Cranfield Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 All owners and users of .223 weapons are urged to read the safety warnings in this link; http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Another very usefull link below explaining everything aswell. :unsure: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celtic invader Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Very interesting. Would you know if the same applies for the .308 Win and Nato 7.62. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hi C.I. I think the situ is the same with .308 v 7.62 in as much as it's ok to use 7.62 in a .308 but not the other way round as there are problems with case dimensions and pressures generated. try wikipedia then SAAMI. old man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celtic invader Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Spot on Old Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonD Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Whilst in the range office today at Bisley there was a safety warning regarding converted rifles, i don't remember the exact rifles and wording but it was around not using .308 in the converted 7.62 and to ONLY use the NATO 7.62, Lee Enfields were the primay focus. I think the main risk is a breech explosion due to the pressures and shouldering differences. DISCLAIMER: I am not an experienced shooter but thought i would add this, i'm sure someone on here will have access to the full NRA warning and update if incorrect. Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 That notice in the range office is for users of enfield rifles or more specifically anyone using 155gr rounds in 7.62mm. The older NATO cartridge was loaded with a 144gr bullet and was fine in the converted rifles. However the newer 155gr target ammo is loaded slightly longer and rifles should be checked before using it. Rifles that have been checked carry a green NRA sticker to show they are safe to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul6806 Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Just to add to MC's post, the 'New' 155 grain palma's (Sierra 2156) should be seated 10 to 12 thou off the lands of the rifling. This is due to the bullet head being longer and having different contoured ogee's, which make it more sensitive to distance from the bullet head to rifling distance. The old 155gn palmas (Sierra 2155) are good for seating at 2.810" Saami length. Personally I have not seen any green stickers! To get my rifles throat length I used a new neck sized case, lightly inserted a new palma (S2156) and closed the bolt. This allowed the bullet head to be pushed in using the lands. Measured the OAL and repeated it 10 times and took the average. With my Remmy 700 PSS I found that the parallel part of the new palmas would be in the case by just a couple of mm. Not good, but hen 700's are notorious for their long chambers. Most 'available' surplus 762 ammo is now german, MEN or DAG, and using a 147gr FMJ head. Anyone found any other surplus stuff around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the running man Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Very good links many thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin128 Posted July 16, 2011 Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 It's all to do with case thickness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 There isn't a problem in using one in the other. It's done every day and millions of rounds a year are used in this manner. I can't ever recall a gun blowing up because of it. If it were then dealers would start putting notiuces on their .5.56 ammo to not use i in a .223 - especially given how the Americans like suing people. It's true that the cartridges are not exactly the same but the difference is miniscule. Yes, the military case is thicker but this wont have any appreciable effect if you shoot it in a .223 chamber. It will increase pressure if you dump a maximum charge of powder from a .223 into a military case (rather than using 5.56 data) but even then it won't be that much different. Contrary to popular belief the maximum chamber pressures for .223 and 5.56 are NOT different. SAAMI does not measure pressure in the same was the CiP does or NATO does. They all measure pressure at different points of the chamber which results in different pressure levels being stated in their literature. I forget who does what now but, for instance, if SAAMI takes their measurement at the case head and NATO takes theirs at the throat and the CiP takes theirs half way down the case then you get different pressures for exactly the same cartridge. The three are in fact identical though. If SAAMI stated a max pressure for 5.56 then it would be the same as the one they give for the .223 Rem. SAAMI only gives specs for commercial rounds, not military ones. The pressures stated for the two rounds by the CiP are the same The only point at which you might encounter a problem is if you had a very old barrel as they used to be actual .223" diameter but are now .224". If you were to fire a very hot load with a modern heavy .224 bullet through one of those barrels you might see signs of excess pressure but even then it would be extremely unlikely to damage the rifle. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockmoose Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 It's true that the cartridges are not exactly the same but the difference is miniscule. Yes, the military case is thicker but this wont have any appreciable effect if you shoot it in a .223 chamber. It will increase pressure if you dump a maximum charge of powder from a .223 into a military case (rather than using 5.56 data) but even then it won't be that much different. Just to pick up on the 'thicker' argument... I wonder if anyone has actually sectioned 'military' brass vs 'civilian' brass? (Not read about it, actually sectioned the brass,I have) Experience suggests that 'military' brass is actually thinner in the web. If you also think about the reason the military changed to the 5.56 you might find that one was to enhance the number of rounds being carried by a soldier and logistics also dictate that you can ship more ammunition around theatres if it's lighter. Therefore there would be no advantage in thick brass, now as to commercial brass you could understand the reason for that being a little thicker. Take what you read from gunwriters with a pinch of salt, remember they make a living from 'writing' about guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Just to pick up on the 'thicker' argument... I wonder if anyone has actually sectioned 'military' brass vs 'civilian' brass? (Not read about it, actually sectioned the brass,I have) Experience suggests that 'military' brass is actually thinner in the web. If you also think about the reason the military changed to the 5.56 you might find that one was to enhance the number of rounds being carried by a soldier and logistics also dictate that you can ship more ammunition around theatres if it's lighter. Therefore there would be no advantage in thick brass, now as to commercial brass you could understand the reason for that being a little thicker. Take what you read from gunwriters with a pinch of salt, remember they make a living from 'writing' about guns. The 5.56 has a very slighly lesser H2o capaity which would suggest that the case is slightly thicker given that the external dimensions are essentially identical. Very little in it though. J. Edited March 1, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermincinerator Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 JonathanL, 223 Rem. has always had a bullet diametre of .224" and has always been used in a barrel of .218" nominal bore and .224" groove diametre. Early Hornets had a groove diametre of .223" but now all have the same .224" general groove diametre of all .22 C/F rifles. Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 JonathanL, 223 Rem. has always had a bullet diametre of .224" and has always been used in a barrel of .218" nominal bore and .224" groove diametre. Early Hornets had a groove diametre of .223" but now all have the same .224" general groove diametre of all .22 C/F rifles. Ian. Yes, you're dead right! J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Anyone want to explain why your rifle says .223 on it and not .223 or 5.56, whichever you like? Maybe because they are different and NO Manufacturer/Proof House has the balls to stick their neck out that far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Anyone want to explain why your rifle says .223 on it and not .223 or 5.56, whichever you like? Maybe because they are different and NO Manufacturer/Proof House has the balls to stick their neck out that far! Yes, they are different but not by that much. It's a tiny amount, really it is. Also, there are some which guns which say both - Bushmaster produce ones that do, for instance. The military chamber has a longer leade so in theory will produce slightly higher pressures. Whether it actually does or not is open to question. Even then it won't be much. If I were worried that the slightly higer theoretical pressure generated by firing a 5.56 in a .223 chamber causing an accident then I wouldn't be using the gun even with .223 ammo as it's obviusly not a safe gun. Rifles chambered in .223 became popular for one simple reason - that being the fact that you can shoot cheap military ammo through them. There are millions upon millions of rounds of military ammo fired through these rifles every year and I'm not aware of any case of a rifle blowing up purely because it was being used with 5.56 ammo. If it were such a problem then dealers would put a warning on every box to cover themselves, especially in the USA where suing people is seemingly a fairly common recreatinal activity! SAMMI made their pronouncement 35 years ago and it is worth pointing out that they represent manufacturers who produce .223 ammo and not 5.56mm ammo. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, they are different but not by that much. It's a tiny amount, really it is. Also, there are some which guns which say both - Bushmaster produce ones that do, for instance. From Bushmasters website.......2. FAQ ID # 1130 - I read your FAQ on 5.56 and .223 ammo but am still confused. The first sentence says that all Bushmaster rifles are chambered to accept both 5.56 and .223, then at the end it says don't use 5.56 in .223 chambered rifles. What does that mean? I am confused. I bought a AR 15 Modular Carbine XM 15-E2S Flat top a few months ago and don't know what ammo to run through it. I believe it is stamped .223 but am not sure...don't have the gun in front of me. It is stored. Should I not run 5.56 The military chamber has a longer leade so in theory will produce slightly higher pressures. Whether it actually does or not is open to question. Even then it won't be much. If I were worried that the slightly higer theoretical pressure generated by firing a 5.56 in a .223 chamber causing an accident then I wouldn't be using the gun even with .223 ammo as it's obviusly not a safe gun. Rifles chambered in .223 became popular for one simple reason - that being the fact that you can shoot cheap military ammo through them. There are millions upon millions of rounds of military ammo fired through these rifles every year and I'm not aware of any case of a rifle blowing up purely because it was being used with 5.56 ammo. If it were such a problem then dealers would put a warning on every box to cover themselves, especially in the USA where suing people is seemingly a fairly common recreatinal activity! SAMMI made their pronouncement 35 years ago and it is worth pointing out that they represent manufacturers who produce .223 ammo and not 5.56mm ammo. J. Chap, you and the rest of the world can do as you like, I run the ammo/calibre through my guns it says on them! Edited March 27, 2012 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Chap, you and the rest of the world can do as you like, I run the ammo/calibre through my guns it says on them! Do you reload? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Many 5.56mm bullets are steel jacket which introduces another aspect with regard to bore wear. same applies to 7.62 and .308 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyfrog Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) To go on from Chockmoose's statement in relation to the military moving from 7.62 to 5.56, I am not a expert in ballistics etc etc, but this is merely from a soldiers perspective and the documentary channel etc etc. The reasons were that the 5.56 was a new Nato approved round and all fell in line with the boys over the pond, but the other reasons were obviously soldiers could carry more rounds etc. Another point i picked up on in a documentary was that the stopping power of the 7.62 was immense and would normally lead to a fatality in the field wheras as 5.56 would cause less damage and the enemy soldier had a greater chance of survival, this in turn meant that the amount of support troops required to aid the survival of this soldier would be immense, these people who are being used to save their comrades would be tied up in this task rather than being able to actually fight... A squaddies perspective Edited June 29, 2012 by crazyfrog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklestrange Posted September 9, 2013 Report Share Posted September 9, 2013 From what I understand all military small arms are intended to wound for this exact reason (but under a 'humanitarian' cloak) rather than kill hence the banning of expanding/frangible ammo for military use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.