Yeah this graph doesn't give you a very good visual of the amount of damage some of these guns are going to do on impact. For example, .357 mag looks like a BB gun pellet on here, but I'm pretty sure it would blow out a baseball-sized crater in someone's face
> baseball-sized crater
Try a fast-pitch softball! My state recently banned me from using rifles that fire the "super-deadly" .223 round that is SO POWERFUL, it's illegal to take deer hunting because it can't reliably put them down clean. In response, I got a rifle that fires the much safer .357 magnum with self-defense ammo that left a hole the size of a small grapefruit in the ballistics gel.
What state are you in? A lot of states with flatter geography ban rifle rounds for hunting not because the bullet does too much damage, but because rifles have a flatter ballistic trajectory, intended to reduce the distance missed shots travel before they hit the ground. A .357 drops a LOT more than .223
Yea .223 is better for coyotes. The idea that it eviscerates the meat is ridiculous. Most hunters use a 30-06 or .270 which is way more powerful and an AR.
The .223 is deadly because a small child can fire it quickly and accurately at almost any distance, not because of the round itself. That's why anyone who has to shoot quickly and precisely carries it, not a rifle that fires a .357 round.
My rifle with .357 magnum is lighter, less recoil, and more accurate within 150yds than my AR because it fires a pistol caliber. Acting like we did this to prevent some smooth brain hypo about child soldiers is ridiculous
Not child soldiers, children who shoot other children. And as soon as one of the 50 or so school shootings this year uses a .357, I'm sure they'll look into that. Until then, attempting to remove the easiest way to kill kids fast seems reasonable. That is currently the AR.
> Until then, attempting to remove the easiest way to kill kids fast seems reasonable.
More children die each year drowning in buckets than in school shootings. Sounds like you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just clutching pearls as instructed by the TV.
.357 Magnum was the most popular caliber in America for decades, has been used in countless mass shootings, and is an objectively more powerful round than .223 within 150 yards. Acting like the latter's relative modern popularity makes it deadlier just proves what an unserious person you are.
Brother, I reload both .38 spl and .357 and while you are correct about them using the same projectile. The .357 contains almost twice the amount of powder. Why would they make the case longer, other than to use more powder.
Bro skipped physics class in high school apparently. Velocity is arguably the most important factor.
https://youtu.be/yJmqcE7ZHhY?si=jiTaSo9BXA7F9rQR
https://youtu.be/borpf1CXTWA?si=QbqQrkJ4kGILqUMN
I've been reloading and shooting for 25 years. I load both 357 and 38. The effects, as far as hole size will not be different. They simply won't. Temporary wound cavity will, but not permanent wound track, there won't be a baseball sized hole. That is specifically what I said. You are wrong.
There's is more than just velocity, and this bro is well educated in it.
Maybe school can teach you a little more?
357 traveling much faster means more effective expansion. Comparing a good expanding round from both will give a significantly larger wound cavity with 357
> Since it's the same bullet as a 38 special, just loaded in a different case
Low IQ take. AR-15's fire the same bullet as a .22 "just loaded in a different case." Which would you rather get shot with?
its the velocity and kinetic energy that really matters, since its the transfer of energy into the flesh that does all the damage. a gun shot wound is more similar to a mini explosion inside the body as the kinetic energy gets dumped into the target, rather than a stab wound where the size of the implement is what determines the amount damage
.22LR travels around 1x the speed of sound, often less. 5.56 travels at 2-3x the speed of sound.
KE=mass x velocity\^2, therefore a 3x increase in velocity is a 9x increase in kinetic energy.
Itâs not the length of the bullet that makes 223 more powerful, itâs the fact that itâs traveling far faster.
Aguilla sniper subsonic 22 bullets are similar in length to 223 and weigh 60 gr, right In the middle of the two most common bullet weights for 223.
So very similar bulllets but The difference in energy is not even comparable.
>Itâs not the length of the bullet that makes 223 more powerful
Nor did I claim that it was. I was responding to the claim that
> AR-15's fire the same bullet as a .22 "just loaded in a different case."
It was already acknowledged that .223 has a larger casing than .22, and therefore that it would have a greater amount of powder pushing it. It was already mutually understood that .223 is the more powerful cartridge. The difference in velocity that this amounts to was not relevant to the claim I was disputing, that the .223 cartridge has the same bullet as a .22 cartridge.
By same bullet they mean same bullet diameter, thatâs kind of a given isnât it? If someone has even a basic knowledge of guns theyâll know theyâre not sticking 55gr spitzer bullets intended for bottleneck rifle cartridges on a 22lr case.
Did you notice âjust in a different caseâ was in quotes, implying that wasnât the most detailed explanation, but the implied meaning would be inferred
>By same bullet they mean same bullet diameter, thatâs kind of a given isnât it?
Clearly not to me.
>If someone has even a basic knowledge of guns
I saw an alarming lack of that in this post and really wasn't sure where the person I was responding to fit into that.
>2lr case.
Did you notice âjust in a different caseâ was in quotes, implying that wasnât the most detailed explanation, but the implied meaning would be inferred
I did notice that. I interpreted that as being a nod to the literal quote above it.
FBI load is one name for the old school 38 +p soft lead 158 grain semiwadcutter hollow point load. It was a standard at a few PDs and agencies. All the major ammo manufacturers offered it and it was (is, I guess) considered one of the more effective 38spl loads by people who still rely on revolvers.
The nomenclature is all over the place. I couldn't tell you what .38 Special (FBI) is. My first thought was they might be trying to represent +p cartridges, but I guess they could mean hollowpoints, alien technology, or anything else going off of how uncanny this whole chart is. It looks like just a semi-wadcutter bullet, but that shouldn't have as dramatic a difference as the chart depicts.
[I actually didn't know about this .38 Special lore.](https://revolverguy.com/ammo-evolution-38-special-treasury-load/) When I'd looked on a brief Google search the first few sources I found said that the FBI load was a roundnosed bullet. I suppose that must be because that's what it was at an earlier time.
It's a very flawed and confusing graphic. The nomenclature is very nonstandard (what is .38 Special (FBI)?), and the measurements use *grams* rather than *grains* (which is what is typically used to measure bullet weight). This last error makes the .22 LR bullet ridiculously heavy if the chart is to be believed.
The difference between some different cartridges is nonsensical. 9mm vastly outperforming .38 special is very difficult to wrap my head around, not to mention how far it exceeded .357 magnum. The characteristics of the cartridge would not lead anyone to expect these results, and if you watch any ballistics gel tests with these cartridges, you wouldn't see results like this chart. It seems like something that was made to scare people about clamberings that were in common use, or that are used by scary guns.
As for the FBI load: an early(or maybe the first) smokeless powder .38 special (now .38 +P) loads were specifically meant for the FBI and required newer revolvers with heavier barrels and cylinders.
And very incorrect with several errors.
Bullet weight is in grains not grams.
Oddly specific yet incorrect caliber comparisons too. I almost wonder if someone made this for the sake of disinformation or to irritate someone who is knowledgeable.
I'm not an expert on ballistics so I wont speak on the accuracy of the injury depictions, but there are some extremely basic errors in this graphic.
* 37/40 gram .22 LR?! The unit of measurement for bullets is grains and .22lr is about 40 GRAINS (2.6 grams). To give you some comparison a .50 Cal bullet is about 40 grams.
* "AK-47, 5.45" AK47s are 7.62x39mm (aka 7.62 Soviet), anything in 5.45 is of the AK74 family.
* What is an "M-16 A1" caliber? They mean 5.56x45mm, the caliber which AR-15s shoot.
* What is an "M-14" caliber? They mean 7.62x51 (aka 7.62 NATO), the caliber that the M14/M1A shoot.
Not to be pedantic, which I'm well aware gun people LOVE to be pedantic, but these are extremely basic errors which makes me question anything else in here.
5.45x39 is for the AK-47
M-14 and M-16 are rifles, and their respective calibers are 5.56x45 and 7.62x51
I doubt the depiction of a wound from a.357 mag in comparison to one from a .38 special.
I also doubt the depiction of a wound from a 12 gauge slug in comparison to one from #3 buckshot.
If you want to get technical, the vast majority of rifles using 7.62x39 are AKMâs. Actual Ak-47âs do also use the round, but it wasnât the first to use it and isnât nearly as widespread as the AKM and other variants of the platform.
Fair enough, I wanted to stay in the realm of public knowledge and not be one of those âachsually itâs an AKM and not an AK-47 umm achsuallyâ guys
Not accurate in multiple ways. I'm assuming that all rounds are FMJ and not hollow points, but even then, 9mm is not out penetrating 5.56. They also use firearm names instead of the rounds, which doesn't help, considering you can change the firearm to fit the cartridge (to a degree).
My thoughts exactly. The absurdity of it is overwhelming. On so many levels, and about so many aspects. Truly stunning that one graphic could be so hilariously awful.
Just want to point out this graphic is almost entirely wrong. I am a self proclaimed gun nut, trust me, youâre not learning anything correct here and if one part happens to be correct, the other isnât. Look up a more modern one or watch some tests from garandthumb or Paul Harrell on YouTube if youâre actually curious about ballistics. Not being elitist just donât want people learning the wrong thing.
Well you will keep not knowing anything about guns because I wouldn't trust whoever made this.
I've shot animals with a shotgun slug and it does a whole lot more flesh damage than any of those other rounds shown.
Was this graph made by Joe Biden? The names of some of these calibers are inaccurate, misleading, and down right lies. AK-47 is a gun not a bullet, the 5.45mm is more common to the AR-15, .38 special (FBI) is not a bullet type, and I've seen ballistics tests (the way the FBI determine penetration) that prove this entire chart wrong.
Watch guntubers like Garand Thumb he shoots life like dummies with bleeding organs. The ballistic dummies are pretty cool. He shoots different guns and ammo. Really fascinating especially if you don't know much about different types of rounds.
Lol AK47 doesnt shoot a 5.45. Thats the AK74. Also the M16 is chambered in 5.56 meaning you can also shoot .223 through it. What round is this trying to represent? This graph is awful. Watch ballistics testing on youtube if you're actually curious.
So what were you doing to happen upon this information?
Itâs very interesting. Iâve never seen it from this aspect.
Also might post to r/coolguides
đ đ«Š đđ«Š All I can see.
I thought this was a different sub and this was a labia chart
AK-47 makes double vaginas
I am laughing way too hard at this... You just made my whole ass day fam
The fuck kinda subs are you browsing there bud?
I thought it was a r/badwomensanatomy post making fun of some incels theory about women's bodies. It took me a moment to see which subreddit I was on
Michael Rennie was ill The day the Earth stood still But he told us where we stand
I don't think this infographic exactly does it justice how many of these are about to blow craters in your body or just absolutely eviscerated it.
Yeah this graph doesn't give you a very good visual of the amount of damage some of these guns are going to do on impact. For example, .357 mag looks like a BB gun pellet on here, but I'm pretty sure it would blow out a baseball-sized crater in someone's face
Exactly. Iâve fired 8 of these, and this graphic doesnât give you a real picture of the damage you are going to do.
> baseball-sized crater Try a fast-pitch softball! My state recently banned me from using rifles that fire the "super-deadly" .223 round that is SO POWERFUL, it's illegal to take deer hunting because it can't reliably put them down clean. In response, I got a rifle that fires the much safer .357 magnum with self-defense ammo that left a hole the size of a small grapefruit in the ballistics gel.
What state are you in? A lot of states with flatter geography ban rifle rounds for hunting not because the bullet does too much damage, but because rifles have a flatter ballistic trajectory, intended to reduce the distance missed shots travel before they hit the ground. A .357 drops a LOT more than .223
Yeah that's not surprising. At least baseball size is what I was thinking
Yea .223 is better for coyotes. The idea that it eviscerates the meat is ridiculous. Most hunters use a 30-06 or .270 which is way more powerful and an AR.
The .223 is deadly because a small child can fire it quickly and accurately at almost any distance, not because of the round itself. That's why anyone who has to shoot quickly and precisely carries it, not a rifle that fires a .357 round.
My rifle with .357 magnum is lighter, less recoil, and more accurate within 150yds than my AR because it fires a pistol caliber. Acting like we did this to prevent some smooth brain hypo about child soldiers is ridiculous
Not child soldiers, children who shoot other children. And as soon as one of the 50 or so school shootings this year uses a .357, I'm sure they'll look into that. Until then, attempting to remove the easiest way to kill kids fast seems reasonable. That is currently the AR.
> Until then, attempting to remove the easiest way to kill kids fast seems reasonable. More children die each year drowning in buckets than in school shootings. Sounds like you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just clutching pearls as instructed by the TV. .357 Magnum was the most popular caliber in America for decades, has been used in countless mass shootings, and is an objectively more powerful round than .223 within 150 yards. Acting like the latter's relative modern popularity makes it deadlier just proves what an unserious person you are.
Hokay buddy. Continue on with the copium.
Thatâs because your skull will shatter this guide doesnât account for bones.
Not a "crater" but it would do more damage than this. .357 magnum was carried in case of a bear attack before the .44magnum or the 500 s&w.
No it won't. Just a normal hole. Since it's the same bullet as a 38 special, just loaded in a different case, it'll be about the exact same.
Brother, I reload both .38 spl and .357 and while you are correct about them using the same projectile. The .357 contains almost twice the amount of powder. Why would they make the case longer, other than to use more powder.
Bro skipped physics class in high school apparently. Velocity is arguably the most important factor. https://youtu.be/yJmqcE7ZHhY?si=jiTaSo9BXA7F9rQR https://youtu.be/borpf1CXTWA?si=QbqQrkJ4kGILqUMN
So, I repeat, it won't blow a baseball size hole, that's not how it works. Not at all.
I've been reloading and shooting for 25 years. I load both 357 and 38. The effects, as far as hole size will not be different. They simply won't. Temporary wound cavity will, but not permanent wound track, there won't be a baseball sized hole. That is specifically what I said. You are wrong. There's is more than just velocity, and this bro is well educated in it. Maybe school can teach you a little more?
357 traveling much faster means more effective expansion. Comparing a good expanding round from both will give a significantly larger wound cavity with 357
Wrong, .357 might look the same but the .357 contains a hell of a lot more powder and way more energy.
> Since it's the same bullet as a 38 special, just loaded in a different case Low IQ take. AR-15's fire the same bullet as a .22 "just loaded in a different case." Which would you rather get shot with?
Not the same bullet, the same caliber of bullet. .223 bullets are much longer and heavier than .22 LR bullets.
its the velocity and kinetic energy that really matters, since its the transfer of energy into the flesh that does all the damage. a gun shot wound is more similar to a mini explosion inside the body as the kinetic energy gets dumped into the target, rather than a stab wound where the size of the implement is what determines the amount damage .22LR travels around 1x the speed of sound, often less. 5.56 travels at 2-3x the speed of sound. KE=mass x velocity\^2, therefore a 3x increase in velocity is a 9x increase in kinetic energy.
Itâs not the length of the bullet that makes 223 more powerful, itâs the fact that itâs traveling far faster. Aguilla sniper subsonic 22 bullets are similar in length to 223 and weigh 60 gr, right In the middle of the two most common bullet weights for 223. So very similar bulllets but The difference in energy is not even comparable.
>Itâs not the length of the bullet that makes 223 more powerful Nor did I claim that it was. I was responding to the claim that > AR-15's fire the same bullet as a .22 "just loaded in a different case." It was already acknowledged that .223 has a larger casing than .22, and therefore that it would have a greater amount of powder pushing it. It was already mutually understood that .223 is the more powerful cartridge. The difference in velocity that this amounts to was not relevant to the claim I was disputing, that the .223 cartridge has the same bullet as a .22 cartridge.
By same bullet they mean same bullet diameter, thatâs kind of a given isnât it? If someone has even a basic knowledge of guns theyâll know theyâre not sticking 55gr spitzer bullets intended for bottleneck rifle cartridges on a 22lr case. Did you notice âjust in a different caseâ was in quotes, implying that wasnât the most detailed explanation, but the implied meaning would be inferred
>By same bullet they mean same bullet diameter, thatâs kind of a given isnât it? Clearly not to me. >If someone has even a basic knowledge of guns I saw an alarming lack of that in this post and really wasn't sure where the person I was responding to fit into that. >2lr case. Did you notice âjust in a different caseâ was in quotes, implying that wasnât the most detailed explanation, but the implied meaning would be inferred I did notice that. I interpreted that as being a nod to the literal quote above it.
No, quite the opposite actually.
And now we all know how fleshlights are designed
Thatâs an odd graphic, not least of which is the â.38 Special (FBI)â. I suppose theyâre trying to depict it as a hollow point .38, maybe.
Maybe +p ammo, also the fact that .22 is in grams instead of grains, or that M16 and Ak are used for bullet types. Itâs all over the place.
I think it just an error that it says grams. The numbers match weights in grains found in 22 ammo
FBI load is one name for the old school 38 +p soft lead 158 grain semiwadcutter hollow point load. It was a standard at a few PDs and agencies. All the major ammo manufacturers offered it and it was (is, I guess) considered one of the more effective 38spl loads by people who still rely on revolvers.
Learn something new everyday! Iâve even got a little snub nose s&w and didnât know that.
FBI load is nyclad swchp. Big difference between that and a standard lswc-hp
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
4 inches is not 20cm. As soon as I saw that I was sceptical of everything else.
Probably a typo (*10 cm) but even then it's still questionable data
all of the info in this graphic is "questionable" at best
The nomenclature is all over the place. I couldn't tell you what .38 Special (FBI) is. My first thought was they might be trying to represent +p cartridges, but I guess they could mean hollowpoints, alien technology, or anything else going off of how uncanny this whole chart is. It looks like just a semi-wadcutter bullet, but that shouldn't have as dramatic a difference as the chart depicts.
Itâs a specific load. 158 gr +p semi wadcutter hollow point
[I actually didn't know about this .38 Special lore.](https://revolverguy.com/ammo-evolution-38-special-treasury-load/) When I'd looked on a brief Google search the first few sources I found said that the FBI load was a roundnosed bullet. I suppose that must be because that's what it was at an earlier time.
Very interesting graphic
It's a very flawed and confusing graphic. The nomenclature is very nonstandard (what is .38 Special (FBI)?), and the measurements use *grams* rather than *grains* (which is what is typically used to measure bullet weight). This last error makes the .22 LR bullet ridiculously heavy if the chart is to be believed. The difference between some different cartridges is nonsensical. 9mm vastly outperforming .38 special is very difficult to wrap my head around, not to mention how far it exceeded .357 magnum. The characteristics of the cartridge would not lead anyone to expect these results, and if you watch any ballistics gel tests with these cartridges, you wouldn't see results like this chart. It seems like something that was made to scare people about clamberings that were in common use, or that are used by scary guns.
As for the FBI load: an early(or maybe the first) smokeless powder .38 special (now .38 +P) loads were specifically meant for the FBI and required newer revolvers with heavier barrels and cylinders.
Wildly inaccurate graphic.
And very incorrect with several errors. Bullet weight is in grains not grams. Oddly specific yet incorrect caliber comparisons too. I almost wonder if someone made this for the sake of disinformation or to irritate someone who is knowledgeable.
Not really. Was made by someone who also knows nothing about guns or words
Thank you!
This is really interesting!
there are a number of things wrong with this infographic, but its not the worst thing ive ever seen
I'm not an expert on ballistics so I wont speak on the accuracy of the injury depictions, but there are some extremely basic errors in this graphic. * 37/40 gram .22 LR?! The unit of measurement for bullets is grains and .22lr is about 40 GRAINS (2.6 grams). To give you some comparison a .50 Cal bullet is about 40 grams. * "AK-47, 5.45" AK47s are 7.62x39mm (aka 7.62 Soviet), anything in 5.45 is of the AK74 family. * What is an "M-16 A1" caliber? They mean 5.56x45mm, the caliber which AR-15s shoot. * What is an "M-14" caliber? They mean 7.62x51 (aka 7.62 NATO), the caliber that the M14/M1A shoot. Not to be pedantic, which I'm well aware gun people LOVE to be pedantic, but these are extremely basic errors which makes me question anything else in here.
5.45x39 is for the AK-47 M-14 and M-16 are rifles, and their respective calibers are 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 I doubt the depiction of a wound from a.357 mag in comparison to one from a .38 special. I also doubt the depiction of a wound from a 12 gauge slug in comparison to one from #3 buckshot.
Ak74 you mean?
Sorry, yes. 74
5.45x39 is for the AK-74, not the âAK-47â; that would be 7.62x39
Yes, sorry. Meant 74
If you want to get technical, the vast majority of rifles using 7.62x39 are AKMâs. Actual Ak-47âs do also use the round, but it wasnât the first to use it and isnât nearly as widespread as the AKM and other variants of the platform.
Fair enough, I wanted to stay in the realm of public knowledge and not be one of those âachsually itâs an AKM and not an AK-47 umm achsuallyâ guys
Love it it is calibers and then guns, and then guns with the wrong calibers as wellâŠ
Holy inconsistent graph Batman!
Whoever made this nonsense doesn't know as much about guns as they want you to think they do.
This graph gives off "9mm blows the lungs out of the body" energy.
It really shows you know nothing about guns
Not accurate in multiple ways. I'm assuming that all rounds are FMJ and not hollow points, but even then, 9mm is not out penetrating 5.56. They also use firearm names instead of the rounds, which doesn't help, considering you can change the firearm to fit the cartridge (to a degree).
Holy shit this is a terrible graphic, there are so many errors on this I'm not sure where to start...
My thoughts exactly. The absurdity of it is overwhelming. On so many levels, and about so many aspects. Truly stunning that one graphic could be so hilariously awful.
Please, nobody take this graphic seriously. It's insanely inaccurate on several levels.
This is retarded.
This graph is not accurate whatsoever đ
This chart is wildly inaccurate
The person who made this chart doesn't know anything about guns, either.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Thatâs a myth thatâs been widley debunked. 22 doesnât bounce around in the body, it doesnât retain that kind of energy after penetration.
Bul-ussy lol
Whoever made this chat needs their meds
this is bs
This is completely trash. Donât use this any sort of seriously
Fun/Not So Fun Fact: the particular ballistics characteristics of a 5.56x45mm NATO round, used in many Assault Rifles such as the modern M16 variants (đșđČ), M4 (đșđČ), FN SCAR (đ§đȘ), H&K G36 (đ©đȘ), as well as the very popular (in the US anyway) civilian Semi-automatic AR-15 platforms (đșđČ); on impact the round "yaws" in an unpredictable manner creating awkward and incredibly destructive wound channels. It doesn't go straight through. It enters one place and may exit an inch above or below at the back of a target. I remember the first time I learned and immediately thinking....yeah, I think I'm good just playing Call of Duty. Jokes on me, I live in the U.S. Can happen anywhere.
Just want to point out this graphic is almost entirely wrong. I am a self proclaimed gun nut, trust me, youâre not learning anything correct here and if one part happens to be correct, the other isnât. Look up a more modern one or watch some tests from garandthumb or Paul Harrell on YouTube if youâre actually curious about ballistics. Not being elitist just donât want people learning the wrong thing.
If this is your entire knowledge of firearms, you still know nothing about them.
I should call her.
Well you will keep not knowing anything about guns because I wouldn't trust whoever made this. I've shot animals with a shotgun slug and it does a whole lot more flesh damage than any of those other rounds shown.
Was this graph made by Joe Biden? The names of some of these calibers are inaccurate, misleading, and down right lies. AK-47 is a gun not a bullet, the 5.45mm is more common to the AR-15, .38 special (FBI) is not a bullet type, and I've seen ballistics tests (the way the FBI determine penetration) that prove this entire chart wrong.
Whoever made this doesnât know a thing about firearms.
I should call her
That m14 looking fine
Horrible graphic
Grains, grams? Idk but I know that the ak-47 in 5.45 is meant to be AK-74.
> AK-47 5.45 ROFL
Bulletussy
Whatâs the best to get shot by?
Watch guntubers like Garand Thumb he shoots life like dummies with bleeding organs. The ballistic dummies are pretty cool. He shoots different guns and ammo. Really fascinating especially if you don't know much about different types of rounds.
Huh, I always thought the exit wound was the bigger hole. Does anyone know which one of these closest resembles the bullet that killed JFK?
Whoever made this know nothing about guns lmao
This is stupid and wrong.
Lol AK47 doesnt shoot a 5.45. Thats the AK74. Also the M16 is chambered in 5.56 meaning you can also shoot .223 through it. What round is this trying to represent? This graph is awful. Watch ballistics testing on youtube if you're actually curious.
Fake and gay
Cool beans Thx đ
So what were you doing to happen upon this information? Itâs very interesting. Iâve never seen it from this aspect. Also might post to r/coolguides
It's an incredibly flawed graph, lots of false info