.223 and 5.56
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So /k/, I'm a relatively new gun owner and have a question about weapons firing 5.56 and .223. Pic related is my grandfathers AR-15 he build from an 80% lower. And its since then been handed down to me.
This gun is marked for .223 and 5.56, and as far as I understand, they are both the same caliber and everything, but 5.56 is a "overpowered" cartridge that shouldn't be fired out of a gun marked specifically for .223 because it will put unnecessary strain on the gun. But why even manufacture .223? What are the pros? And being that .223 is around, why don't people just manufacture parts to withstand a 5.56 cartridge so that you can shoot both? Anyone have any insight or know about the history of these cartridges? And over all, which one should you shoot given you have a gun that can handle both?
>>30208667
.223 came first, but lol imperial so for NATO compliance they made it metric. To get better performance they upped the gunpowder and made the bullet a hair bigger.
A 5.56 rifle can shoot .223, but it may slightly less optimal than a 5.56
You aren't supposed to shoot 5.56 out of .223
..223 parts can be made cheaper due to resisting less pressure, but since ARs are a dime a dozen you will honestly find it cheaper just to buy an AR they can handle 5.56 rather than a mini-14 or something that only does .223
In America you can find .223 and 5.56 easily at your local Walmart.
>>30208667
Not "overpowered" more pressure per specs in 556.
Shoot whichever you want, usually you find 223 cheaper
>>30208701
>>30208701
I understand thanks for the answers man
Slightly OT, but is it even possible to get an AR meant only for .223 anymore?
>>30208703
So being that 5.56 is under more pressure, does that generally yield a faster projectile? If that's the case, is it more successful at defeating body armor than a .223 round?
>>30208667
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/3/4/223-remington-vs-556-whats-in-a-name/
All you need to know.
>>30208794
Fantastic thank you man
>>30208743
Was there ever? Even the first AR to market, Colt SP-1, was good to go with 5.56 despite being marked for .223 Remington.
whatever you do, don't make any destructive modifications to that gun, just get another upper (which you can through the mail, since it's not a gun) if you want to play barbie doll with it. it's a really nice early/retro style build!
>>30208910
Alright thanks for the heads up. Destructive as in putting a suppressor on it or something I would have to "sign my life away for"?
>>30208667
A rifle made from an 80% lower is considered a "home made gun," and unless your grandfather wrote the ATF and got a serial number, it cannot legally be transferred to anybody other than its maker, and can not be handed down.
If you see an ATF van, hide your dog.
>>30209021
I see, well my family ended up with power of attorney when we ended up with dementia and get sent to a assisted living facility. So I imagine my old man probably got it legitimately transferred when all of his firearms were written off to different family members. Its likely got my dads name on the paperwork, and technically is "his" gun then.
>>30209079
He's full of shit. 80% guns can and are (rarely) sold. The only legal issue is if you manufacture for sale which doesn't apply in your case.
>>30208724
I thought the originals were .223 though?
>>30208667
>why don't people just manufacture parts to withstand a 5.56 cartridge so that you can shoot both
That's typically what is done in the US today.
Guns that are rated only for .223, such as say, the Ruger Mini-14 Target model, I think says it on the barrel usually.
>>30208747
>So being that 5.56 is under more pressure, does that generally yield a faster projectile?
Yes. 5.56 has more velocity than .223. The variance in velocity depends on the manufacturer but, generally speaking, I see 5.56 having at least a couple hundred more fps than .223 when comparing the two. YMMV.
>If that's the case, is it more successful at defeating body armor than a .223 round?
Simple answer: No.
If the armor (usually a ballistic plate) is rated for 5.56 it doesn't matter between the two because it will stop either round.
However, if we are talking about armor levels that are not rated to stop 5.56/.223 then yes, in theory, the increased velocity in 5.56 would help penetrate the armor better.
However, what really matters about the increase in velocity is that it is more likely to tumble when entering a target. (Depending on the round we are talking about. This is crucial for FMJ to be effective e.g. M193 or M855. For soft point or varmint rounds this isn't as crucial but still important to the function of reliable expansion.)
If someone was wearing armor not rated for 5.56/.223 and was shot, then 5.56 would have a better chance of tumbling compared to 5.56 due to the increase in velocity after going through the soft armor. However, either round will still penetrate the armor if it is not rated to stop it.
>pic related to the tumbling effect in ratio to velocity of 5.56
the pic is from the Ammo Oracle on arfcom I suggest you go check it out.
>>30208701
>rather than a mini-14 or something that only does .223
Only goes for the Target model, all the other ones are rated perfectly fine for 5.56mm NATO
>>30210180
The old 180 series might be, they had pretty flimsy barrels (which is the main reason their groupings would open up so fast), but I think the receivers and bolts would probably still handle it.
The Mini-14 GB and all the AC-556 variants were all definitely rated for 5.56mm NATO though, as those were kind of Ruger's go at a military rifle at the time (with modest success).
A modern 580 series one will handle both ammo without issue and for that matter, with much better accuracy.
>>30208667
Man, haven't seen a fake Colt Moderator in long time, they look kind of weird with the extended length.
I dig the overall older look of the build though, retro AR-15 rifles kick ass.
>>30209021
You can transfer home made firearms, you mong. You just can't make guns with the intention of selling them unless you have a manufacturers license
>>30210338
>compared to 5.56
I meant compared to .223
>>30208667
That's a very nice looking AR-15, looks better than most that are posted on here
>>30210385
I actually like some modern ARs (the MagPul look really appeals to me), but old school Colts have an unmistakable charm.
>>30210338
>However, if we are talking about armor levels that are not rated to stop 5.56/.223 then yes, in theory, the increased velocity in 5.56 would help penetrate the armor better.
What about Fiend or Legion armor?
>>30208743
you can buy barrels chambered for .223, but 5.56 and ".223 wylde" (a ghetto rigged chamber that's good for both .223 and 5.56, but seals better on .223 than a standard 5.56 chamber) are far more common.
>>30210385
everything posted on here looks like gayboy spess guns.
>>30213157
>.223 Wylde chamber
>ghetto rigged
>>30213324
>Afro engineered
