Talk:.223 Remington

Terminology

How do you pronounce ".223 Remington"? "Two–twenty-three Remington"? "Two-two-three Remington"? "Double-deuce cubed"? Any citations? 98.202.116.244 (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Most peeps refer to it as two-twenty-three or two-two-three. Add rem or remington as you like. It's all good.

Question?

Does anyone else think that, in present form, this page may as well just be a redirect? Stiletto Null

Probably, but not me. It would be nice if "chamber throat" were properly explained, with a diagram showing how .223 differs from 5.56x45.

?

What's the deal with the plug for Barrett at the end? Totally random and out of place.

Merge with 5.56 NATO

5.56 x 45mm 62gr PMC Warning Label, Green Tip

* Should be merged. They aren't two different cartridges, they are two different sets of specs for the same cartridge. They are equivalant, and completely interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.229.244.30 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Untrue. If you cannot read the warning in the photo it says: "Warning: PMC 5.56mm NATO ammunition is to be used in rifles labeled as 5.56mm and must NOT be used in those rifles labled .223." NOT is both upper case and underlined. The US and NATO military forces use SS109, SS110, and SS111 cartridges (M855, M856, M857 Us nomenclature). Recently the M855 had it's lead removed and is now M855A1. Although the 5.56mm NATO chambered rifles can use .223 Rem, I don't believe any do so as regular policy due to the shorter range, reduced armor penetration, and logistics problems that would cause. Digitallymade (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think they should be merged. They aren't completely the same. To put them in one article would suggest that they are. Maybe some revising of each article is in order, such as maybe the 5.56 article should cover military uses and history in that regard, and this article should cover civilian uses and history in civilian light. Then both articles should have a blurb about comparison between the two, each focusing on it's own merits over the other (if that makes sense). Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On closer inspection, each article seems to be right on with the military vs. civilian angles mentioned above. Still vote no merge. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although they are similar they are different. Having them together could confuse people. I think having them separated is a better choice

Skrasis Mar. 6, 2007

• Oppose - Although for the most part they are the same cartridge, the military and civilian load differences and uses should be sufficient to keep the two articles separate. --Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Despite the SAAMI trying to validate their bureaucratic existence by asserting that 5.56 NATO is "unsafe" to shoot in 223 Remington firearms, most sportsmen will maintain that they're basically the same cartridge with different names, certainly never heard of interchangeability causing unintended injury (perhaps a split brass that didn't fully eject). SAAMI is also the number one cause of confusion about the military 308 Winchester rounds, +/- 10,000 PSI big deal, most any rifle a person is likely to encounter is already designed to fire both types of ammunition without issue (i.e. a Bushmaster XM15 or a Mini-14), saying there is a difference is what's confusing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.6.196 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge these two articles should either be merged or more emphasis placed on the fact that the only difference between these two cartridges is in the way saami and cip choose to describe the same thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.171.7 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm cartridges are different only in the sense that 5.56 cartridge casings are usually thicker (with slightly less internal capacity for gun powder) and are usually loaded with longer heavier bullets. The really big difference is that a rifle barrel chambered for .223 will often be throated and rifled for bullets in the 45 grain range, while a rifle barrel chambered for 5.56mm will be throated and rifled for heavier bullets, 55 grain or even heavier. Evem more confusing is that many .223 rifle barrels are throated and rifled for ammunition loaded to 5.56 specifications so those rifles can be used with either ammunition. The gross similarities and minor differences are such that the articles should be merged. .223 and 5.56 are (generally) interchangeable (with warnings). There are some .223 barrels very tightly throated that might be a problem with 5.56 loaded with very long heavy bullets. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the .223 Remington is not the 5.56 NATO. But is it the same as the 5.56x45mm M193 ball cartridge? If it is the exact same, then this article should be named 5.56 mm M193 (or something similar) I think, since the military has fired many, many tens of millions of these bullets from all those M16A1 rifles and its derivatives.Mytg8 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 5.56mm 62gr is NOW M855A1 (the 55gr .223 Rem was M193).

• OPPOSE - While both cartridges may have the same dimensions they are different. Some firearms manufacturers do differentiate these cartridges in their firearms. The Ruger Mini-14 is an example. The Mini-14’s that are .223 Remington Ranch and Tactical rifles have the 5.56 NATO chambers and will fire both cartridges but the Target Mini-14 is only chambered in .223 Remington. Ruger’s own instructions are specific that 5.56 NATO ammunition should never be fired from the Target models. There is also a difference in the chamber dimensions for each cartridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.2.174.62 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The ″.223 Remington versus 5.56 mm NATO″ section explains these chamberings are not the same.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cartridge cases are IDENTICAL. The rifle chambers (all three) are not. The main difference between .223 Rem chambers and 5.56mm Nato chambers has to do with what the USA calls Throating and the UK calls Leade. The .223 chamber is shorter, and will cause a higher pressure, even than the rated 62,000 psi if a 5.56 NATO round is fired. This would be approaching proof pressure levels. Sustain use can cause a rifle to explode. I oppose merging for another reason as well. .223 Rem is a civilian cartridge, and is the most popular rifle cartridge in the world today in civilian use. 5.56mm NATO is a military cartridge. These are two entirely different uses.Digitallymade (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Merge While not FULLY interchangeable, .223 and 5.56mm are partially interchangeable. Most manufacturers recommend against using 5.56mm NATO in a .223 Remington rifle. However, the other way--using .223 in a 5.56 rifle--is generally considered safe and normal. Also, the civilian-military distinction is moot. .223 Remington was essentially designed for the M-16. .223 Remington was used by the military until 5.56mm NATO became the standard. Today, "milspec" 5.56mm NATO ammo is also used by civilians. See Talk:.223_Remington#History_?? Weslima (talk)

Picture

Okay, I know my guns and all, but why put a picture of 5.56x45mm cartridges in an M16 STANAG magazine and specifically differentiate the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO in the caption and put the picture in the .223 Remington page? --Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a photo of an actual .223 if you want to use it, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:22LR-9-45-223-3006-12gu-LipGloss.jpg

I don't have any Nato rounds for comparison though, maybe use this photo and the one already on the page? I'll leave it up to y'all to decide, rather than messing up the page myself.

ElizaBarrington (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The VAST majority of AR type rifles use US style steel magazines because they are CHEAP. As long as it works, it doesn't matter what magazine is depicted. Some SIG (NOT Sig Sauer) assault rifles (the real thing, military full auto) do not use the standard magazine having been modified to use a clear see through plastic magazine. I use several types of magazines including some that are transparent.Digitallymade (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Beltway Snipers

Is this the same bullets used from Bushmaster XM15 in the DC Sniper case by Muhammad and Malvo? —KpoT (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a photograph of the evidence bag with one of the cartridges found in the car. It is labeled .223 Cartridge. That doesn't mean it could not be a 5.56mm but it's probably that it's a 55gr .223 Rem. I'm from that area and I've been at several of the murder sights and often stop at the rest stop where they pair for caught. I filled my car at one of the gas stations where he killed a person, roughly at that time. Digitallymade (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a Goodyear Eagle the same tire driven by Mario Andretti? That's roughly equivalent to the question you are asked. The XM15 is chambered for the 5.56x45 mm cartridge; this is a higher pressure cartridge dimensionally similar to the .223 Remington, and a .223 Remington cartridge will function in a 5.56x45 mm chamber, though the inverse is not a safe combination. Note, however, that I'm talking about cartridges, not a bullets. The term "bullet" correctly refers to only the projectile itself; the same .223 inch diameter bullet could be fired from any of a very large number of cartridges, assuming sufficient case capacity, overall length, and rifling twist to handle a bullet of any given size. scot (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx for quick response. So which DID they use in the DC Sniper case? --KpoT (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The rifle was a "post-ban" AR-15 type rifle, an XM-15 model made by Bushmaster. I'm not sure what ammunition was used (I'm not sure that was ever released by the police), but it was a 5.56mm rifle, which means it can fire both the military spec 5.56mm ammunition, as well as most of the .223 Remington loadings available commercially (.223 loads with lightweight bullets may not produce enough pressure at the gas port to reliably cycle the AR-15's action). And, just FYI, the media was wildly incorrect in calling the rifle a "high powered sniper rifle"; the following shows why.

The AR-15 family of rifle is very inherently accurate for an autoloading design, since the direct impingement gas system doesn't provide any lateral loading on the barrel. A good, off the shelf AR-15 is capable of holding shots within a 1 to 2 inch circle at 100 yards, with a good shooter and careful ammunition selection. On the other hand, modern sniper rifles are hand built and tuned to shoot groups half that size or smaller (since snipers generally shoot at very long distances, where accuracy errors are magnified much more). Sniper rifles also use high magnification telescopic sights with provisions for compensating for bullet drop at long ranges. Muhammed and Malvo used a no-magnification red dot sight and took shots at 50 to 100 yards; the only reason they weren't immediately caught, shooting at such short range, is because they were using the car trunk as a giant improvised suppressor to hide the visible signature and muffling the sound of the muzzle blast. That couldn't muffle the sonic boom of the supersonic bullet, but if they'd chosen to use a pistol-caliber carbine, it would have provided sufficient accuracy and power for 100 yard shots, and provided less muzzle blast and no sonic boom. See the De Lisle carbine article for more information on a highly effective, short range military sniper rifle, used by British Commandos.

The .223 Remington and 5.56mm, which are very similar ballistically (the difference is that one is governed by the civilian SAAMI and the other by NATO, so there are slight differences in chamber dimensions and maximum pressure) and are by no means "high powered"; in fact, the .223 Remington is considered barely adequate for hunting deer-sized game, and is illegal for that use in some states (where 6mm, or .243 inches, is the minimum size). The 5.56mm military load is probably the least powerful military rifle cartridge the US has ever had--ignoring the .30 Carbine, which was an early personal defense weapon intended to replace pistols in some applications. The military 5.56mm loading generates about 1,300 ft lbs. of energy; compare this to the 7.62mm/.30 caliber load it replaced, similar to that used by most militaries from the 1890s to the 1950s, at around 2,400 ft lbs. of energy, or even the .45-70, more than a century old, at 1,700 ft lbs. scot (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Very informative answer! Thank you! Much appreciated! --KpoT (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

24.95.241.57 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Criminals use what is available. Ban this round and they will use another. Ban them all and help the black market grow.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) so when you kill someone make sure that you look for their money and credit card. Then RUN And this is why you dont use this site because i am putting down DUMB information. Now imange that u need information for a project about someone and you come to this site. You don't know who is typing so you can be typing fake information. For example i could write that Abram Lincon did from an overdose, you would believe if you don't know who he really died.

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Rifle/Standarddata(Rifle)/22Cal(5.56mm)/223%20Remington%20pages%20185%20to%20187.pdf
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:36, 404 Not Found
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/wylde.jpg
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:39, 404 Not Found
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:16, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=11
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:36, 404 Not Found
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.saami.org/Unsafe_Combinations.cfm
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:39, 404 Not Found
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:39, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image Revlevance

What is the relevance of the image in the table? It's a 5.56, 30-30, and 7.62; The .223 is a very diffrent caliber, and is not interchangable (you can't put a 5.56 into a .223). Please exchange wwith an appropriate image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.31.186 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This photo does not even have an image of the 223. It needs to be replaced with one that has the 223 in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.128.165 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

general comment

SAAMI cartridge names never begin with "." So this cartridge is called 223 Remington, not .223 Remington. Someone should correct this on all of Wikipedia's cartridge entries. I would do it myself but I am not sure how to keep from breaking Wikipedia's links. 71.184.91.47 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. SAAMI gives advice only and their sloppiness in this regard just confuses things. ALL US/English rifle cartridges use the decimal to indicate caliber except old rifles that used BORE. SAAMI does not develop or trademark brands. Sloppiness is creeping into a lot of areas, especially English language usage. Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Silly question, maybe, but ....

... shouldn't the history page mention what year it was conceived or developed or when it became available?

T85.166.160.236 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The .223 Remington (.223 Rem) is a cartridge with almost the same external dimensions as the 5.56×45mm NATO military cartridge

No, they are exactly the same case dimension. Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually the dimensions of the cartridge are the same. The article later says there is no such thing as 223 or 5.56 brass. That statement is true and contradicts the opening statement. Canonshooter999 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This article needs thorough proofreading. It is embarrassing that such errors are here.

223 Remington is not to be confused with the Nato standard 5.56mm x 45mm

NATO Canonshooter999 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what an atrocious run on sentence. Plus it's is a contraction meaning "it is".

After the M16 was released to the public as the (semi-automatic) Armalite AR15 model the combination of an ultra light semi-automatic rifle that is fun to shoot, and an extremely accurate, inexpensive cartridge as well as >>it's<< use by the US Army, made this combination an instant hit. Canonshooter999 (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"AR builders who intend to shoot the new 90 grain bullets will probably look to rifling at 1:65."

Really? That rifling would be like no twist at all. Canonshooter999 (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is pure BS and further propagates the confusion between 223 and 5.56. The barrel is the only difference between the two weapons in today's market. There MAY have been 223 specific upper receivers a decade ago but there is no reason to mention it.

I'm sure you understand that the ratio would be 1:6.5 period.Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached) and the lower receiver are entirely separate parts in AR-15 style rifles. If the lower receiver has either .223 or 5.56 stamped on it, it does not guarantee the upper assembly is rated for the same caliber, because the upper and the lower receiver in the same rifle can, and frequently do, come from different manufacturers – particularly with rifles sold to civilians or second-hand rifles. On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver. Canonshooter999 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true. Many uppers have no markings at all. Any upper can be put on any Mil-Spec receiver. However you statement about the construction of the lower being less important is NOT true. They are equal. The slightest problem with the lower may mean that the gun will be unreliable, or the trigger may not fit, etc. etc. Tolerances are very tight. I have an out of spec lower and it caused me quite a bit of trouble. Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There are other grammatical and spelling errors. I don't have time to list them all. Canonshooter999 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cartridge Dimensions

The diagram of the cartridge calls out a 25° angle at the base. The diagram as drawn actually has a http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf, which I believe is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.43.210 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The diagram follows the current C.I.P. TDCC, see http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf. The TDCC mentions no 40° angle.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A few comparisions

A few cartridge comparisons. .223 Rem is the original AR-15/M16 cartridge. All others resulted from NATO standardization. NO PB means LEAD FREE. All the NATO calibers have penetrators. The SS111 performance (as far as I know) has not be made public although some Bofors ammo showed high performance in armor penetrate decades ago. This data came from the US Army Green Book and other sources many years ago.

The .223 Rem bullet is an analog to the .50 BMG bullet. Those in the NATO rounds are ballistically superior. NATO pressures are measured using the Piezo method. Some suggest that the two pressures are the same. I'll trust PMC in this.

5.56 x 45mm 62gr PMC Warning Label, Green Tip

Cartridge	US Des	NATO Des	Bullet Wt	Rifling	Throat	Pressure
.223 Rem	M193		55 gr fmjbt	1:10	US tight	55,000 (CUP)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M855	SS109	62g Pen	1:7	NATO Long	62,000(P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M855A1		62 gr No PB	1:7	NATO Long	62,000 (P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M856	SS110	77 gr Tracer	1:7	NATO Long	62,000 (P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M857	SS111	AP TC	1:7	NATO Long	62,000 (P)

I've repeated the warning photo from PMC M855 style:

Digitallymade (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors

Errors in the first section:

Errors in the Introduction section. Why is 5.56 x 45mm NATO being discussed under .223 Rem. One is civilian and the other is military. The Military does not use .223 Rem. Actual military specifications are NOT necessarily revealed to the public, ex. SS111 specs

• .223 Remington (M193) and 5.56 x 45mm NATO (SS109) case dimensions are identical
• It is most commonly loaded with a 55 grain full metal jacket boat tail bullet similar to the bullet in M193 (US military)
• There is NO evidence that the 5.56mm NATO chamber changed
• NATO NEVER used the 55grain bullet. The first was SS109 at 62 gr.
• The logic that 5.56mm chambering changed is incorrect. .223 Rem chambering didn't change EITHER. What actually occurred (because of rifling) was the .223 Rem barrels were replaced with 5.56mm barrels with a 1:7 rifling.

Another Logical error... .223 Rem is a civilian round. That means there is a HUGE number of makers (since it is also the world's most popular rifle caliber next to .22 LR) and a huge variety of velocities and loads. This is NOT the case with military cartridges.

• The physics here on the energy don't work. If energy is m times 1/2 v squared, the only logical conclusion I can verify from Federal is a unit conversion issue. 73 grains divided by 100?, times velocity squared over 2 comes within range. The only problem is in pounds, 456 grams per pound is radically larger than what's cited. The math might be correct but the unit conversions from the ammunition manufacturer are wrong. Scroll down, how does an object of 55 grains have a total energy with significantly different velocities come within half a dozen joules? The energy as listed, or even pure instantaneous momentum is fantasy.
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.113.253 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, talking about SAAMI pressures has no benefit with regard to NATO cartridges as they don't follow SAAMI (or CIP). SAAMI and CIP standards exist so that various makers can produce similar products. They do not develop ammunition or firearms and they don't have any authority over naming conventions. And I don't think they have any influence on Military designs either.

It is a Logical Error to talk about SAAMI or CIP standards with regard to MILITARY products in my opinion.

.223 Remington (Rem) is a Sporting Cartridge used for casual, target, and competitive shooting and hunting. Facilitating these uses are a wide range of bullet and powder loads available in .223 Rem cartridges. .223 Rem is often used for hunting varmints, feral dogs, pigs, racoon, possum, and small deer etc. Hunters can use a wide selection of bullet weights if matched to the correct rifling rate in their firearms.

Early in it's availability it was used by Military and Police forces but has been largely supplanted for those uses by the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge family. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is sometimes preferred for Police use due to it's lack of over penetration as compared to police handgun cartridges.

References

The Olympic reference may disappear soon as Olympic Arms has declared bankruptcy.

Digitallymade (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The link may be archived in the Internet Archive. Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the History section

This section describes some of the different .224 cartridges in development but fails to mention Winchester's. It also fails to note that there are major differences in case design form .222 Rem Mag to .223 Rem. It is a very incomplete history of the development. A complete history can be found on the internet.

The Daniel Watters reference is dead. This statement is FALSE: With the U.S. military adoption of the M16 assault rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington in a slightly derived form was standardized as the 5.56×45mm NATO.

With the introduction of the AR15 rifle the cartridge was standardized as the M193.

The .222 Rem is still being sold here, but it's appreciated by a small number of target shooters.

Digitallymade (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors in Cartridge Dimensions and Rifling Sections

False statement: CIP lists .223 Rem pressures as 62,366 psi Piezo. This is either misquoted or the wrong cartridge. That is a pressure rating for 5.56 x 45mm NATO SS109, not .223 Rem. I'll trust the US ratings in this. CIP is clearly rating NATO and not REM.

rifling:

There is an implication that there are M16s around with 1:12 or 1:10 rifling. When US went to NATO standard all of the M16s were rebarrelled to 1:7. There might be a very few (probably illegal) M16s in the USA with 1:12 or 1:10 but the standard TODAY is 1:7. The M16 is currently at the A4 development and is being completely phased out by the M4.

The rifling section is confused and needs to be rewritten.Digitallymade (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors in .223 Rem vs 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, Brass Case, Pressure sections

The first line is wrong: The .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges and chamberings are similar but not identical.

The .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45mm NATO Cartridge cases are identical. The rifle barrel chambers are different. (there is no purpose in using the word similar. You CANNOT be both Similar and Different at the same time.

This statement: While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, bullet weight, chamber pressure and the chamber leade (throating in the USA), i.e. distance from the projectile while seated in the case to the rifling is typically shorter in .223 Remington commercial chambers.

is nonsense. It's contradictory in what it says. If a cartridge varies by any of it's element it cannot be identical. The ONLY element that is known to be similar is the cartridge case and that is identical. The bullet are known to be dissimilar, powder charges are largely unknown. Throating is definately different and may involve more differences than simply distance. (I suspect this is true but cannot confirm this positively) The page actually suggests this is true which is a contradiction of an earlier statement on the same page.

Pressure: Removed copyrighted photo.

This image contradicts the statement about CIP pressures, which I do not feel are credible. A 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round fired in a non-NATO chambered for .223 REM would, similar to bullet setback, cause a spike in pressure. Setback alone can account for over 10,000 psi, which could be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. However, this is just speculation.. the actual pressures generated may be much higher. Sustained use of 5.56 Nato in a .223 Rem firearms is likely to cause damage. It's similar to using proof ammunition.Digitallymade (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors in Chamber section

Logical problems:

• If the 62,000 psi 5.56mm Nato round is fired in the tighter .223 Rem type chamber it's 62,000 psi is likely to rise to over 72,000 psi, which I am sure is proof level pressure for the .223 Rem. A 20% over pressure for .223 Rem would be 66,000psi. 5.56 Nato may well exceed even 72,000 psi. Note the warning on the PMC cartridge box for it's M855 type cartridge.

• If there had NOT been an accuracy problem with using .223 Rem in 5.56mm Nato chambers, no one would have altered chamber designs to correct this. Today, several rifle makers have changed to .223 Wylde chambers without specifically stating that they have (I've talked to some of them who told me this, one about a month ago).

Statement:- It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached)

• Apart from the grammatical error there is an implication that the chamber is separate from the barrel as stated. The Chamber is an integral part of the barrel.

• It's true that the stampings on a lower receiver do not necessarily reflect what barrel is used in the upper receiver. It's also true that makers of upper receiver assemblies are switching to making a majority of them in 5.56mm Nato and .223 Wylde (even though this is not always stated). And it's true there are still .223 Rem only barrels/uppers being sold.

This statement is untrue:On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.

• Anyone who has had an out of spec receiver knows this is untrue. The importance of accurate manufacture of upper and lower is EQUAL. In general makers try to make their uppers and lowers comply with Mil-Spec. They are NOT always successful.

Cartridge	Chamber	Pressure	Proof 20%
.223 Rem	.223 Rem	55,000	66,000
5.56 mm NATO	5.56mm Nato	62,000	74400
5.56mm NATO	.223 Rem	72,000+	66000

A firearm should NEVER be fired using a cartridge where pressures exceed proof levels. It's clear from the chart that 5.56mm may be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. Proof levels may in fact be higher than 20%. There are enough firearms that have exploded which have been examined by the makers who have found, almost without variation, that high pressures were involved. The implication is usually that a handload was too high pressure. But it may also be due to repeated use of 5.56mm in a .223 Rem chambered firearm.

Digitallymade (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating with more information:

Cartridge	Chamber	Pressure	Proof 25%
.223 Rem	.223 Rem	55,000	70,000 (actual)
5.56 mm NATO	5.56mm Nato	62,000	77500 est
5.56mm NATO	.223 Rem	72,000+ est	77500 est

SAAMI proof is 1.25 overpressure. CIP information is for European loaded ammunition only. Remington NEVER submitted their specs to CIP. CIP is NOT an authority for .223 Rem. Normal variance for .223 Rem allows pressure to vary by 3000psi. Top normal pressure is actually 58,000psi. Getting water in the barrels caused burst fluted barrels during testing. A heavier barrel was used to resolve that problem.

Cartridge	USA Des	NATO Des	Bullet	Rifling	Throat	Pressure	in .223 Chamber	Safe Sustained
.223 Rem	.223 Rem		55gr FMJBT	1:14	tight	52,000	52,000	Yes
.223 Rem	M193	5.56 x 45 mm	55gr FMJBT	1:12	tight	55,000	55,000	Yes
.223 Rem	M197		C10524197-56-2	1:12	tight	70,000	70,000	One time only
5.56 x 45mm NATO	M855	SS109	62 gr Pen	1:7	long	62,000	70,000+	No
5.56 x 45mm NATO	M856	SS110	77gr Tracer	1:7	long	62,000	70,000+	No
5.56 x 45mm NATO	M857	SS111	Tungsten Carbide	1:7	long	62,000	70,000+	No
5.56 x 45mm NATO	Proof	Proof	unk	1:7	long	77500est	85250 est	No

The last line is a guess based on normal proof load pressures being 25% overpressure of normal. There is also a 3500 psi various allowed in testing so loads can do up or down. As noted, 5.56mm cases externally are identical to .223 Rem cases, but typically have thicker case walls and that means less capacity. I've seen .223 Rem listed as high as 31gr capacity (Chuckhawks) and other places at only 28gr. That's enough to cause pressure problems based on using the same powder load, but it will not affect this chart. Several websites have speculated that .223 Rem proof pressure is actually 78,500 psi. The figure I used is from Cartridges of the World 14 - 2014, which is under constant revision and released in a new form annually.

Reading many sites, there are quite a few photographs of blown up ARs. Several say that they did nothing unusual. However, firing an AR too long without cleaning can add to the overpressure and is suspected in the destruction of some of the rifles where the user said they did nothing wrong. I'm inclined to add a truncated version of this chart, cutting off the last two columns, to the article. Digitallymade (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Errors in section Effects of barrel length on velocity

Statement: In the case of the 5.56 NATO, M193 ammunition

M193 is US spec for .223 Rem which is NOT used by US military. There is no such a thing as 5.56 NATO M193. This error appears on a Midway advertisement (for one).

The USA is phasing out M855 in favor of M855A1.

This is a poor section. Why mention the expected change in velocity due to barrel length without giving an example of barrel lengths used in various types of firearms. Furthermore, it's illogical to talk about barrel length without also mentioning the stated muzzle velocity of common ammunition.

The stated reference makes a dubious claim that "5.56mm fired safely in a .223 Rem rifle. They did not test pressure and don't know if it was safe, which is doubtful. The temperature was lower than the test standard so results will be slightly off.

Since they were cutting barrels in a crude manner and not making any effort to give them a proper crown the velocity results may be slightly off also. Cutting a barrel in that way may introduce stress etc. In general the concept is OK. The section has too little information to be useful. Digitallymade (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this and the other "error" sections - Please offer some published sources that provide the correct information. No matter how expert you or I may be, we need to base our editing on verifiable sources, not personal knowledge. Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have them. I just don't always put them in the talk section. Sometimes the references, although true, are not considered reliable, such as from some blogs and especially from forums. In which case I'll leave them out of the main page until, or if, good references appear. Sadly, a great deal of the older information is fading away. There are few libraries with many books of authority and much of the older internet is being allowed to die out. Digitallymade (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Forums and blogs may only be used if the writers are recognized experts who have b=previously been published in reliable sources. See WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS. Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll use them if I think they are worthwhile. Some of the true information on websites is accompanied by untrue information, which makes using the good information hazardous. There are instances where blogs are commercially written, which may have good information, but because of what they are I won't use them. There is a reference used on M14EBR that is a mass of advertisements for parts. I let that ref stay there, but I don't trust it. (I fixed a large number of broken links on that article) By the way, the main problem with the barrel length section is that the source is amateurish. The are actual barrel length analysis on the web with authority to them. The failure to properly crown the muzzle after each cut destroys any validity as far as I am concerned. Still even though it's not precise the point about short barrels losing velocity and effect is true. I learned about 40 YEARS AGO not to trust any article that was published by the people who publish MOST of the firearms information in magazines. I distrust ANY source which lives through advertising. But if it's the only source, what choice is there? Digitallymade (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your concern about poor sources, including those that write about the same companies who support them through advertising. Even so, we all need to follow basic Wikipedia policies. If a good source doesn't exist for a certain fact, then the best solution is to leave out the supposed fact. We don't have to say anything, so we should stick with saying what appears in the most reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Heavy bullets

Barnes currently loads an 85 gr in the .223 Rem. The 90 grain Sierra is for single loading only (no semi-automatic) and is NOT commercially loaded.

Digitallymade (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Dimension and diagram

The diagram shown is for 5.56mm NATO from CIP. CIP pressures shown are always for 5.56mm NATO even on their page claiming to be .223 Rem. .223 Remington was submitted to SAAMI in 1964.

Here is a diagram of .223 Rem .223 Remington Case Dimensions.

Here is another diagram of .223 Remington .223 Remington Diagram

I have several actual reloading manual diagrams but I cannot just photograph them and put them on commons because that would be a copyright violation. NONE of the correct diagrams for .223 Rem that I have found are public domain. Correct diagrams will always be labeled in inches which is how they are submitted to SAAMI.Digitallymade (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the purpose these diagrams of cartridges that appear in so many articles. I don't see how the information would be of much interest to anyone except cartridge designers and handloaders. Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The only people that would benefit from that are cartridge collectors who are trying to identify a cartridge. There are too many which share dimensions for this to be much help. Cartridge collection guides are more useful. In any case, I wonder if these are actually Public Domain, since everyone I have ever seen has been in a copyrighted book or from a copyrighted website. Digitallymade (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

History ??

We now say both:

(a) "originally developed in 1957 as a commercial hunting bullet for small mid-western varmints; with the first rifle chambered for it coming out in 1963." (in the Intro)

and:

(b) "The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle" (in History)

So, which is it? It seems to me that this article is about the civilian cartridge, and while it's interesting that it was picked up, used, and further developed by the military, that should not be the main focus. The ArmaLite AR-15, M16 and 5.56×45mm NATO have their own whole articles.

There is also, imho, far too much detail in the ".223 Remington vs. 5.56×45mm NATO" section. - Snori (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is a big contradiction. The "commercial hunting bullet..." claim is poorly sourced. According to every re-telling on the history of .223, the civilian-military distinction between .223 and 5.56mm is entirely apocryphal. tl;dr: .223 Remington was indeed "intrinsically linked to the development of [the M-16]". .223 Remington was designed and as a military round. 5.56 NATO was an iteration on .223 that came about a decade later. Both were designed for their contemporary variant of the M-16.

I believe the "varmint hunting" origins for .223 is due to .223 Remigton being based on .222 Remington (a commercial hunting bullet)

Weslima (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Caliber is the correct designation referenced

The unit or designation of measure is Caliber. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm). When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge. It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.

Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional. It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR" or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR". It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.

This page is for specifications in caliber, what is used in the industry. Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of .45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches. Another example .223 Rem. If this is a caliber unit it would translate to .223 thousandths (.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches.

The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms.

Further information on the correct way to specify values and units. Values and the units used should be separated by a space. Example 7 mm is correct, 7mm is not correct. Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be. Another example (5.56 x 45 mm). Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).

Scimernet (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)scimernet

Bad Photoshop of 22 vs 223

That picture of a 222 compared to a 223 is a bad Photoshop. It makes it appear as if the body and rim diameter of the 222 are smaller than those of the 223, when in fact, the rim and base diameters are the same, and the 222 has slightly less taper giving a slightly larger diameter shoulder. I'll see if I have a 222 somewhere that I can photograph with a 223, but if not, can someone else fix that? DrHenley (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Amendment 2 or The Dictator, decide

Every acronym will know the truth. AR-15 with a .22 71.185.58.222 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)