France never exported the Famas for commercial use (at least to the US iirc). Ian talked about the amount of hoops and legalities involved with acquiring one. Long story short, in order to obtain one..... you'll have to rub your stomach and pat your head on a leap year during a solar eclipse while perfectly synchronizing your movements with a Legionnaire in Algeria and a mime in Bordeaux. Lastly you'll have to write out a check for about twelve grand.
I work at a specific us ammo plant and yes the box of 5.56 you pick up at the gun shop is the same ammo the military is shooting they just polish the case to make it look pretty and put it in a different box.
@@Ithrial420 So that the military can spot check ammunition and know for certain that it was annealed properly by merely looking at it. The military wants theirs to show the anneal marks and the commercial industry tumbled and polishes after annealing so that you can’t see it and the case looks pretty.
The accuracy difference between 5.56 and .223 is so negligible that 90% of shooters won’t see a difference because they are that good of a shot. I’m including myself in this.
@@ken481959I guess you might be right on the percentage based on what I see at public ranges, but my friends and I can be particular about our .223/5.56 accuracy because we use it for hunting rabbits and ground squirrels out to distances over 200 meters. If I can't shoot sub MOA with a certain cartridge load I won't use it. With compounding factors like wind and my human tendency to not always make a perfect shot, I need the cartridge to be the best it can be. We don't consider ourselves precision marksmen.
I have seen a whole heap of videos on this subject and this one makes the most sense and aligns with my personal experience. I have rifles labeled 5.56 and .223 and I have used ammo labeled each in both with no noticeable change in performance at all. I'm going from memory here but I think I even have American Eagle ammo labeled .223 on the box with the NATO interoperability symbol on the headstamp.
Literally just clicked on this and I have a really hard time believing Ian fails to explain it but ah.... .223 = max pressure of 55k psi .556 = max pressure of 62k psi Will a gun rated for 55k psi catastrophically fail when you put a 62k psi round through it? What about a whole mag? Ya probably no for both as it's still just 10%. Yes you can but no it's really not a good idea.
@David Watson are you in the US? Hard to believe that doesn't violate some import regulation. Lake city makes mainly military but sells overstock as civilian .223 and all their .223 clearly says .223
From what I was told by the UK gunsmith who recently re-barrelled my .223. In Europe where proof houses use CIP standards, there is no CIP spec for .223 just 5.56x45. So all guns marked .223 sold in the UK or Europe, have been proofed with overpressure 5.56 anyway.
Kind of related to that topic. When buying a gun and you have that caliber specification in that permit pretty much all AR:s are sold as .223rem caliber(least in Finland) Also all ammo is sold as .223rem. Sometimes can spot 5.56x45 marking from little less known manufacturer ammo box but it is still sold as .223rem. So somebody would guess those calibers to be interchangeable.
@@Karza_357 The gunsmith is correct on principle. The .223 CiP standard is 5.56 NATO if you look at be actual data.Thats why there is no separate 5.56.
@@Karza_357 The CIP designation is .223 Remington, but in the list of CIP cartridge synonyms 5.56x45 is listed as one for .223. As far as CIP is concerned, the two are in fact identical. But .223 CIP is NOT the same as .223 SAAMI.
@@Karza_357 As others have pointed out, the CIP standard, which you are right, is named .223 is in fact not the SAAMI one, the max pressure is definitely 5.56. It's as Ian says in the video, SAAMI specs are fixed once written but CIP gets revised and the specs are dated and given a revision number.
I am old. Really old and have been shooting ARs since 1981. This 5.56 vs .223 debate is only a fairly recent issue...probably since the late 90s-early 2000s. It has never been a problem. As long as you are shooting decent quality ammo and not junky reloads or Vietnam era military stuff that has been stored improperly there are no safety concerns. Kudos to Ian for addressing this.
It's worth mentioning that CiP is a thing and, unlike SAAMI, it's members are required to adhere to the set specification. And funny thing: CiP doesn't distinguish 5.56 form .233. So, effectively, whenever you buy CiP ammo marked .223 you are shooting 5.56 anyway...
My old Ruger Mini 14 fired both 556 and 223 with now problems. Infact while going through Recruit Training at Parris Island ( circa ) early 1980s, the old beaten nearly to death M-16A1 I was issued had 223 Rem / 556 stamped on its reciever. To our instructors 223 and 556mm were the same cartridge in their book, same goes with the 762x51mm NATO and the 308 Winchester. Same Cartridge.
Not true in either case. The 308 Win is loaded to higher pressure than the 762 nato. It's not enough to cause pressure problems in most rifles except possibly some old model 95 mausers without the 3rd locking lug. These were chambered for the NATO round not modern hunting ammo. You will probably get away with shooting some hunting ammo but you may eventually get head space problems. The 308 hunting rifle will shoot NATO ammo all day with No problems. In the 223 / 5.56 it's completely opposite. The 556 is loaded to higher pressure. As long as you stick to 55 grain bullets you will not likely have any problems. However if you are shooting longer heavy bullets that are up against the rifling so it can't move forward on ignition and combine that with 5000 pounds per square inch more pressure. Well you could have a problem.
.223 wylde is the solution to this supposed issue. It's made to handle the high pressure, but also to be slightly more precise than the 5.56 chambers. Basically it's just sloppy enough of a .223, that its fits the 5.56, and it's heavy duty enough to not blow up. And is completely fine to shoot 5.56 out of, because it's literally made to be able to. And I've never heard of any .308 ammo causing issues in any rifle, ever. If it's going to, then the rifle is probably not in good condition, and you'd probably want to not shoot it anyway.
I would qualify this: unless you have a really old break action. Here's the deal: there were some .222 Remington guns which manufacturers converted to .223 in the rush to bring the new cartridge to market, just by deepening the chamber. Others were gunsmith-converted. They used up their safety margins in the conversion. That's largely where the "myth" comes from: crappy old guns from back before military ammo was widely available on the civilian market.
.357 Magnum is a good example of the backwards compatibility issue of cartridges and old guns. The original .38 round was based on black powder, and the switch the nitrocellulose left empty space in the case. It was possible to add more propellant - but that would be dangerous for the older pistols built for the black powder specs. So the case was stretched a tiny amount, and the name changed to avoid confusion.
The .38 round : several versions before the .357 mag and .38 special. 38 short colt, 38 long colt, 38 S&W [ both black powder and smokeless] then came the more modern 38 special and the 357 mag. These are all revolver cartridges.
@@kendehaas668The .38SW was shorter and fatter cartridge than the 38 Colt cartridges and38 SW Special cartridges Most 38 SW GUNS don't have a long enough chamber for Specials to seat fully and if they do and fire your case will be slightly bottle necked.
@@johnryan1386I just got 2k rnds of adi ss109, probably the highest quality 5.56 I’ve had yet. Very nice sealed necks and primers along with primer staking
There is one notable difference between 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. The mil-surp ammo has harder primers than the civilian grade ammo. Some firearms designed for .223 Rem might get light primer strikes with 5.56 NATO. For example, I tried some Federal M193 in my Savage 110, and got several light primer strikes. During that range session, I fired a combination of M193 and civilian ammo, but only had light primer strikes with the M193. So apparently, the firing pin spring in my Savage 110 wasn't stiff enough for the mil-surp ammo.
@@DriveCarToBar - if you're referring to the primers, it's a specification. The military primers are harder, to prevent slam-fires in the M16 rifle. Because it has a free-floating firing pin.
556 has a crimped primer. The thing to watch out for is 30-06 in a M1 Garand. The stuff labelled 30-06 is not always 30-06 that is compatible with a M1.
@@robertthomas5906 I har forgotten about the crimp. And 30-06 SAAMI just has to comply with the general pressure of the cartridge. The M1 has system was designed around a very specific pressure curve. Modern 06 hunting rounds utilize slower burning powders to get faster velocity for the same pressure, but it means the pressure could be much higher at the Garands gas port than it was designed for.
Buddy who is in law enforcement had a few hundred black tip 5.56 mixed in with his range ammo. My steel silhouette target looked like a pasta strainer. You are correct, I was very upset.... Still kind of cool to see the effects of AP on ar500 tho
Always remember that military anything was produced by the lowest bidder. When the Military is buying millions of bullets at a time, everyone has to meet the specs, but company that do it for the least cost, gets the contract. I'm reminded what John Glenn said when a reporter asked him what he was thinking as he waited for the count down to reach zero. He said he thought about all of the million or so of pieces of the rocket that had to work right, and that every one of them was produced by the lowest bidder.
Fud, the military often has top of the line equipment made to particular specifications that exceed market demands in the the private sector. For example, a Cammenga lensatic compass. Standard issue in the US Army. Is one of the best, if not the best, lensatic compasses you can buy. It is accurate and nearly indestructible. The average lensatic compass from camping companies like Coleman run about $20-30 while a Cammenga costs over $100. Body armor, the ceramic plates I used in service could stop multiple hits from high powered rifles and cost hundreds of dollars each if they were lost or damaged by the soldier. You can get AR 500 steel plates for $50 a pop, but they are heavy and prone to ricochet.
@@CyrusCook lol, of the non-commisioned type. But this fud "lowest bidder" thing simply isn't accurate as it's often not the lowest bidder, rather who is greasing palms. Most recently, you really think Sig makes the best for the money of pistols, rifles, optics, AND ammo? Not a chance. But it certainly isn't Taurus or Tasco bottom barrel stuff either.
@@catvids420 Well, I'll try to help you out there. It's really just a tolerances compromise, think of it being in the middle between .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO, mainly in terms of the throat and neck area. Supposedly, the whole point was to make a chambering that offers greater accuracy than a standard 5.56 NATO chambering but also be able of withstanding higher pressures and better reliability (i.e. extraction and insertion in the chamber when dirty/suboptimal conditions) than the .223 Rem. It's always been touted as being able to easily shoot .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO. However, due to modern advances in manufacturing of both barrels and ammunitions, the .223 Wylde chambering has become more or less redundant as there are plenty of sub-MOA 5.56 NATO barrels out there. This is my understanding of it, so maybe take it with a slight grain of salt, as I may not have gotten it 100% right but I think it's the general ghist of it. Hope this help!
.223 wylde is the best illustration of why .223 and 5.56 are identical. This argument always pops up and I’m surprised gun Jesus touched it, he’s going to get roasted by the people who think they will blow their face off if they use one in the other. There are many of those people out there.
I thought it to be a whole other cartridge, such as .224 Valkyrie, at first seeing it listed in AR upper build choices, then learned it's a refined bore for both cartridges. I did order a barrel that is .223 Wylde and before installing it in a build simply placed a round in the chamber and inserted a bolt to see if it cleared on both cartridge types, trying different brands, the 5.56 were getting stuck and the bolt would not close. I explained the issue to mfg and got an RMA and received a new barrel that did not have the issue.
I have fired many 5.56s in my Remington 700 chambered for .223. All was 55 grains. I did this because I sold a 5.56 semi auto and had a lot of redundant cartridges. I never had a problem. No hang fires from light primer strikes, and no extraction or ejection issues. The 700 is a strong action with a long leade. I can't think of any reason not to use up cheaper 5.56 ammo if it's accurate enough for your purposes. PS. Love Ian's videos!
As a young Police Officer, I was issued a DoD owned M16A1 as a patrol rifle. (For those who don't know, some military surplus equipment may be used by law enforcement, but the issued item is still DoD property). I was not well versed in the AR Platform all those years ago, and one of our combat vets took me out to teach me everything I needed to know about it. During this Remedial AR session, I was told the 5.56 is a slightly hotter load and that's why you can't run it in a .223...mentioned in passing as a novelty bit of trivia. Until watching this video moments ago, I believed what the vet said. But if I understand your talk correctly, the only real differences are casing dimensions...stuff measured in microns. Further, the information from my veteran coach, while given in good faith, is simply not the case. The loads would be the same, but somehow this myth was born. I am now a new firearms instructor myself, and want to make sure I correctly instruct students. Is my summary above correct, or did I miss something? I just would like to double check. Excellent video as always.
How is this channel so damn underappreciated. I like watching people shoot at stuff, but this channel puts out so much quality info that normally would be at least difficult for the average firearm enthusiast to access.
Thanks, Ian . I've been reloading ammo since 1995 . I've reloaded 223 Remington only for bolt action rifles until the last couple of years , recently learing how to reload ammo for AR type firearms . I've discovered that any load that is properly made will work in a turnbolt rifle , but reloading a cartridge to function in a semiautomatic weapon is a tricky endeavor . During my last range day with some friends , a new load using a slower burning powder was tested next to our usual loading . Both worked fine in ARs with 16 inch barrels But one friend was shooting an AR pistol with a 10.5 inch barrel and suffered several failures to cycle with our newly developed test load , while our standard load functioned well in his pistol . Fortunately, we have a lot of the original powder and bought only one pound of the new powder . Our original load is a copy of that made by a local indoor range that reloads range brass for customers and is known to be reliable . Happy Shooting !
@@robwigglezz944 hes got it down primarily that "people are afraid of getting sued" part. I tell people there's no way it would matter if your rifle was built after m855 was adopted.. rifles built before that might be questionable rifles built before saami standardization might be even more likely to be picky but no matter what if the gun is safe one round isn't gonna blow it up try it and check the results. I dont want anyone to get hurt but this is why if your gonna have guns you need to know what high pressure signs look like and watch for them if your trying a new loading in any gun
@@user-dc6pm3mc4b doesn't the whole M855/M193 mostly just have to do with barrel twist rates though? Not necessarily, "Is it safe?" But "will I hit anything?"
I think most of the confusion is from how many ".223" marked commerical guns are really some hybrid chamber, presumably to make the gun 5.56 tolerant. From what I've read there are a lot of guns marked either way that turn out to be some in between Wylde type chamber when checked. Like given how LC M193 runs through my cheap PSA barrel (mild pressure signs) I suspect it's tighter than a milspec 5.56 chamber.
I also heard that productoin streamlining often means that .233 SAAMI barrels and bolts are made from similar materials and strenghts as 5.56. So unwanted pressure spikes might be well below safety tolerances. Still dont get why peopel cant just use the correct ammo? The difference in ammo construction can lead to worse gun performance in various ways, even if it doesnt destroy the gun.
Most ruger mini 14s stamped 223 are made that way to handle 556. They even say in the manual. Not sure if it was a way around import rules, bill ruger trying to distance it from people thinking it's "military," or just thinking people in the 80's couldn't figure out metric. The only exception is they made a handful of special target rifles that were tight tolerance that did say "no 5.56" in the book.
So the concept of not using 5.56 in a .223 rifle more so comes down to reducing potential lawsuits? I had just imagined a plethora of stories about blown up .223 rifles, but I guess there aren't any that actually relate to catastrophic over pressure. Huh, learn something new everyday. Thanks, Ian!
I'd imagine IF, an issue occured in a firearm stamped for .223 chamber and was found to be damaged in any way after firing 5.56 the manufacturer would have a case to refuse warranty.
@DasGoodSoup the only potential "danger" if there us any, is if you are shooting a really old rifle that existed before 5.56, and was poorly built. Any modern barrel from the last 20, 30 years is going to be built to handle both. And if you ever see a 223 Wyld barrel, those are specifically designed to shoot both with improved accuracy.
@@DasGoodSoup The maximum safe pressure for BOTH .223 and 5.56 is 420 MPa as per CIP. Meaning that if "pressure" was a problem people would have blown up their rifles using European imported .223 as they use the CIP standard and not SAAMI.
Straightforward like a good educator. His answers are always on point and engaging. My only quibble would be is that the camera's focus point is on his chair behind him, making him a little soft on the focus.
Civilian grade: "We made this to consumer expectations and promise to deliver in every field!" Military grade: "30 guys have handled this before you and it's spent the last 20 years collecting dust at the back of the armory. Have fun!"
Let me translate that for you to american corporate lawyer speak: we take extra care with civilian amo, because of course someone will try to sue us if it fails. We don't give a crap about "military grade" amo, because army grunts can't sue us if it fails. 😅🤣😆
You can tell the age of a FW video by counting the amount and depth of Ian's forehead lines. :) -Ian is (despite popular belief) a human. So apologies if my comment has him looking at older videos while holding up a mirror. Time marches on...
@@Croak1 It could be a result of uploading so frequently for so long - aging is (usually) such a slow and gradual process that if you're watching it in (close to) real time it's not noticeable. But if you take samples from further apart, say 5 or 6 years ago, the signs of aging should be a bit more apparent. But Ian is also in pretty good shape and stays healthy keeping many of those signs at bay.
I have seen an example of two boxes from the same manufacturer loaded with the same kind of bullet but where the .223 labeled cartridges had the bullet seated farther down in the case than the 5.56 labeled cartridges, meaning the 5.56 had a longer overall length. The 5.56 cartridges also had discoloration around the neck of the cartridges (presumably from a heat treatment) while the .223 cartridges were cleaned and polished by comparison. However both kinds functioned in every firearm they were tested in. Just an example of some of the things manufacturers do that some people think make a difference or the manufacturer wouldn't do it.
@@brasstard7.627 That's why I don't buy the fuddlore that Ruger revolvers are the only ones strong enough for super hot .44's either, they're bigger because they're made out of weaker, cheaper material and need more of it to not explode. It's like saying .45 Hi Points are good to shoot .460 Rowland out of. I have a couple Ruger revolvers and I can say that even the Match Champion GP100 doesn't inspire any more confidence than even a base model S&W, let alone the ones that were way better built from 30+ years ago.
I think this advice makes sense in the US, because most people shooting 5.56mm NATO in a .223 are probably shooting it in an AR-15 which in actuality has a 5.56 chamber. Your FA MAS does. In other countries where semi-autos are more tightly controlled, it's pretty common to shoot 5.56 through a .223 sporting bolt-action rifle with a .223 chamber. I was a member of a club for many years where we had a .223 club gun and it had to be replaced two or three times a year because we were using SS109 most of the time in it. The barrel wouldn't explode, but you'd end up with failures to extract due to cases sticking, excessive bore erosion, bolt peen etc. Usually we were using Tikka rifles, but we did use a bunch of other guns, they all had their own set of issues. And you might say, why not just use .223, well, the issue is that inexpensive .223 FMJ is usually 5.56mm NATO and .223 sporting ammo is much more expensive. Cost-wise it was cheaper to replace the rifle.
Case volume is often different but only matters to reloaders. That said I always get annoyed with professional people who should know better in the face of all the evidence still swear up and down "you gonna blow up".
The Colt TDP 5.56 chamber is .001 longer than the 223 commercial chamber. The 5.56 uses a different minimum go gauge, no go gauge and field gauge than the 223. . The throat is twice as long in the 5.56 than the 223 commercial throat. You can get pressure spikes using 5.56 ammunition in the 223 chamber causing popped primers, low bolt life (broken bolts), lower reliability and poor accuracy..How many people would admit they used 5.56 ammunition in a 223 when the warnings stated not to do that when trying to get warranty work..
@@hairydogstail as someone who’s checked the pressures and done the warranty work, you’re not going to be able to tell if someone fired 5.56 in a .223, the PSI difference is roughly 5000psi, which unless bolts are weak and primer pockets are over sized you’re not going to see either of those signs. And even if you do, you’ll see it with .223 in a .223 barrel as well. We won’t go in to next to no .223 Remington barrels being a thing for a long time anymore outside maybe mini-14s and some bolt guns.
You are right. I've heard so much about reloading and how it's dangerous. Two of the most important aspects of reloading. First, you have to use calipers to measure the wall thickness of your casing. Second, do not put more powder in the casing. Know your powder and follow the manufacturer's recommendations. SLAP rounds are dangerous. Just ask Kentucky Ballistics. Put a thumb in it.
Mid 2020, at the height of ammogedden a buddy asked me to pick him up some .38 super. Took it to him only to find out he'd seen some post about that being usable in 9mm chambered handguns. I briefly explained the difference in chamber pressures between the 2, but he still wanted to try it. Luckily, he had such trouble getting into battery he decided to believe me and not tempt fate.
A bigger consideration is barrel twist rate. .223 Rem was originally a varmint round, and a lot of old bolt actions chambered for that have very slow twist rates. You should use 45 grain or lighter bullets for acceptable accuracy in those old rifles.
The Nosler 60 gr boat tailed bullets say right on the box 1 in 9 twist or faster. 1 in 12 is limited to 55 gr or less. The old 22 Hornets were limited to 45 gr because they had 1 in 14 twists.
I was realy surprised when I moved to the US and found that firearms are not provided not even in-house.... In every other nation even the lowest pressure ammo like 9mm flower, .22lr .410 all have to be proofed. In Europe it's considered the same, nearly all rifle barrels are made cold hammer forged but the chamber is reamed. Alot of people don't seem to get that millitary spec or grade just means it's good enough for miolitarybuse and is reliable and safe. The most accurate millitary ammunition is most often made by civilian manufacturers or use vivial cinoonsnts for match grade ammo. Yes the primers can be a little harder and Soviet and older western calibers do have corrosive primers but I have shot some very old 7.62x54r and while very corrosive no hang fires at all. Not sure if Chinese 5.8 is corrosive. When it comes to millitary style arms I allways buy a CHF CK barrel if it's an AK or AR and while not the most fancy they pretty accurate, more reliable and don't wear as fast. I have purchased white a few PSA premium uppers without bolts in sale just for the barrel but then the upper is just fine. I have shit AKs more than anything and a good quality CHF CL barrel has allways stayed perfect with no west but the 7.62x39 is pretty gentle in a barrel. Maybe now I would not say chrome lining has alot if use with civilian 5.56 as no steel case or bimetal bullets but for a duty weapon I would want one as it can extract reliably and they are consistent. One of the worst caliber mixups I have seen is .380 in a 9mak the cartiedge us held in older by the extractor ..... While shooting some wolf 5.45 in a 74 I made it made a trangevsound and it turned out a steel case .223 ended up in a box and with gloves on and not looking I loaded it. No harm done just a pain to extract the case. The most dangerous thing I ever did was buy some loose 8mm masuer at a gun show and while shooting it out of a nice clean m48 Yugo Mauser (I have others but it's a good shooter and used to be very cheap most of them very rely being used with mine looking like it was only proofed then stored) I was shooting this surus ammo that was loose in bagsz but in good condition and I was thinking why is this ammo so hot as in it had much more recoil and a huge flash but thinking maybe I have not shot a Mauser in a while. After nearly 100 rounds I I looked up the headstamp with my phone, all of them are factory proof loads. No damage to me or the rifle but I would not like to try that on a budget modern biktbwcruoj mm
People also say that if you use a 77 grain round in a 1:9 barrel, the round will begin to “keyhole” after a hundred yards…I’ve proven that to be a myth at almost 1000 yards
I recall those days when I had my store. Wife walks in and states my husband sent me to pickup a box of 45's. I would say what kind of 45's. She would reply just some 45's. My heart would sink as I said to myself "here we go again."
This happened often? A lot of husbands sending their wives to the local gun store to pick them up ammo? Are the husbands too busy out picking up tampons? Your story is trash
@@TheAcenightcreeper I didn't say it happened a lot. But yes it happened many times. Same with buckshot and buying a scope as a Christmas present. Small Town, very rural area. Not a trash story at all.
That’s why when my wife sends me to the store she sends ms a pic of the old box or finds the item on the website & sends me a screenshot. Hopefully hubby learned to either send an empty casing or an unfired round next time. I don’t even own a gun anymore but I imagine 45colt won’t fire in a 1911 for example.
Best explanation I have heard on all. I will say as a retired military member that your take on military vs civilian ammo is spot on. The military buys bulk and OWNS its soldiers/sailors/marines and airmen, civilians are a litigious sort and selling to them MUST be precise or face the wrath. Ammo companies know this ESPECIALLY in this era of gun bashing.
Several years ago, I saw several M16 rifles that were destroyed, because of the use of improperly reloaded ammunition. These had cracked/bulged upper recievers, not sure if the lowers had any damage as well. Can’t say with certainty, but I suspect the use of a fast burning propellant intended for handguns being loaded into a rifle casing. Negligence on the part of the reloader, and the person procuring the bad ammunition.
Honestly kind of surprised that Ian didn't at least mention the .223 Wylde chamber that is floating around and available now which claims to adjust the shoulder/neck area of a .223 Rem chamber to something that is more "in spec" with 5.56 NATO
They already covered that back on InRange when they were picking a barrel for WWSD. .223 Wylde is a waste of good barrel stock, just buy a 5.56 barrel and be done with it unless you need a really tight chamber for maximum accuracy out of your varmint bolt gun in which case get actual .223 Rem.
@hornmonk3zit I didn't say it was good or bad, just that it is a thing. And I have no issues with mine but I didn't buy it because it was .223 wyld, I bought it because it was a complete upper on sale for a good deal.
@@DaleErnieMichael The chamber isn't tighter, the only difference between a Wylde and 5.56 is in the throat area, in front of the case. .001" in diameter freebore and the Wylde freebore length is .005" longer than the 5.56. I've chambered thousands of barrels over the past 18 years. You can search reamer drawings for both. The Wylde will shoot any 5.56 ammo and do it more accurately.
When Ian was using the 45/70 cartridge as an example regarding SAAMI chamber pressure data comparing black powder to modern smokeless powder, Hodgdon who markets smokeless gunpowders and offers load data has three different load data categories for the 45/70 with special load data for Trap Door Springfield, lever action, bolt action, with each category listing higher chamber pressures for each type of firearms. Most factory loaded cartridges for the 45/70 are loaded with lower chamber pressures to accommodate the weakest firearm action being the Springfield Trap Door rifles as there are still a lot of vintage Trap Door rifles being shot. The reason for the Trap Door rifles still being popular is that rifle was once used by the U.S. military back in the Calvary days.
August 2005 my battalion deployed to Baghdad, Iraq. Went to the zero range to get our M-4 carbines zeroed for patrols we were about to start going on. Got issued 5.56 ammo and started shooting. Every single weapon was having problems with the ammo. Failure to fire, failure to eject. Turns out, we were issued British 5.56 ammo and it was not designed for US military weapons. Once the ammo was switched, our weapons performed like they were supposed to.
That British ammo was defective and apparently not up to NATO standard as it should have been. All NATO standard ammo should function in all NATO spec chambered weapons.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The main infantry rifle of the Brits is the L85A3, but there are plenty of British Army units who use M4 derivatives like the HK416 and even US made derivatives such as the M119, yet they all use the same ammunition for it. It's the entire idea behind NATO standardisation and the adoption of 5,56x45 NATO ammunition; no matter the country rifles or ammo are from, they're all compatible. So it's much more likely something else was going on, perhaps you had a batch of faulty ammo.
I love your observations on Military versus civilian quality ammunition not only do I agree 100%, but I wish more people would put a little effort in and understand why this is the case.
As a Range Safety Officer in a 4,000 member gun club. I noticed a member having trouble loading his AR15. The 5.56 was sticking out of his chamber by 1/4in and he was hammering the assist with his shoe. I interrupted this and took the gun away from him. His gun is chambered in 223 and NONE of the 5.56 would feed properly. Oddly the dealer sold him a 223 chambered rifle and gave him 556 to shoot in it. Military ammo is NOT SAAMI spec and can vary which is why a 556 chamber is larger. You can shoot 223 in a 556 chamber but not the other way around. Best rule is to NOT shoot ANYTHING in your rifle that it is not rated for. An out of battery explosion was possible in this case so I sent him home.
If he couldn't chamber a 5.56 round, it wasn't because the rifle was chambered in .223. Both rounds are virtually identical. If it was sticking out 1/4 inch, he either had a case with the head ripped off, or you're making the whole thing up. I lean towards the latter.
@@dennisp.2147I agree, back in the day, I'd occasionally have .223 marked barrels show up with super tight throats & leades. They'd chamber and shoot fine, but would often fail to extract or pop primers, which would end up in the FCG, downing the weapon. 5 minutes with a michiguns 5.56 reamer and the problem would disappear.
See, i already knew that you can interchange the two calibers. But i was told the chamber for the 5.56 is specified to have a tiny little bit more free bore to allow for some military special ammo and also make it run more reliable with bad quality ammo with inconsistend bullet seating depth. The problems of firing 5.56 from a .223 chamber was said to be the bullets might already touch the beginning of the rifling causing a pressure spike.
I wish you would have touched on the newer, made to shoot both safety, and more accurate to boot, that’s the .223 Wylde. I’ve got three and the difference is noticeable after ~ 50 yards. That’s using hand loads that have been matched for weight and have been made/verified concentric. These results only increase as the distance increases. I can’t verify more than ~ 580 yards as in the mountains of East Tennessee, those distances are really hard to come by. My family has land that has a valley, protected from wind on all sides that has just a slight rise over that distance. This is where I’ve tested this. All rifles used JP rifles barrels, basically every thing that moves up top is JP. 1 is a 16”, 1 is a 18”, and my big girl is 22”. I don’t remember the first two as I built them first, but the 22 is a 1 in 7. I think I was using 63 gr Barnes JHPBT. I know it was just normal range pickup brass that was worked over to make “right”. It was for sure CCI white box primers and for sure Hodgdon CFE. I could go back and verify that data if others want to know
@@elingeniero9117 I've always read that they're not 2-way interchangeable like .223 and 5.56. and if you use .308 in a 7.62 barrel you're in danger of being overpressure, but 7.62 in a .308 is fine and dandy. I don't own anything chambered in either though, so I've never tested it out.
@@AgnumMD "Internet experts" and journos are not trustworthy sources. The army proofs m14 barrels at 67500 psi. The army tests m80 7.62 ammo with a limit average pressure less than 55,000 PSI when the ammo is heated to 125 F. Apparently they expect troops to be out in the sun in the middle of a desert or something. The SAAMI pressure is less than 55,000 at room temperature. Ammo is usually no loaded to max pressure. It is loaded to a consistent velocity. References: TM 43-0001-27 Mil C 46931F SAAMI CFR document. Documents are on line.
The fast and easy anser to that is. It is the same cartridge. All my friends, who has 308 / 7.62 mix the ammo. To geter, we probably haw fired moor than 100 000 rounds, and 308 and 7.62 is the same. I can put 5, 308 rounds, on the target, then switch to 7.62, and stil hit the target, the same way.
I've been shooting both .223 and 5.56 in my 1972 Colt SP1 AR 15 since the 1980's still waiting for a problem. If I had a bolt action .223 rifle, I would not use 5.56 in it. Auto loaders have "looser" chambers for more reliable feeding and chambering, bolt action rifle chambers can be "tighter". This is where the pressure becomes a problem.
I worked at Savage Arms back in the late 90s, and they sold the Model 24 combo gun, which had a .223 Rem chambered upper barrel, and a 12 ga lower barrel. The single locking lug was located slightly below the center point of the barrels. They came back a lot thru the service dept, with GI 5.56 cases included, and they no longer locked up, and needed a full repair. The paper work included with the gun insisted that the user did not fire military 5.56 in the gun, only .223 Rem. Everyone that came back broken, they had used 5.56.
Are the savage 223 bolt guns the same way (other than design) that it'll cause damage with 5.56? Got a lightweight 223 rifle that I do shoot 223 in, but just curious if 5.56 would hurt it. I know a bolt gun has a much stronger locking system.
@ 8.30, I completely agree that 'military grade' is mass produced for the low bid winner. The only two real differences in military ammo and commercial ammo is the military ammo is 'supposed' to be waterproofed with a little lacquer sealing the neck and primer. The other difference is the crimping of the case for 'primer retention'. That just makes the military cases more work for reloading. Nice video about a subject that has been 'Stupidly Abused' my way too many 'Experts' that really want to be '...All of That, AND a bag of Chips...'! Take Care and be safe, John
Today I finally got the truth about 5.56 vs. 223 from a Vietnam war Vet. Pre Vietnam and post for a few years 5.56 was different from 223 but just in case wall width. The real difference was in the chamber primarily the throat which the 5.56 throat was longer so when fired the case neck could expand further due to the increase in pressure over 223 plus primer crimps. Nowadays the ammo manufacturers realize they could have the identical measurements in cases for both 5.56 & 223 BUT the increase in pressure to 60k for 5.56 requires longer chamber throats for case expansion which is not needed at 55K or less that is on the 223. If you are going to be shooting any round in excess of 55K of pressure then make sure you are using a 5.56 chamber for that extra expansion length for the neck. If you don't the neck in a 223 could hit the end of the throat and then push backwards into the bolt which if very or no space between the case head and bolt face ; well you can figure out that one right ? Hornady manual for 223 - 62gr FMJ-BT W/C max load is 27.4gr. of CFE223 powder and for 5.56 NATO - 62gr FMJ - BT W/C max load is 27.7. More pressure in 5.56 Hornady has no data for bullets less than 62gr for 5.56 with the exception of the GMX 55gr which is a copper bullet so these Winchester & PMC 5.56 rounds being sold as 5.56 are truly 223 rounds with a little more powder. My last bunch of Winchester 5.56 55gr had 27.5 gr. of powder and sold as 5.56 rounds requiring a 5.56 chamber to be safe. What a scam people what a scam. 223 with a little more powder that's all it is ! No additional brass in the wall widths. Reply
I was a unit armorer in the US Army. My 3 AR types are in 5.56 chambering, not .223. According to SAAMI, the chamber pressure for 5.56 is 60,000 PSI, while the pressure for the .223 is 55,000 PSI. Note that the rounds themselves are the same, dimensionally. The 5.56 chamber is very slightly 'longer' than the .223 chamber, by a few thousands. I wouldn't worry about shooting 5.56 in a .223 rifle, actually, but I do trust SAAMI, so I went with the 5.56 chamber. Some folks have reported a slight loss of long range accuracy when shooting the .223 in a 5.56 chambered rifle, but I haven't noticed that in my shooting. However, I'm not a great shooter, so that may be why. One other note is that while we have SAMMI, other nations do not, so there is no international standard of how chamber pressure is measured, and you may see differences in pressure stats for some ammo types from various countries.
To add a datum: at one point, I called the people at Sierra to confirm from an official source that the data they had published for service competition loads with AR-type rifles were fine in bolt-actions. The answer was yes. Not quite the same, but good to know.
I had a kid come into my store and said excuse me! But do you have any 40mm pistol ammo? I told him I think you mean .40 caliber pistol and yes we do and he stated very seriously No I want 40mm, I pulled a silver dollar out of my pocket and said This is 40mm to which he said Are you sure? If I had a nickel for every person who bought a gun and had no idea what ammo it took I'd be a very rich man, I'm glad Ian made this video because now I can show some people I'm not the only person to say exactly what he's saying on here.
I think Paul (I'm what you call a professional and if you read this Paul - I agree. Love your videos. Great stuff.) did an analysis on this. Weighing the cases, powder, etc. It's the same stuff.
The difference between 223 Remington and 5.56 NATO is in the chamber pressure. 223 commercial factory loading is generally 55,000 psi chamber pressure whereas 5.56 NATO is generally loaded to 62,000 psi chamber pressure. To help mitigate the higher chamber pressure for NATO ammo the freebore in the rifle chamber is longer so the bullet can travel unrestricted for slightly longer amount before the bullet engage the rifling. The AR-15/M-16/M-4 rifles are designed to handle chamber pressures as high as 70,000 psi as a safe guard. The reason is that if the rifle is heavy sustained fire, the rifle chamber will heat up and that heat will transfer into a chambered cartridge which will heat up the smokeless gunpowder which can or will increase the chamber pressures beyond that of a cold chamber. This heating of a firearm chamber will be prevalent with any type of firearm if sustained rapid firing is performed and will affect all metallic case cartridges.
Now we will need a follow up video about .308 vs 7.62x51 for sure. Which i would say is more relevant given that many milsurp guns get re-chambered for .308 or 7.62x51
I can think of one issue I had in which PMC .223 ammo seemed to be deliberately undercharged as compared to 5.56. I was taking a friend shooting, and I told him to buy the 2.23 ammo because it was cheaper than the 5.56 (also PMC). The result: the .223 was so weak, it failed to properly cycle the carrier group in my 20" A2, and we weren't getting bolt lock after the last shot. My thoughts were that PMC was likely doing this on purpose.
The worst thing I've personally experienced firing surplus 5.56 ammo in a 223 chamber is blown out primers, and cracked cases. It was bad enough with 2 different batches in that particular barrel that after about 20 rounds of each batch, I stopped using those rounds in that barrel, and stuck with only .223 spec ammo for it afterward. No more pressure problems. So... did firing surplus 5.56 in that particular .223 chamber blow the gun up? No. Did it create significant problems? Most definitely yes. So, I would personally not go so far as to say "don't worry about it", but I do agree that in most cases it hasn't presented a huge problem for me. Just for reference, I've been shooting since the 1970's, and have had enough different 223 and 5.56 barrels than I can't easily remember them all. So I would say I've had enough experience to feel pretty confident in saying the following: Don't just assume that every loading of 5.56 will fire with no problems in every .223 chamber. There are definitely specific combinations that will cause problems. On the other hand, it definitely IS always okay to fire 223 in 5.56 chambers. This is just my experience. YMMV.
Tim B, Your explanation is what I grew up understanding, it’s not just minor case dimensions,it’s the added pressures in military ammunition that causes potential issues. I’ll stick with .223 in my rifle designated as a .223 . Thanks for speaking up.
The one time I heard of a problem on ammunition loading was in an M1 Garand. The gentleman in the video ran hot 30 06 ammo in the M1. As a military rifle it is by design overgassed to run in bad conditions. However post WW2 powders are more powerful and if you use a heavier bullet, pressures can spike quite a bit over the designed specs. He claimed the operating rod slammed back so hard it cracked the stock. It may have had an unnoticed crack before hand, who knows. Thats why there are aftermarket kits to regulate the gas pressure so as to handle hotter loads. The chamber appears to be plenty strong but an M1 has a lot of moving mass in the mechanism.
55,000 psi vs 58,000/62,000 psi Since all barrels are made to a factor of safety versus what is listed, a .223 rated gun with a FOS of just 1.2x can shoot a round at 66,000psi. So Yes go right a head and use 5.56 in your .223 rated rifle.
Except the method of testing pressure for 5.56 that got the 62,000 was different than the SAAMI method and using the newer military SCATP method that measures in the same location that SAAMI does you get 55,000psi. The pressure difference is because the military used to measure pressure in the barrel itself not the chamber like SAAMI leading to this fudd lore from people who didn't check how each is measured.
@@BlackHawkBallistic I'm glad I'm not the only one mentioning this now. NATO doesn't even measure in inches like we do, why the hell would they measure chamber pressure for their rifles the same way as the US civilian arms market which isn't even regulated by law to have any safety or testing standards at all? SAAMI is a voluntary system like the ESRB is for video games, it doesn't actually have any regulating power and all it's specifications are suggestions for manufacturers. Plus I'm pretty sure it would take like 80,000+ psi to burst even a pencil barrel so who cares if you have an extra couple thousand, it's a maximum pressure rating neither are even loaded that hot from the factories to begin with.
5.56 vs. .223 Completely agree with this thesis. Either round should be safe to shoot in guns marked for either of these rounds. Likely also true for 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester. "Military Grade Ammo" So I'm a US Army small arms analyst so I'm going to add a little here. Firstly, almost all US military 5.56 ammo is made at the government Lake City Ammo Plant. I haven't seen current numbers (and probably couldn't say if I had) but its in the high 90th percentile. This is not true of 7.62 where much more of that is contracted out. So if you see 5.56 ammo labeled "military grade" and it didn't come from Lake City, I would treat that as advertising text not proof of performance. Second, Ian is completely correct that military ammo is not going to perform the same as commercial. Military ammo is made to military contract specifications which were written for military purposes. They're written for lethality, safe field use, and reliable long term storage, not for peak paper-punching accuracy. Those specifications are also different for different national militaries and organizations. The US and NATO specs are different but largely compatible. I would assume Taiwanese and Israeli ammo is also close but not the same. Military specs are independent from commercial, they are changed more frequently, and the people that wrote them care significantly less about backwards compatibility with grandpas old hunting rifle that has been rusting in the barn. Again this stuff should still be safe to shoot in a modern rifle in good condition. Third, a lot of "military grade" ammo is actually surplus (hence the "once met" statement above). As Ian said, some surplus is actually rejected ammo which didn't meet the lot spec. Some is ammo that has been sitting in an ammunition depot longer than the military likes and is just being rotated out. I wouldn't expect either of these to be performing at its best, but it should be safe to shoot and sufficient for range blasting in a gun in reasonable condition. "A1 Ammo" Remember when I said that the people who wrote military specs don't care about backwards compatibility with commercial guns? That is really true of this stuff. I know some of those guys and they barely cared about compatibility with guns actually in US inventory. And the pressure curve for M855A1 is different. If you come up with some of this ammo, it should be safe to shoot in modern commercial guns. Expect accelerated wear all over the place. I wouldn't shoot it in older guns or guns in poor shape.
We've heard so many times that military 5.56 ammo will ruin any 223 chambered gun but we never see actual examples of it and as in the video if this were true we'd see a lot of them. I will say that 223 guns with rifling twist rates of 1 in 14 will not properly stabilize the heavier 5.56 bullets such as the 62 - 70+ grain bullets. They arent really dangerous so much as not all that accurate compared to the lighter 55 gr bullets in the 1 in 14'' twist that it was designed for
"Military Grade". In various itterations of this term, I've seen it stated "Oh, military grade just means it's inferior to what you're gonna get in the store." Other times, I've heard, "Oh, yeah, definitely. It's hotter and also tested to a higher standard!" In respect to "higher standard", to me, it's like paying $120 for a micrometer and then paying another $100 for the certificate of calibration (that you have to renew every so often for the same price.) In either case, it's the same hunk of metal. In the case of the latter, there are business (and sometimes legal) reasons why you would do this but for schlubs like us, it's a waste of money. I agree with Ian. Military ammunition is loaded for cost because a penny per a box of 20 rounds really adds up when you're placing your standard semi-annual order for, say, 6 million cartridges. For those of us buying 20 or 100 at a time, it's not a factor and we'd rather have the quality. The decreased cost, though, comes at the cost of wider tolerances, meaning the loading varies a little bit more (few slugs are rejected because they don't meet dimensions and the charge may vary by a grain or two instead of half a grain) which means it's somewhat more inconsistent. However, let's keep context in mind here. This stuff is still quite usable in a firefight, especially if you're not going over 150 yards, where it doesn't matter that your pattern is 4.25 inches instead of 2. When your target is 15 inches across and 60+ inches tall, as long as you at least try to take a little bit of time to aim instead of firing randomly (spray and pray), you're still gonna hit what you shoot at. It's akin to the old saw of "minute of deer". You don't need sub MOA capable rifles in order to put meat on the table.
The main difference between military and civilian small arms ammunition is that military primers are often crimped or stabbed into place. This is to stop them detaching whilst going through feed mechanisms and causing jams. It makes no difference to the civilian user although you have to swage out the crimp if you want to reload the case... Also military bullets are often sealed with bitumen or other sealants to make the bullet- case joint waterproof. The bullet crimps are also generally heavier to make sure the bullet stays in place when being fed, particularly in belt fed guns where the belt can and does get dragged through the dirt.. As Ian says, military loadings are often slightly weaker than some civilian loadings to take account of the stronger crimps and the need to operate reliably over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. Not many civvie rounds get rides in unpressurised aircraft bays...!
People talk about the 5.56 ammo being higher pressure yet they fail to realize SAAMI .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO are identical pressures. They just have the hole in the cartridge drilled in different locations during the pressure test. When the pressure hole is drilled at the same place the pressure is identical.
They measure differently, one does PSI and the other does CUP, but if you actually check both the same in PSI, it’s roughly 5000psi difference, which really isn’t enough for any degree of concern assuming it’s not a mini-14
@@ShawnHinck Mini 14s are actually all 5.56 NATO except for the "target" model they made for a while with the heavy barrel and the goofy harmonic balancer thing on the end.
I learned a lot about the issues when checking what 223 Wylde even is. There is a 5.56 chamber, a .223 Rem. chamber, and a .223 Wylde chamber. They all use the same cartridge and the same headspace gauges.
I have known of a guy who had issues in his M96 when he shot 5.56 ammo through it. The barrel would pop out of the receiver which we assumed was an overpressure issue of sorts. It wouldn't happen with .223 ammo. That was a long time ago and I didn't know much about firearms back then. But now that I think of it it might have just been a defective barrel locking latch that would skip out with slightly higher, yet still normally safe pressure at the gas port that the 5.56mm ammo just happened to have.
Thank you. ive looked this up several times and could never really get a satisfactory answer. Now I finally know i can shoot my .22 magnum in a normal 22 rifle!
@@ndenise3460 lol it's absolutely sarcasm. I have tried 22mag & 22lr both ways. 22mag won't even start to fit in a normal 22lr chamber. And 22lr fits so loosely in a 22mag chamber that it splits the case after firing.
I have an AR-15 which jammed occasionally with Remington .223 but has never jammed with the newer 5.56 ammo on the market today, X-Tac brand works 100% perfectly. I have a .308 Century Arms FAL saying .308 and also a 7.62X51 HBAR FAL and I found they both will jam if ammo is interchanged - The .308 ammo 'stovepipes or balloons up' in the 7.62X51 chamber turning the semi auto into a repeater with only partial ejection and vice versa. The 7.62X51 will handle all the cheaper priced cases of military surplus but jams every round using commercial .308 off of the shelf. The only exception was the Russian made steel case .308 works in both and would also be good in 223/5/56.
There was a thing in the 2000s about 5.56 being 20,000 psi higher pressure than .223 when fired in a .223 chamber. It was so prevalent that there was a whole new chamber style developed, the .223 Wylde, to be able to shoot both calibers. It was all a myth. It stemmed from a typo in an Army manual that listed the 5.56 pressure value in _cup_ instead of _psi,_ but the number was the psi number. This then got even more complicated as people looked into it with incomplete information and understanding and noticed that SAAMI takes the pressure readings from the breech while NATO takes it at the case mouth and the 5.56 case having slightly different internal dimensions at the base, and so on, then made assumptions and theories based on these things. And when people google it, they get old results from this misinformed era. Even now, a search on the subject returns a forum post from 2008 in the top 5 results, stating: "I have read that the 5.56 mm NATO has a higher chamber pressure spec. The reference source below lists the spec at about 58000 psi. taken at the case mouth. This is equal to about 78000 psi SAAMI, which has the pressure transducer located about from the breech instead of the case mouth."
Its crazy how ineffective russian military ammo was, i had a sks that would shoot straight as arrow as long as i was using federal or wolf brass any time i used steel jacket russian surplus ammo there was a noticeable decline in accuracy
When it comes to the question of .223 vs 5.56mm it seems to me the real consideration is: What gun am I using, and is the ammo I'm using a suitable match? I don't shoot M885 ammo in my Ruger No. 1 Varmit because it has a 1:12 twist, a short leade, and won't stabilize bullets over 55gr. I don't shoot 36gr .223 ammo in my Colt AR-15 because it has a 1:7 twist and will shred lightweight thin jacketed bullets. For handloads, I stick to SAAMI specs for my .223 loads with bullets 55gr or lighter. I reserve heavier bullets for the AR, and often use Hornady's 5.56 Service Rifle data. IMHO, the bottom line is: Know your gun, as well as your ammunition.
Depends on the commercial ammo, there is still new manufactured M2 ball, and you can get an adjustable gas plug for like $50 if you want to shoot spicy bois.
One case comes to mind, when it's not safe to fire a particular loading in a gun of the same chamber, which is 7,62x54R DPSZ (heavy steel core projectile) from anything other than PKT or PKMT machine guns. The PKT has a much heavier barrel and different gas port compared to PKM machine guns. DPSZ will cause excessive wear and eventually part breakage in normal PKM machine guns.
Walked into a Walmart and asked for a box of .45 ACP. Kid handed me a box of .45 Long Colt. No, dude, .45 ACP. "That's .45." How about .45 Auto, you got that? "Oh, yeah! Right here!" I tried to explain the difference using small words, and the kid just looked at me like I was trying explain algebra to a chimpanzee.
Most Wallyworlds dont sell pistol ammo anymore, but they do sell .22LR. Anymore those days there are more carbines that shoot pistol rounds that eventually Wallyworld will probably stop selling ammo all together.. Except for probably shotgun ammo. Most people shop at Wallyworld for the prices not the service. Lol
a reputable magazine (I wish I had saved it) did chamber pressure tests on a different guns and found the chamber pressure difference was within the round to round variance. They tested .223, 5.56, and .223 Wylde chambered guns.
I like how he casually has a ridiculously expensive limited import of the Famas just leaning against the wall behind him.
@@mooslionheart not in the gisha houses.
Are you referring to his Petite Jetemme? The mistress he sneaks out to shooting ranges with?
The only surprising outcome of breaking into Ian's house would be which rare gun he shot you with.
France never exported the Famas for commercial use (at least to the US iirc). Ian talked about the amount of hoops and legalities involved with acquiring one.
Long story short, in order to obtain one..... you'll have to rub your stomach and pat your head on a leap year during a solar eclipse while perfectly synchronizing your movements with a Legionnaire in Algeria and a mime in Bordeaux. Lastly you'll have to write out a check for about twelve grand.
It preformed nice at a brutally match , it worked good for lan .
I work at a specific us ammo plant and yes the box of 5.56 you pick up at the gun shop is the same ammo the military is shooting they just polish the case to make it look pretty and put it in a different box.
I just found out the other day why they polish the cases for commercial and why the military cases have anneal marking on them that are visible.
@@schwinnracer why is that? I'm curious
@@Ithrial420 So that the military can spot check ammunition and know for certain that it was annealed properly by merely looking at it. The military wants theirs to show the anneal marks and the commercial industry tumbled and polishes after annealing so that you can’t see it and the case looks pretty.
@@schwinnracer I hate military brass without annealing showing. To me annealed brass is the prettiest lol
@@peterangles793 you do know m855a1 isn't the only round the military uses right?
"America is a particularly litigious society". Amen Gun Jesus.
That is an understatement
…hopefully no famous last words, because of said litigious nature - especially with YT looking for scalps.
it’s an overstatement, america isn’t particularly litigious compared to other first world nations
Tort Reform!
Ian better take that statement back or I will sue him.
The accuracy difference between 5.56 and .223 is so negligible that 90% of shooters won’t see a difference because they are that good of a shot. I’m including myself in this.
Probably not noticeable at all unless using calibrated equipment to measure using a bolt action rifle.
I agree ‘
More like 99%.
Since there are fewer than 1% of shooters that are precision shooters, virtually no one will be able to tell the difference.
@chrismeister2554 no shit you can get better accuracy if you reload compared to shooting m855 that's comparing apples to oranges bud
@@ken481959I guess you might be right on the percentage based on what I see at public ranges, but my friends and I can be particular about our .223/5.56 accuracy because we use it for hunting rabbits and ground squirrels out to distances over 200 meters. If I can't shoot sub MOA with a certain cartridge load I won't use it. With compounding factors like wind and my human tendency to not always make a perfect shot, I need the cartridge to be the best it can be. We don't consider ourselves precision marksmen.
Came for the answer, stayed for the history. Great stuff, Ian!
Me too.
+1 on that
Ian's stuff is always great.
...Like if frosted flakes didn't get soggy.
I have seen a whole heap of videos on this subject and this one makes the most sense and aligns with my personal experience. I have rifles labeled 5.56 and .223 and I have used ammo labeled each in both with no noticeable change in performance at all. I'm going from memory here but I think I even have American Eagle ammo labeled .223 on the box with the NATO interoperability symbol on the headstamp.
I have a Box PPU .223 Rem, where they just put .223 Rem Labels over the 5.56 label, headstamped 5.56.
Literally just clicked on this and I have a really hard time believing Ian fails to explain it but ah....
.223 = max pressure of 55k psi
.556 = max pressure of 62k psi
Will a gun rated for 55k psi catastrophically fail when you put a 62k psi round through it? What about a whole mag? Ya probably no for both as it's still just 10%.
Yes you can but no it's really not a good idea.
@@theRizza791 that's military brass reloaded into .223 and yes loaded significantly lower charge, the brass is identical the charge is not.
@@whatsmolly5741
Its not "reloaded" its Serbian factory ammo, the factory makes military ammo and the brass is crap for reloading.
@David Watson are you in the US? Hard to believe that doesn't violate some import regulation. Lake city makes mainly military but sells overstock as civilian .223 and all their .223 clearly says .223
as a frenchman, I find your choice of christmas decor wonderful!
trees are overrated, much better to put presents under a FAMAS.
Zut alors! Way to roast the Ostrogoths and their solstice superstitions! Joyeux Noel from the States!
@@daveyoder9231 I raise my tankard & wish you good health and a merry Yuletide, from the dark north of Scandinavia 🍺
Cheers from America 🍺
I wish I could go out to the mountains and find a FAMAS, but I'll have to stick with my Christmas tree for now haha
@@NinjaofApathy just follow the French army, they usually drop them as they run away.
@@ancientrenegade9243 Pull me another leg....The french army won much battles than other armies in the world.
If it seats, it yeets.
300BO has joined the chat
.45 super in a ww1 1911?
From what I was told by the UK gunsmith who recently re-barrelled my .223. In Europe where proof houses use CIP standards, there is no CIP spec for .223 just 5.56x45. So all guns marked .223 sold in the UK or Europe, have been proofed with overpressure 5.56 anyway.
Just did a quick google search and couldn't find a cip standard for 5.56x45. However i found one for .223.
Kind of related to that topic.
When buying a gun and you have that caliber specification in that permit
pretty much all AR:s are sold as .223rem caliber(least in Finland)
Also all ammo is sold as .223rem. Sometimes can spot 5.56x45 marking from little less known manufacturer ammo box
but it is still sold as .223rem.
So somebody would guess those calibers to be interchangeable.
@@Karza_357 The gunsmith is correct on principle. The .223 CiP standard is 5.56 NATO if you look at be actual data.Thats why there is no separate 5.56.
@@Karza_357 The CIP designation is .223 Remington, but in the list of CIP cartridge synonyms 5.56x45 is listed as one for .223. As far as CIP is concerned, the two are in fact identical. But .223 CIP is NOT the same as .223 SAAMI.
@@Karza_357 As others have pointed out, the CIP standard, which you are right, is named .223 is in fact not the SAAMI one, the max pressure is definitely 5.56. It's as Ian says in the video, SAAMI specs are fixed once written but CIP gets revised and the specs are dated and given a revision number.
I am old. Really old and have been shooting ARs since 1981. This 5.56 vs .223 debate is only a fairly recent issue...probably since the late 90s-early 2000s. It has never been a problem. As long as you are shooting decent quality ammo and not junky reloads or Vietnam era military stuff that has been stored improperly there are no safety concerns. Kudos to Ian for addressing this.
It's worth mentioning that CiP is a thing and, unlike SAAMI, it's members are required to adhere to the set specification. And funny thing: CiP doesn't distinguish 5.56 form .233. So, effectively, whenever you buy CiP ammo marked .223 you are shooting 5.56 anyway...
In fact, CIP officially recognizes 5.56 NATO as a synonym for .223 Remington
Same goes for .308 and 7,62x51. CIP consider the names synonyms
My old Ruger Mini 14 fired both 556 and 223 with now problems. Infact while going through Recruit Training at Parris Island ( circa ) early 1980s, the old beaten nearly to death M-16A1 I was issued had 223 Rem / 556 stamped on its reciever. To our instructors 223 and 556mm were the same cartridge in their book, same goes with the 762x51mm NATO and the 308 Winchester. Same Cartridge.
.308 cartridge might blow in a 7.62 rifle, google it
Occasionally there is issues but only with very weak firearms that are unsuitable for use anyways. Guns that can't handle the 5.56 powder load.
Not true in either case. The 308 Win is loaded to higher pressure than the 762 nato.
It's not enough to cause pressure problems in most rifles except possibly some old model 95 mausers without the 3rd locking lug.
These were chambered for the NATO round not modern hunting ammo. You will probably get away with shooting some hunting ammo but you may eventually get head space problems.
The 308 hunting rifle will shoot NATO ammo all day with No problems.
In the 223 / 5.56 it's completely opposite. The 556 is loaded to higher pressure. As long as you stick to 55 grain bullets you will not likely have any problems. However if you are shooting longer heavy bullets that are up against the rifling so it can't move forward on ignition and combine that with 5000 pounds per square inch more pressure. Well you could have a problem.
@@johnndavis7647 my ar15 chamber is 223 wylde so i'm sure it can handle higher grains. Also has fast twist rate supposedly ideal for up to 77 grain
.223 wylde is the solution to this supposed issue. It's made to handle the high pressure, but also to be slightly more precise than the 5.56 chambers. Basically it's just sloppy enough of a .223, that its fits the 5.56, and it's heavy duty enough to not blow up.
And is completely fine to shoot 5.56 out of, because it's literally made to be able to.
And I've never heard of any .308 ammo causing issues in any rifle, ever. If it's going to, then the rifle is probably not in good condition, and you'd probably want to not shoot it anyway.
Thank you, Ian, your answer mirrors what we say in my gun shop. I might reference this video to my customers, as I've already done on other topics.
Any gun shop that refers me to forgotten weapons videos is a place I will continue to come back to.
I would qualify this: unless you have a really old break action. Here's the deal: there were some .222 Remington guns which manufacturers converted to .223 in the rush to bring the new cartridge to market, just by deepening the chamber. Others were gunsmith-converted. They used up their safety margins in the conversion. That's largely where the "myth" comes from: crappy old guns from back before military ammo was widely available on the civilian market.
@@WardenWolf That could be one of the firearms Ian referred to on his extreme-ends-of-the-bell-curve example
.357 Magnum is a good example of the backwards compatibility issue of cartridges and old guns. The original .38 round was based on black powder, and the switch the nitrocellulose left empty space in the case. It was possible to add more propellant - but that would be dangerous for the older pistols built for the black powder specs. So the case was stretched a tiny amount, and the name changed to avoid confusion.
The .38 round : several versions before the .357 mag and .38 special. 38 short colt, 38 long colt, 38 S&W [ both black powder and smokeless] then came the more modern 38 special and the 357 mag. These are all revolver cartridges.
@@kendehaas668The .38SW was shorter and fatter cartridge than the 38 Colt cartridges and38 SW Special cartridges Most 38 SW GUNS don't have a long enough chamber for Specials to seat fully and if they do and fire your case will be slightly bottle necked.
I have rarely heard a more succinct, clever, measured and complete explanation of this, in Ian's entertaining style of course!.
As an armorer in the Australian Defense force I love that Ian knows his stuff about headspacing and chamber pressures.
Too bad us Aussies can’t buy mil surp from ADI
@@johnryan1386 australias gun laws are hella strict arent they?
@@johnryan1386I just got 2k rnds of adi ss109, probably the highest quality 5.56 I’ve had yet. Very nice sealed necks and primers along with primer staking
This guy knows pretty much everything I think
There is one notable difference between 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. The mil-surp ammo has harder primers than the civilian grade ammo. Some firearms designed for .223 Rem might get light primer strikes with 5.56 NATO. For example, I tried some Federal M193 in my Savage 110, and got several light primer strikes. During that range session, I fired a combination of M193 and civilian ammo, but only had light primer strikes with the M193. So apparently, the firing pin spring in my Savage 110 wasn't stiff enough for the mil-surp ammo.
Yeah but that won't matter to your average Joe. Although it might be an issue for reloaders.
@@DriveCarToBar - if you're referring to the primers, it's a specification. The military primers are harder, to prevent slam-fires in the M16 rifle. Because it has a free-floating firing pin.
Older Mini-14s had issues with shooting 5.56 in them, due to the combo of the hard primers and being on the tighter end of .223 spec for the chambers.
556 has a crimped primer.
The thing to watch out for is 30-06 in a M1 Garand. The stuff labelled 30-06 is not always 30-06 that is compatible with a M1.
@@robertthomas5906 I har forgotten about the crimp.
And 30-06 SAAMI just has to comply with the general pressure of the cartridge.
The M1 has system was designed around a very specific pressure curve.
Modern 06 hunting rounds utilize slower burning powders to get faster velocity for the same pressure, but it means the pressure could be much higher at the Garands gas port than it was designed for.
Buddy who is in law enforcement had a few hundred black tip 5.56 mixed in with his range ammo. My steel silhouette target looked like a pasta strainer. You are correct, I was very upset.... Still kind of cool to see the effects of AP on ar500 tho
Ive had similar effects with 77 gr fmj out of 20" barrels at 150 yards. It barely doesnt go through my tripod
Always remember that military anything was produced by the lowest bidder. When the Military is buying millions of bullets at a time, everyone has to meet the specs, but company that do it for the least cost, gets the contract.
I'm reminded what John Glenn said when a reporter asked him what he was thinking as he waited for the count down to reach zero. He said he thought about all of the million or so of pieces of the rocket that had to work right, and that every one of them was produced by the lowest bidder.
Yeah, "the lowest bidder on a government contract."
Fud, the military often has top of the line equipment made to particular specifications that exceed market demands in the the private sector.
For example, a Cammenga lensatic compass. Standard issue in the US Army. Is one of the best, if not the best, lensatic compasses you can buy. It is accurate and nearly indestructible.
The average lensatic compass from camping companies like Coleman run about $20-30 while a Cammenga costs over $100.
Body armor, the ceramic plates I used in service could stop multiple hits from high powered rifles and cost hundreds of dollars each if they were lost or damaged by the soldier. You can get AR 500 steel plates for $50 a pop, but they are heavy and prone to ricochet.
@@SuicideVan officer spotted
@@SuicideVanso, you and OP are both correct in some ways. Lowest bidder but there still is a hard minimum of effectiveness and reliability.
@@CyrusCook lol, of the non-commisioned type.
But this fud "lowest bidder" thing simply isn't accurate as it's often not the lowest bidder, rather who is greasing palms. Most recently, you really think Sig makes the best for the money of pistols, rifles, optics, AND ammo? Not a chance. But it certainly isn't Taurus or Tasco bottom barrel stuff either.
I hope Ian will make a similar video for the .308 Win / 7.62 NATO question.
that's what I was thinking. I was told .308 win has a stronger load than 7.62 NATO and now I'm curious.
Yeah I was wondering this, cuz I see this all over the place. Does it even matter?
The difference between those is even less than .223 Rem / 5.56 NATO.
@@rikusschulze6249 i have shot both ammos in both guns .308 in 7.62 and 7.62 in .308 never encountered a problem
@@FY--my5ggYou can shoot 7.62 x 51 out of a 308 gun just fine. Doing the opposite isn't recommended.
Surprised he didn’t mention .223 Wylde in this, that chambering seems to confuse a lot of people as well.
Myself included
@@catvids420 Well, I'll try to help you out there. It's really just a tolerances compromise, think of it being in the middle between .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO, mainly in terms of the throat and neck area. Supposedly, the whole point was to make a chambering that offers greater accuracy than a standard 5.56 NATO chambering but also be able of withstanding higher pressures and better reliability (i.e. extraction and insertion in the chamber when dirty/suboptimal conditions) than the .223 Rem. It's always been touted as being able to easily shoot .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO. However, due to modern advances in manufacturing of both barrels and ammunitions, the .223 Wylde chambering has become more or less redundant as there are plenty of sub-MOA 5.56 NATO barrels out there.
This is my understanding of it, so maybe take it with a slight grain of salt, as I may not have gotten it 100% right but I think it's the general ghist of it. Hope this help!
.223 Wylde can digest everything.
.223 wylde is the best illustration of why .223 and 5.56 are identical.
This argument always pops up and I’m surprised gun Jesus touched it, he’s going to get roasted by the people who think they will blow their face off if they use one in the other. There are many of those people out there.
I thought it to be a whole other cartridge, such as .224 Valkyrie, at first seeing it listed in AR upper build choices, then learned it's a refined bore for both cartridges.
I did order a barrel that is .223 Wylde and before installing it in a build simply placed a round in the chamber and inserted a bolt to see if it cleared on both cartridge types, trying different brands, the 5.56 were getting stuck and the bolt would not close. I explained the issue to mfg and got an RMA and received a new barrel that did not have the issue.
Now do 7.62×51 and 308. Please
7.62x51 is SAFE in 308 Win marked rifles.
308 Win is NOT SAFE in 7.62x51
308 Win has HIGHER pressure than 7.62x51
Funny he said "no alternative cartridge for AR 10"
308 is more powerful then the military 7.62x51
It'll be the same vid.
I have fired many 5.56s in my Remington 700 chambered for .223. All was 55 grains. I did this because I sold a 5.56 semi auto and had a lot of redundant cartridges. I never had a problem. No hang fires from light primer strikes, and no extraction or ejection issues. The 700 is a strong action with a long leade. I can't think of any reason not to use up cheaper 5.56 ammo if it's accurate enough for your purposes.
PS. Love Ian's videos!
As a young Police Officer, I was issued a DoD owned M16A1 as a patrol rifle. (For those who don't know, some military surplus equipment may be used by law enforcement, but the issued item is still DoD property). I was not well versed in the AR Platform all those years ago, and one of our combat vets took me out to teach me everything I needed to know about it. During this Remedial AR session, I was told the 5.56 is a slightly hotter load and that's why you can't run it in a .223...mentioned in passing as a novelty bit of trivia. Until watching this video moments ago, I believed what the vet said. But if I understand your talk correctly, the only real differences are casing dimensions...stuff measured in microns. Further, the information from my veteran coach, while given in good faith, is simply not the case. The loads would be the same, but somehow this myth was born.
I am now a new firearms instructor myself, and want to make sure I correctly instruct students. Is my summary above correct, or did I miss something? I just would like to double check.
Excellent video as always.
Yes! We need more fuddlore buster episodes 😂
Call it "FuddBusters"
@@ec1246 That name is already used on a most excellent channel.
@@SBC97281 Love Fuddbusters.
How is this channel so damn underappreciated. I like watching people shoot at stuff, but this channel puts out so much quality info that normally would be at least difficult for the average firearm enthusiast to access.
I'm not a gun collector by any means, but a physics and science nut....Ian's explanations are amazing!
Thanks, Ian . I've been reloading ammo since 1995 . I've reloaded
223 Remington only for bolt action rifles until the last couple of years , recently learing how to reload ammo for AR type firearms . I've discovered that any load that is properly made will work in a turnbolt rifle , but reloading a cartridge to function in a semiautomatic weapon is a tricky endeavor . During my last range day with some friends , a new load using a slower burning powder was tested next to our usual loading . Both worked fine in ARs with 16 inch barrels
But one friend was shooting an AR pistol with a 10.5 inch barrel and suffered several failures to cycle with our newly developed test load , while our standard load functioned well in his pistol . Fortunately, we have a lot of the original powder and bought only one pound of the new powder . Our original load is a copy of that made by a local indoor range that reloads range brass for customers and is known to be reliable . Happy Shooting !
The Fudd lore on this topic is deeper than my hip waiters. Thank you this is what I have been saying for 10+ years now
Always some old fart (chronological age doesn’t matter just mindset) lurking at a gun store or range dishing out FUDD lore. Usually costing sales.
I searched online a long time ago and the answers were still all over the place. But gun Jesus trump's them all
@@robwigglezz944 hes got it down primarily that "people are afraid of getting sued" part. I tell people there's no way it would matter if your rifle was built after m855 was adopted.. rifles built before that might be questionable rifles built before saami standardization might be even more likely to be picky but no matter what if the gun is safe one round isn't gonna blow it up try it and check the results. I dont want anyone to get hurt but this is why if your gonna have guns you need to know what high pressure signs look like and watch for them if your trying a new loading in any gun
Taofledermous just did a rifled slug Fudd lore on the spin. I think he may have embarrassed Ron Spomer.
@@user-dc6pm3mc4b doesn't the whole M855/M193 mostly just have to do with barrel twist rates though? Not necessarily, "Is it safe?" But "will I hit anything?"
I think most of the confusion is from how many ".223" marked commerical guns are really some hybrid chamber, presumably to make the gun 5.56 tolerant. From what I've read there are a lot of guns marked either way that turn out to be some in between Wylde type chamber when checked. Like given how LC M193 runs through my cheap PSA barrel (mild pressure signs) I suspect it's tighter than a milspec 5.56 chamber.
I also heard that productoin streamlining often means that .233 SAAMI barrels and bolts are made from similar materials and strenghts as 5.56. So unwanted pressure spikes might be well below safety tolerances.
Still dont get why peopel cant just use the correct ammo? The difference in ammo construction can lead to worse gun performance in various ways, even if it doesnt destroy the gun.
@Termitreter the reason is money lol
Most ruger mini 14s stamped 223 are made that way to handle 556. They even say in the manual. Not sure if it was a way around import rules, bill ruger trying to distance it from people thinking it's "military," or just thinking people in the 80's couldn't figure out metric. The only exception is they made a handful of special target rifles that were tight tolerance that did say "no 5.56" in the book.
The BEST, no nonsense answer I’ve ever heard on this subject. Great video!
Thanks!
So the concept of not using 5.56 in a .223 rifle more so comes down to reducing potential lawsuits? I had just imagined a plethora of stories about blown up .223 rifles, but I guess there aren't any that actually relate to catastrophic over pressure. Huh, learn something new everyday. Thanks, Ian!
Yeah I always thought shooting 5.56 in a .223 would blow up the gun, glad to find out the truth.
@@DasGoodSoup yes
I'd imagine IF, an issue occured in a firearm stamped for .223 chamber and was found to be damaged in any way after firing 5.56 the manufacturer would have a case to refuse warranty.
@DasGoodSoup the only potential "danger" if there us any, is if you are shooting a really old rifle that existed before 5.56, and was poorly built. Any modern barrel from the last 20, 30 years is going to be built to handle both. And if you ever see a 223 Wyld barrel, those are specifically designed to shoot both with improved accuracy.
@@DasGoodSoup The maximum safe pressure for BOTH .223 and 5.56 is 420 MPa as per CIP.
Meaning that if "pressure" was a problem people would have blown up their rifles using European imported .223 as they use the CIP standard and not SAAMI.
Straightforward like a good educator. His answers are always on point and engaging.
My only quibble would be is that the camera's focus point is on his chair behind him, making him a little soft on the focus.
Civilian grade: "We made this to consumer expectations and promise to deliver in every field!"
Military grade: "30 guys have handled this before you and it's spent the last 20 years collecting dust at the back of the armory. Have fun!"
Anything with that kind of durability is impressive, gotta give respect
Lol. Military grade = crap not good enough for the civilian market
Let me translate that for you to american corporate lawyer speak: we take extra care with civilian amo, because of course someone will try to sue us if it fails. We don't give a crap about "military grade" amo, because army grunts can't sue us if it fails. 😅🤣😆
@@cenccenc946 the *Army* can, and have though, and they've got a lot more resources to spend than your average plinker.
And before that it was built by the lowest bidder.
Thanks Ian ! You have a merry Christmas bro !
I've been watching Ian for years, he never ages. Always great videos.
@@muhacnt7988baguettes and red wine.
You can tell the age of a FW video by counting the amount and depth of Ian's forehead lines. :)
-Ian is (despite popular belief) a human. So apologies if my comment has him looking at older videos while holding up a mirror. Time marches on...
@@Croak1 It could be a result of uploading so frequently for so long - aging is (usually) such a slow and gradual process that if you're watching it in (close to) real time it's not noticeable. But if you take samples from further apart, say 5 or 6 years ago, the signs of aging should be a bit more apparent. But Ian is also in pretty good shape and stays healthy keeping many of those signs at bay.
@@RexNicolaus Don't forget the cheese!
Well he is Gun Jesus after all.
I have seen an example of two boxes from the same manufacturer loaded with the same kind of bullet but where the .223 labeled cartridges had the bullet seated farther down in the case than the 5.56 labeled cartridges, meaning the 5.56 had a longer overall length. The 5.56 cartridges also had discoloration around the neck of the cartridges (presumably from a heat treatment) while the .223 cartridges were cleaned and polished by comparison. However both kinds functioned in every firearm they were tested in. Just an example of some of the things manufacturers do that some people think make a difference or the manufacturer wouldn't do it.
I once had a problem with mini-14's firing 5.56, but that was due to hard military primers. I was breaking firing pins.
sounds like more of a ruger mini 14 problem lol
@@araknidude Entirely possible! Those were early minis, and were well past their "sell by" date.
@@armorer94 firing pins and almost every part besides the barrel are cast on mini14s
@@brasstard7.627 can't believe how much they go for nowadays
@@brasstard7.627 That's why I don't buy the fuddlore that Ruger revolvers are the only ones strong enough for super hot .44's either, they're bigger because they're made out of weaker, cheaper material and need more of it to not explode. It's like saying .45 Hi Points are good to shoot .460 Rowland out of. I have a couple Ruger revolvers and I can say that even the Match Champion GP100 doesn't inspire any more confidence than even a base model S&W, let alone the ones that were way better built from 30+ years ago.
Probably the best and most clearly explained presentation of these topics I’ve seen.
I think this advice makes sense in the US, because most people shooting 5.56mm NATO in a .223 are probably shooting it in an AR-15 which in actuality has a 5.56 chamber. Your FA MAS does. In other countries where semi-autos are more tightly controlled, it's pretty common to shoot 5.56 through a .223 sporting bolt-action rifle with a .223 chamber. I was a member of a club for many years where we had a .223 club gun and it had to be replaced two or three times a year because we were using SS109 most of the time in it. The barrel wouldn't explode, but you'd end up with failures to extract due to cases sticking, excessive bore erosion, bolt peen etc. Usually we were using Tikka rifles, but we did use a bunch of other guns, they all had their own set of issues. And you might say, why not just use .223, well, the issue is that inexpensive .223 FMJ is usually 5.56mm NATO and .223 sporting ammo is much more expensive. Cost-wise it was cheaper to replace the rifle.
Case volume is often different but only matters to reloaders. That said I always get annoyed with professional people who should know better in the face of all the evidence still swear up and down "you gonna blow up".
professional FUDDs.
Yep
The Colt TDP 5.56 chamber is .001 longer than the 223 commercial chamber. The 5.56 uses a different minimum go gauge, no go gauge and field gauge than the 223. . The throat is twice as long in the 5.56 than the 223 commercial throat. You can get pressure spikes using 5.56 ammunition in the 223 chamber causing popped primers, low bolt life (broken bolts), lower reliability and poor accuracy..How many people would admit they used 5.56 ammunition in a 223 when the warnings stated not to do that when trying to get warranty work..
@@hairydogstail as someone who’s checked the pressures and done the warranty work, you’re not going to be able to tell if someone fired 5.56 in a .223, the PSI difference is roughly 5000psi, which unless bolts are weak and primer pockets are over sized you’re not going to see either of those signs. And even if you do, you’ll see it with .223 in a .223 barrel as well. We won’t go in to next to no .223 Remington barrels being a thing for a long time anymore outside maybe mini-14s and some bolt guns.
You are right. I've heard so much about reloading and how it's dangerous. Two of the most important aspects of reloading. First, you have to use calipers to measure the wall thickness of your casing. Second, do not put more powder in the casing. Know your powder and follow the manufacturer's recommendations. SLAP rounds are dangerous. Just ask Kentucky Ballistics. Put a thumb in it.
Mid 2020, at the height of ammogedden a buddy asked me to pick him up some .38 super. Took it to him only to find out he'd seen some post about that being usable in 9mm chambered handguns. I briefly explained the difference in chamber pressures between the 2, but he still wanted to try it. Luckily, he had such trouble getting into battery he decided to believe me and not tempt fate.
A bigger consideration is barrel twist rate. .223 Rem was originally a varmint round, and a lot of old bolt actions chambered for that have very slow twist rates. You should use 45 grain or lighter bullets for acceptable accuracy in those old rifles.
The Nosler 60 gr boat tailed bullets say right on the box 1 in 9 twist or faster. 1 in 12 is limited to 55 gr or less. The old 22 Hornets were limited to 45 gr because they had 1 in 14 twists.
barrel twist rate is a myth.... :) in 95% of cases dont matter at all
I was realy surprised when I moved to the US and found that firearms are not provided not even in-house....
In every other nation even the lowest pressure ammo like 9mm flower, .22lr .410 all have to be proofed.
In Europe it's considered the same, nearly all rifle barrels are made cold hammer forged but the chamber is reamed.
Alot of people don't seem to get that millitary spec or grade just means it's good enough for miolitarybuse and is reliable and safe.
The most accurate millitary ammunition is most often made by civilian manufacturers or use vivial cinoonsnts for match grade ammo.
Yes the primers can be a little harder and Soviet and older western calibers do have corrosive primers but I have shot some very old 7.62x54r and while very corrosive no hang fires at all.
Not sure if Chinese 5.8 is corrosive.
When it comes to millitary style arms I allways buy a CHF CK barrel if it's an AK or AR and while not the most fancy they pretty accurate, more reliable and don't wear as fast.
I have purchased white a few PSA premium uppers without bolts in sale just for the barrel but then the upper is just fine.
I have shit AKs more than anything and a good quality CHF CL barrel has allways stayed perfect with no west but the 7.62x39 is pretty gentle in a barrel.
Maybe now I would not say chrome lining has alot if use with civilian 5.56 as no steel case or bimetal bullets but for a duty weapon I would want one as it can extract reliably and they are consistent.
One of the worst caliber mixups I have seen is .380 in a 9mak the cartiedge us held in older by the extractor .....
While shooting some wolf 5.45 in a 74 I made it made a trangevsound and it turned out a steel case .223 ended up in a box and with gloves on and not looking I loaded it.
No harm done just a pain to extract the case.
The most dangerous thing I ever did was buy some loose 8mm masuer at a gun show and while shooting it out of a nice clean m48 Yugo Mauser (I have others but it's a good shooter and used to be very cheap most of them very rely being used with mine looking like it was only proofed then stored) I was shooting this surus ammo that was loose in bagsz but in good condition and I was thinking why is this ammo so hot as in it had much more recoil and a huge flash but thinking maybe I have not shot a Mauser in a while.
After nearly 100 rounds I I looked up the headstamp with my phone, all of them are factory proof loads.
No damage to me or the rifle but I would not like to try that on a budget modern biktbwcruoj mm
People also say that if you use a 77 grain round in a 1:9 barrel, the round will begin to “keyhole” after a hundred yards…I’ve proven that to be a myth at almost 1000 yards
It was great getting to meet you this weekend. Always loads of good information
I recall those days when I had my store. Wife walks in and states my husband sent me to pickup a box of 45's. I would say what kind of 45's. She would reply just some 45's. My heart would sink as I said to myself "here we go again."
This happened often? A lot of husbands sending their wives to the local gun store to pick them up ammo? Are the husbands too busy out picking up tampons?
Your story is trash
@@TheAcenightcreeper I didn't say it happened a lot. But yes it happened many times. Same with buckshot and buying a scope as a Christmas present. Small Town, very rural area. Not a trash story at all.
That’s why when my wife sends me to the store she sends ms a pic of the old box or finds the item on the website & sends me a screenshot. Hopefully hubby learned to either send an empty casing or an unfired round next time. I don’t even own a gun anymore but I imagine 45colt won’t fire in a 1911 for example.
Best explanation I have heard on all. I will say as a retired military member that your take on military vs civilian ammo is spot on. The military buys bulk and OWNS its soldiers/sailors/marines and airmen, civilians are a litigious sort and selling to them MUST be precise or face the wrath. Ammo companies know this ESPECIALLY in this era of gun bashing.
Probably the best explanation I have heard of this issue.. ever. Thank you!
Ian you have an incredible channel. I love the in-depth explanations you go into with your borderline "on the spectrum" details of your videos.
Ian not afraid to roast the Military Industrial Complex.
Look here, another NPC criticizing the military industrial complex. Yawn.
@@SavageTactical You don't think war is an industry?
@@SavageTactical People can criticize what they want. Unless you’re some arbiter of free speech that makes certain topics verboten
Several years ago, I saw several M16 rifles that were destroyed, because of the use of improperly reloaded ammunition. These had cracked/bulged upper recievers, not sure if the lowers had any damage as well. Can’t say with certainty, but I suspect the use of a fast burning propellant intended for handguns being loaded into a rifle casing. Negligence on the part of the reloader, and the person procuring the bad ammunition.
Honestly kind of surprised that Ian didn't at least mention the .223 Wylde chamber that is floating around and available now which claims to adjust the shoulder/neck area of a .223 Rem chamber to something that is more "in spec" with 5.56 NATO
.223 wylde is entirely a match thing has almost to do with pressure. It basically lowers the jump before the bullet engages the rifling.
@@RedStripeMedia yes, but the point is it is specifically designated to use either .223 rem or 5.56x45.
They already covered that back on InRange when they were picking a barrel for WWSD. .223 Wylde is a waste of good barrel stock, just buy a 5.56 barrel and be done with it unless you need a really tight chamber for maximum accuracy out of your varmint bolt gun in which case get actual .223 Rem.
@hornmonk3zit I didn't say it was good or bad, just that it is a thing. And I have no issues with mine but I didn't buy it because it was .223 wyld, I bought it because it was a complete upper on sale for a good deal.
@@DaleErnieMichael The chamber isn't tighter, the only difference between a Wylde and 5.56 is in the throat area, in front of the case. .001" in diameter freebore and the Wylde freebore length is .005" longer than the 5.56. I've chambered thousands of barrels over the past 18 years. You can search reamer drawings for both. The Wylde will shoot any 5.56 ammo and do it more accurately.
When Ian was using the 45/70 cartridge as an example regarding SAAMI chamber pressure data comparing black powder to modern smokeless powder, Hodgdon who markets smokeless gunpowders and offers load data has three different load data categories for the 45/70 with special load data for Trap Door Springfield, lever action, bolt action, with each category listing higher chamber pressures for each type of firearms. Most factory loaded cartridges for the 45/70 are loaded with lower chamber pressures to accommodate the weakest firearm action being the Springfield Trap Door rifles as there are still a lot of vintage Trap Door rifles being shot. The reason for the Trap Door rifles still being popular is that rifle was once used by the U.S. military back in the Calvary days.
August 2005 my battalion deployed to Baghdad, Iraq. Went to the zero range to get our M-4 carbines zeroed for patrols we were about to start going on. Got issued 5.56 ammo and started shooting. Every single weapon was having problems with the ammo. Failure to fire, failure to eject. Turns out, we were issued British 5.56 ammo and it was not designed for US military weapons. Once the ammo was switched, our weapons performed like they were supposed to.
That British ammo was defective and apparently not up to NATO standard as it should have been.
All NATO standard ammo should function in all NATO spec chambered weapons.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The main infantry rifle of the Brits is the L85A3, but there are plenty of British Army units who use M4 derivatives like the HK416 and even US made derivatives such as the M119, yet they all use the same ammunition for it. It's the entire idea behind NATO standardisation and the adoption of 5,56x45 NATO ammunition; no matter the country rifles or ammo are from, they're all compatible. So it's much more likely something else was going on, perhaps you had a batch of faulty ammo.
@@pieterveenders9793possibly. At least we didn’t have that ammo when we started our combat patrols.
I love your observations on Military versus civilian quality ammunition not only do I agree 100%, but I wish more people would put a little effort in and understand why this is the case.
As a Range Safety Officer in a 4,000 member gun club. I noticed a member having trouble loading his AR15. The 5.56 was sticking out of his chamber by 1/4in and he was hammering the assist with his shoe. I interrupted this and took the gun away from him. His gun is chambered in 223 and NONE of the 5.56 would feed properly. Oddly the dealer sold him a 223 chambered rifle and gave him 556 to shoot in it. Military ammo is NOT SAAMI spec and can vary which is why a 556 chamber is larger. You can shoot 223 in a 556 chamber but not the other way around. Best rule is to NOT shoot ANYTHING in your rifle that it is not rated for. An out of battery explosion was possible in this case so I sent him home.
♥️💥♥️
If he couldn't chamber a 5.56 round, it wasn't because the rifle was chambered in .223. Both rounds are virtually identical. If it was sticking out 1/4 inch, he either had a case with the head ripped off, or you're making the whole thing up. I lean towards the latter.
@@dennisp.2147I agree, back in the day, I'd occasionally have .223 marked barrels show up with super tight throats & leades.
They'd chamber and shoot fine, but would often fail to extract or pop primers, which would end up in the FCG, downing the weapon.
5 minutes with a michiguns 5.56 reamer and the problem would disappear.
See, i already knew that you can interchange the two calibers. But i was told the chamber for the 5.56 is specified to have a tiny little bit more free bore to allow for some military special ammo and also make it run more reliable with bad quality ammo with inconsistend bullet seating depth. The problems of firing 5.56 from a .223 chamber was said to be the bullets might already touch the beginning of the rifling causing a pressure spike.
Yea but I waited and posted just seconds after this LOL.
Even though I know the answer to this question I still appreciate hearing your take on it. If anything to confirm my knowledge on it. Thanks Ian!
I wish you would have touched on the newer, made to shoot both safety, and more accurate to boot, that’s the .223 Wylde. I’ve got three and the difference is noticeable after ~ 50 yards. That’s using hand loads that have been matched for weight and have been made/verified concentric. These results only increase as the distance increases. I can’t verify more than ~ 580 yards as in the mountains of East Tennessee, those distances are really hard to come by. My family has land that has a valley, protected from wind on all sides that has just a slight rise over that distance. This is where I’ve tested this. All rifles used JP rifles barrels, basically every thing that moves up top is JP. 1 is a 16”, 1 is a 18”, and my big girl is 22”. I don’t remember the first two as I built them first, but the 22 is a 1 in 7. I think I was using 63 gr Barnes JHPBT. I know it was just normal range pickup brass that was worked over to make “right”. It was for sure CCI white box primers and for sure Hodgdon CFE. I could go back and verify that data if others want to know
Please do one of these on .308 vs 7.62x51
Why? They only difference is that the name was changed from inch to metric way back when Jimmy Carter was President.
@@elingeniero9117 I've always read that they're not 2-way interchangeable like .223 and 5.56. and if you use .308 in a 7.62 barrel you're in danger of being overpressure, but 7.62 in a .308 is fine and dandy. I don't own anything chambered in either though, so I've never tested it out.
@@AgnumMD "Internet experts" and journos are not trustworthy sources. The army proofs m14 barrels at 67500 psi.
The army tests m80 7.62 ammo with a limit average pressure less than 55,000 PSI when the ammo is heated to 125 F. Apparently they expect troops to be out in the sun in the middle of a desert or something.
The SAAMI pressure is less than 55,000 at room temperature.
Ammo is usually no loaded to max pressure. It is loaded to a consistent velocity. References:
TM 43-0001-27
Mil C 46931F
SAAMI CFR document.
Documents are on line.
@@elingeniero9117 Well, my dad also told me this and he was a veteran with extensive combat experience in ‘Nam, but he may have also just read it.
The fast and easy anser to that is. It is the same cartridge. All my friends, who has 308 / 7.62 mix the ammo. To geter, we probably haw fired moor than 100 000 rounds, and 308 and 7.62 is the same. I can put 5, 308 rounds, on the target, then switch to 7.62, and stil hit the target, the same way.
I've been shooting both .223 and 5.56 in my 1972 Colt SP1 AR 15 since the 1980's still waiting for a problem. If I had a bolt action .223 rifle, I would not use 5.56 in it. Auto loaders have "looser" chambers for more reliable feeding and chambering, bolt action rifle chambers can be "tighter". This is where the pressure becomes a problem.
I worked at Savage Arms back in the late 90s, and they sold the Model 24 combo gun, which had a .223 Rem chambered upper barrel, and a 12 ga lower barrel. The single locking lug was located slightly below the center point of the barrels. They came back a lot thru the service dept, with GI 5.56 cases included, and they no longer locked up, and needed a full repair. The paper work included with the gun insisted that the user did not fire military 5.56 in the gun, only .223 Rem. Everyone that came back broken, they had used 5.56.
Are the savage 223 bolt guns the same way (other than design) that it'll cause damage with 5.56? Got a lightweight 223 rifle that I do shoot 223 in, but just curious if 5.56 would hurt it. I know a bolt gun has a much stronger locking system.
@@tangydiesel1886 I imagine it should be fine, but would inspect your brass after firing for signs of pressure, flat primers, etc....
@ 8.30, I completely agree that 'military grade' is mass produced for the low bid winner.
The only two real differences in military ammo and commercial ammo is the military ammo is 'supposed' to be waterproofed with a little lacquer sealing the neck and primer. The other difference is the crimping of the case for 'primer retention'. That just makes the military cases more work for reloading.
Nice video about a subject that has been 'Stupidly Abused' my way too many 'Experts' that really want to be '...All of That, AND a bag of Chips...'!
Take Care and be safe, John
Today I finally got the truth about 5.56 vs. 223 from a Vietnam war Vet.
Pre Vietnam and post for a few years 5.56 was different from 223 but just in case wall width. The real difference was in the chamber primarily the throat which the 5.56 throat was longer so when fired the case neck could expand further due to the increase in pressure over 223 plus primer crimps.
Nowadays the ammo manufacturers realize they could have the identical measurements in cases for both 5.56 & 223 BUT the increase in pressure to 60k for 5.56 requires longer chamber throats for case expansion which is not needed at 55K or less that is on the 223.
If you are going to be shooting any round in excess of 55K of pressure then make sure you are using a 5.56 chamber for that extra expansion length for the neck. If you don't the neck in a 223 could hit the end of the throat and then push backwards into the bolt which if very or no space between the case head and bolt face ; well you can figure out that one right ?
Hornady manual for 223 - 62gr FMJ-BT W/C max load is 27.4gr. of CFE223 powder and for 5.56 NATO - 62gr FMJ - BT W/C max load is 27.7. More pressure in 5.56
Hornady has no data for bullets less than 62gr for 5.56 with the exception of the GMX 55gr which is a copper bullet so these Winchester & PMC 5.56 rounds being sold as 5.56 are truly 223 rounds with a little more powder. My last bunch of Winchester 5.56 55gr had 27.5 gr. of powder and sold as 5.56 rounds requiring a 5.56 chamber to be safe.
What a scam people what a scam. 223 with a little more powder that's all it is !
No additional brass in the wall widths.
Reply
I was a unit armorer in the US Army. My 3 AR types are in 5.56 chambering, not .223. According to SAAMI, the chamber pressure for 5.56 is 60,000 PSI, while the pressure for the .223 is 55,000 PSI.
Note that the rounds themselves are the same, dimensionally. The 5.56 chamber is very slightly 'longer' than the .223 chamber, by a few thousands. I wouldn't worry about shooting 5.56 in a .223 rifle, actually, but I do trust SAAMI, so I went with the 5.56 chamber. Some folks have reported a slight loss of long range accuracy when shooting the .223 in a 5.56 chambered rifle, but I haven't noticed that in my shooting. However, I'm not a great shooter, so that may be why.
One other note is that while we have SAMMI, other nations do not, so there is no international standard of how chamber pressure is measured, and you may see differences in pressure stats for some ammo types from various countries.
To add a datum: at one point, I called the people at Sierra to confirm from an official source that the data they had published for service competition loads with AR-type rifles were fine in bolt-actions. The answer was yes. Not quite the same, but good to know.
I had a kid come into my store and said excuse me! But do you have any 40mm pistol ammo? I told him I think you mean .40 caliber pistol and yes we do and he stated very seriously No I want 40mm, I pulled a silver dollar out of my pocket and said This is 40mm to which he said Are you sure? If I had a nickel for every person who bought a gun and had no idea what ammo it took I'd be a very rich man, I'm glad Ian made this video because now I can show some people I'm not the only person to say exactly what he's saying on here.
I think Paul (I'm what you call a professional and if you read this Paul - I agree. Love your videos. Great stuff.) did an analysis on this. Weighing the cases, powder, etc. It's the same stuff.
You be the judge.
Love Paul's videos.
Don’t do this at home!
Paul Harrell
"So there is a difference between 5.56 and .223. But is it enough of a difference to make a difference?"
The difference between 223 Remington and 5.56 NATO is in the chamber pressure. 223 commercial factory loading is generally 55,000 psi chamber pressure whereas 5.56 NATO is generally loaded to 62,000 psi chamber pressure. To help mitigate the higher chamber pressure for NATO ammo the freebore in the rifle chamber is longer so the bullet can travel unrestricted for slightly longer amount before the bullet engage the rifling. The AR-15/M-16/M-4 rifles are designed to handle chamber pressures as high as 70,000 psi as a safe guard. The reason is that if the rifle is heavy sustained fire, the rifle chamber will heat up and that heat will transfer into a chambered cartridge which will heat up the smokeless gunpowder which can or will increase the chamber pressures beyond that of a cold chamber. This heating of a firearm chamber will be prevalent with any type of firearm if sustained rapid firing is performed and will affect all metallic case cartridges.
Now we will need a follow up video about .308 vs 7.62x51 for sure. Which i would say is more relevant given that many milsurp guns get re-chambered for .308 or 7.62x51
That's way more relevant to an actual safety discussion than .223 vs 5.56.
I can think of one issue I had in which PMC .223 ammo seemed to be deliberately undercharged as compared to 5.56. I was taking a friend shooting, and I told him to buy the 2.23 ammo because it was cheaper than the 5.56 (also PMC). The result: the .223 was so weak, it failed to properly cycle the carrier group in my 20" A2, and we weren't getting bolt lock after the last shot. My thoughts were that PMC was likely doing this on purpose.
The worst thing I've personally experienced firing surplus 5.56 ammo in a 223 chamber is blown out primers, and cracked cases. It was bad enough with 2 different batches in that particular barrel that after about 20 rounds of each batch, I stopped using those rounds in that barrel, and stuck with only .223 spec ammo for it afterward. No more pressure problems. So... did firing surplus 5.56 in that particular .223 chamber blow the gun up? No. Did it create significant problems? Most definitely yes. So, I would personally not go so far as to say "don't worry about it", but I do agree that in most cases it hasn't presented a huge problem for me. Just for reference, I've been shooting since the 1970's, and have had enough different 223 and 5.56 barrels than I can't easily remember them all. So I would say I've had enough experience to feel pretty confident in saying the following: Don't just assume that every loading of 5.56 will fire with no problems in every .223 chamber. There are definitely specific combinations that will cause problems. On the other hand, it definitely IS always okay to fire 223 in 5.56 chambers. This is just my experience. YMMV.
Tim B, Your explanation is what I grew up understanding, it’s not just minor case dimensions,it’s the added pressures in military ammunition that causes potential issues. I’ll stick with .223 in my rifle designated as a .223 . Thanks for speaking up.
You are spot on sir, very well written.
A very good question that has been asked many times, but this is the best answer I’ve heard on the subject. Thanks.
Over the last 30 years of the increase of 5.56mm and .223 shot we really would have heard if there was an issue.
The one time I heard of a problem on ammunition loading was in an M1 Garand. The gentleman in the video ran hot 30 06 ammo in the M1. As a military rifle it is by design overgassed to run in bad conditions. However post WW2 powders are more powerful and if you use a heavier bullet, pressures can spike quite a bit over the designed specs. He claimed the operating rod slammed back so hard it cracked the stock. It may have had an unnoticed crack before hand, who knows. Thats why there are aftermarket kits to regulate the gas pressure so as to handle hotter loads. The chamber appears to be plenty strong but an M1 has a lot of moving mass in the mechanism.
55,000 psi vs 58,000/62,000 psi
Since all barrels are made to a factor of safety versus what is listed, a .223 rated gun with a FOS of just 1.2x can shoot a round at 66,000psi. So Yes go right a head and use 5.56 in your .223 rated rifle.
Except the method of testing pressure for 5.56 that got the 62,000 was different than the SAAMI method and using the newer military SCATP method that measures in the same location that SAAMI does you get 55,000psi. The pressure difference is because the military used to measure pressure in the barrel itself not the chamber like SAAMI leading to this fudd lore from people who didn't check how each is measured.
@@BlackHawkBallistic I'm glad I'm not the only one mentioning this now. NATO doesn't even measure in inches like we do, why the hell would they measure chamber pressure for their rifles the same way as the US civilian arms market which isn't even regulated by law to have any safety or testing standards at all? SAAMI is a voluntary system like the ESRB is for video games, it doesn't actually have any regulating power and all it's specifications are suggestions for manufacturers. Plus I'm pretty sure it would take like 80,000+ psi to burst even a pencil barrel so who cares if you have an extra couple thousand, it's a maximum pressure rating neither are even loaded that hot from the factories to begin with.
5.56 vs. .223
Completely agree with this thesis. Either round should be safe to shoot in guns marked for either of these rounds. Likely also true for 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester.
"Military Grade Ammo"
So I'm a US Army small arms analyst so I'm going to add a little here.
Firstly, almost all US military 5.56 ammo is made at the government Lake City Ammo Plant. I haven't seen current numbers (and probably couldn't say if I had) but its in the high 90th percentile. This is not true of 7.62 where much more of that is contracted out. So if you see 5.56 ammo labeled "military grade" and it didn't come from Lake City, I would treat that as advertising text not proof of performance.
Second, Ian is completely correct that military ammo is not going to perform the same as commercial. Military ammo is made to military contract specifications which were written for military purposes. They're written for lethality, safe field use, and reliable long term storage, not for peak paper-punching accuracy. Those specifications are also different for different national militaries and organizations. The US and NATO specs are different but largely compatible. I would assume Taiwanese and Israeli ammo is also close but not the same. Military specs are independent from commercial, they are changed more frequently, and the people that wrote them care significantly less about backwards compatibility with grandpas old hunting rifle that has been rusting in the barn. Again this stuff should still be safe to shoot in a modern rifle in good condition.
Third, a lot of "military grade" ammo is actually surplus (hence the "once met" statement above). As Ian said, some surplus is actually rejected ammo which didn't meet the lot spec. Some is ammo that has been sitting in an ammunition depot longer than the military likes and is just being rotated out. I wouldn't expect either of these to be performing at its best, but it should be safe to shoot and sufficient for range blasting in a gun in reasonable condition.
"A1 Ammo"
Remember when I said that the people who wrote military specs don't care about backwards compatibility with commercial guns? That is really true of this stuff. I know some of those guys and they barely cared about compatibility with guns actually in US inventory. And the pressure curve for M855A1 is different. If you come up with some of this ammo, it should be safe to shoot in modern commercial guns. Expect accelerated wear all over the place. I wouldn't shoot it in older guns or guns in poor shape.
We've heard so many times that military 5.56 ammo will ruin any 223 chambered gun but we never see actual examples of it and as in the video if this were true we'd see a lot of them. I will say that 223 guns with rifling twist rates of 1 in 14 will not properly stabilize the heavier 5.56 bullets such as the 62 - 70+ grain bullets. They arent really dangerous so much as not all that accurate compared to the lighter 55 gr bullets in the 1 in 14'' twist that it was designed for
"Military Grade". In various itterations of this term, I've seen it stated "Oh, military grade just means it's inferior to what you're gonna get in the store." Other times, I've heard, "Oh, yeah, definitely. It's hotter and also tested to a higher standard!" In respect to "higher standard", to me, it's like paying $120 for a micrometer and then paying another $100 for the certificate of calibration (that you have to renew every so often for the same price.) In either case, it's the same hunk of metal. In the case of the latter, there are business (and sometimes legal) reasons why you would do this but for schlubs like us, it's a waste of money.
I agree with Ian. Military ammunition is loaded for cost because a penny per a box of 20 rounds really adds up when you're placing your standard semi-annual order for, say, 6 million cartridges. For those of us buying 20 or 100 at a time, it's not a factor and we'd rather have the quality. The decreased cost, though, comes at the cost of wider tolerances, meaning the loading varies a little bit more (few slugs are rejected because they don't meet dimensions and the charge may vary by a grain or two instead of half a grain) which means it's somewhat more inconsistent.
However, let's keep context in mind here. This stuff is still quite usable in a firefight, especially if you're not going over 150 yards, where it doesn't matter that your pattern is 4.25 inches instead of 2. When your target is 15 inches across and 60+ inches tall, as long as you at least try to take a little bit of time to aim instead of firing randomly (spray and pray), you're still gonna hit what you shoot at. It's akin to the old saw of "minute of deer". You don't need sub MOA capable rifles in order to put meat on the table.
oh by the way Merry Christmas Ian...hope you have a happy holiday
merry mithra and saturnalia
The main difference between military and civilian small arms ammunition is that military primers are often crimped or stabbed into place. This is to stop them detaching whilst going through feed mechanisms and causing jams. It makes no difference to the civilian user although you have to swage out the crimp if you want to reload the case...
Also military bullets are often sealed with bitumen or other sealants to make the bullet- case joint waterproof. The bullet crimps are also generally heavier to make sure the bullet stays in place when being fed, particularly in belt fed guns where the belt can and does get dragged through the dirt..
As Ian says, military loadings are often slightly weaker than some civilian loadings to take account of the stronger crimps and the need to operate reliably over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. Not many civvie rounds get rides in unpressurised aircraft bays...!
People talk about the 5.56 ammo being higher pressure yet they fail to realize SAAMI .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO are identical pressures. They just have the hole in the cartridge drilled in different locations during the pressure test. When the pressure hole is drilled at the same place the pressure is identical.
I see people say that a lot, but I've also seen where it was put to the test, and the 5.56 was still 5k or so psi higher.
I drill mine in the front allowing the projectile to escape.
Saami pressure is not the same as actual load pressure, 556 is loaded regularly higher and typically you get 200 fps faster
They measure differently, one does PSI and the other does CUP, but if you actually check both the same in PSI, it’s roughly 5000psi difference, which really isn’t enough for any degree of concern assuming it’s not a mini-14
@@ShawnHinck Mini 14s are actually all 5.56 NATO except for the "target" model they made for a while with the heavy barrel and the goofy harmonic balancer thing on the end.
Fantastic clarification!
I learned a lot about the issues when checking what 223 Wylde even is. There is a 5.56 chamber, a .223 Rem. chamber, and a .223 Wylde chamber. They all use the same cartridge and the same headspace gauges.
"You can still shoot those guns with ammunition you can pick up in a store today..." IF you can find .32 ACP
* availability in stores today not guaranteed
@@marcogenovesi8570 most definitely. Trying to find .32 ACP for the weapons we have chambered in it is an adventure for sure.
I have known of a guy who had issues in his M96 when he shot 5.56 ammo through it. The barrel would pop out of the receiver which we assumed was an overpressure issue of sorts. It wouldn't happen with .223 ammo. That was a long time ago and I didn't know much about firearms back then. But now that I think of it it might have just been a defective barrel locking latch that would skip out with slightly higher, yet still normally safe pressure at the gas port that the 5.56mm ammo just happened to have.
Thank you. ive looked this up several times and could never really get a satisfactory answer. Now I finally know i can shoot my .22 magnum in a normal 22 rifle!
Go for it!
P.s. don't actually go for that
@@ndenise3460 lol it's absolutely sarcasm.
I have tried 22mag & 22lr both ways. 22mag won't even start to fit in a normal 22lr chamber. And 22lr fits so loosely in a 22mag chamber that it splits the case after firing.
@@jason86768 In other words it is perfectly safe.
🤣
Make sure and get video of it! I look forward to seeing what transpires. Um..., for science, of course.
I have an AR-15 which jammed occasionally with Remington .223 but has never jammed with the newer 5.56 ammo on the market today, X-Tac brand works 100% perfectly. I have a .308 Century Arms FAL saying .308 and also a 7.62X51 HBAR FAL and I found they both will jam if ammo is interchanged - The .308 ammo 'stovepipes or balloons up' in the 7.62X51 chamber turning the semi auto into a repeater with only partial ejection and vice versa. The 7.62X51 will handle all the cheaper priced cases of military surplus but jams every round using commercial .308 off of the shelf. The only exception was the Russian made steel case .308 works in both and would also be good in 223/5/56.
Merry Christmas everybody, and remember : you can not make bad guys harmless by making good guys helpless.
There was a thing in the 2000s about 5.56 being 20,000 psi higher pressure than .223 when fired in a .223 chamber. It was so prevalent that there was a whole new chamber style developed, the .223 Wylde, to be able to shoot both calibers.
It was all a myth. It stemmed from a typo in an Army manual that listed the 5.56 pressure value in _cup_ instead of _psi,_ but the number was the psi number. This then got even more complicated as people looked into it with incomplete information and understanding and noticed that SAAMI takes the pressure readings from the breech while NATO takes it at the case mouth and the 5.56 case having slightly different internal dimensions at the base, and so on, then made assumptions and theories based on these things. And when people google it, they get old results from this misinformed era.
Even now, a search on the subject returns a forum post from 2008 in the top 5 results, stating:
"I have read that the 5.56 mm NATO has a higher chamber pressure spec. The reference source below lists the spec at about 58000 psi. taken at the case mouth. This is equal to about 78000 psi SAAMI, which has the pressure transducer located about from the breech instead of the case mouth."
Its crazy how ineffective russian military ammo was, i had a sks that would shoot straight as arrow as long as i was using federal or wolf brass any time i used steel jacket russian surplus ammo there was a noticeable decline in accuracy
Even steelcase ammo has differences. Barnaul steelcase shoots very well from an SKS.
When it comes to the question of .223 vs 5.56mm it seems to me the real consideration is: What gun am I using, and is the ammo I'm using a suitable match? I don't shoot M885 ammo in my Ruger No. 1 Varmit because it has a 1:12 twist, a short leade, and won't stabilize bullets over 55gr. I don't shoot 36gr .223 ammo in my Colt AR-15 because it has a 1:7 twist and will shred lightweight thin jacketed bullets.
For handloads, I stick to SAAMI specs for my .223 loads with bullets 55gr or lighter. I reserve heavier bullets for the AR, and often use Hornady's 5.56 Service Rifle data.
IMHO, the bottom line is: Know your gun, as well as your ammunition.
The only rifle that I know of that should not use commercial ammo is the M-1 Garand. It is really hard on the op rod.
fortunately, you can simply install a ported gas plug in it and pretty much eliminate this problem.
Depends on the commercial ammo, there is still new manufactured M2 ball, and you can get an adjustable gas plug for like $50 if you want to shoot spicy bois.
and also just stay away from the heavy hunting ammo, stick to say 165 gr or less.
One case comes to mind, when it's not safe to fire a particular loading in a gun of the same chamber, which is 7,62x54R DPSZ (heavy steel core projectile) from anything other than PKT or PKMT machine guns. The PKT has a much heavier barrel and different gas port compared to PKM machine guns. DPSZ will cause excessive wear and eventually part breakage in normal PKM machine guns.
Walked into a Walmart and asked for a box of .45 ACP. Kid handed me a box of .45 Long Colt.
No, dude, .45 ACP. "That's .45." How about .45 Auto, you got that? "Oh, yeah! Right here!"
I tried to explain the difference using small words, and the kid just looked at me like I was trying explain algebra to a chimpanzee.
Dude, you were in a walmart. Thats not where our brightest souls find themselves.
Most Wallyworlds dont sell pistol ammo anymore, but they do sell .22LR. Anymore those days there are more carbines that shoot pistol rounds that eventually Wallyworld will probably stop selling ammo all together.. Except for probably shotgun ammo. Most people shop at Wallyworld for the prices not the service. Lol
Look at some old reloading manuals. They don't list separate data for 223 & 5.56.
7.62 mauser and x25 tok sneed
a reputable magazine (I wish I had saved it) did chamber pressure tests on a different guns and found the chamber pressure difference was within the round to round variance. They tested .223, 5.56, and .223 Wylde chambered guns.