Indians For Guns

how would u rate the 5.56 nato or the .223 rem mag ? the rd develops a mv of 900 mt/s or 3000 fps and a me of 1300ftlbs . how would you people rate it ? please try to give reasons for the same.

Ace_doc wrote:how would u rate the 5.56 nato or the .223 rem mag ? the rd develops a mv of 900 mt/s or 3000 fps and a me of 1300ftlbs . how would you people rate it ? please try to give reasons for the same.

For what purpose and for what objective this debate? Combat,hunting,target practice,hair splitting............?

.223 Rem Magnum?

.223 Rem. Not Rem mag. There is a older .222 Rem. mag. which you're merging with the .223

Although a .223 can be fired in a weapon chambered for 5.56 NATO, you can't fire a 5.56 NATO in a .223 chamber, since the case dimensions are very similar but they differ in both the shape of the chamber and the maximum pressure.

How would you rate it for what? It's a combat round, and is being used as such around the world. It replaced the 7.62mm, allowing combat troops to carry twice as much of the lighter 5.56 rounds. It is cheap to produce, and although the US Army is looking at other rounds once again (6.5 Grendel?) it's going to be here for a while.

Why do you want it rated? Is it even available to shoot where you are?

you asking to rate it in comparison to what? a 308 win? a 303? a 22lr?

223 is a great cartridge for things under 30 kg.

Over 30 kg, well it can be iffy at times.

223 and 5.56 are interchangeable, but here is where the confusion lies-

The 223 is loaded to a lower pressure usually, and more importantly a 5.56 will have a longer throat.

The throat (or "leade") is the distance the bullet has to travel from the case to engage the rifling. The sooner the bullet contacts the rifling in general the better the accuracy but also the higher the pressure and possibly lower velocity. A 5.56 has a longer throat, so it will in general have a higher velocity (read about Roy Weatherby's guns to learn more). A 5.56 may have a longer bullet and result in higher and possibly unsafe pressures if fired in a tight 223 chamber, but again not necessarily so.

Anyway, I hope that clears it up. A 223 can be fired in a 5.56 but if a 5.56 round is fired in a 223 with a tight chamber it MIGHT create excessive pressures, but not necessarily so. I've shot a ton of surplus ammo from 223 bolt guns and never had a problem with pressure signs.

Thanks for the info, Mark. Would you have any pics/diagrams explaining the ''throat'' in a rifle. Also, any links on Roy Weatherby's rifles? Thank you.

Best-
Vikram

Here you go mate. This explains the "throat difference between .223 and 5.56
http://razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/ ... 56cham.gif
and this explains it.

Comparisons.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ington.jpg
.223
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... m_NATO.jpg
5.56
-- Fri May 01, 2009 8:30 pm --

This also explains.
[Removed- since it warned of malware- copied and pasted below]

Thanks for the pics,BJL.

BTW, my Google Chrome blocked the link you posted saying that it hosts Malware.Thought I would let you know. May be check it and take it off? Just a thought. Thanks again.

Best-
Vikram

I use a mac. I didn't get blocked. Will try and find a better link. Thanks for telling me.

-- Fri May 01, 2009 8:43 pm --

Here- I've copied and pasted it.

Q. What is the difference between 5.56×45mm and .223 Remington ammo?

In the 1950's, the US military adopted the metric system of measurement and uses metric measurements to describe ammo. However, the US commercial ammo market typically used the English "caliber" measurements when describing ammo. "Caliber" is a shorthand way of saying "hundredths (or thousandths) of an inch." For example, a fifty caliber projectile is approximately fifty one-hundredths (.50) of an inch and a 357 caliber projectile is approximately three-hundred and fifty-seven thousandths (.357) of an inch. Dimensionally, 5.56 and .223 ammo are identical, though military 5.56 ammo is typically loaded to higher pressures and velocities than commercial ammo and may, in guns with extremely tight "match" .223 chambers, be unsafe to fire.

The chambers for .223 and 5.56 weapons are not the same either. Though the AR15 design provides an extremely strong action, high pressure signs on the brass and primers, extraction failures and cycling problems may be seen when firing hot 5.56 ammo in .223-chambered rifles. Military M16s and AR15s from Colt, Bushmaster, FN, DPMS, and some others, have the M16-spec chamber and should have no trouble firing hot 5.56 ammunition.

Military M16s have slightly more headspace and have a longer throat area, compared to the SAAMI .223 chamber spec, which was originally designed for bolt-action rifles. Commercial SAAMI-specification .223 chambers have a much shorter throat or leade and less freebore than the military chamber. Shooting 5.56 Mil-Spec ammo in a SAAMI-specification chamber can increase pressure dramatically, up to an additional 15,000 psi or more.

The military chamber is often referred to as a "5.56 NATO" chamber, as that is what is usually stamped on military barrels. Some commercial AR manufacturers use the tighter ".223" (i.e., SAAMI-spec and often labeled ".223" or ".223 Remington") chamber, which provides for increased accuracy but, in self-loading rifles, less cycling reliability, especially with hot-loaded military ammo. A few AR manufacturers use an in-between chamber spec, such as the Wylde chamber. Many mis-mark their barrels too, which further complicates things. You can generally tell what sort of chamber you are dealing with by the markings, if any, on the barrel, but always check with the manufacturer to be sure.

Typical Colt Mil-Spec-type markings: C MP 5.56 NATO 1/7

Typical Bushmaster markings: B MP 5.56 NATO 1/9 HBAR

DPMS marks their barrels ".223", though they actually have 5.56 chambers.

Olympic Arms marks their barrels with "556", with some additionally marked "SS" or "SUM." This marking is used on all barrels, even older barrels that used .223 chambers and current target models that also use .223 chambers. Non-target barrels made since 2001 should have 5.56 chambers.

Armalite typically doesn't mark their barrels. A2 and A4 models had .223 chambers until mid-2001, and have used 5.56 chambers since. The (t) models use .223 match chambers.

Rock River Arms uses the Wylde chamber specs on most rifles, and does not mark their barrels.

Most other AR manufacturers' barrels are unmarked, and chamber dimensions are unknown.

-- Fri May 01, 2009 9:00 pm --

For those that aren't aware the name AR-15 is now used almost exclusively to refer to the semi-automatic civilian version(s) of the M16 and M4 assault rifles.

Another view about 5.56 (My two bits worth)

Hmmm..

Lemme try and give you a straight answer (reader is free to differ) Ever since the Gulf War started and even moreso after afghanistan and Iraq, I believe the US army has begun to fathom the uselessness of the 5.56 round in modern warfare. Selling points of the 5.56 like "you can carry twice the amount of ammo" (as compared by weight with the 7.62) become meaningless in battle if you start to need twice the amount of ammo to kill the enemy!

Now why would discovery Channels "Future Weapons" feature the M-110 which is a 7.62 calibre carbine field convertible to sniper rifle if the US Army was satisfied with the performance of the 5.56 M-16 and its multitude of "versions"??

According to John Mackowizch (or whatever), "The Army is buying thousands of them" and the M-110 is already being fielded in Afghanistan

[youtube][/youtube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi- ... per_System

I remember a comment I made about the Insas while test firing it with the good Assam Rifles Colonel. At that time I had joked and said "'If' and By the time India manages to completely deploy the INSAS and arm its entire armed forces with the 5.56 Insas, NATO forces would have already changed back to 7.62..

Jonah

Hi all,

This is an interesting link about 5.56 vs. 7.62 debate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 86/MVT.htm

Though the type is slightly dense and the paper is long, hope it helps.

Regards

Ajit

5.56mm hmm seems to me that after reinventing the wheel, every one whos able will go back to the 1st one. must be getting old as 5.56 keeps cropping up. nice for close quarter massacre on full auto, with not much for distance knock down that is a bit on the weak side, in battle if you aim to hit your enemy and want him to stay down 5.56mm is not the first choice. you can't beat the old and trusty 7.62mm
but then again footsloggers do not have much choice,as some fat arsed general calls the shot.

thats my 00.005 cents worth

interesting views ! the post was only intended to bring bout the views of the forum as regards the caliber of fire arms. well if u compare it with the 7.62 soviet this rd is an absolute winner. it maxes out in almost any parameter as compared tho the 7.62 soviet. and as has been brought out the main reason for its birth is the ability to carry increased ammo in the same wt constraints.the basic issue with this cart is the weapon from which it is fired , specifically the barrel length. the round fragments easily and does not ricochet or over penetrate. it is a flat shooting rd and is accurate till 500 mts. if u want a 7.62 than its the 7.62 Russian u should look at. also please ref the American m249 which fires belted 5.56 rds and has a belt capacity of 200 as opposed to the 100 rds in the 7.62 nato . the purpose of the debate (which turned out to be informative and live) was to try and fathom how many people would give the caliber importance rather than the performance of the cart.
also the Americans are in the process of developing a smaller ? 4.7 mm rd for their new side arm being manufactured by H & K . so i dont think that the caliber should be the end all.
rest keep them coming !

Mark, BJL- thats a whole load of useful info.Thanks
I am in the market for a 223 because milsurp ammo is cheap and easy. Was talking to a couple of guys here at the range and they have blown away stacks of the 5.56 in bolt 223's. but for serious work, obviously, roll your own.
as for the effectiveness,wasnt the M-16 pushed thru because of the vietnam scenario?
naga is right as a foot slogger, he must have used the SLR and the enfield bullpup enough to be honest in his curses
Ace-
There are many variants of the 7.62 Russian from US manufacturers ni Stoner type platforms, some were made and rushed in for the Tora Bora 'grand finale' a few years ago as well as the M14 in 7.62x51, which is being rediscovered by the US Navy for mine /bomblet disposal.
The wounds I've seen from 7.62 NATO are horrendous and speak of work done with a finality.7.62 x 39 comes up close, but it wiould need a Fackler to truly tell us which is badder.

The more recent 5.56mm loads with a heavier, tumbling bullet, are quite a bit more effective than those that were used during the Vietnam era. The powder problems that caused jamming in that era have largely been dealt with (or at least, as much as possible, considering the bolt impingement of gasses used by the Stoner system).

I liked nagarifle's comment:

5.56mm hmm seems to me that after reinventing the wheel, every one whos able will go back to the 1st one. must be getting old as 5.56 keeps cropping up.

It is certainly odd that, if the Soviets had in the 7.62 x 39 such an ideal military round, they would have gone to the trouble of developing their own version of the 5.56mm: the 5.45 x 40mm.

If there is one thing that seems to stir up a controversy among gun lovers, it is the one over cartridge choice. I will simply note along these lines that the British, having selected the oldest and arguably one of the most obsolete actions for their service rifle, the design of James Paris Lee, they developed it to the point where it was arguably the best bolt action battle rifle fielded by any military power of the day.

Likewise, the M16 and its derivatives have also been the subject of progressive development. They reflect a choice that fits in with an overall military doctrine, which is predicated on smaller numbers of highly trained troops who have the advantages of technological superiority over their foes or expected foes. This doctrine is a carry-over from the days when outnumbered NATO forces faced numerous Warsaw Pact counterparts across the Iron Curtain. Into this environment, the M16 stepped, originally selected by the Air Force to replace the M1 Carbines then in service by that branch.

On the other hand, the AK-47 design also reflects the doctrines of Soviet military power, just as the Mosin Nagant (as compared with Germany's choice of the M98) was a logical choice for the Tsarist and WW2 era Soviet forces before it. When you take an AK-47 and pair it with forces that are less trained and have less of a technological background than highly trained forces, then the AK-47 is an ideal weapon.

The M16 suffers in that kind of environment. This was shown in the last Iraqi war by the incident at the beginning involving Jessica Lynch. Her reserve outfit soon found that their M16s, which had not been maintained properly, were not reliable in the desert environment without the necessary attention, attention that was lacking in that reserve outfit.

Also, a friend of mine who served both in Afghanistan and Iraq tells me that the proper lubricant for M16s was in short supply, and that some would substitute WD-40, a popular all-use spray on lube common here in the USA. WD-40, my friend reported, acted like a magnet for desert dust and soon caused the M16s so lubricated to fail to operate.

Anyway, my point is that a military's choice of weaponry depends on the strategic roles it is called to play and the tactical doctrines that they have formulated to carry out their missions. A good example of this might be the battleships and cruisers that the Royal Navy built for use in WW1, as compared to the Germans: The British were building a fleet to maintain their global empire based on open sea lanes, while the Germans were building a fleet intended to be a fleet-in-being according to the "Risk Theory." Given that these two missions were, aside from requiring a ship to float and shoot, different, it is natural to expect them to differ in detail.

So it should not be considered odd that military long arms differ between powers, given that their missions also differ. Therefore, I think that the cartridge and caliber that is "best" is a quality that is tied to other considerations: I am not convinced that there is a "best" in this matter, anymore than a particular shoe will fit everyone for every use.

BJL:

I use a mac. I didn't get blocked

That sums it up quite nicely! ;^D