bullet diameters. Russian 7.62mm cartridges use .312″ (7.92mm) bullets. Western 7.62mm cartridges use .308″ (7.82mm) bullets. (But sometimes 7.62×39 is loaded with .308″ bullets in the West).
Some cartridge names consists of two numbers seperated by a dash e.g. .30-06 Springfield, .45-70 Government, 7mm-08 Remington, 22-250 Remington and .250-3000 Savage.
-06, in .30-06, is short for the year 1906.
-70, in .45-70, stands for 70 grains of gun powder (which was the amount of gun powder the original cartridge had).
-08, in 7mm-08, indicates that the parent cartridge is .308 Winchester
-250, in .22-250, indicates that the parent cartridge is .250 Savage (also know as .250-3000 Savage).
-3000, in .250-3000 Savage, stands for the muzzle velocity, in feet per second, the original cartridge was supposed to have.
Actually, after reading up, you are completely right. That’s what I get for repeating the “common wisdom” I’ve read elsewhere without looking deeper into it. Though while .45 and 9mm seem to have roughly equal penetration in ballistic gel, with the .45 having the edge, 9mm does seem to be more prone to “over penetrate” drywall, lumber, sheet metal, that kind of thing.
Please don’t assume malice when ignorance is a more likely explanation. =)
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
I found that pretty interesting.
“Accepted wisdom”, especially about firearms and their capabilities, can often lead down the wrong path. Nice to see a non technical comparison piece with photos like this.
Well done.
Meh. I’m not going to get into an internet caliber war. Shot placement is more important than caliber no doubt. Sorry if my opinion offended you. Have a good day.
@Michael:
here’s a short report to that incident
http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates
A comparison with 5.45x39mm would also be nice.
I liked the part where he never mentioned velocity.
@Nadnerbus
Energy dump is a myth. Read “handgun wounding factors and effectiveness” and try not to spin every sentence to confirm your pre-hold opinions while you’re at it.
The idea that any handgun bullet is going to “dump energy” into the bad guy, at least in an incapacitating way, is really just urban legend. So-called stopping power of a bullet is ALWAYS related to whatever vital parts are hit. Martin Fackler tells the tale of a cop who was killed from a .22 after shooting the bad guy 4 times with his .357 magnum. The .357 only penetrated non-critical tissue, while the .22 hit a major artery and the cop bled to death. The bad guy who was hit multiple times with the .357 bullet is now in jail.
.223, in .223 Remington, does not denote the diameter of the bullet. .223 Remington and 5.56×45 NATO use .224″ (5.7mm) bullets. Other cartridges that use .224″ bullets are .221 Remington Fireball, .222 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby Magnum and 5.7×28.
.22LR on the other hand uses .223″ bullets.
Nice comparison techniques and photos.
However, with all due respect, are there people out there confusing the properties of the .22 LR and the .223 Rem?
Judging from the cartridges’ shapes and sizes, probably no one would mistaken which one’s more powerful and damaging.
OP has good attention to detail though. Perhaps comparisons between popular pistol rounds would be much more interesting.
Good work
The .45 vs. the 9mm pictures actually demonstrate why the .45 tends to be a better man stopper. Where the 9mm, at least when using full metal jacket rounds, has the potential to pass clean through a human target, a .45 is more apt to dump all of its energy in the target. Maximum penetration is not always the most desired result from a bullet/cartridge combination. Also, think of over-penetration in a home defense setting, and the possible negative outcomes therein.
Velocity is crucial for penetrating non-brittle hard barriers. Hence .45 is a very poor performer in this respect. There’s a WW2 era instructional video showing it bounce off a steel helmet at short range.
Pressure does NOT directly relate to velocity.
The 308 win. has a pmax of 62,000 psi.
The 30-06 has a pmax of 60,000 psi.
The 30-06 STILL has higher velocities. It is the combination of pressure and case size that determines speed.
And “pressure” has nothing at all to do with down-range performance because the “pressure” is no longer acting on the bullet at that distance from the barrel.
Furthermore, penetration in one medium does NOT always translate to penetration in another medium.
A 22-250 penetrates steel better than a 30-06. But the 30 cal will go though the broad side of an elk.
The 223 Rem is better on steel than the 45-70. The 223 will barely go though the hide of a bison. The 45-70 will go completely though such an animal.
Coming to TFB soon… .32ACP v .325WSM penetration testing: which one is better for hunting steel pipes? A dime will be used for reference.
“Isn’t the .45 a bigger round than the 9mm ? “
Bigger =! better penetrator. In fact, the wider the round, the more force it will take to make it penetrate a given surface.
The bullet / caliber data for the cartridges is incorrect. A common mistake is to think that the name of a cartridge is a correct measurement of the caliber. Hence, .300 Win Mag, .30-06, .308 Win …. but all are actually the exact same caliber by measurement.
Velocity? 9mm NATO is 124gr. ball loaded to slightly above SAAMI +P pressure (~36,000 psi). Chrono’s 1,200+ fps at the muzzle, if I recall.
.45 Auto in the archetypical load of 230gr. ball chrono’s around 850fps at the muzzle…
I’m not surprised the .45 didn’t pierce the pipe. It has a larger cross-section and lower velocity, so it isn’t suited to penetrating hard targets. Try driving a blunt large diameter nail into thin metal with a hammer. Try the same with a blunt small diameter nail. Which goes in easier? You can deliver the same force with the hammer, but the cross-section makes a big difference in penetration.
To those with question about the 9mm and the 45: The 9mm is a higher pressure round and has a smaller frontal section and that helps with penetration over the .45 that has a bigger frontal section and is a much lower pressure/slower round. When we talk about penetrating power a smaller, faster round is much more optimal.
Wouldn’t the difference between the two be self-evident? 150ftbls. vs. 1,300ftlbs?
Why not compare the .22lr against the 22.250 too?
Ryan and Alex, the .45 having a bigger front profile is going to make it harder to penetrate, as it’s energy is dispersed over a wider area. That, plus it’s lower speed makes the difference. It’d be like the difference in trying to drive a nail through wood versus trying to drive a piece of re-bar through wood.
Isn’t the .45 a bigger round than the 9mm ? So how did the 9mm pierce the metal pipe but not the .45 ?
You forgot to say “a penny is used for reference” for the full set of pictures.
I love articles like this. Thank you very much!
It is also interesting to see how similar the entry holes for 9mm and 45ACP – there really is almost no difference. Even stranger to see how close those two are to 7.62×39.
So .22LR is actually .224 at the neck of the round. It’s all negligible, but, if your going to call out size difference, it works to do the research.
Why did the 9mm penetrate so much more than the .45 ACP?
Thanks, I always wondered what te difference between these two rounds ways… and imagine my surprise to learn how much more powerful the .223 was over the .22. All this time I though it was only .003 more powerful!
Um, is any of this novel?
Nice pics, though.
That was a great comparison. Any chance you could do a follow-up and add .22 magnum and 5.7x28mm? I think those are two more similar sized rounds to .22 and .223 that are supposed to have different profiles or uses.
Thanks for this article!
Interesting that the .45 didn’t even pierce the pipe. I would not have expected that