223 vs 5.56 proof of no difference

Riddle me this....

Instead of all the "because I said so" or "I heard/read", why doesn't someone PROVE it? Is it really that hard to PROVE that they are the same?

"Pray tell, how might this be done?" You ask.

Well, maybe I am being too practical and don't really understand the nuances of modern ammo.

If you take a 5.56 and a .223, trim them to the exact same length, will they not hold the same volume?

But wait, there's more....

Couldn't someone cut one open and with one of their fancy micrometer things MEASURE the thickness?

Yes, I understand that there inherent variables. But an AVERAGE of several cases could PROVE one way or another, could it not?

Or am I missing something....

In truth, I hope this is NEVER settled because the banter is VERY entertaining.
 
Originally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerThere was no hot air and no "the sky is falling". I was pointing out that 7.62 NATO and .308 Win cases are not interchangeable, like 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem are, and to be aware of that and take care if you intend to use them interchangeably.

Making folks aware of that fact isn't a bad thing to do, in spite of how badly it winds you up.

Which I don't really concern myself with at this point.

Nothing is interchangeable - Remington and Winchester cases are not interchangeable... but it sounds you didn't know that.


.

So, you develop a new load every time you buy a new lot of powder, brick of primers or new batch of brass, do you?
You don't have any pet loads you stick with.

You're one in a million.
rolleyes.gif



.

Old chinese proverb...

"When fool digging himself hole in ground, no interfere.

Sit back and watch him dig."


.
 
Originally Posted By: AzDiamondHeatRiddle me this....

Instead of all the "because I said so" or "I heard/read", why doesn't someone PROVE it? Is it really that hard to PROVE that they are the same?

"Pray tell, how might this be done?" You ask.

Well, maybe I am being too practical and don't really understand the nuances of modern ammo.

If you take a 5.56 and a .223, trim them to the exact same length, will they not hold the same volume?

But wait, there's more....

Couldn't someone cut one open and with one of their fancy micrometer things MEASURE the thickness?

Yes, I understand that there inherent variables. But an AVERAGE of several cases could PROVE one way or another, could it not?

Or am I missing something....

In truth, I hope this is NEVER settled because the banter is VERY entertaining.




So the hundreds of thousands of "5.56" shot in in a "223" isn't proof?
 
During the late 1950s, ArmaLite and other U.S. firearm designers started their individual Small Caliber/High Velocity (SCHV) assault rifle experiments using the commercial .222 Remington cartridge. When it became clear that there was not enough powder capacity to meet U.S. Continental Army Command's (CONARC) velocity and penetration requirements, ArmaLite contacted Remington to create a similar cartridge with a longer case body and shorter neck. This became the .222 Remington Special. At the same time, Springfield Armory's Earle Harvey had Remington create an even longer cartridge case then known as the .224 Springfield. Springfield was forced to drop out of the CONARC competition, and thus the .224 Springfield was later released as a commercial sporting cartridge known as the .222 Remington Magnum. To prevent confusion with all of the competing .222 cartridge designations, the .222 Remington Special was renamed the .223 Remington. After playing with their own proprietary cartridge case design, the .224E1 Winchester, Winchester eventually standardized their case dimensions, but not overall loaded length, with the .222 Remington Special to create a cartridge known as the .224E2 Winchester. With the U.S. military adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 as the M16 rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington was standardized as the 5.56×45mm. However, the .223 Remington was not introduced as a commercial sporting cartridge until 1964.

Hmm interesting.
 
The one and the same. 5.56x45 because of our metric allies but standardized in America as the .223 Remington. Let someone argue that one. Oh by the way info is from wikipedia so correct if I'm wrong. Got thick skin so I an tolerate constructive criticism.
 
Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerThere was no hot air and no "the sky is falling". I was pointing out that 7.62 NATO and .308 Win cases are not interchangeable, like 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem are, and to be aware of that and take care if you intend to use them interchangeably.

Making folks aware of that fact isn't a bad thing to do, in spite of how badly it winds you up.

Which I don't really concern myself with at this point.

Nothing is interchangeable - Remington and Winchester cases are not interchangeable... but it sounds you didn't know that.


.

So, you develop a new load every time you buy a new lot of powder, brick of primers or new batch of brass, do you?
You don't have any pet loads you stick with.

You're one in a million.
rolleyes.gif


.

Old chinese proverb...

"When fool digging himself hole in ground, no interfere.

Sit back and watch him dig."




Couldn't answer it honestly, huh?

That's disappointing, but not unexpected.


 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: CatShooter

Nothing is interchangeable - Remington and Winchester cases are not interchangeable... but it sounds you didn't know that.


.

So, you develop a new load every time you buy a new lot of powder, brick of primers or new batch of brass, do you?
You don't have any pet loads you stick with.

You're one in a million.
rolleyes.gif


.

Old chinese proverb...

"When fool digging himself hole in ground, no interfere.

Sit back and watch him dig."




Couldn't answer it honestly, huh?

That's disappointing, but not unexpected.





You just keep on keeping on with your little shovel.


.
 
Originally Posted By: pahntr760Originally Posted By: AzDiamondHeatRiddle me this....

Instead of all the "because I said so" or "I heard/read", why doesn't someone PROVE it? Is it really that hard to PROVE that they are the same?

"Pray tell, how might this be done?" You ask.

Well, maybe I am being too practical and don't really understand the nuances of modern ammo.

If you take a 5.56 and a .223, trim them to the exact same length, will they not hold the same volume?

But wait, there's more....

Couldn't someone cut one open and with one of their fancy micrometer things MEASURE the thickness?

Yes, I understand that there inherent variables. But an AVERAGE of several cases could PROVE one way or another, could it not?

Or am I missing something....

In truth, I hope this is NEVER settled because the banter is VERY entertaining.




So the hundreds of thousands of "5.56" shot in in a "223" isn't proof?

Evidently not, otherwise everyone wouldn't be arguing.

There is a big difference between "proof" (something definitive, WITHOUT question), and "anecdotal evidence".

The question was not "can it be used in the same gun?". The question was "are they the SAME".

I can put two similar spark plugs in my truck and they will both work. That does not make them the same.

So MY question remains...can it be scientifically, engeneerically(yes, I made up this word), emphatically be PROVEN?
 
I t already has been proven. Time and time again. There is even an article in this thread that proves they are the same. There are countless comparisons studies published that state they are the same.

Oh...and I have shot both in both type of chambers. I still have all my fongers and my eyebrows....so...
 
Originally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerThere was no hot air and no "the sky is falling". I was pointing out that 7.62 NATO and .308 Win cases are not interchangeable, like 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem are, and to be aware of that and take care if you intend to use them interchangeably.

Making folks aware of that fact isn't a bad thing to do, in spite of how badly it winds you up.

Which I don't really concern myself with at this point.

Nothing is interchangeable - Remington and Winchester cases are not interchangeable... but it sounds you didn't know that.


.

So, you develop a new load every time you buy a new lot of powder, brick of primers or new batch of brass, do you?
You don't have any pet loads you stick with.

You're one in a million.
rolleyes.gif


First, No, I don't have any "pet loads" I stick with...

Second... It is clear that you know even less about the use of words, than you know about reloading... and that really says something, because you know doodley squat about reloading.

The definitation of "Interchangeable" is...

"Interchangeable - capable of replacing or changing places with something else; permitting mutual substitution without loss of function or suitability; "interchangeable electric outlets" "interchangeable parts"

The key operative phrase is "something else". Using IMR 4350, and running out, and buying H-4350 or AA-4350, would be substituting, and, yes, I would drop down and check my loads, as would most experienced reloaders.

Anyone knows (or should know) that you cannot substitute IMR-4350 for AA-4350, or H-4350, even though the numbers and construction are the same..

In reloading, you don't substitute different stuff without testing first.

When you are using Remington 7-1/2 primers, and buy another brick of 7-1/2, you are not substituting another primer. If you are using IMR-4350 and buy another jug of IMR-4350, you are not substituting another powder.

You should have stayed awake in your 5th. grade writing and grammar class.

You make stupid statements about handloading, and when you get your weenie caught in the screen door, you verbally rant and rave, and thrash about, trying to save face.

You can't save face. All you do is escalate it. There is no saving face from the really dumb stuff you post.

"Life is hard. It's even harder when you are stupid" .. J Wayne

.

Ifsomethingoffendsyou_zps28cfb2ef.jpg



.


.
 
These 5.56 guys just need to get over it. Pretty much it has been proven that you can fire a 5.56x45mm in a .223 Rem and there is no nuclear explosion, the world does not stop turning, and there is no major loss of life off of a continent because it is the same round. Do your reading and you will see this. He puts up a three and its GGGoooddd!!
 
Originally Posted By: DarkkerSorry Cat, I'm totally going to steal that picture and use it
thumbup1.gif


Then send me a bacon cheeseburger for royalties.

lol.gif
 
Everytime one of these post come up you can always count that someone, no matter how many times this has been brought up, will try their hardest to prove cat wrong.
confused.gif
Without suitable facts none the less.
closedeyes.gif
 
while I totally agree with Cat about them being the same, I did have a .223 single shot very early on, (before I knew better). Not knowing enough about rifle twist I purchased some surplus military ammo from a gun show and after each round I had to use a cleaning rod to knock out each shell because they wouldn't extract in the break over barrel. It never had this problem even with what I deemed as hot rounds after I reloaded them, or any factory .223 Remington rounds. But it would have a case stick every time I used the 5.56 rounds. That lead me to believe that they were "higher" pressure round. I finally gave up on them after about 40 rounds and had my buddy rattle them off through his AR at the range so I could atleast use the brass. I wonder if others have had this issue and base theories off that experience.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top