This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.223 Remington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How do you pronounce ".223 Remington"? "Two–twenty-three Remington"? "Two-two-three Remington"? "Double-deuce cubed"? Any citations? 98.202.116.244 ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Most peeps refer to it as two-twenty-three or two-two-three. Add rem or remington as you like. It's all good.
Does anyone else think that, in present form, this page may as well just be a redirect? Stiletto Null
What's the deal with the plug for Barrett at the end? Totally random and out of place.
* Should be merged. They aren't two different cartridges, they are two different sets of specs for the same cartridge. They are equivalant, and completely interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.229.244.30 ( talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Skrasis Mar. 6, 2007
Okay, I know my guns and all, but why put a picture of 5.56x45mm cartridges in an M16 STANAG magazine and specifically differentiate the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO in the caption and put the picture in the .223 Remington page? -- Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a photo of an actual .223 if you want to use it,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:22LR-9-45-223-3006-12gu-LipGloss.jpg
I don't have any Nato rounds for comparison though, maybe use this photo and the one already on the page? I'll leave it up to y'all to decide, rather than messing up the page myself.
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same bullets used from Bushmaster XM15 in the DC Sniper case by Muhammad and Malvo? — KpoT ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
24.95.241.57 ( talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Criminals use what is available. Ban this round and they will use another. Ban them all and help the black market grow.
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) so when you kill someone make sure that you look for their money and credit card. Then RUN And this is why you dont use this site because i am putting down DUMB information. Now imange that u need information for a project about someone and you come to this site. You don't know who is typing so you can be typing fake information. For example i could write that Abram Lincon did from an overdose, you would believe if you don't know who he really died.
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the image in the table? It's a 5.56, 30-30, and 7.62; The .223 is a very diffrent caliber, and is not interchangable (you can't put a 5.56 into a .223). Please exchange wwith an appropriate image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.31.186 ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo does not even have an image of the 223. It needs to be replaced with one that has the 223 in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.128.165 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
SAAMI cartridge names never begin with "." So this cartridge is called 223 Remington, not .223 Remington. Someone should correct this on all of Wikipedia's cartridge entries. I would do it myself but I am not sure how to keep from breaking Wikipedia's links. [1] 71.184.91.47 ( talk) 19:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
... shouldn't the history page mention what year it was conceived or developed or when it became available?
T 85.166.160.236 ( talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The .223 Remington (.223 Rem) is a cartridge with almost the same external dimensions as the 5.56×45mm NATO military cartridge
Actually the dimensions of the cartridge are the same. The article later says there is no such thing as 223 or 5.56 brass. That statement is true and contradicts the opening statement. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This article needs thorough proofreading. It is embarrassing that such errors are here.
223 Remington is not to be confused with the Nato standard 5.56mm x 45mm
NATO Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what an atrocious run on sentence. Plus it's is a contraction meaning "it is".
After the M16 was released to the public as the (semi-automatic) Armalite AR15 model the combination of an ultra light semi-automatic rifle that is fun to shoot, and an extremely accurate, inexpensive cartridge as well as >>it's<< use by the US Army, made this combination an instant hit. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
"AR builders who intend to shoot the new 90 grain bullets will probably look to rifling at 1:65."
Really? That rifling would be like no twist at all. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This whole paragraph is pure BS and further propagates the confusion between 223 and 5.56. The barrel is the only difference between the two weapons in today's market. There MAY have been 223 specific upper receivers a decade ago but there is no reason to mention it.
It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached) and the lower receiver are entirely separate parts in AR-15 style rifles. If the lower receiver has either .223 or 5.56 stamped on it, it does not guarantee the upper assembly is rated for the same caliber, because the upper and the lower receiver in the same rifle can, and frequently do, come from different manufacturers – particularly with rifles sold to civilians or second-hand rifles. On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.
Canonshooter999 (
talk)
06:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There are other grammatical and spelling errors. I don't have time to list them all. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The diagram of the cartridge calls out a 25° angle at the base. The diagram as drawn actually has a http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf, which I believe is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.43.210 ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A few cartridge comparisons. .223 Rem is the original AR-15/M16 cartridge. All others resulted from NATO standardization. NO PB means LEAD FREE. All the NATO calibers have penetrators. The SS111 performance (as far as I know) has not be made public although some Bofors ammo showed high performance in armor penetrate decades ago. This data came from the US Army Green Book and other sources many years ago.
The .223 Rem bullet is an analog to the .50 BMG bullet. Those in the NATO rounds are ballistically superior. NATO pressures are measured using the Piezo method. Some suggest that the two pressures are the same. I'll trust PMC in this.
Cartridge | US Des | NATO Des | Bullet Wt | Rifling | Throat | Pressure |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | M193 | 55 gr fmjbt | 1:10 | US tight | 55,000 (CUP) | |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M855 | SS109 | 62g Pen | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000(P) |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M855A1 | 62 gr No PB | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) | |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M856 | SS110 | 77 gr Tracer | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M857 | SS111 | AP TC | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) |
I've repeated the warning photo from PMC M855 style:
Digitallymade (
talk)
08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Errors in the Introduction section. Why is 5.56 x 45mm NATO being discussed under .223 Rem. One is civilian and the other is military. The Military does not use .223 Rem. Actual military specifications are NOT necessarily revealed to the public, ex. SS111 specs
Another Logical error... .223 Rem is a civilian round. That means there is a HUGE number of makers (since it is also the world's most popular rifle caliber next to .22 LR) and a huge variety of velocities and loads. This is NOT the case with military cartridges.
Further, talking about SAAMI pressures has no benefit with regard to NATO cartridges as they don't follow SAAMI (or CIP). SAAMI and CIP standards exist so that various makers can produce similar products. They do not develop ammunition or firearms and they don't have any authority over naming conventions. And I don't think they have any influence on Military designs either.
It is a Logical Error to talk about SAAMI or CIP standards with regard to MILITARY products in my opinion.
.223 Remington (Rem) is a Sporting Cartridge used for casual, target, and competitive shooting and hunting. Facilitating these uses are a wide range of bullet and powder loads available in .223 Rem cartridges. .223 Rem is often used for hunting varmints, feral dogs, pigs, racoon, possum, and small deer etc. Hunters can use a wide selection of bullet weights if matched to the correct rifling rate in their firearms. [2]
Early in it's availability it was used by Military and Police forces but has been largely supplanted for those uses by the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge family. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is sometimes preferred for Police use due to it's lack of over penetration as compared to police handgun cartridges. [3] [4] [5]
References
back in the early days of sniper development and use for the law enforcement community the 223 Rem was fairly popular because of the fear of over penetration
The Olympic reference may disappear soon as Olympic Arms has declared bankruptcy.
Digitallymade (
talk)
09:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This section describes some of the different .224 cartridges in development but fails to mention Winchester's. It also fails to note that there are major differences in case design form .222 Rem Mag to .223 Rem. It is a very incomplete history of the development. A complete history can be found on the internet.
The Daniel Watters reference is dead. This statement is FALSE: With the U.S. military adoption of the M16 assault rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington in a slightly derived form was standardized as the 5.56×45mm NATO.
With the introduction of the AR15 rifle the cartridge was standardized as the M193.
The .222 Rem is still being sold here, but it's appreciated by a small number of target shooters.
Digitallymade ( talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
False statement: CIP lists .223 Rem pressures as 62,366 psi Piezo. This is either misquoted or the wrong cartridge. That is a pressure rating for 5.56 x 45mm NATO SS109, not .223 Rem. I'll trust the US ratings in this. CIP is clearly rating NATO and not REM.
rifling:
There is an implication that there are M16s around with 1:12 or 1:10 rifling. When US went to NATO standard all of the M16s were rebarrelled to 1:7. There might be a very few (probably illegal) M16s in the USA with 1:12 or 1:10 but the standard TODAY is 1:7. The M16 is currently at the A4 development and is being completely phased out by the M4.
The rifling section is confused and needs to be rewritten. Digitallymade ( talk) 10:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The first line is wrong: The .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges and chamberings are similar but not identical.
The .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45mm NATO Cartridge cases are identical. The rifle barrel chambers are different. (there is no purpose in using the word similar. You CANNOT be both Similar and Different at the same time.
This statement: While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, bullet weight, chamber pressure and the chamber leade (throating in the USA), i.e. distance from the projectile while seated in the case to the rifling is typically shorter in .223 Remington commercial chambers.
is nonsense. It's contradictory in what it says. If a cartridge varies by any of it's element it cannot be identical. The ONLY element that is known to be similar is the cartridge case and that is identical. The bullet are known to be dissimilar, powder charges are largely unknown. Throating is definately different and may involve more differences than simply distance. (I suspect this is true but cannot confirm this positively) The page actually suggests this is true which is a contradiction of an earlier statement on the same page.
Pressure: Removed copyrighted photo.
This image contradicts the statement about CIP pressures, which I do not feel are credible. A 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round fired in a non-NATO chambered for .223 REM would, similar to bullet setback, cause a spike in pressure. Setback alone can account for over 10,000 psi, which could be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. However, this is just speculation.. the actual pressures generated may be much higher. Sustained use of 5.56 Nato in a .223 Rem firearms is likely to cause damage. It's similar to using proof ammunition. Digitallymade ( talk) 10:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Logical problems:
Statement:- It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached)
This statement is untrue:On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.
Cartridge | Chamber | Pressure | Proof 20% |
---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55,000 | 66,000 |
5.56 mm NATO | 5.56mm Nato | 62,000 | 74400 |
5.56mm NATO | .223 Rem | 72,000+ | 66000 |
A firearm should NEVER be fired using a cartridge where pressures exceed proof levels. It's clear from the chart that 5.56mm may be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. Proof levels may in fact be higher than 20%. There are enough firearms that have exploded which have been examined by the makers who have found, almost without variation, that high pressures were involved. The implication is usually that a handload was too high pressure. But it may also be due to repeated use of 5.56mm in a .223 Rem chambered firearm.
Digitallymade ( talk) 11:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Updating with more information:
Cartridge | Chamber | Pressure | Proof 25% |
---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55,000 | 70,000 (actual) |
5.56 mm NATO | 5.56mm Nato | 62,000 | 77500 est |
5.56mm NATO | .223 Rem | 72,000+ est | 77500 est |
SAAMI proof is 1.25 overpressure. CIP information is for European loaded ammunition only. Remington NEVER submitted their specs to CIP. CIP is NOT an authority for .223 Rem. Normal variance for .223 Rem allows pressure to vary by 3000psi. Top normal pressure is actually 58,000psi. Getting water in the barrels caused burst fluted barrels during testing. A heavier barrel was used to resolve that problem.
Cartridge | USA Des | NATO Des | Bullet | Rifling | Throat | Pressure | in .223 Chamber | Safe Sustained |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55gr FMJBT | 1:14 | tight | 52,000 | 52,000 | Yes | |
.223 Rem | M193 | 5.56 x 45 mm | 55gr FMJBT | 1:12 | tight | 55,000 | 55,000 | Yes |
.223 Rem | M197 | C10524197-56-2 | 1:12 | tight | 70,000 | 70,000 | One time only | |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M855 | SS109 | 62 gr Pen | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M856 | SS110 | 77gr Tracer | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M857 | SS111 | Tungsten Carbide | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | Proof | Proof | unk | 1:7 | long | 77500est | 85250 est | No |
The last line is a guess based on normal proof load pressures being 25% overpressure of normal. There is also a 3500 psi various allowed in testing so loads can do up or down. As noted, 5.56mm cases externally are identical to .223 Rem cases, but typically have thicker case walls and that means less capacity. I've seen .223 Rem listed as high as 31gr capacity (Chuckhawks) and other places at only 28gr. That's enough to cause pressure problems based on using the same powder load, but it will not affect this chart. Several websites have speculated that .223 Rem proof pressure is actually 78,500 psi. The figure I used is from Cartridges of the World 14 - 2014, which is under constant revision and released in a new form annually.
Reading many sites, there are quite a few photographs of blown up ARs. Several say that they did nothing unusual. However, firing an AR too long without cleaning can add to the overpressure and is suspected in the destruction of some of the rifles where the user said they did nothing wrong. I'm inclined to add a truncated version of this chart, cutting off the last two columns, to the article. Digitallymade ( talk) 18:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement: In the case of the 5.56 NATO, M193 ammunition
M193 is US spec for .223 Rem which is NOT used by US military. There is no such a thing as 5.56 NATO M193. This error appears on a Midway advertisement (for one).
The USA is phasing out M855 in favor of M855A1.
This is a poor section. Why mention the expected change in velocity due to barrel length without giving an example of barrel lengths used in various types of firearms. Furthermore, it's illogical to talk about barrel length without also mentioning the stated muzzle velocity of common ammunition.
The stated reference makes a dubious claim that "5.56mm fired safely in a .223 Rem rifle. They did not test pressure and don't know if it was safe, which is doubtful. The temperature was lower than the test standard so results will be slightly off.
Since they were cutting barrels in a crude manner and not making any effort to give them a proper crown the velocity results may be slightly off also. Cutting a barrel in that way may introduce stress etc. In general the concept is OK. The section has too little information to be useful. Digitallymade ( talk) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Barnes currently loads an 85 gr in the .223 Rem. The 90 grain Sierra is for single loading only (no semi-automatic) and is NOT commercially loaded. [1]
Digitallymade ( talk) 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The diagram shown is for 5.56mm NATO from CIP. CIP pressures shown are always for 5.56mm NATO even on their page claiming to be .223 Rem. .223 Remington was submitted to SAAMI in 1964.
Here is a diagram of .223 Rem .223 Remington Case Dimensions.
Here is another diagram of .223 Remington .223 Remington Diagram
I have several actual reloading manual diagrams but I cannot just photograph them and put them on commons because that would be a copyright violation. NONE of the correct diagrams for .223 Rem that I have found are public domain. Correct diagrams will always be labeled in inches which is how they are submitted to SAAMI. Digitallymade ( talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
We now say both:
(a) "originally developed in 1957 as a commercial hunting bullet for small mid-western varmints; with the first rifle chambered for it coming out in 1963." (in the Intro)
and:
(b) "The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle" (in History)
So, which is it? It seems to me that this article is about the civilian cartridge, and while it's interesting that it was picked up, used, and further developed by the military, that should not be the main focus. The ArmaLite AR-15, M16 and 5.56×45mm NATO have their own whole articles.
There is also, imho, far too much detail in the ".223 Remington vs. 5.56×45mm NATO" section. - Snori ( talk) 01:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The unit or designation of measure is Caliber. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm). When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge. It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.
Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional. It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR" or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR". It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.
This page is for specifications in caliber, what is used in the industry. Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of .45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches. Another example .223 Rem. If this is a caliber unit it would translate to .223 thousandths (.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches.
The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms.
Further information on the correct way to specify values and units. Values and the units used should be separated by a space. Example 7 mm is correct, 7mm is not correct. Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be. Another example (5.56 x 45 mm). Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).
Scimernet ( talk) 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)scimernet
That picture of a 222 compared to a 223 is a bad Photoshop. It makes it appear as if the body and rim diameter of the 222 are smaller than those of the 223, when in fact, the rim and base diameters are the same, and the 222 has slightly less taper giving a slightly larger diameter shoulder. I'll see if I have a 222 somewhere that I can photograph with a 223, but if not, can someone else fix that? DrHenley ( talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Every acronym will know the truth. AR-15 with a .22 71.185.58.222 ( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.223 Remington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How do you pronounce ".223 Remington"? "Two–twenty-three Remington"? "Two-two-three Remington"? "Double-deuce cubed"? Any citations? 98.202.116.244 ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Most peeps refer to it as two-twenty-three or two-two-three. Add rem or remington as you like. It's all good.
Does anyone else think that, in present form, this page may as well just be a redirect? Stiletto Null
What's the deal with the plug for Barrett at the end? Totally random and out of place.
* Should be merged. They aren't two different cartridges, they are two different sets of specs for the same cartridge. They are equivalant, and completely interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.229.244.30 ( talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Skrasis Mar. 6, 2007
Okay, I know my guns and all, but why put a picture of 5.56x45mm cartridges in an M16 STANAG magazine and specifically differentiate the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO in the caption and put the picture in the .223 Remington page? -- Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a photo of an actual .223 if you want to use it,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:22LR-9-45-223-3006-12gu-LipGloss.jpg
I don't have any Nato rounds for comparison though, maybe use this photo and the one already on the page? I'll leave it up to y'all to decide, rather than messing up the page myself.
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same bullets used from Bushmaster XM15 in the DC Sniper case by Muhammad and Malvo? — KpoT ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
24.95.241.57 ( talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Criminals use what is available. Ban this round and they will use another. Ban them all and help the black market grow.
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) so when you kill someone make sure that you look for their money and credit card. Then RUN And this is why you dont use this site because i am putting down DUMB information. Now imange that u need information for a project about someone and you come to this site. You don't know who is typing so you can be typing fake information. For example i could write that Abram Lincon did from an overdose, you would believe if you don't know who he really died.
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the image in the table? It's a 5.56, 30-30, and 7.62; The .223 is a very diffrent caliber, and is not interchangable (you can't put a 5.56 into a .223). Please exchange wwith an appropriate image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.31.186 ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo does not even have an image of the 223. It needs to be replaced with one that has the 223 in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.128.165 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
SAAMI cartridge names never begin with "." So this cartridge is called 223 Remington, not .223 Remington. Someone should correct this on all of Wikipedia's cartridge entries. I would do it myself but I am not sure how to keep from breaking Wikipedia's links. [1] 71.184.91.47 ( talk) 19:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
... shouldn't the history page mention what year it was conceived or developed or when it became available?
T 85.166.160.236 ( talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The .223 Remington (.223 Rem) is a cartridge with almost the same external dimensions as the 5.56×45mm NATO military cartridge
Actually the dimensions of the cartridge are the same. The article later says there is no such thing as 223 or 5.56 brass. That statement is true and contradicts the opening statement. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This article needs thorough proofreading. It is embarrassing that such errors are here.
223 Remington is not to be confused with the Nato standard 5.56mm x 45mm
NATO Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what an atrocious run on sentence. Plus it's is a contraction meaning "it is".
After the M16 was released to the public as the (semi-automatic) Armalite AR15 model the combination of an ultra light semi-automatic rifle that is fun to shoot, and an extremely accurate, inexpensive cartridge as well as >>it's<< use by the US Army, made this combination an instant hit. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
"AR builders who intend to shoot the new 90 grain bullets will probably look to rifling at 1:65."
Really? That rifling would be like no twist at all. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 05:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This whole paragraph is pure BS and further propagates the confusion between 223 and 5.56. The barrel is the only difference between the two weapons in today's market. There MAY have been 223 specific upper receivers a decade ago but there is no reason to mention it.
It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached) and the lower receiver are entirely separate parts in AR-15 style rifles. If the lower receiver has either .223 or 5.56 stamped on it, it does not guarantee the upper assembly is rated for the same caliber, because the upper and the lower receiver in the same rifle can, and frequently do, come from different manufacturers – particularly with rifles sold to civilians or second-hand rifles. On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.
Canonshooter999 (
talk)
06:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There are other grammatical and spelling errors. I don't have time to list them all. Canonshooter999 ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The diagram of the cartridge calls out a 25° angle at the base. The diagram as drawn actually has a http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf, which I believe is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.43.210 ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A few cartridge comparisons. .223 Rem is the original AR-15/M16 cartridge. All others resulted from NATO standardization. NO PB means LEAD FREE. All the NATO calibers have penetrators. The SS111 performance (as far as I know) has not be made public although some Bofors ammo showed high performance in armor penetrate decades ago. This data came from the US Army Green Book and other sources many years ago.
The .223 Rem bullet is an analog to the .50 BMG bullet. Those in the NATO rounds are ballistically superior. NATO pressures are measured using the Piezo method. Some suggest that the two pressures are the same. I'll trust PMC in this.
Cartridge | US Des | NATO Des | Bullet Wt | Rifling | Throat | Pressure |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | M193 | 55 gr fmjbt | 1:10 | US tight | 55,000 (CUP) | |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M855 | SS109 | 62g Pen | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000(P) |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M855A1 | 62 gr No PB | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) | |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M856 | SS110 | 77 gr Tracer | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) |
5.56 x 45 NATO | M857 | SS111 | AP TC | 1:7 | NATO Long | 62,000 (P) |
I've repeated the warning photo from PMC M855 style:
Digitallymade (
talk)
08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Errors in the Introduction section. Why is 5.56 x 45mm NATO being discussed under .223 Rem. One is civilian and the other is military. The Military does not use .223 Rem. Actual military specifications are NOT necessarily revealed to the public, ex. SS111 specs
Another Logical error... .223 Rem is a civilian round. That means there is a HUGE number of makers (since it is also the world's most popular rifle caliber next to .22 LR) and a huge variety of velocities and loads. This is NOT the case with military cartridges.
Further, talking about SAAMI pressures has no benefit with regard to NATO cartridges as they don't follow SAAMI (or CIP). SAAMI and CIP standards exist so that various makers can produce similar products. They do not develop ammunition or firearms and they don't have any authority over naming conventions. And I don't think they have any influence on Military designs either.
It is a Logical Error to talk about SAAMI or CIP standards with regard to MILITARY products in my opinion.
.223 Remington (Rem) is a Sporting Cartridge used for casual, target, and competitive shooting and hunting. Facilitating these uses are a wide range of bullet and powder loads available in .223 Rem cartridges. .223 Rem is often used for hunting varmints, feral dogs, pigs, racoon, possum, and small deer etc. Hunters can use a wide selection of bullet weights if matched to the correct rifling rate in their firearms. [2]
Early in it's availability it was used by Military and Police forces but has been largely supplanted for those uses by the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge family. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is sometimes preferred for Police use due to it's lack of over penetration as compared to police handgun cartridges. [3] [4] [5]
References
back in the early days of sniper development and use for the law enforcement community the 223 Rem was fairly popular because of the fear of over penetration
The Olympic reference may disappear soon as Olympic Arms has declared bankruptcy.
Digitallymade (
talk)
09:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This section describes some of the different .224 cartridges in development but fails to mention Winchester's. It also fails to note that there are major differences in case design form .222 Rem Mag to .223 Rem. It is a very incomplete history of the development. A complete history can be found on the internet.
The Daniel Watters reference is dead. This statement is FALSE: With the U.S. military adoption of the M16 assault rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington in a slightly derived form was standardized as the 5.56×45mm NATO.
With the introduction of the AR15 rifle the cartridge was standardized as the M193.
The .222 Rem is still being sold here, but it's appreciated by a small number of target shooters.
Digitallymade ( talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
False statement: CIP lists .223 Rem pressures as 62,366 psi Piezo. This is either misquoted or the wrong cartridge. That is a pressure rating for 5.56 x 45mm NATO SS109, not .223 Rem. I'll trust the US ratings in this. CIP is clearly rating NATO and not REM.
rifling:
There is an implication that there are M16s around with 1:12 or 1:10 rifling. When US went to NATO standard all of the M16s were rebarrelled to 1:7. There might be a very few (probably illegal) M16s in the USA with 1:12 or 1:10 but the standard TODAY is 1:7. The M16 is currently at the A4 development and is being completely phased out by the M4.
The rifling section is confused and needs to be rewritten. Digitallymade ( talk) 10:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The first line is wrong: The .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges and chamberings are similar but not identical.
The .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45mm NATO Cartridge cases are identical. The rifle barrel chambers are different. (there is no purpose in using the word similar. You CANNOT be both Similar and Different at the same time.
This statement: While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, bullet weight, chamber pressure and the chamber leade (throating in the USA), i.e. distance from the projectile while seated in the case to the rifling is typically shorter in .223 Remington commercial chambers.
is nonsense. It's contradictory in what it says. If a cartridge varies by any of it's element it cannot be identical. The ONLY element that is known to be similar is the cartridge case and that is identical. The bullet are known to be dissimilar, powder charges are largely unknown. Throating is definately different and may involve more differences than simply distance. (I suspect this is true but cannot confirm this positively) The page actually suggests this is true which is a contradiction of an earlier statement on the same page.
Pressure: Removed copyrighted photo.
This image contradicts the statement about CIP pressures, which I do not feel are credible. A 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round fired in a non-NATO chambered for .223 REM would, similar to bullet setback, cause a spike in pressure. Setback alone can account for over 10,000 psi, which could be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. However, this is just speculation.. the actual pressures generated may be much higher. Sustained use of 5.56 Nato in a .223 Rem firearms is likely to cause damage. It's similar to using proof ammunition. Digitallymade ( talk) 10:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Logical problems:
Statement:- It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached)
This statement is untrue:On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.
Cartridge | Chamber | Pressure | Proof 20% |
---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55,000 | 66,000 |
5.56 mm NATO | 5.56mm Nato | 62,000 | 74400 |
5.56mm NATO | .223 Rem | 72,000+ | 66000 |
A firearm should NEVER be fired using a cartridge where pressures exceed proof levels. It's clear from the chart that 5.56mm may be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm. Proof levels may in fact be higher than 20%. There are enough firearms that have exploded which have been examined by the makers who have found, almost without variation, that high pressures were involved. The implication is usually that a handload was too high pressure. But it may also be due to repeated use of 5.56mm in a .223 Rem chambered firearm.
Digitallymade ( talk) 11:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Updating with more information:
Cartridge | Chamber | Pressure | Proof 25% |
---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55,000 | 70,000 (actual) |
5.56 mm NATO | 5.56mm Nato | 62,000 | 77500 est |
5.56mm NATO | .223 Rem | 72,000+ est | 77500 est |
SAAMI proof is 1.25 overpressure. CIP information is for European loaded ammunition only. Remington NEVER submitted their specs to CIP. CIP is NOT an authority for .223 Rem. Normal variance for .223 Rem allows pressure to vary by 3000psi. Top normal pressure is actually 58,000psi. Getting water in the barrels caused burst fluted barrels during testing. A heavier barrel was used to resolve that problem.
Cartridge | USA Des | NATO Des | Bullet | Rifling | Throat | Pressure | in .223 Chamber | Safe Sustained |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.223 Rem | .223 Rem | 55gr FMJBT | 1:14 | tight | 52,000 | 52,000 | Yes | |
.223 Rem | M193 | 5.56 x 45 mm | 55gr FMJBT | 1:12 | tight | 55,000 | 55,000 | Yes |
.223 Rem | M197 | C10524197-56-2 | 1:12 | tight | 70,000 | 70,000 | One time only | |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M855 | SS109 | 62 gr Pen | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M856 | SS110 | 77gr Tracer | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | M857 | SS111 | Tungsten Carbide | 1:7 | long | 62,000 | 70,000+ | No |
5.56 x 45mm NATO | Proof | Proof | unk | 1:7 | long | 77500est | 85250 est | No |
The last line is a guess based on normal proof load pressures being 25% overpressure of normal. There is also a 3500 psi various allowed in testing so loads can do up or down. As noted, 5.56mm cases externally are identical to .223 Rem cases, but typically have thicker case walls and that means less capacity. I've seen .223 Rem listed as high as 31gr capacity (Chuckhawks) and other places at only 28gr. That's enough to cause pressure problems based on using the same powder load, but it will not affect this chart. Several websites have speculated that .223 Rem proof pressure is actually 78,500 psi. The figure I used is from Cartridges of the World 14 - 2014, which is under constant revision and released in a new form annually.
Reading many sites, there are quite a few photographs of blown up ARs. Several say that they did nothing unusual. However, firing an AR too long without cleaning can add to the overpressure and is suspected in the destruction of some of the rifles where the user said they did nothing wrong. I'm inclined to add a truncated version of this chart, cutting off the last two columns, to the article. Digitallymade ( talk) 18:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement: In the case of the 5.56 NATO, M193 ammunition
M193 is US spec for .223 Rem which is NOT used by US military. There is no such a thing as 5.56 NATO M193. This error appears on a Midway advertisement (for one).
The USA is phasing out M855 in favor of M855A1.
This is a poor section. Why mention the expected change in velocity due to barrel length without giving an example of barrel lengths used in various types of firearms. Furthermore, it's illogical to talk about barrel length without also mentioning the stated muzzle velocity of common ammunition.
The stated reference makes a dubious claim that "5.56mm fired safely in a .223 Rem rifle. They did not test pressure and don't know if it was safe, which is doubtful. The temperature was lower than the test standard so results will be slightly off.
Since they were cutting barrels in a crude manner and not making any effort to give them a proper crown the velocity results may be slightly off also. Cutting a barrel in that way may introduce stress etc. In general the concept is OK. The section has too little information to be useful. Digitallymade ( talk) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Barnes currently loads an 85 gr in the .223 Rem. The 90 grain Sierra is for single loading only (no semi-automatic) and is NOT commercially loaded. [1]
Digitallymade ( talk) 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The diagram shown is for 5.56mm NATO from CIP. CIP pressures shown are always for 5.56mm NATO even on their page claiming to be .223 Rem. .223 Remington was submitted to SAAMI in 1964.
Here is a diagram of .223 Rem .223 Remington Case Dimensions.
Here is another diagram of .223 Remington .223 Remington Diagram
I have several actual reloading manual diagrams but I cannot just photograph them and put them on commons because that would be a copyright violation. NONE of the correct diagrams for .223 Rem that I have found are public domain. Correct diagrams will always be labeled in inches which is how they are submitted to SAAMI. Digitallymade ( talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
We now say both:
(a) "originally developed in 1957 as a commercial hunting bullet for small mid-western varmints; with the first rifle chambered for it coming out in 1963." (in the Intro)
and:
(b) "The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle" (in History)
So, which is it? It seems to me that this article is about the civilian cartridge, and while it's interesting that it was picked up, used, and further developed by the military, that should not be the main focus. The ArmaLite AR-15, M16 and 5.56×45mm NATO have their own whole articles.
There is also, imho, far too much detail in the ".223 Remington vs. 5.56×45mm NATO" section. - Snori ( talk) 01:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The unit or designation of measure is Caliber. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm). When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge. It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.
Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional. It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR" or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR". It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.
This page is for specifications in caliber, what is used in the industry. Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of .45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches. Another example .223 Rem. If this is a caliber unit it would translate to .223 thousandths (.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches.
The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms.
Further information on the correct way to specify values and units. Values and the units used should be separated by a space. Example 7 mm is correct, 7mm is not correct. Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be. Another example (5.56 x 45 mm). Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).
Scimernet ( talk) 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)scimernet
That picture of a 222 compared to a 223 is a bad Photoshop. It makes it appear as if the body and rim diameter of the 222 are smaller than those of the 223, when in fact, the rim and base diameters are the same, and the 222 has slightly less taper giving a slightly larger diameter shoulder. I'll see if I have a 222 somewhere that I can photograph with a 223, but if not, can someone else fix that? DrHenley ( talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Every acronym will know the truth. AR-15 with a .22 71.185.58.222 ( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)