80 Grain projectiles

[bennf]

Hi All
I have been shooting a 5.56/.223 for 4 years now. It has won me a queens in F Std and seen me clean up at nearly ever club shoot here in Kempsey.
Now the only time I feel disadvantaged by the smaller caliber is at 1000 + yrds as with windy conditions I feel I must pull off a better shoot to do the same job.
I have just built myself a new rifle for Bisley (that we are not going to now) and put in a 308 This is because I wanted to standardize the team to some degree and as the champs are at 1000 yrds I would feel more comfortable.
I also had a 5.56mm barrel chambered and as for all but maybe 900-1000 I would use the 5.56 any day of the week.
They are a pleasure to shoot and can certainly shoot better than I can read wind. Recoil and gun shyness is non existent which is a big plus in my books.

Just my two bobs worth.

and yes I do still feel like a real man too!

Benn

[KHGS]

Keith,

For my interest and that of others, where do you get the brass? Is it the smaller capacity (stronger base??) that is the benefit of the brass, or some other reason?

Woody,
I think Lapua is possibly the best 5.56 brass. The ADI is good, some batches will weigh in at 98 grains (average weight) & some batches will come in at 94 grains. ADI brass seems a little "softer" than Lapua, having said that, I have some that has been loaded 15 + times. Price & the excellent quality of ADI .308 brass were the influencing factors with my trying it, the quality
is not as good as ADI .308 brass. I got mine from a third party from the Lithgow NSW area.
Keith H.

[RDavies]

Just a few out of the square questions about 223s, oops I mean 5.56s. Has anyone had problems with the smaller bullets holes being harder to find (or the bullet slips in right beside the spotter peg) on the target and been given the odd miss? Has anyone found that the quieter muzzle blast and lack of recoil caused the markers not to see that you have fired, and hence not scored you for the occaisional shot? It is for these reason that I am steering away from 22s in F open, but then there are other reasons why I love the little 22s.
I found with my lighter recoilng rifles, gun handling is not as important, I can get a little bit sloppy with my hold and grip and not loose a shot too wildly. This means I can concentrate more on reading the wind and slightly less on making sure my hold is absolutley perfect ( I know I should do both, but I cant think of 2 things at once.
Kieth, what is the difference between 5.56 and 223?

[johnk]

I pulled targets at the QRA Queens last year & had no issue with the .223 that I didn't also have with .308s - anybody there would have recalled that the final 1000 was shot in less than salubrious conditions. As far as beside the pin goes, we hold spotters on satay stick segments between pairs of those rings you nut sheep with for .223 shots & they semaphore one down the stick easily as they get agitated - and, yes, we do patch or replace the spotter every time its hit. We use balsa pegs for the .308.

Then again, you have 5 or 6 days pulling targets & tend to get quite quality sensitive by the end. Maybe it's different with a casual club shoot.

On the other side of the bolt, it's generally higher qualified shooters using the .223 at the big matches & they generally pattern them on the 6/V ring.

[KHGS]

Kieth, what is the difference between 5.56 and 223?[/quote]

Rod, The difference is in bullet weight & the chamber throat required to accommodate the much longer bullet. This is why there should (must) be a caliber distinction between the two. This is also why it can (is) be quite unsafe to chamber & fire 5.56 in a .223 chamber. The throat of a 5.56 chamber to suit an 80 grain A-Max needs to be about .120" longer than a standard .223 throat.
Keith H.

[Woody_rod]

Keith,

Not wanting to start an argument, arent the 223Rem and the 5.56 x 45 NATO very similar except for minor differences in chamber specs, and otherwise larger pressures in the NATO cartridge. My questions were not rhetorical, I am genuinely interested in getting to know the chambers better.

As far as I know, there is no other standardised round (based on the 45mm case with the 9,6mm head size) than the two mentioned.

Dont think this has anything to do with the bullet size we target shooters use, as they are either SAAMI or CIP standards. Im pretty sure the NATO round uses a 69 grain bullet, with the throat made to suit this.

The throat for a 223Rem chamber with the same 80 grain bullet would be the same as the 5.56 x 45 NATO, disregarding the chamber and neck length.

[KHGS]

Keith,

Not wanting to start an argument, arent the 223Rem and the 5.56 x 45 NATO very similar except for minor differences in chamber specs, and otherwise larger pressures in the NATO cartridge. My questions were not rhetorical, I am genuinely interested in getting to know the chambers better.

As far as I know, there is no other standardised round (based on the 45mm case with the 9,6mm head size) than the two mentioned.

Dont think this has anything to do with the bullet size we target shooters use, as they are either SAAMI or CIP standards. Im pretty sure the NATO round uses a 69 grain bullet, with the throat made to suit this.

The throat for a 223Rem chamber with the same 80 grain bullet would be the same as the 5.56 x 45 NATO, disregarding the chamber and neck length.

Woody,
The cartridge cases are the same but in reality that is where it ends. The throat is entirely different. My reasoning for the separation of the two is purely on safety grounds. To fire a 5.56 cartridge in a .223 chamber will result in chamber pressures which will be excessive & likely to result in irreparable damage to the rifle & possible injury to the user. I believe it is our duty to educate shooters that there is a difference between the two cartridges that can have a significant bearing on the well being of the shooter if incorrectly used. If we do not identify that this difference exists & make it known we would be irresponsible, we being gunsmiths & manufactures.
I am not arguing about this, just stating my view. There are other examples of cartridges that are essentially the same but should not be interchanged in the interests of safety. One such example is .308 Win 7.62 Nato. 308 Win has a higher operating chamber pressure than 7.62 Nato. The use of .308 Win in a Enfield #4 MK1 or MK2 for example will lead to eventual failure, yet they are supposedly the same. Using 7.62 Nato cartridges in these rifles is however quite safe. The difference between 5.56mm & .223 is actually greater than the difference between 7.62 Nato & .308 Win. The 69 grain bullet used in the 5.56mm Nato is very long for its diameter due to a penetrator insert in the bullet which is lighter than lead & so requires a longer throat.
In my 30 + years as a full time professional gunsmith I have seen some hair raising activities take place. A couple of incidences that come to mind which seem funny on the surface until you think about it.
1) Firing .243 ammo in a 6.5X55 rifle & wondering why the hell he couldn't hit a thing.
2) Firing .223 ammo in a .222 magnum because he couldn't buy any .222 magnum ammo.
These & many other foolish acts took place through ignorance. In the interests of safety I will continue to stamp 5.56mm barrels as such & .223 barrels as .223's.
Keith H.

[Woody_rod]

Ok, gotcha. That does sound a compelling reason for making a different chamber mark on the barrel. Will we get to the point one day of having disclaimers on the barrel about chambers and what rounds are acceptable in them?

I know that safety is one of the reasons to mark the barrel anyway from a legal point of view, but what about people doing stupid things as mentioned by Keith?

As a former safety professional for a number of years, I found that there is no such thing as "common sense" when dealing with human behaviour. Ultimately, someone proves this right every day......

Is it the standard 223rem chambered rifle that is at risk here, and not the target rifle. Cant see any typical factory 223 round ever hurting a target rifle, but one of the 25 gr 2208/80gr bullet in a hunting rifle is a completely different story. Is this what we need to watch out for?

[Robert Chombart]

Keith,

Not wanting to start an argument, arent the 223Rem and the 5.56 x 45 NATO very similar except for minor differences in chamber specs, and otherwise larger pressures in the NATO cartridge. My questions were not rhetorical, I am genuinely interested in getting to know the chambers better.

As far as I know, there is no other standardised round (based on the 45mm case with the 9,6mm head size) than the two mentioned.

Dont think this has anything to do with the bullet size we target shooters use, as they are either SAAMI or CIP standards. Im pretty sure the NATO round uses a 69 grain bullet, with the throat made to suit this.

The throat for a 223Rem chamber with the same 80 grain bullet would be the same as the 5.56 x 45 NATO, disregarding the chamber and neck length.

Woody,
The cartridge cases are the same but in reality that is where it ends. The throat is entirely different. My reasoning for the separation of the two is purely on safety grounds. To fire a 5.56 cartridge in a .223 chamber will result in chamber pressures which will be excessive & likely to result in irreparable damage to the rifle & possible injury to the user. I believe it is our duty to educate shooters that there is a difference between the two cartridges that can have a significant bearing on the well being of the shooter if incorrectly used. If we do not identify that this difference exists & make it known we would be irresponsible, we being gunsmiths & manufactures.
I am not arguing about this, just stating my view. There are other examples of cartridges that are essentially the same but should not be interchanged in the interests of safety. One such example is .308 Win 7.62 Nato. 308 Win has a higher operating chamber pressure than 7.62 Nato. The use of .308 Win in a Enfield #4 MK1 or MK2 for example will lead to eventual failure, yet they are supposedly the same. Using 7.62 Nato cartridges in these rifles is however quite safe. The difference between 5.56mm & .223 is actually greater than the difference between 7.62 Nato & .308 Win. The 69 grain bullet used in the 5.56mm Nato is very long for its diameter due to a penetrator insert in the bullet which is lighter than lead & so requires a longer throat.
In my 30 + years as a full time professional gunsmith I have seen some hair raising activities take place. A couple of incidences that come to mind which seem funny on the surface until you think about it.
1) Firing .243 ammo in a 6.5X55 rifle & wondering why the hell he couldn't hit a thing.
2) Firing .223 ammo in a .222 magnum because he couldn't buy any .222 magnum ammo.
These & many other foolish acts took place through ignorance. In the interests of safety I will continue to stamp 5.56mm barrels as such & .223 barrels as .223's.
Keith H.

Keith,

I think I must on this single occasion cease to be a lurker and clarify some points.

First, I have always heard that the SS109 'Penetratr" Neto bullet was a 62 grainers, not a 69. It replaced the initial 55 grains, still in service in some places...

About the .223 (SAAMI), 5,56x45 CIP or NATO, .308 Winchersete (SAAMI), 7,62x51 CIP or NATO, from all the official datas I have knowledge of, the 3 sources refers to the same , just eventually minor conversions roundings.

All three refers to MINIMAL chamber/throat/rifling dimensions for the chamber, and MAXIMAL cartridge dimensions for the ammunition.

I am still waiting to be given evidence of variations in the official dateas dimensions for ech calibre in the norms cited.

I am not negating the safety issues. They exists, but, if the norms are followed, the risk is minimised.

It is to be borne in mind that a round which is oversize to the norm, or a chamber who is undersize CAN NOT be considered as being of the calibre, ang the courts tends to appreciate this way...
R.G.C
Returning to rest

[KHGS]

Robert,
Quite right, 62 grain is correct. However all else is as I have stated, the risk MAY be low but it does exist, I have seen the results. I will continue to do my bit to minimize the risk as much as I can. I am not aware of any legal requirement to differentiate the 2 here in Australia.

Woody,
Yes the risk is with .223 chambered rifles, not with 5.56mm rifles. We must be mindful that here in Australia which is where I have been referring to, anyone with a lathe can purchase a reamer & chamber a barrel without having the appropriate knowledge & experience in these matters. I see this all the time. I know of an instance of one such "gunsmith" who read that a rifle would be more accurate if chambered with a reduced neck diameter reamer. This gentleman purchased such a reamer & began cutting chambers for fullbore use without any I.D. stampings on the barrels & any realization that such a chamber required neck turned cases. Very poor practice indeed & an example of how a little knowledge can be potentially dangerous. This is why I get the "jitters" when an individual wishes to purchase a blank barrel, my motives for being wary in these cases is often misinterpreted.
Keith H.