Which ammunition is more suitable for Norc CQ311
- Thread starter MosinNagantM44
- Start date
didn't i say that about 8 posts back? if you shoot 556 in a 223 rifle or a 223 in a 556 rifle and both are the same grain and for the same barrel twist all is good.
same thing about 6 months ago, lube in the winter. i said graphite was good in artic -40 . every one climbed on me. the same sort of post comes up again a few weeks ago, some one that is considered a god says the same and its taken as law. wtf?
same thing about 6 months ago, lube in the winter. i said graphite was good in artic -40 . every one climbed on me. the same sort of post comes up again a few weeks ago, some one that is considered a god says the same and its taken as law. wtf?
And here I thought that Obama and Wendy were members here
My 2 cents might not mean much to any of you, but here goes...
It might not be in my place to address this, but I did ask myself "why can't I shoot 5.56 NATO in a .223 chambered AR15" when I first wanted my AR.
I did however waste a whole lot of my time, searching the internet for an explanation as to why "everybody" were stating that using 5.56 NATO in a .223 chambered rifle could be "dangerous" and I could not find one single incident where the AR suffered from a catastrophic failure/blown up barrel because a 5.56 round was used in a .223 chambered AR.
What I did find was that it is possible to fire 5.56 in .223 chambers, but the tighter .223 chamber may cause certain types or batches of 5.56 ammunition to fit too tightly, which in some incidents might cause over pressure in the chamber which in turn can caused the primer to back out and get stuck somewhere in the action of the rifle, causing a "mechanical malfunction".
That's it, no barrels blowing up in your face, no blown off fingers, just a primer stuck in your action, causing you to waste time fishing it out of there so you can shoot again.
What I ended up with was a .223 Wylde chamber on my AR so I don't have to worry about if I'm shooting .223 or 5.56 rounds.
There you have it, my 2 cents worth of nothing.
While that may be theoretically possible, it is also highly unlikely. If it were really an issue we'd hear about it happening all the time because loads of people have been mixing and matching ammo for decades. 556 ammo has a crimped in primer which also reduced the possibility of the primer being pushed out.
That is some seriously funny stuff. BTW, you forgot about bear defense with the hand gun you can't take with you anyway.
Out of curiosity, is your position on this topic that there exists no issues or potential issues in shooting 5.56 NATO in a .223 Remington chamber? If so, what is your reasoning for this?
Edit:
In regards to primers being pushed out.
According to Ned Christiansen from Michiguns Ltd. the issue with primers being pushed out is an issue when using 5.56 in a .223 chamber.
What are your thoughts regarding this?
http://www.m-guns.com/tool_new.php?product=reamer
"A common problem when firing 5.56 mil-spec ammo in an AR15 with a SAAMI-spec .223 chamber, is that once in a while a spent primer will fall out of a case as it is extracted. Sometimes the primers fall clear and there's no problem, other times they will go under the trigger and get wedged, rendereing the rifle inoperable. I've seen some extreme cases of this where the hammer and trigger were actually hard to get out. I've seen them get wedged between the charging handle and the inside of the receiver, with the bolt out of battery, so that the gun had to have the stock removed so the bolt could be removed to clear the primer. It is not unknown for the primer anvil get stuck on the tubular portion of the carrier key! Popped primers are due in part to the tighter, shorter freebore and shorter, more abrupt throat of the .223 chamber, causing a pressure spike with the hotter, mil- spec ammo."
Last edited:
Yes. My reasoning is a complete lack of any actual proof of problems caused by doing so. Everyone quotes how 556 in a 223 chamber can cause serious damage. Yet I have never seen or heard of any actual problems. This is "common knowledge" that is just passed from person to person and accepted as dogma without a shred of actual proof.
A "common problem" that only happens "once in a while" is not a common problem at all. Lots of people say stupid s**t without thinking about it. I know dozens of people who own and shoot military ammo through their AR's and I have never heard of anyone who has experienced this "problem". Does that mean it can't happen? No of course not but a rare issue isn't a good reason to not use 556 ammo in a 223 chamber. And doing so will certainly NOT cause an serious damage to the rifle. A loose primer stuck in the trigger group of a range commando's rifle doesn't exactly qualify as "serious damage".
The fact that thousands of internet users are passing this "gospel" around between themselves does not make it true. If that were the case then the existence of god and the veracity of the bible would not be debated cause there are tens of millions who believe that story to be true as well.
Hey Suputin... I think I'll stick with SAAMI and the warnings on product like Hornady TAP 5.56x45 against using the round in a .223 chamber. In fact, in the US, where MIL's and LEO's can buy TAP directly from Hornady, part of the required paperwork is a disclosure form regarding the use of the round in a SAAMI spec chamber.
What credentials do you posses that make you an authority over SAAMI and Hornady anyway...? And what makes you comfortable about the fact that your preaching a practice in direct contradiction of actual, as in real, industry experts...? Liability or fudge-factor aside...
I never suggested fire and brimstone from running 5.56 in a .223 chamber... just that it wasn't "safe". Be that for your rifle, or you... what difference does it make...? Why take the chance...?
As for the advice I offered to people who reload... I'm sticking to it. It is good to know however that you're against the offer of fair warning in an environment where people who have less than your obvious and foolproof expertise with reloading, might learn a thing or two they didn't know.
And speaking of putting too much stock in what one reads on the net, you might consider that as it relates to people looking for information who have the "good" fortune to run across dudes like you giving advice counter to the people / firms who actually know what they're talking about...
What credentials do you posses that make you an authority over SAAMI and Hornady anyway...? And what makes you comfortable about the fact that your preaching a practice in direct contradiction of actual, as in real, industry experts...? Liability or fudge-factor aside...
I never suggested fire and brimstone from running 5.56 in a .223 chamber... just that it wasn't "safe". Be that for your rifle, or you... what difference does it make...? Why take the chance...?
As for the advice I offered to people who reload... I'm sticking to it. It is good to know however that you're against the offer of fair warning in an environment where people who have less than your obvious and foolproof expertise with reloading, might learn a thing or two they didn't know.
And speaking of putting too much stock in what one reads on the net, you might consider that as it relates to people looking for information who have the "good" fortune to run across dudes like you giving advice counter to the people / firms who actually know what they're talking about...
Yay, furball-f**kbuddy time! Everyone is clawing at each other throats over this controversy, and yet barely anyone took time to read the main post. MosinNagantM44 is asking what the best ammunition to use in his Norinco CQ311 rifle.
Best answer I could give him, is anything .223 rather than 5.56 because it will be undoubtly cheaper. That I would figure should suffice. I don't think he needs to worry about the grain, since most that are available in the cost-effective range are all the same (55 gr).
Best answer I could give him, is anything .223 rather than 5.56 because it will be undoubtly cheaper. That I would figure should suffice. I don't think he needs to worry about the grain, since most that are available in the cost-effective range are all the same (55 gr).
jennis your a good fella .
i read or heard that the internet makes smart people stupid. too much information not enough hands on. every one has heard you cant shoot this or else, or that rifle has a crappy bolt they exlode, ect, ect. it's always a friend of a friend that has the eye witness account.
for the original question, for a cq311 shoot 55 grain .223/5.56 (if you can get in canada). 55 grain is the max you should shoot out of a 12-1 barrel for safety and function.
you no, at the end of the day believe and do what you want, we live in a free country. this forum is proof, i've knowen times the oppressed voicing less could be jailed.
any way, i've shot numerous rounds of 7.62 threw 308 & 308 threw 7.62. nothing happened except recoil. it's a myth.
i'm even thinking about writting the myth bustters see what they come up with. but there will still be people saying but....
. i read or heard that the internet makes smart people stupid. too much information not enough hands on. every one has heard you cant shoot this or else, or that rifle has a crappy bolt they exlode, ect, ect. it's always a friend of a friend that has the eye witness account.
for the original question, for a cq311 shoot 55 grain .223/5.56 (if you can get in canada). 55 grain is the max you should shoot out of a 12-1 barrel for safety and function.
you no, at the end of the day believe and do what you want, we live in a free country. this forum is proof, i've knowen times the oppressed voicing less could be jailed.
any way, i've shot numerous rounds of 7.62 threw 308 & 308 threw 7.62. nothing happened except recoil. it's a myth.
i'm even thinking about writting the myth bustters see what they come up with. but there will still be people saying but....
Last edited:
I think myth busters would surmise its pretty much the same as 87 octane gasoline from chevron and 87 octane from esso , In the end if if is out of your comfort zone then stick with what you 'feel' is best, Im kind of hoping somebody starts to import and re-name 762x39 as '762 Soviet' , Im betting it would then be unsafe to shoot in a sks
, In the end if if is out of your comfort zone then stick with what you 'feel' is best, Im kind of hoping somebody starts to import and re-name 762x39 as '762 Soviet' , Im betting it would then be unsafe to shoot in a sks When you write to Myth Busters, point out that the Sporting Arms And Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute along with major ammunition manufacturers indicate the potential for problems, and my guess is that Adam and Jamie will have trouble classifying it as a "myth".
I think myth busters would surmise its pretty much the same as 87 octane gasoline from chevron and 87 octane from esso
The 7.62 Soviet thing is spurious... it's just a different name, without any difference in dimensions or pressures between the two differently named rounds.
5.56 and .223 are not the same round... the pressures are different, the case dimensions are different.
