Can i shoot 556 NATO out of my AR-15

cal9mm said:
h**p://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_diff.html

props to ar15.com
Click to expand...

The question to the Thread was
Can I shoot 556 NATO out of my AR-15
Click to expand...
not can I shoot 5.56 nato out of my 223 match chamber. FYI a match chamber can shoot 5.56 without any signs of pressure depending on ammo type - however that’s an entirely different thread. We are dealing with SAMMI spec 223 rem chambers here at this time.
 
kenjuudo said:
This.

And note that the Oracle reinforces my earlier point with regard to Armalite... they changed their chambering in 2001 from .223 to 5.56... why do you suppose they did that...!? Interesting how they change their tech on the back end and cover their asses out the front with WWII's famous bulletin... they have money (liability) at stake on the inside, and money (reputation) at stake on the outside... two problems each requiring a different and contradictory solution... a two headed dilemma.
Click to expand...

Yes... ArmaLite Inc has officially endorsed the use of 5.56 nato in their AR15, 223 rem chambered rifles because they are worried about safety liability - smoke another one. :onCrack: Hell ArmaLite Inc even changed their chambers to 5.56 nato and 223 Wylde to get out of this safety liability.:onCrack:
 
You MAY shoot 5.56mm NATO out of your .223REM chambered rifle, but, you must be prepared for the black helicopters to swoop down, and the ninja operators to snatch you away to UN headquarters, where you will have a serial number permanently etched on your left buttock.... to save the children in Africa, you understand.
 
WWIII said:
Yes... ArmaLite Inc has officially endorsed the use of 5.56 nato in their AR15, 223 rem chambered rifles because they are worried about safety liability - smoke another one.:onCrack:
Click to expand...

Imagine... a large corporation making a public claim to save face while all the while crossing their fingers in the boardroom that no one has an issue... hmmm... I wonder what Toyota would say about how that sometimes works out...

WWIII said:
Hell ArmaLite Inc even changed their chambers to 5.56 nato and 223 Wylde to get out of this safety liability.:onCrack:
Click to expand...

Sure must be nice to have all the answers... so, tell us all this professor, why would Armalite switch to chambering specs that provide slightly less overall accuracy (at least in the case of the 5.56 NATO chamber) if not for concern over this issue... because they want to sell slightly less accurate rifles...!? Now who's hitting the pipe...? :onCrack:

Waiting....!
 
kenjuudo said:
Sure must be nice to have all the answers... so, tell us all this professor, why would Armalite switch to chambering specs that provide slightly less overall accuracy (at least in the case of the 5.56 NATO chamber) if not for concern over this issue... because they want to sell slightly less accurate rifles...!? Now who's hitting the pipe...? :onCrack:
Click to expand...

Very good point. If there are absolutely no worries about firing a 5.56 round out of a .223 chamber, how do you justify the development of the Wylde chamber? Remember, it costs money to develop new chamberings, and companies don't like to spend money unless they are solving a problem (i.e. there is an advantage to the Wylde chamber). I propose that the advantage is being able to safely shoot 5.56 rounds, while maintaining some of the additional accuracy from a tighter chamber.
 
nelly said:
You MAY shoot 5.56mm NATO out of your .223REM chambered rifle, but, you must be prepared for the black helicopters to swoop down, and the ninja operators to snatch you away to UN headquarters, where you will have a serial number permanently etched on your left buttock.... to save the children in Africa, you understand.
Click to expand...

But i already have a serial number there .........thats where the wife put it :redface:
 
Ar180shooter said:
Very good point. If there are absolutely no worries about firing a 5.56 round out of a .223 chamber, how do you justify the development of the Wylde chamber? Remember, it costs money to develop new chamberings, and companies don't like to spend money unless they are solving a problem (i.e. there is an advantage to the Wylde chamber). I propose that the advantage is being able to safely shoot 5.56 rounds, while maintaining some of the additional accuracy from a tighter chamber.
Click to expand...

The Wylde chamber was not developed to avoid the 5.56/.223 compatibility issue.
It was developed to enhance the accuracy of rifles firing 5.56 ammunition. It also works well with .223.
It is consequently a very good choice for a chamber design.
 
tiriaq said:
The Wylde chamber was not developed to avoid the 5.56/.223 compatibility issue.
It was developed to enhance the accuracy of rifles firing 5.56 ammunition. It also works well with .223.
It is consequently a very good choice for a chamber design.
Click to expand...

If there are no compatibility issues, why develop the Wylde chamber in the first place (that was my point in the previous post)? Why not just shoot 5.56 out of .223 rifles (since the .223 chambers are tighter and more accurate)? I know that the Wylde chamber was designed to allow the rifle to more accurately fire 5.56 rounds (because the chambering is tighter than the 5.56, but not as tight as the .223), and it was developed precisely to avoid the pressure concerns created from firing 5.56 out of .223 chambers.
 
Why not just ask the gentleman credited with the development of the Wylde chamber? He is a member here.
 
It was developed to enhance the accuracy of rifles firing 5.56 ammunition. It also works well with .223.
It is consequently a very good choice for a chamber design.
Click to expand...

^^^ I agree with this 100%.

The Wylde chamber was not developed to avoid the 5.56/.223 compatibility issue.
Click to expand...

Then what is the advantage of shooting a 5.56 out of a Wylde chamber than out of a .223 chamber?

Or are you saying that there is a compatibility issue, but the Wylde chamber wasn't created to remedy this? If so, then I also agree.
 
kenjuudo said:
Imagine... a large corporation making a public claim to save face while all the while crossing their fingers in the boardroom that no one has an issue... hmmm... I wonder what Toyota would say about how that sometimes works out...



Sure must be nice to have all the answers... so, tell us all this professor, why would Armalite switch to chambering specs that provide slightly less overall accuracy (at least in the case of the 5.56 NATO chamber) if not for concern over this issue... because they want to sell slightly less accurate rifles...!? Now who's hitting the pipe...? :onCrack:

Waiting....!
Click to expand...

Why don’t you ask SAMMI, the independent turd party. ;)
 
tiriaq said:
Why not just ask the gentleman credited with the development of the Wylde chamber? He is a member here.
Click to expand...

Bill Wylde, the gunsmith is a member of CGN??



Ar180shooter said:
If there are no compatibility issues, why develop the Wylde chamber in the first place (that was my point in the previous post)? Why not just shoot 5.56 out of .223 rifles (since the .223 chambers are tighter and more accurate)? I know that the Wylde chamber was designed to allow the rifle to more accurately fire 5.56 rounds (because the chambering is tighter than the 5.56, but not as tight as the .223), and it was developed precisely to avoid the pressure concerns created from firing 5.56 out of .223 chambers.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that Bill Wylde developed the chamber/reamer to perfectly seat the 80 grain bullet because the .223 SAAMI chamber was too short and the 5.56 NATO was too long, but I could be wrong.
 
WWIII said:
The info on the Wylde chamber seems to blow your funked up foolish conspiracy theory away doesn’t it. :D
Click to expand...

Did you read the post linked above, did you note that the Wylde is by and large based on the NATO chamber and NOT the SAAMI .223...!?

I'm on the side of dimensional tolerance and pressures... you're the one who seems to think that there's a Davinci Code'esque plot afoot to scare us into compliance with some "imagined" risk...

:bangHead:
 
tiriaq said:
Yes, he is a member. Last posted 4 days ago.
Click to expand...


I guess I should have used the search feature, eh?

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2301352&postcount=11

Corben1 said:
What has become known as the Wylde .223 chamber was designed with several uses in mind. One of those uses was Canadian IVI 62 grain (C77) NATO ball.

Although you may read that it is a new chamber design, that is not the case. Ten minutes on the phone with Keith Francis (JGS reamers) created this chamber in 1984.

The basic chamber was from one of two NATO prints. Can't remember which one in my old age. The freebore was ground to .2240", which provided a good seal for a short-seated bullet. This smaller than NATO spec. freebore lengthened the freebore enough to allow the 80 grain Sierra to be used at about 2.470-2.475" OAL.

We just got lucky. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom