Why is it that the .357 Magnum is considered a good stopper, but not the 5.56 NATO?

Question

In other words, when those of us that are familiar with firearms get into discussions, it is generally agreed that the .357 Mag is among the best for "one-shot stops" as it is called. It is somewhere in the high ninety percentile. However when the 5.56 rifle bullet is discussed, all of a sudden it is a pea shooter. Why is it that a rifle cartridge that carries almost three times the muzzle energy of the .357 considered so bad; yet the aforementioned revolver cartridge is worshipped?

Answer 1

The 357 is a larger bullet whose impact is felt in a big way. The 5.56 is much smaller and is designed to bounce of bone within the body cavity. The 357 can crack in engine block. The 5.56 can not. Both are lethal, but the 5.56 does not normally come in hollow point.

Answer 2

Energy does not "stop" the enemy if it is not transferred to the target. Besides weight and speed, you have to consider design of the bullet and the cross sectional area (caliber.) Lastly, you need to consider the range to target.

The 5.56 NATO round is a full metal jacket round due to international law. When it hits the target, it is more likely to just drill thru to the other side as the bullet does not expand therefore not much energy is transferred to the target. It has a diameter 3/100 larger than a 22! Also, since rifles are generally used at longer distances, such as 100-500 meters, loss of speed over distance is a factor. The 5.56 just does not retain much speed and at distance, has little power. Muzzle velocity means nothing. It is the velocity at distance that is the key.

The 357 mag as used by civilians is usually a hollow point. When it hits the target, the bullet expands transferring all the energy to the target with very lethal results. It has a diameter of 357 which is 30% greater than the 5.56 and that is before the bullet starts to expand. It is generally used at 1-30 meters so when the bullet hits the target it still has most of its energy.

Right now the troops want more power in their guns and there is talk of going back to the 308 and 45 ACP. The only reason we down sized was due to a stupid NATO treaty, not due to any logical or scientific reason.

If you look it up....the M16 design was a runner up to the M14 design..and the M14 was selected to replace the M1. But then along came the bean counters under Kennedy and the M14 was tossed and they went with the second rate design of Stoner.... Springfield Armory now is making a modern version of the M14 for the troops and it is being unofficially tried in Iraq....So far, the troops love it......You can really "reach out and touch someone" with it....

Answer 3

The short answer is that these cartridges are very different. The people who brag about the 357 and belittle the 5.56 usually do not know much about firearms.

The 357 magnum uses a 0.357 inch wide bullet weighing 125 grains (8.1 grams) moving at about 1500 feet per second with about 625 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. The bullet is short and fat, which means it has a small ballistic co-efficient (lots of drag) and slows down quickly. A person who is a good shot with pistol will be able to hit a man sized target at out to 50 meters. A 357 mag rifle will be accurate out to about 200 yards. But since the bullet slows down quickly, it is much less lethal at long range.

The 5.56 nato (223 remington) uses a 0.224 inch wide bullet weighing 62 grains moving about 2950 feet per second in the M-16 giving about 1200 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. The bullet is long and skinny compared to the 357magnum, so it does not slow down as quickly at long range. This cartridge/rifle combination is usually accurate out to at least 600 meters. At long range the bullet still has more than 100 ft-lbs of energy, this is enough to kill given the right bullet placement. Almost anyone with a reasonable amount of practice can hit a target at 600 meters.

Ranb

Answer 4

There are a couple of good points already made here. The NATO 5.56 mm (or .223) is a very small caliber bullet, it is actually very slightly smaller than your standard .22 caliber round. However, the point is, it is a rifle round, with a very high muzzle velocity and fairly well made for being mass-produced at the rate it is made. Also, my understanding is (to echo at least one of the other posters) that the 5.56 round is designed to wound the enemy. Wounding an enemy does a couple things. It takes down the guy you were aiming at, and it tends to bring out his buddies. So then you have more targets to shoot at.

But .357 is a considerably bigger round. And packs a pretty good punch. But, being a handgun round is much less accurate.

Answer 5

Because of that high muzzle velocity of the rifle cartridge.

A person shot close range with a 5.56, the bullet will go right thru them.

And since they use basiclly a 22 cal bullet.

It does little damage going in or coming out.

It is a different story, when a person is shot at longer ranges, then the 5.56 will be tumbling and do alot of damage.

They are only talking about the lack of effectiveness of the 5.56 at close range.

Answer 6

"Bang for your buck"

It's all about context

Regarding the .357 mag. great for a personal defense and ranch gun. Although an excellent cartridge, Give me a Glock 20 / 10mm anytime over your best .357 mag. 15 rounds of pure power.

Regarding the 5.56 Nato ( Rumor reports, the fifth to tenth shot ought to do it! / Remember this is a velocitized .22 round, which means they are counting on the kinetic forces and placement to do the work/ Good Range / Small Mass / Excellent Capacity) running up against .308 Nato (Excellent Mass/ Great Range but, too heavy / Small Capacity not enough ammo), 7.62 x 39 Warsaw (Good mass / limited range / Fair Capacity), Give me the 6.8 SPC (Good mass, Good Range, Good Capacity)! It will be interesting to see how well this round does!?

Answer 7

Stopping power comparison of a .357 and a 5.56 would have to be linked to range. I could stop someone over 300 meters out with a 5.56 but not effectively with a 357 past 150 meters.

Answer 8

Big bullets leave big holes.

.223 vs .357...the .357 hole is almost three times as big I believe

The .357 is a powerful handgun normally used at close range. The .223 is a weak rifle load that was employed to wound rather than kill since wounding removes more personnel from the battle field. The loads are also light and economical. The .223 (or NATO as you call it) is a favored prairie dog load.

Answer 9

It's all a matter of opinion. I like the 5.56mm (.223). Small, fast bullet that does tremendous damage to tissue. I use the same round to hammer squirrels, marmots, skunks, etc. and it works good. Though I use hollow points and NATO frowns on those. Too bad too as hollow points are more stable at longer ranges than a full jacket. Anyway, if I am trying to kill something that is trying to kill me I want something big. So I prefer the .45 ACP handgun round with 230 grain hollow points, .30-'06 rifle round with 180 grain boat tail hollow points and 12 gauge shotgun with 3" magnum shells loaded with 000 buckshot. I don't want to give the bad guys a second chance.

Answer 10

The 5.56 round, which is used in the M16 and M4, is a "Wounding" round...they are made to wound the person being shot...because if they are wounded it takes at least one other person to get them off the battlefield...I was a Medic in the Army...the 5.56 will not go through bone...it will ricochet around in the body and do a lot of damage...I had to treat the wounds of Somalis when I was there in 93...we had one "Skinny" that the entry wound was in his thigh and the exit wound was in his neck...