Talk:5.56×45mm NATO

Nitpick

Once again engaging in nitpicking, the title of this article should be should read cartridge rather than caliber and even that would not be technically correct. Ideally, it should be titled "5.56mm NATO", which designates the specific cartridge. Caliber is a measurement of bore diameter, not a specific round designation. 5.56 mm or .224 inches includes a vast number of cartridges, a very abbreviated list of which would include the .218 Bee; .219 Zipper; .222 Remington; .22-250; and .220 Swift. hipshot49

Response to "Relationship to .223 Rem

Well, theoretically rounds meeting either spec (NATO 5.56x45 or SAAMI .223) will chamber and fire, the problem is that tolerances and some dimensions are different, meaning that firing a hot NATO round in a standard SAAMI chamber could result in blowing chunks of receiver at the user's face. Bad Thing™.

Not the only difference. The specifications for military 5.56x45mm ammunition also call for primers with thick, heavy cup material, to make the cartridges less susceptible to slam-firing and firing out-of-battery when used in weapons with floating firing pins, such as the AR15/M16 rifle, and also when used in automatic weapons. Commercial .223 Remington ammunition has no such specification.

Do you guys think we should actually bother with a separate .223 page?

Stiletto Null 03:00:06, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Why is M193 listed under ballistic performance?

The US “Cartridge, 5.56mm, ball, M193” was just the US military’s name for .223 Remington, as stated in the article. As such, this cartridge is distinct from the “5.56x45mm NATO” cartridge as it predate’s NATO’s adoption of the SS109 cartridge and is built within the .223 spec (chamber pressure of 52,000PSI, below the spec of 55,000).

As such, I think M193 should be listed in the ballistic performance section in the .223 Remington article rather than this one. 2600:4040:5F52:1600:CD1E:1676:E0C1:43B7 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Developed by FN?

Im not an editor so ill place this request here. The line "developed in the late 1970s in Belgium by FN Herstal" needs to be moved from the summary or further clarified, as even the source cited does not mention this. It should read something along the lines of "the nomenclature used by NATO for their standard of the 223 remington cartridge." 72.23.215.113 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2024

5.56×45mm NATO → 5.56 × 45 mm NATO – See MOS:UNITSYMBOLS and decision. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Dicklyon. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support – That linked discussion didn't have a clear decision, but this is what I had proposed there, and nobody objected. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I may start unilaterally moving every page slowly if the request is approved. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't have really strong feelings about this, but I notice that when I write it down, the habit is 5.56x45 mm. I think 5.56x45 has become a single word, a name, and not two numbers. I usually omit the mm, because the name when I refer to it in writing is 5.56x45. In speech it's just five-five-six. Jacqke (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look in books, the x or times symbol appears to be spaced a great majority of the time (looks like 8 out of 10 on the first page of book hits). Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a more thorough consensus. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Firearms, WikiProject NATO, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is by far the most common in common parlance. In any case, were such a move to be made, it should be applied across all metric cartridges. Elshad (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Examples like this appear to deviate from MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, where the proposed title would be preferred per the MOS and also appears to be common usage in sources per evidence by Dicklyon. This is probably a case where we should confirm the appropriate style across similar articles through a broad-base community discussion (ie RfC). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – another piece of the relevant discussion on this is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 163#Ammunition calibre/length naming conventions, where I mentioned that I moved a couple like in this proposal, and that if nobody objected I'd do more. Nobody objected, but I've learned not to go moving things based on such lack of objection, so I agree with Cinderella that a larger discussion might be in order to solidify what looks like an applicable and acceptable guideline, but in a context where some users say "it's a name, not something we should be formatting per guidelines" even though sources don't do it any way more consistent than this. Nevertheless, I'll support this RM for now as I said above. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)