You make a good point here dangertree... but the issue, in my NSHO, is mis-marking period. I agree that if the chamber is actually cut to 5.56 dims and the barrel is stamped .223 it's an inverse liability issue... but no firearm should be mis-marked for any reason, ever. (that's another period there)
Stag AR15 ammunition
- Thread starter roadking56
- Start date
You make a good point here dangertree... but the issue, in my NSHO, is mis-marking period. I agree that if the chamber is actually cut to 5.56 dims and the barrel is stamped .223 it's an inverse liability issue... but no firearm should be mis-marked for any reason, ever. (that's another period there)
Boltgun said all that needs to be said, and I've posted the link to SAAMI many times... I think the AFAIK crowd should try and find a reputable source that says it's a safe practice.
But, just as a working example... just today hakx wrote the following here
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417305&page=2
hakx said:
First of all he's wrong about the cartridges being dimensionally different... they're not (externally anyway), and leade is a function of the chamber, not the round. He admits the rifle doesn't run as smoothly as it does with proper .223... he actually says proper and then goes on the encourage another shooter to use improper ammunition.
The rifle / bolt doesn't open as smoothly because the ammunition he's running is over-pressure for the firearm...
If your car doesn't run smoothly... is that because it's working properly...!?
What I'm trying to say is... An AFAIK (as far as I know) statement by someone on a forum is no reason to condemn a distributor who is on our side when it come to trying to get us the toys we desire from US or wherever.
I hear ya'... and hearsay isn't admissible in court either... but the allusion to mis-marked rifles (barrels) has been made (today, in the same thread I posted above) by one of those very same distributors...
And for the longest time, another board sponsor swore up and down that the plainly marked .223 rounds they were selling were in fact loaded to 5.56 specs. I went around and around with them in a PM fest explaining that they were opening themselves up to considerable hardship if someone had an issue with either property of personal damage running 5.56 that was marked and sold as .223... and yet they persisted... right up and until I sent them chrono data that proved their claim to be false.
In that case, blind faith could have lead to being blinded...
The vendors and distributors that support these forums and bring us the stuff that we all want are by and large to be commended, not condemned, but they have a responsibility to (all of) us as well...
We can also throw into the mix WHICH 223 or 5.56 chamber we are discussing. Either way, it's totally irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, there is NO liability (a subject which I deal with daily) and No consumer protection issue in labelling a 5.56 chamber (any 5.56 chamber) as .223 Rem, in fact it may be a plus to do so. Incidently, while discussing pressure levels and safe pressures in 223, it may be relevant to be aware of the following:
QUOTE:
According to the official Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (C.I.P.) guidelines the .223 Remington case can handle up to 430 megapascals (62,366 psi) piezo pressure. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers. This is equal to the NATO maximum service pressure guideline for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.
The SAAMI pressure limit for the .223 Remington is set at 379.212 megapascals (55,000 psi), piezo pressure
While the above is from Wiki, the data is accurate.
QUOTE:
According to the official Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (C.I.P.) guidelines the .223 Remington case can handle up to 430 megapascals (62,366 psi) piezo pressure. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers. This is equal to the NATO maximum service pressure guideline for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.
The SAAMI pressure limit for the .223 Remington is set at 379.212 megapascals (55,000 psi), piezo pressure
While the above is from Wiki, the data is accurate.
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
To the OP, don't use Winchester White Box .45gn JHP from Walmart in any autoloader.
Last edited:
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
and then when I type for 20 minutes...
...enefgee says it all with one sentence.
Last edited:
Walt, based on my numerous visits there and having taken a few courses there also, I can ,with certainty, say that I have not seen that question come up yet.
That said, I will point out 2 things - I will be asking and will let you know AND based on the fact that the barrels are made on the same hammer forge, if a run of 500 bbls are made and they all used the same mandrel, but were latter finished to various lengths, then it would not matter. ing to use a SEM to check every chamber then obviously there will be microscopic variences, however for the end user and SAMMI specs, they would all have in essence, the same chambers regardless.
SAMMI and NATO
Wyldes don't count here.
Boltgun
I am in the liability game also....you should expand on this for relevancy sake. Although there may not be a vicarious liability position on this, there very well could be a civil one for fraud. After all one could have a misrepresentation of chambers for export purposes which could adversly affect an accuracy issue. If an end user purchases a barrel purely for accuracy needs, the 5.56 chamber is going to shoot differently then the 223 one.
I still have a very hard time imagining any LARGE manufacturer in the USA making a barrel with a 5.56 chamber to SAMMI/NATO spec and then roll marking the barrel to .223 for anyone regardless of the number of barrels ordered.
I can see however, them declaring their own "wylde/proprietary" chamber to suit the end user and mark it appropriately - ie: CLE
Boltgun
My .02 pennies....
as walt says, how many different reamers in how many different "223" or "5.56".... let alone reamer wear which would cause a looser chamber then a new reamer....
boltgun, the chambering would be done seperatly then the hammer forging of the barrel making, does the barrel not have to be stress relieved after hammer forging ?
and boltgun,
can we agree the the actual chambering of 223 and 5.56 are exactly the same EXCEPT for the lead... which has no bearing on how the brass is supported in the chmaber and is more a function of how long you can load your bullets...... or the length of the bullet your using, mk262 for example.
as walt says, how many different reamers in how many different "223" or "5.56".... let alone reamer wear which would cause a looser chamber then a new reamer....
boltgun, the chambering would be done seperatly then the hammer forging of the barrel making, does the barrel not have to be stress relieved after hammer forging ?
and boltgun,
can we agree the the actual chambering of 223 and 5.56 are exactly the same EXCEPT for the lead... which has no bearing on how the brass is supported in the chmaber and is more a function of how long you can load your bullets...... or the length of the bullet your using, mk262 for example.
for the barrel manufacturer that uses the reamer method, yes there is going to be minor variation due to wear on the reamer.
Although the actual process is separate, it is one in the same. To explain, the mandel on the hammer forge used at colt canada is a one piece mandrel. the rifling and chamber are on the same mandrel. So when the rifling is finished being hammered, then the hammers work on the chamber part of the mandrel. I do not recall how many barrels a mandrel is good for, however the materials, tollerances, etc would suggest that the variance from one barrel to the next is minimial. YES there will be a variance from the first barrel to the last in a run.
and boltgun,
can we agree the the actual chambering of 223 and 5.56 are exactly the same EXCEPT for the lead... which has no bearing on how the brass is supported in the chmaber and is more a function of how long you can load your bullets...... or the length of the bullet your using, mk262 for example.[/QUOTE]
Yes, however, there is a difference in the brass itself, which has a direct effect on the pressures (case capacity). Leade affects pressures also....a multiple combination of pressure increases can have a catastrophic effect.
If you want to seat a match bullet in a 223 case to fit the leade of a 556 chamber, that is fine.....that is a handloading thing though....not a commercial ammunition thing......nor a 223/556 chamber thing...that is just a guy trying to wring out the most out of their gun.
I am talking about commercial/military spec ammo loaded to SAAMI/NATO spec being used in firearms whose chambers are properly roll marked versus improperly roll marked with a different chamber.
Boltgun
OK Folks,
I need to clear something up in regards to my posts.
I have had conversation with AEI and it appears that one could conclude that I am claiming that AEI is commiting fraud by their barrel markings.
I am in no way making that claim and I apologize for any misunderstandings.
My posts are directed to the "idea" of an arms manufacturer mismarking their barrels to allow for export. AEI is not doing that.
I stand behind my claim that no manufacturer would knowingly do that for liability reasons - vicarious or civil.
I also stand behind the safety warnings of firing 556 nato spec ammo in 223 rem chambered barrels. AEI also subscribes to that safety warning and suggests that you shoot the ammo that fits the markings on the barrel.
Having re-read the first couple of posts, it appears that is what this was all about....so it appears I was typing out of my ass by going off on a tangent. Sorry about that.
Walt my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Boltgun
I need to clear something up in regards to my posts.
I have had conversation with AEI and it appears that one could conclude that I am claiming that AEI is commiting fraud by their barrel markings.
I am in no way making that claim and I apologize for any misunderstandings.
My posts are directed to the "idea" of an arms manufacturer mismarking their barrels to allow for export. AEI is not doing that.
I stand behind my claim that no manufacturer would knowingly do that for liability reasons - vicarious or civil.
I also stand behind the safety warnings of firing 556 nato spec ammo in 223 rem chambered barrels. AEI also subscribes to that safety warning and suggests that you shoot the ammo that fits the markings on the barrel.
Having re-read the first couple of posts, it appears that is what this was all about....so it appears I was typing out of my ass by going off on a tangent. Sorry about that.
Walt my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Boltgun
...and I used to purchase Winchester whitebox FMJ ammo that was labeled .223/5.56 or .308/7.62
...and I used to purchase Winchester whitebox FMJ ammo that was labeled .223/5.56 or .308/7.62
This is another relevant issue - I've seen Federal 62 grain .223 come out of the box with NATO headstamps - at very least the case is the 'lower capacity' 5.56 since NATO doesn't use 223. In addition, Win White Box 55 grain is M193 either from Winchester itself or from IMI for Winchester; M193 is not a 223 load.
