You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
reloading 223
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
JeepHammer
Moderator
Actually, since 2012 the cases are exactly the same.
ATK/Federal took over the Lake City plant that produces military ammo.
When the big homeland security contract came along, the government wanted 'civilian' ammunition made to military specifications.
By definition, if the ammo is loaded to military standards, its military ammo.
The .223 Rem headstamp is the only difference, it's still military ammo.
This created havoc in the civilian market, a total of 3.2 BILLION rounds were contracted, and by law the major manufacturers were REQUIRED to produce the government contract, which they were going to have to completely retool for.
ATK took it to DOD, got the standards changed so the civilian market could produce 'Civilian Law Enforcement' (crimped/sealed primers & crimped/sealed bullets).
Case volume is exactly the same, wall & head thickness is exactly the same,
The only difference is we now have to deal with work hardened case mouths from crimping, and removing primer crimps from 'Civilian' brass.
The line between 'Civilian' .223 Rem brass & 5.56x45/NATO rounds is further blurred...
Like those stupid LONG NATO chambers & Stupid fast twist rifling rates wasn't enough to screw things up for shooters/reloaders,
Now every reloaded is going to have to deal with crimped primers sooner or later...
ATK/Federal took over the Lake City plant that produces military ammo.
When the big homeland security contract came along, the government wanted 'civilian' ammunition made to military specifications.
By definition, if the ammo is loaded to military standards, its military ammo.
The .223 Rem headstamp is the only difference, it's still military ammo.
This created havoc in the civilian market, a total of 3.2 BILLION rounds were contracted, and by law the major manufacturers were REQUIRED to produce the government contract, which they were going to have to completely retool for.
ATK took it to DOD, got the standards changed so the civilian market could produce 'Civilian Law Enforcement' (crimped/sealed primers & crimped/sealed bullets).
Case volume is exactly the same, wall & head thickness is exactly the same,
The only difference is we now have to deal with work hardened case mouths from crimping, and removing primer crimps from 'Civilian' brass.
The line between 'Civilian' .223 Rem brass & 5.56x45/NATO rounds is further blurred...
Like those stupid LONG NATO chambers & Stupid fast twist rifling rates wasn't enough to screw things up for shooters/reloaders,
Now every reloaded is going to have to deal with crimped primers sooner or later...
NO! Your load data has almost nothing to do with brass, but everything to do with the chamber of your rifle. Use .223 data for a .223 rifle. There may be slight differences in 5.56 military contract brass and .223 WWB, but they are still interchangeable for .223 load data.
With that being said, much ado has been made about the difference between .223 and 5.56... when 95% of the time that difference amounts to virtually nothing. But... because that difference is virtually nothing, do not believe that you have extra pressure safety margin just because you're using 5.56 brass and think that you can safely go 5% over published data with no safety issues.
With that being said, much ado has been made about the difference between .223 and 5.56... when 95% of the time that difference amounts to virtually nothing. But... because that difference is virtually nothing, do not believe that you have extra pressure safety margin just because you're using 5.56 brass and think that you can safely go 5% over published data with no safety issues.
Time to get a decrimper!
I just cut crimps with a utility knife. Rather unorthodox, I know, but I am a tightwad. That's why I reload. Never had any issues with my method either.
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
I agree with some of the information, but some of it is confused. When 7.62 NATO was developed, Winchester, who had helped with the development, immediately released the same cartridge with the civilian name, .308 Winchester. When 5.56 NATO was developed, Remington, who had helped with the development, immediately released the same cartridge with the civilian name, .223 Remington. At that point, there were no differences other than the name and the military requirement for brass hard enough to withstand full auto extraction, crimped primers, and sealed bullets and primers. Unlike 7.62/.308, where discrepancies in the capacity of military and civilian cases developed differences, 5.56 NATO has remained remarkably consistent. The only variation seemed to occur when Belgium developed SS109 (which we adopted as M855) and gave it what measured to be about 5% more pressure than our M193. This raised M193 pressure from 52,000 CUP to 55,000 CUP, and conformal transducer pressure from 55,000 PSI to 58,000 PSI, which is what Federal says it loads to today.
But here's the funny thing. Using Kisler pressure transducers, NATO measures the same round to be 4300 bar or 62,366 psi. Guess what pressure the CIP uses as standard for .223 Remington? Yep, 4300 bar or 62,366 psi. So if you buy .223 made in Europe somewhere, you are hitting the same pressure as in NATO ammo. The fact it's in a .223 Chamber mitigates it a bit, but not dramatically.
So how could this happen? Well, it's a matter of limited absolute precision in pressure measuring gear. The bottom line is getting within 15% of absolute is about as close as it gets, and that explains part of the reason load data from different sources doesn't agree. I am unaware of any .223 made that won't tolerate any 5.56 load made. If someone actually has had sticky bolt lift or some other positive pressure sign running M855 in a gun with a .223 Rem chamber, I'd sure like to hear about it. The fact is the pressure difference, such as it is, and only on some measuring fear, is far less than the difference between a production load and a proof load. Far less than the 15-18% the CIP and SAAMI extreme variance allows for. It really just isn't an issue. The only possible exception would be with a load so long it hit the lands in a .223 chamber when it didn't do so in a 5.56 NATO chamber. It's a theoretical possibility for specialty military ammo. But not for the standard ball and AP rounds.
I agree with some of the information, but some of it is confused. When 7.62 NATO was developed, Winchester, who had helped with the development, immediately released the same cartridge with the civilian name, .308 Winchester. When 5.56 NATO was developed, Remington, who had helped with the development, immediately released the same cartridge with the civilian name, .223 Remington. At that point, there were no differences other than the name and the military requirement for brass hard enough to withstand full auto extraction, crimped primers, and sealed bullets and primers. Unlike 7.62/.308, where discrepancies in the capacity of military and civilian cases developed differences, 5.56 NATO has remained remarkably consistent. The only variation seemed to occur when Belgium developed SS109 (which we adopted as M855) and gave it what measured to be about 5% more pressure than our M193. This raised M193 pressure from 52,000 CUP to 55,000 CUP, and conformal transducer pressure from 55,000 PSI to 58,000 PSI, which is what Federal says it loads to today.
But here's the funny thing. Using Kisler pressure transducers, NATO measures the same round to be 4300 bar or 62,366 psi. Guess what pressure the CIP uses as standard for .223 Remington? Yep, 4300 bar or 62,366 psi. So if you buy .223 made in Europe somewhere, you are hitting the same pressure as in NATO ammo. The fact it's in a .223 Chamber mitigates it a bit, but not dramatically.
So how could this happen? Well, it's a matter of limited absolute precision in pressure measuring gear. The bottom line is getting within 15% of absolute is about as close as it gets, and that explains part of the reason load data from different sources doesn't agree. I am unaware of any .223 made that won't tolerate any 5.56 load made. If someone actually has had sticky bolt lift or some other positive pressure sign running M855 in a gun with a .223 Rem chamber, I'd sure like to hear about it. The fact is the pressure difference, such as it is, and only on some measuring fear, is far less than the difference between a production load and a proof load. Far less than the 15-18% the CIP and SAAMI extreme variance allows for. It really just isn't an issue. The only possible exception would be with a load so long it hit the lands in a .223 chamber when it didn't do so in a 5.56 NATO chamber. It's a theoretical possibility for specialty military ammo. But not for the standard ball and AP rounds.
Stats Shooter
New member
The easiest thing to do, and the most safe, is to just start at the bottom and work your way up checking for pressure signs and documenting any issues. I have .308's , and 7.62x51's as well as 5.56x45's. I worry not at all. I check the manual, or the online data sites, I start low and work up. It is that simple. And it is unlikely that starting low and working your way up will result in an unsafe load before you notice very obvious pressure signs like difficult extraction, stuck cases, pierced or blown out primers, bulged heads, etc.
For me the NATO vs Civilian discussion is useless because i usually adjust the jump anyway, and even if I didn't my chamber is probably unlike anyone elses. In fact, not long ago, in my new AR 10 I experienced a pierced primer and dimpled outward primers working up a load and I was still a couple grains below max.
So worry not, just follow safe load development rules.
For me the NATO vs Civilian discussion is useless because i usually adjust the jump anyway, and even if I didn't my chamber is probably unlike anyone elses. In fact, not long ago, in my new AR 10 I experienced a pierced primer and dimpled outward primers working up a load and I was still a couple grains below max.
So worry not, just follow safe load development rules.
JeepHammer
Moderator
Since this is a .223 thread (excluding the issues with 7.62),
An AR will 'talk' to you...
You know you are too low in pressure pulse or duration when the bolt hits the side of the next round in the mag instead of stripping it off & loading it.
When you fire, *IF* you have proper cheek weld, you WILL hear the rifle cycle.
You will hear a 'Cruuunch' (spring compressing),
You may or may not hear the 'Thump' when the buffer hits the stop.
You will hear 'Sprrrrong-Klatch' as buffer spring expands, bolt carrier group moves forward, stripping off next round & bolt latching closed.
If this is so fast you can't distinguish the functions, you are reaching overpressure for your ACTION.
The Barrel might take more, but the action needs tuned for the loads you are using.
Cheek weld gives you bone induction of sounds, hearing protection doesn't matter...
You CAN shoot 'Hot' loads through an AR-15, the action simply needs to be tuned.
Most times a 'Warm' load will be the most accurate, especially when shooting a short barrel...
Watch your brass!
Distorted/pulled rims, a 'Donut' pushed up around firing pin strike,
Flattened primer edges where they should have a little radius on the edge,
These are all signs of overpressure, either in the round itself, OR the action.
Distorted rim lips are too great an initial gas pulse,
Failure to fully cycle slams the BCG into the next round in the mag, either weak load or not a long enough gas pulse.
Serious 'Thump' (recoil) is too much pressure on the BCG,
The bolt not going fully forward (into full battery), is usually a soggy round but can be too quick duration of gas pulse.
Rounds that stick in the chamber, won't eject live rounds, is usually cases that didn't get properly resized for the chamber, or got crunched a little
Too much when roll or taper crimping.
An AR will 'talk' to you...
You know you are too low in pressure pulse or duration when the bolt hits the side of the next round in the mag instead of stripping it off & loading it.
When you fire, *IF* you have proper cheek weld, you WILL hear the rifle cycle.
You will hear a 'Cruuunch' (spring compressing),
You may or may not hear the 'Thump' when the buffer hits the stop.
You will hear 'Sprrrrong-Klatch' as buffer spring expands, bolt carrier group moves forward, stripping off next round & bolt latching closed.
If this is so fast you can't distinguish the functions, you are reaching overpressure for your ACTION.
The Barrel might take more, but the action needs tuned for the loads you are using.
Cheek weld gives you bone induction of sounds, hearing protection doesn't matter...
You CAN shoot 'Hot' loads through an AR-15, the action simply needs to be tuned.
Most times a 'Warm' load will be the most accurate, especially when shooting a short barrel...
Watch your brass!
Distorted/pulled rims, a 'Donut' pushed up around firing pin strike,
Flattened primer edges where they should have a little radius on the edge,
These are all signs of overpressure, either in the round itself, OR the action.
Distorted rim lips are too great an initial gas pulse,
Failure to fully cycle slams the BCG into the next round in the mag, either weak load or not a long enough gas pulse.
Serious 'Thump' (recoil) is too much pressure on the BCG,
The bolt not going fully forward (into full battery), is usually a soggy round but can be too quick duration of gas pulse.
Rounds that stick in the chamber, won't eject live rounds, is usually cases that didn't get properly resized for the chamber, or got crunched a little
Too much when roll or taper crimping.
IIRC, there is no bright line distinction between 5.56 and .223 in terms of brass thickness and internal capacity. Some 5.56 brass is thicker and has less internal capacity than some .223 brass, and vice versa. It all depends on the manufacturer.
Also, unless you have 5.56 resizing dies, it all becomes .223 in terms of external dimensions once you resize. The only real differences are crimped necks and primer pockets. Even then, IIRC there is some .223 out there with crimped necks and/or primer pockets, although 5.56 is mostly where you'll find crimping.
As was posted earlier, your load data is your safety margin (assuming all other factors are accounted for, such a proper resizing, chamber in good condition, etc.).
Also, unless you have 5.56 resizing dies, it all becomes .223 in terms of external dimensions once you resize. The only real differences are crimped necks and primer pockets. Even then, IIRC there is some .223 out there with crimped necks and/or primer pockets, although 5.56 is mostly where you'll find crimping.
As was posted earlier, your load data is your safety margin (assuming all other factors are accounted for, such a proper resizing, chamber in good condition, etc.).