[swgfanforlife]

I don't know if this has ever been posted here before but they were talking about it on another forum I read and thought someone here might find it useful.

This chart breaks down how many shells equal a pound for each caliber.

Interesting tidbits: AK-47 ammo weighs about 1 pound for every 27 rounds where as .22 ammo is 133 rounds per lb.
So basically you could carry 100 rounds of AK ammo which is around 3.6lbs or 500 rounds of .22 at 3.7 lbs. lol maybe the .22 survival gun enthusiasts are on to something.

Pistol Calibers

.380
Rounds per pound: 47.06
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.13

9mm Luger
Hornady 115gr JHP/XTP
Rounds per pound: 38.10
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.63

.38 Special
Rounds per pound: 34.78
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.88

.357Mag.
Remington UMC 125gr SJHP
Rounds per pound: 30.77
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 3.25

.357Mag.
Handload 158gr JHP
Rounds per pound: 28.07
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 3.56

40S&W
Rounds per pound: 28.07
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 3.56

.44magnum
200gr Hornady XTP HP
Rounds per pound: 22
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.57

.44magnum
240gr LSWC Bullet
Rounds per pound: 19.7
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 5.07

.45ACP
230gr Winchester Ball
Rounds per pound: 21.33
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.69

RifleCalibers

.22 LR
Remington Golden 36gr PHP
Rounds per pound: 133.33
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 0.75

.223/5.56X45
(milsurp) British Radway Green SS109 63gr
Rounds per pound: 37.21
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.69

30-30 Winchester (a.k.a. .30WCF)
Winchester Silvertip 170gr flat nose
Rounds per pound: 20.28
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.92

.243Whinchester
75gr Hornady V-max Handloads
Rounds per pound: 22.22
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.5

.308 Winchester
Remington UMC 150gr FMJ
Rounds per pound: 19.05
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 5.25

.308 Winchester
168gr BTHP Match Bullet
Rounds per pound: 18.67
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 5.35

7mm Remington Magnum
Winchester 175gr Power Point
Rounds per pound:14.68
Weight per 100 rounds(lbs):6.81

7.62X39
Wolf Steel Case 122gr FMJ
Rounds per pound:27.59
Weight per 100 rounds(lbs):3.63

Shotgun Calibers

12GA 2 3/4" Slug
Federal HI-Shok Slug
Rounds per pound: 10.53
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 9.50

12GA 2 3/4" #4 Shot
Remington Express 4BK
Rounds per pound: 9.30
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 10.75

12GA 2 3/4" #7 1/2 Shot
Federal #7 1/2 Shot
Rounds per pound: 10.53
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 9.75

12GA 2 3/4"00 Buckshot
Federal Express 9 Pellet
Rounds per pound: 9.76
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 10.25

12GA 3" Slug
Federal 3" Rifled Slug
Rounds per pound: 8.89
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 11.25

 

[Jeffrey]

... maybe the .22 survival gun enthusiasts are on to something. [/COLOR]

The world is not completely populated by squirrels.

 

[Skunk Pilot]

Thanks for the info.

Yeah for me, physically, the .22 and some 9mm would be all that would work (never would buy .380). But really without electricity 9mm would be to heavy for me since wouldn't be able to do my "retard routine" and would want to be dead anyways.

 

[merlinfire]

This chart confirms what most of us already know:

a) Small, less powerful rounds generally weight less
b) if you have an intermediate-power cartridge in your long gun, don't carry bucketloads of sidearm pistol ammo, you'd be better off with a couple boxes for the sidearm and use the longarm as primary

 

[stevetexas]

This kills the idea of using a pistol caliber carbine so you can match your pistol's ammo.

100 rounds of 9mm weighs the same as 100 rounds of .223/5.56. The .223 is far more effective out of a carbine or rifle than 9mm is.

The weight problem only gets worse with heavier caliber pistol ammo.

 

[Gallo Pazzesco]

Good list ... it almost looks like a list I compiled and posted myself on the old rec.guns usenet years ago. It's almost identical except he excluded the 300 WSM and the 30-06 along with the 410 and 20 gauge stuff I had included. And I wonder why he substituted the rarely used 170 grain Winchester Silvertip in 30-30 rather than the much more commonly used Power Point in 150 grain I had put on my list?

I had the 150 grain 30-30 at

30-30 Winchester (a.k.a. .30WCF)
Winchester Power Point 150gr round nose
Rounds per pound: 21.52
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.64

That's at a weight of 0.743 ounces per cartridge which is 325 grains, which is correct given a 150 grain pill and 175 grains total of brass, powder and primer. (150 gr pill + 31 grains IMR 4895 + 9 gr primer + 135 gr brass case.)

Compare that to his numbers and it's evident that something is wrong with his math as a lighter pill does not equate to more pounds per 100.

30-30 Winchester (a.k.a. .30WCF)
Winchester Silvertip 170gr flat nose
Rounds per pound: 20.28
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 4.92

It appears to me that, perhaps, he figured pill weight only and did not figure brass, powder and primers in his total weight.

Matter of fact, as I check his "per 100" numbers it appears that he has quite a few incorrect totals.

I've got to go to the man cave and pull some cartridges and run the weights on the RCBS Charge Master ... maybe my original numbers were incorrect and I need to go back and double check them but just running the numbers through a calculator they appear correct. We might want to double-check though.

 

[GramercyRiff]

You can try this for weight comparison.

 

[fragout]

This kills the idea of using a pistol caliber carbine so you can match your pistol's ammo.

100 rounds of 9mm weighs the same as 100 rounds of .223/5.56. The .223 is far more effective out of a carbine or rifle than 9mm is.

The weight problem only gets worse with heavier caliber pistol ammo.

I would defiantly agree with the above statement. Having a handgun/carbine that are chambered for the same cartridge does not make much sense to me, but alot of folks are under the impression that pistol ammunition somehow weighs less in comparison.

7.62x39mm is very close in weight as 357 magnum

44magnum and 7.62x51mm are also very close in weight.

11B

 

[merlinfire]

Didn't realize that 9mm and 5.56 were so close in weight. I have already sold my kel tec sub2000, but I guess I'd be better off with a light ar clone anyway

 

[Gallo Pazzesco]

Having a handgun/carbine that are chambered for the same cartridge does not make much sense to me, but alot of folks are under the impression that pistol ammunition somehow weighs less in comparison ...

I'm not sure if that's the case or not frag. I do believe for those just starting out it's not a bad idea at all. But it has never been about the weight, it's been about redundancy and reloading ability. Having a rifle/carbine/revolver combo in 38/357 or 45 Colt or 44sp/44Mag makes sense for someone just starting out. All three are easy to reload, all three can use cast bullets, the 38/357 Mag is inexpensive compared to most rifle ammo and if you lose your sidearm, for whatever reason, you've still got your stick and visa versa. It's less intimidating and/or stigmatic for a lot of people, it's classic Americana; They are easier to clean and less likely to fail - if it fails to go bang you either keep pulling the trigger or you keep jacking the lever and pulling the trigger verses having to learn immediate action drills, etc. There is even an argument to be made about versatility in terms of the ability to shoot the less expensive, lighter weight 38 Special/44 Special, especially for plinking. Also, in most cases, a levergun and revolver are going to cost someone just starting out less money in their initial investment than the semiauto alternatives. In my experience, usually about 40% less and that is a big deal to some.

I cannot recall ever having a conversation with anyone about the benefits of starting out with a carbine/revolver combo where the issue of ammo weight was ever brought into the discussion.

But I get where you are coming from frag ... for those of us familiar with military type firearms they are definitely the way to go in most instances. Still, I'll never give up any of my levergun/revolver combos and have done a bunch of hunting and backpacking with them over the years.

GramercyRift ... good chart:

Here's a link to a table, in html, breaking down most possible military ammo choices in total weight per round, projectile weight, powder weight, etc:

http://www.gun-shots.net/ballistics-chart.shtml

 

[GramercyRiff]

I rearranged the chart in ascending order of live round weight instead of round type.

Basically 10 lbs of weight will get you about:

22LR - 1,400
9mm/.223 - 400
7.62x39 - 275
12ga 00 buck - 100

Or for six 30 round rifle and five 12 round pistol magazines:

180 - 7.62x39 = 6.49 lbs
180 - .223 = 4.51 lbs
60 - .45acp = 2.77 lbs
60 - 9mm = 1.53 lbs

None of this info will have me turning in my 45 and 7.62 for a 9mm and .223, but anyone planning on walking long distances and carrying 1000's of rounds may want to consider the lighter calibers.

 

[Bologna]

Don't forget to calculate the average weight of a standard magazine(s) per caliber.

For an example.

.223/5.56X45
(milsurp) British Radway Green SS109 63gr
Rounds per pound: 37.21
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.69
Weight of Magpul(30) x 3.3 : 1.03
Combined weight: 3.72

Making it a 38% weight increase over the ammo alone. I find that info useful. The lighter I am (personally) the better.

 

[Survivalguy72]

The combo thing definitely is not about weight.

 

[Antwan23]

I would defiantly agree with the above statement. Having a handgun/carbine that are chambered for the same cartridge does not make much sense to me, but alot of folks are under the impression that pistol ammunition somehow weighs less in comparison.

7.62x39mm is very close in weight as 357 magnum

44magnum and 7.62x51mm are also very close in weight.

11B

I want a pistol carbine just because i have alot of 9mm ammo. It could be cost efficient for people that dont make alot of money. One caliber for more than one gun. Having alot of one caliber and having more than one firearm that can use it is great. How can you argue that?

 

[swgfanforlife]

I want a pistol carbine just because i have alot of 9mm ammo. It could be cost efficient for people that dont make alot of money. One caliber for more than one gun. Having alot of one caliber and having more than one firearm that can use it is great. How can you argue that?

I always heard that cowboys carried a handgun and lever action chambered in the same caliber. If that's true then it worked well for them as many lived off the land and endured very harsh conditions without electricity, running water, etc.

I don't personally want to limit myself to one caliber if I was facing a shtf situation. I carry a Yugo Ak underfolder and a 9mm pistol while my wife would carry a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol. I chose those for her because they are lightweight for her to carry, effective at hunting any game in the south, and still capable of backing up my Ak defensively if we have to fight.

I know a .22 is laughable in a gunfight but while I'm shooting the AK she's emptying 30 round clips of .22 while I reload. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by a .22 stinger hollowpoint I can tell you that. Without modern medicine and hospitals if the initial hit don't kill you then you might die a painful death later on from infection, or lack of medical care.

I think if I absolutely had to choose a single pistol/rifle combo I'd go with the modern 357 magnum. You'd be able to easily hunt deer and other game plus have a round that is very effective in a combat situation. Plus 357 is not as heavy as some ammo and I think you'd get more range than say a 9mm or 45 cal rifle.

 

[Antwan23]

I always heard that cowboys carried a handgun and lever action chambered in the same caliber. If that's true then it worked well for them as many lived off the land and endured very harsh conditions without electricity, running water, etc.

I don't personally want to limit myself to one caliber if I was facing a shtf situation. I carry a Yugo Ak underfolder and a 9mm pistol while my wife would carry a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol. I chose those for her because they are lightweight for her to carry, effective at hunting any game in the south, and still capable of backing up my Ak defensively if we have to fight.

I know a .22 is laughable in a gunfight but while I'm shooting the AK she's emptying 30 round clips of .22 while I reload. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by a .22 stinger hollowpoint I can tell you that. Without modern medicine and hospitals if the initial hit don't kill you then you might die a painful death later on from infection, or lack of medical care.

I think if I absolutely had to choose a single pistol/rifle combo I'd go with the modern 357 magnum. You'd be able to easily hunt deer and other game plus have a round that is very effective in a combat situation. Plus 357 is not as heavy as some ammo and I think you'd get more range than say a 9mm or 45 cal rifle.

Not being argumenative, but in what situation would you been in that you would have your wife in a gunfight with you where you need to reach out and touch something past a hundred yards? Any pistol caliber will be effective in that range. Especially a .45 more than a .22.


Im with you about actually having a rifle round and a pistol round. I am just defending the idea, cost and simplicity of being able to use the same ammo and magazines with a pistol carbine(and still be able to be effective).:thumb:

 

[Jida]

Similar thread,...

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=137819

 

[Kahr40]

Thats a good one.

The world is not completely populated by squirrels.

 

[fragout]

I want a pistol carbine just because i have alot of 9mm ammo. It could be cost efficient for people that dont make alot of money. One caliber for more than one gun. Having alot of one caliber and having more than one firearm that can use it is great. How can you argue that?

If thats what works for you, then I would say that your GTG brother.:thumb:

11B

 

[fragout]

Don't forget to calculate the average weight of a standard magazine(s) per caliber.

For an example.

.223/5.56X45
(milsurp) British Radway Green SS109 63gr
Rounds per pound: 37.21
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.69
Weight of Magpul(30) x 3.3 : 1.03
Combined weight: 3.72

Making it a 38% weight increase over the ammo alone. I find that info useful. The lighter I am (personally) the better.

Good point sir.

I have a very precise scale at the house, and have weighed various things with it, to include loaded magazines. I'm currently not able to look at my notes, but can give the following info in all accuracy due to my current place of employment...

USGI M14 20rd magazine

7.62x51mm ( M80 BALL) ........ 20 rds

Total weight for above: 1.5lbs exact.

So...... 100 rds of M80 loaded into 5- 20rd M14 magazines = 7.5 lbs


Not the lightest ammo out there, but I prefer it because of past/current experiences with what this load (along with the type of rifle) is capable of.

Note: I view the sidearm as the backup to my rifle of choice....ie....secondary

I generally do not carry near as much ammo for it with me, as compared to the rifle...ie....primary.



11B