223 vs 5.56 proof of no difference
- Thread starter 6724
- Start date
Evil_Lurker
New member
Quote: 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.
Well, I know enough to work up 2 different loads for .308 Win. and 7.62 NATO brass. Because, in spite of your claims, there's a lot more than 10 grains weight difference.
Super-X .308 158.3 gr.
FC .308 164.7 gr. 165.7 gr.
R-P .308 166.3 gr.
RA 68 NATO 178.1 gr. 178.8 gr.
FC 61 NATO 178.6 gr.
WRA 68 NATO 178.5 gr. 179.3 gr.
But if you want to put on some kind of tough guy act over a warning about sizing 7.62 NATO to .243 Win. and not worrying about pressure increases, you go ahead champ.
Your advice is unsafe in this case, but apprently you don't care about that.
I kinda do. Sue me.
Well, I know enough to work up 2 different loads for .308 Win. and 7.62 NATO brass. Because, in spite of your claims, there's a lot more than 10 grains weight difference.
Super-X .308 158.3 gr.
FC .308 164.7 gr. 165.7 gr.
R-P .308 166.3 gr.
RA 68 NATO 178.1 gr. 178.8 gr.
FC 61 NATO 178.6 gr.
WRA 68 NATO 178.5 gr. 179.3 gr.
But if you want to put on some kind of tough guy act over a warning about sizing 7.62 NATO to .243 Win. and not worrying about pressure increases, you go ahead champ.
Your advice is unsafe in this case, but apprently you don't care about that.
I kinda do. Sue me.
Ridgeline17
New member
This is a 223 thread get that load off here.
Originally Posted By: Evil_Lurker Quote: 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.
Well, I know enough to work up 2 different loads for .308 Win. and 7.62 NATO brass. Because, in spite of your claims, there's a lot more than 10 grains weight difference.
Super-X .308 158.3 gr.
FC .308 164.7 gr. 165.7 gr.
R-P .308 166.3 gr.
RA 68 NATO 178.1 gr. 178.8 gr.
FC 61 NATO 178.6 gr.
WRA 68 NATO 178.5 gr. 179.3 gr.
But if you want to put on some kind of tough guy act over a warning about sizing 7.62 NATO to .243 Win. and not worrying about pressure increases, you go ahead champ.
Your advice is unsafe in this case, but apprently you don't care about that.
I kinda do. Sue me.
http://www.700rifle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=908
Here's a list of brass weights. And, wait! Regular Federal 308 win brass weighs even more then you have for the NATO stuff. And Lapua was the same weight range as you have posted for NATO.
So, once again, all brass can be manufactured to different specs. That's the longq Nd the short of it. There is absolutely nothing to support your idea that ALL NATO brass weighs more then commercial 308. Actually, there is info quite the contrary. And even with 20+ grains of case weight differential, the internal capacity was around 2 grains of differential.
Bottom line, work to any loads you make. Pet loads only work when substitutions are NOT being made.
Well, I know enough to work up 2 different loads for .308 Win. and 7.62 NATO brass. Because, in spite of your claims, there's a lot more than 10 grains weight difference.
Super-X .308 158.3 gr.
FC .308 164.7 gr. 165.7 gr.
R-P .308 166.3 gr.
RA 68 NATO 178.1 gr. 178.8 gr.
FC 61 NATO 178.6 gr.
WRA 68 NATO 178.5 gr. 179.3 gr.
But if you want to put on some kind of tough guy act over a warning about sizing 7.62 NATO to .243 Win. and not worrying about pressure increases, you go ahead champ.
Your advice is unsafe in this case, but apprently you don't care about that.
I kinda do. Sue me.
http://www.700rifle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=908
Here's a list of brass weights. And, wait! Regular Federal 308 win brass weighs even more then you have for the NATO stuff. And Lapua was the same weight range as you have posted for NATO.
So, once again, all brass can be manufactured to different specs. That's the longq Nd the short of it. There is absolutely nothing to support your idea that ALL NATO brass weighs more then commercial 308. Actually, there is info quite the contrary. And even with 20+ grains of case weight differential, the internal capacity was around 2 grains of differential.
Bottom line, work to any loads you make. Pet loads only work when substitutions are NOT being made.
Ridgeline17
New member
Check your internal capacity and see if it isn't around 56 grains (H2O) I believe without lookin at the book. It can be +/- 2 grains. With that being said I really don't care about the casing weight itself.
Webopper
New member
I guess it depends on who you read/believe...don't know Mr. Sweeney personally, but understand he's spent some time around the AR platforms, and knows a thing or 2 about firearms.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Evil_Lurker
New member
Originally Posted By: WebopperI guess it depends on who you read/believe...don't know Mr. Sweeney personally, but understand he's spent some time around the AR platforms, and knows a thing or 2 about firearms.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
Ridgeline17
New member
Ah frack it, you all do what you want to do, I'm done with this frackin bunch. That was a detailed history, and you want to argue that. Forget you.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: WebopperI guess it depends on who you read/believe...don't know Mr. Sweeney personally, but understand he's spent some time around the AR platforms, and knows a thing or 2 about firearms.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
Well, actually, it's not a pressure barrel... but why should that bother you - nothing else you say has any merit either.
.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
Well, actually, it's not a pressure barrel... but why should that bother you - nothing else you say has any merit either.
.
Evil_Lurker
New member
Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: Evil_LurkerOriginally Posted By: WebopperI guess it depends on who you read/believe...don't know Mr. Sweeney personally, but understand he's spent some time around the AR platforms, and knows a thing or 2 about firearms.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
Well, actually, it's not a pressure barrel... but why should that bother you - nothing else you say has any merit either.
.
A picture labeled a pressure barrel. Better?
But I didn't write the article, so the labels and pictures don't reflect on what I know in any way (except in your troubled mind).
I don't believe his conclusions agreed with yours 100%, but trying to reflect that onto me isn't going to change anything.
I guess it's down to who can be more pretentious, at this point. My money is on you, tiger.
http://www.gundigest.com/223-vs-5-56/1
Well, he's got a picture of a pressure barrel and enough of a pretentious style of writing to be an "expert".
Well, actually, it's not a pressure barrel... but why should that bother you - nothing else you say has any merit either.
.
A picture labeled a pressure barrel. Better?
But I didn't write the article, so the labels and pictures don't reflect on what I know in any way (except in your troubled mind).
I don't believe his conclusions agreed with yours 100%, but trying to reflect that onto me isn't going to change anything.
I guess it's down to who can be more pretentious, at this point. My money is on you, tiger.
Powerfisher
New member
Since this thread isnt about 5.56 vs .223 anymore, I just thought I would let everybody know i had to look up "pretentious" in the dictionary......there, that should kill this thread....
Evil_Lurker
New member
Originally Posted By: PowerfisherSince this thread isnt about 5.56 vs .223 anymore, I just thought I would let everybody know i had to look up "pretentious" in the dictionary......there, that should kill this thread....
Was there a picture of Bono from U-2?
Was there a picture of Bono from U-2?
Webopper
New member
Originally Posted By: 6724pretentious is right. lacking on actual fact as well.
but i saw it written on the internet and it sounds right, so it must be true.
Not that it makes a ratzass bit of difference to me, but that particular individual is one of the editors of "Guns and Ammo" magazine. In addition to numberous articles written in highly respected periodicals, he has published 15 or so books on the subject of firearms. Quite a few of those are specific to the AR platform and it's history. Not saying that everyone has to agree with him, but in order to maintain some credibility, he's not really going to be the type of guy that can just throw schit up on the internet and hope it sticks.
So, again, I guess it depends on who's "facts" you want to believe.
but i saw it written on the internet and it sounds right, so it must be true.
Not that it makes a ratzass bit of difference to me, but that particular individual is one of the editors of "Guns and Ammo" magazine. In addition to numberous articles written in highly respected periodicals, he has published 15 or so books on the subject of firearms. Quite a few of those are specific to the AR platform and it's history. Not saying that everyone has to agree with him, but in order to maintain some credibility, he's not really going to be the type of guy that can just throw schit up on the internet and hope it sticks.
So, again, I guess it depends on who's "facts" you want to believe.
Ridgeline17
New member
The 5.56×45mm NATO has 1.85 ml (28.5 grains H2O) cartridge case capacity.
5.56×45mm NATO maximum NATO cartridge dimensions. All sizes in millimeters (mm).[13][14]
Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 = 23 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 178 mm (1 in 7 in) or 229 mm (1 in 9 in), 6 grooves, Ø lands = 5.56 mm, Ø grooves = 5.69 mm, land width = 1.88 mm and the primer type is small rifle.
According to the official NATO proofing guidelines the 5.56×45mm NATO case can handle up to 430 MPa (62,000 psi) piezo service pressure. In NATO regulated organizations every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum pressure to certify for service issue. This is equal to the C.I.P. maximum pressure guideline for the .223 Remington cartridge, that is the 5.56×45mm NATO parent cartridge
The .223 Remington has 28.8 grains (1.87 ml H2O) cartridge case capacity.
.223 Remington maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions. All sizes in millimeters (mm).[4]
Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 = 23 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 305 mm (1 in 12 in), 6 grooves, Ø lands = 5.56 millimetres (0.219 in), Ø grooves = 5.69 millimetres (0.224 in), land width = 1.88 millimetres (0.074 in) and the primer type is small rifle.
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.[
Ridgeline17
New member
Remember what I said about +/- 2 grains internal capacity its not even that. After this i don't know what to tell you all on this subject except that I am finished with this thread. AMF
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: Ridgeline17Remember what I said about +/- 2 grains internal capacity its not even that. After this i don't know what to tell you all on this subject except that I am finished with this thread. AMF
The current LC case weight is ~90 grains.
Lapua used to make 223 cases that weighed 100 grains (current production is ~90 grains).
I have a bunch (195 pcs) of the old production, and I'm testing loads in them now. So far, no real serious difference.
.
The current LC case weight is ~90 grains.
Lapua used to make 223 cases that weighed 100 grains (current production is ~90 grains).
I have a bunch (195 pcs) of the old production, and I'm testing loads in them now. So far, no real serious difference.
.
Darkker
New member
For an "Exhaustive Review" he sure skimmed-over the original chambers, twists, and actual performance of the special...
Also didn't cover how remington back-pedaled on the throat of the chamber because they COULDN'T meet those performance requirements.
Seems to be missing the army tm's that show performance standards of lower pressure also...Missed how the Port pressure is more important on an AR, than the total cartridge pressure.
Well, he's old, typing may be exhaustive.
For the history buffs here.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
Also didn't cover how remington back-pedaled on the throat of the chamber because they COULDN'T meet those performance requirements.
Seems to be missing the army tm's that show performance standards of lower pressure also...Missed how the Port pressure is more important on an AR, than the total cartridge pressure.
Well, he's old, typing may be exhaustive.
For the history buffs here.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
doggin coyotes
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: Ridgeline17Ah frack it, you all do what you want to do, I'm done with this frackin bunch. That was a detailed history, and you want to argue that. Forget you.
Ah frick-n-frack. Guess you were just pullin our leg huh? I was sure you meant it.
Ah frick-n-frack. Guess you were just pullin our leg huh? I was sure you meant it.