Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Question for you AR-15 Pros- article claims NATO ammo dangerous in Armalites?

Comments

7 comments

  • cpermd
    Horse puckeyMore Fulyton Armory PRcpermd
    0
  • JudgeColt
    Let me start by saying I know little about this subject. However, I believe the warning probably applies to the heavy-bullet 5.56 NATO loads like the 62-grain loads. Those bullets are probably longer and may be seated further out so as to engage the rifleing as warned. Someone who knows the specifications for the NATO versis commercial loads please post further information.
    0
  • oneshy
    From what I have read the specs are .008" different between the 2. Case length for the 223 is 1.752". 5.56 Nato is 1.760". Therefore the 2 can be fired in a Nato chamber. But 5.56 should not be fired in a 223 chamber because higher chamber pressure will result.
    0
  • cpermd
    Have you guys ever been to a match and seen Oly SUM barrels,Armalite,DPMS shooting 68-75 grain bullets with SAAMI chambers,throats and necks.I have and do.cpermd
    0
  • JudgeColt
    While I am aware of the situation Doc mentions, I doubt that any of those rifles are shooting anything not specifically loaded for them. Presumably, each shooter has tailored the load to just about engage the rifling, and has trimmed the brass, etc..The case length difference mentioned does give concern. I wonder why the difference? I have used military brass in all my para-military rifles chambered for .223 Rem./5.56 NATO for years without knowing the difference, although I have always chamfered the outside of the case mouth, which may make a difference. I recall one of my Colts says NATO on the barrel. Perhaps Colts so marked are different. I own no ArmaLite .223 rifles so do not know their specifications. I will have to look at the chambering markings on my rifles to verify what they say.
    0
  • oneshy
    During development of the round, which was originally termed 222magnum, it was found that velocity at 500 meters did not meet military specs. By lengthening the case they were able to meet those specs.
    0
  • Der Gebirgsjager
    Gents-let's take a logical (and factual) look at this problem. The 5.56mm was first, developed from the .222 Rem. (not mag.), but made a little longer. In it's final form it is slightly shorter than the .222 Mag. It was specifically made for the Armalite rifle. The .223 Rem. was next, the civilian version of the 5.56mm. Confirm this, if you will, by consulting "Cartridges of the World", Frank Barnes, 8th edition, page 19. Barnes gives a write-up for both versions of the cartridge and shows an overall case length of 1.760". "The Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions" John Donnelly has seperate write-ups for .223 Rem. (Pg. 152) showing an overall case length of 1.760" and the 5.56mm (Pg. 701) showing a length of 1.755. The .223 is, therefore, the longer case, if there indeed is a difference. You will note that Barnes states that the M193 military version with a 55 gr. bullet has been superseded in military service by the SS109 which is loaded with a 62 gr. bullet. On the surface this would seem to be no big deal and no problem; and usually isn't. Where the problem arises is that in civilian chambered rifles (SAMMI-spec) the longer bullet will be in contact with the back of the lands, thus increasing pressure when fired; and if unfired and extracted, sometimes pulling the bullet, leaving it stuck in the chamber, dumping powder into the magazine well, and generally making a mess. I have a 180-series Mini-14 that did this until I figured out I was using the longer bullet (wasn't too accurate either--but that's a different story--rifling twist rate). All current military chambers should handle all versions of the .223/5.56mm. All older civilian and military chambers should handle the .223 and M193 5.56mm, but not necessarily the SS109--although military chambers are generously cut to handle dirty and corroded ammo and may also handle the SS109. The area to be aware of potential problems is SAMMI chambers and the SS109.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?