AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/31/2010 1:41:36 PM EDT
A SAAMI spec .223 Remington chamber will have a shorter leade with a sharper angle to the leade and a shorter amount of effective freebore than a 5.56mm NATO chamber. The freebore itself will also be narrower in the .223 Remington chamber.
raw pics courtesy of Ned Christiansen With all other things being equal, the 5.56mm NATO chamber with its longer and shallower angled leade and longer amount of effective freebore will produce less chamber pressure than a .223 Remington chamber, when firing .223 Remington SAAMI Spec ammunition. Because of this, 5.56mm NATO amunition can be loaded to a pressure that would be considered excessive in a .223 Remington chamber, yet acceptable in a 5.56mm NATO chamber. (Pressures are measured using different methods between the two systems.) The leade of a SAAMI 223 Remington chamber. 
from Rifle magazine The official SAAMI 223 Remington drawing. 
From Jeff Hoffman, co-owner of Black Hills Ammunition “The 5.56 IS a higher pressure/velocity cartridge, but it is made to a military standard, with different test methods, (and therefore is not easily directly comparable to .223 pressures) . . . the general spec for US 5.56 ammo is 58,700 psi max, measured at case mouth. . . Please note this is a different method than SAAMI transducer or copper crusher, as used on commercial ammunition. 5.56 ammunition spec results in ammunition loaded to a higher pressure level than commercial .223, but the test methods specified are different . . .The spec calls for a different pressure test method than SAAMI spec ammo, and is not directly comparable . . . “ Here's a very interesting quote posted by Ned Christiansen on M4carbine.net: ". . . In short, you can safely fire all 5.56 AND 223 ammunition in a gun properly chambered for 5.56. You MUST NOT fire 5.56 ammunition in a 223 rifle. As case in point, I fired XM193 5.56 ammunition in a 223 test barrel with average pressures (conformal transducer) of 72,550 psi, and peak pressure registered at 76,250 psi. . ." Since the SAAMI MAP for the .223 Remington is 55,000 PSI, that puts XM193 fired from a minimum spec .223 Remington chamber at 17,550 PSI over the maximum. (The following is just a generalization to demonstrate the concept. DO NOT hold me to the exact numbers as they are not correct and they ignore the difference due to the different methods used to measure chamber pressure.) Consider the left graph pictured below; M193 fired in a 5.56mm chamber. The pressure is within the MAP limit. Now, take the exact same round, (same powder, same charge of powder) and fire it from a .223 Remington chamber; pictured in the right graph below. Because the .223 Remington chamber has a shorter and sharper angled leade compared to the 5.56mm chamber as well as a shorter effective free-bore, the bullet engages the rifling sooner in the .223 chamber than it would have in a 5.56mm chamber. This causes the pressure to rise faster, peak sooner and reach a higher (and per SAAMI, unsafe) level than it would have if the round had been fired from a 5.56mm chamber. 
Many people seem to incorrectly believe that 5.56mm brass cases have significantly reduced case capacity compared to .223 Remington cases. The table of case capacities shown below demonstrates that this notion is false. 
..... |
|
Molon,
Great post and since you seem to do alot research and really know your stuff. I seem to have read some where that the reason you don't shoot 5.56 out of an AR that is chambered for .223 is that the powder burns hotter and creates more pressure build up in a NATO 5.56rd than .223rd. Is this what your kinda talking about? And something else I've been wondering if all this is true doesn't that basically make the .223 chambering inferior to the 5.56, and if this is the case why would anyone want a AR cambered in .223? Sorry if this seems like a rambled mess, but it's something I've been wondering for awhile. |
|
For utmost "n'th" degree of accuracy less free-bore is best. Ideally you want your bullet to uniformly contact the rifling surfaces. If you have more freebore, such as the 556 chamber, than the bullet jumps into the rifling upon ignition.
Most shoot .223REM in 5.56 chambers with good results. If you shot the same ammo in a .223 chamber, then theoretically you should have better accuracy, all other variables being equal. Sounds like it would make for a good test. Also there is the wylde chambers which vary (compass lake, noveske, krieger...I don't think they are all EXACTLY the same, could be wrong). I'd like to get 2 kriegers 1-7.7 same profile/length, 1 with NATO chamber and 1 with .223 REM to try...hmmm. |
|
Quoted:
I seem to have read some where that the reason you don't shoot 5.56 out of an AR that is chambered for .223 is that the powder burns hotter and creates more pressure build up in a NATO 5.56rd than .223rd. Not exactly. Perhaps the graphs below will aid in understanding. (The following is just a generalization to demonstrate the concept. DO NOT hold me to the exact numbers as they are not correct and they ignore the difference due to the different methods used to measure chamber pressure.) Consider the left graph pictured below; M193 fired in a 5.56mm chamber. The pressure is within the MAP limit. Now, take the exact same round, (same powder, same charge of powder) and fire it from a .223 Remington chamber; pictured in the right graph below. Because the .223 Remington chamber has a shorter and sharper angled leade compared to the 5.56mm chamber as well as a shorter effective free-bore, the bullet engages the rifling sooner in the .223 chamber than it would have in a 5.56mm chamber. This causes the pressure to rise faster, peak sooner and reach a higher (and per SAAMI, unsafe) level than it would have if the round had been fired from a 5.56mm chamber. The 5.56mm chamber allows for "more area under the curve" than a .223 chamber at the SAAMI MAP limit.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pressures are measured using different methods between the two systems, so a direct comparison between the two is not practicable. Can you expand on this, please? I don't see what the difference could be, and confess to being a bit skeptical. When I post information, it's not something that I've merely pulled out of my a$$. “The 5.56 IS a higher pressure/velocity cartridge, but it is made to a military standard, with different test methods, (and therefore is not easily directly comparable to .223 pressures) . . . the general spec for US 5.56 ammo is 58,700 psi max, measured at case mouth. . . Please note this is a different method than SAAMI transducer or copper crusher, as used on commercial ammunition. 5.56 ammunition spec results in ammunition loaded to a higher pressure level than commercial .223, but the test methods specified are different . . .The spec calls for a different pressure test method than SAAMI spec ammo, and is not directly comparable . . . “ Jeff Hoffman |
|
Quoted:
When I post information, it's not something that I've merely pulled out of my a$$. I realize that, which is why I figured I could ask for some elaboration and get a reasonable chance of an informative replay. But the quote you provided is a handwaving argument, stating four times that the systems are different, without ever stating what those differences are. So I ask again if you can elaborate. The requirements of the SAAMI procedure are readily available online: http://www.saami.org/Publications/206.pdf. I can’t find a complete copy of the NATO AC/225 document that standardizes test procedures, but through several references to it I see that a different transducer is specified by the different orgs. It is interesting to note that the British Defense Ministry allows NATO small arms ammunition test methods to be replaced by the equivalent CIP method. So if CIP and NATO methods are comparable, why isn’t SAAMI? |
|
Quoted:
A SAAMI spec .223 Remington chamber will have a shorter leade with a sharper angle to the leade and a shorter amount of effective freebore than a 5.56mm NATO chamber. The freebore itself will also be narrower in the .223 Remington chamber. http://www.box.net/shared/static/oobedcsfkc.jpg raw pics courtesy of Ned Christiansen With all other things being equal, the 5.56mm NATO chamber with its longer and shallower angled leade and longer amount of effective freebore will produce less chamber pressure than a .223 Remington chamber, when firing .223 Remington SAAMI Spec ammunition. Because of this, 5.56mm NATO amunition can be loaded to a pressure that would be considered excessive in a .223 Remington chamber, yet acceptable in a 5.56mm NATO chamber. (Pressures are measured using different methods between the two systems, so a direct comparison between the two is not practicable.) http://www.box.net/shared/static/rhi6cdy4ge.jpg from Rifle magazine “The 5.56 IS a higher pressure/velocity cartridge, but it is made to a military standard, with different test methods, (and therefore is not easily directly comparable to .223 pressures) . . . the general spec for US 5.56 ammo is 58,700 psi max, measured at case mouth. . . Please note this is a different method than SAAMI transducer or copper crusher, as used on commercial ammunition. 5.56 ammunition spec results in ammunition loaded to a higher pressure level than commercial .223, but the test methods specified are different . . .The spec calls for a different pressure test method than SAAMI spec ammo, and is not directly comparable . . . “ Jeff Hoffman (The following is just a generalization to demonstrate the concept. DO NOT hold me to the exact numbers as they are not correct and they ignore the difference due to the different methods used to measure chamber pressure.) Consider the left graph pictured below; M193 fired in a 5.56mm chamber. The pressure is within the MAP limit. Now, take the exact same round, (same powder, same charge of powder) and fire it from a .223 Remington chamber; pictured in the right graph below. Because the .223 Remington chamber has a shorter and sharper angled leade compared to the 5.56mm chamber as well as a shorter effective free-bore, the bullet engages the rifling sooner in the .223 chamber than it would have in a 5.56mm chamber. This causes the pressure to rise faster, peak sooner and reach a higher (and per SAAMI, unsafe) level than it would have if the round had been fired from a 5.56mm chamber. http://www.box.net/shared/static/rkuh8gzlj2.jpg Here's a very interesting quote posted by Ned Christiansen on M4carbine.net: ". . . In short, you can safely fire all 5.56 AND 223 ammunition in a gun properly chambered for 5.56. You MUST NOT fire 5.56 ammunition in a 223 rifle. As case in point, I fired XM193 5.56 ammunition in a 223 test barrel with average pressures (conformal transducer) of 72,550 psi, and peak pressure registered at 76,250 psi. . ." Since the SAAMI MAP for the .223 Remington is 55,000 PSI, that puts XM193 fired from a minimum spec .223 Remington chamber at 17,550 PSI over the maximum. Many people seem to incorrectly believe that 5.56mm brass cases have significantly reduced case capacity compared to .223 Remington cases. The table of case capacities shown below demonstrates that this notion is false. http://www.box.net/shared/static/eeig0a9r3c.jpg Molon, you are a heck of a good man .Your wisdom , never ceases to amaze me. Not knowing your back ground..How do you find the time to educate us folks?...None the less ...Thank you for all the great posts! 
|
|
Quoted:
How does this work with reloads? Can you reload 5.56 and put it in a 223 chamber? My AR's are 5.56 and wylde chamber but I have a model 70 in 223 rem. My same question for 7.62. I have a model 70 in 308 win. I think the consensus is that us reloaders typically do not have the powder mixtures available to reload to true 5.56 pressures. Although I think maybe TAC may have posted some numbers that come close. As far as 7.62 vs 308, it's just the opposite of what you can and can't use. 7.62 x 51 was developed for the M14, a piston operated gun. Piston guns like the M14, M1A, M1 Garand cannot operate at the pressures offered by SAAMI 308 Win rounds(30-06 for the Garand). They operate at pressures that will damage some parts of of those piston operated guns. Basically 7.62 x 51 is a lower pressure round while commercially available 308 Win ammunition operates at higher pressures. Therefore you can shoot 7.62 x 51 from a 308 Win you should not fire 308 Win rounds through the same weapons. Although with the M1A and M14 there is some head space tolerances that may or may not allow 308 Win to be fired. Of course there's reloading too. I'm sure someone may can explain it better. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So why hasn't someone tested 5.56 using the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method?  Look above.
I have read the "above" and I understand that the Mil spec calls for a different testing method for 5.56. My point is this: Since the civilian market has been flooded with rifles chambered for 5.56 why not test 5.56 using civilian methods so we can have some SAAMI approved numbers to work with?
Edit to add: In other words, create a SAAMI spec for 5.56. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So why hasn't someone tested 5.56 using the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method? Look above.
I have read the "above" and I understand that the Mil spec calls for a different testing method for 5.56. My point is this: Since the civilian market has been flooded with rifles chambered for 5.56 why not test 5.56 using civilian methods so we can have some SAAMI approved numbers to work with?
Edit to add: In other words, create a SAAMI spec for 5.56. Don't argue with Molon, just do as the Tier Snobs order you to do: Buy only from the, lets have some dramatic reverance music in the back ground, "CHART." Only a barrel in 1/7 twist, chrome lined, and from ONLY an approved vendor/maker such as BCM, Colt, or Noveske will do. Don't argue with Molon, if you shoot one single round of NATO spec ammo in any barrel not marked 5.56NATO not only will you die a most horrible death but your entire family and 100 future generations of your family will parish horribly!!!!!!! If you have any doubts about your barrel's makings post a clear pic of it here so that Molon can give you the O.K. before shooting. If your barrel has no markings at all then you should run for your *#@!% life after melting it down. |
|
I wonder how we came up with two different chamberings that are so darn close to each other. Why can't we use one or the other and simplify things for our grandkids? I am a new to AR's to don't take the previous statement as a smart a** comment, I really don't understand why we have two so similiar chamberings???
NCH |
|
Quoted:
How does this work with reloads? Can you reload 5.56 and put it in a 223 chamber? My AR's are 5.56 and wylde chamber but I have a model 70 in 223 rem. The pressure problem with 5.56 ammo is created by the chamber, not the ammo. If you make your own 5.56 pressure spec ammo, it is no less a problem than .mil issue 5.56 pressure spec ammo. If you mean, can you safely re-use 5.56 cases loaded by you to .223 pressures in .223 chambered rifles, the answer is yes. It is the chamber, not the brass that creates the pressure problem with rounds loaded to high 5.56 pressures. |
|
Well Done Molon!
Your post (as usual) takes a subject generally considered confusing and makes it understandable for all of us. Well, almost all of us 
Molon has a great track record of scouring the earth for existing data and supplementing it with real world personal scientific testing when he has the equipment to do it. Sometimes when the published scientific data does not exist, Molon collects anecdotal data from experts to support conventional wisdom on the topic and again presents it in an easy to understand way that logical minds inevitably agree with. He always clearly labels these gaps in hard scientific data so there is no confusion. To the fine members with questions about "WHY hasn't anyone tested 5.56 ammo with the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method to generate data for M193/M855 in .223 chambers?" First of all, you must understand that Molon does not have the equipment to perform a SAAMI transducer or copper crusher test on 5.56 ammo fired in a .223 chamber. If he did have it, I suspect he would be willing to perform the test using a .223 rifle donated by BattleRife or ew22hba. 
You guys seem to be missing the point that these tests are expensive, performed with specialized equipment by companies to meet specific customer requirements selling their product. In some cases, the tests are actually destructive and if not properly performed, dangerous. The tests you are asking for are not required by anybody. That is why the tests have not been run and the data does not exist. The requirements to sell 5.56 ammo are defined by the .gov and are defined as being shot in 5.56 chambers. They have no incentive to test them in .223 chambers. The ammo companies reselling 5.56 ammo to consumers are protected from liability by properly labeling the ammo. The companies manufacturing commercial ammo have no financial incentive to run destructive testing of ammo already known to be overpressure in a configuration it was not designed to be shot in (5.56 in a .223 chamber). Their product is .223. Likewise, companies producing rifles clearly labeled as chambered in .223 have no liability for people running the wrong kind of ammo in them. Because of this, the companies that actually have the equipment required to perform the testing have absolutely ZERO incentive to perform the tests BattleRife and ew22hba are asking for. The above is my response to these posts: Quoted:
Quoted:
Pressures are measured using different methods between the two systems, so a direct comparison between the two is not practicable. Can you expand on this, please? I don't see what the difference could be, and confess to being a bit skeptical. Quoted:
Quoted:
When I post information, it's not something that I've merely pulled out of my a$$. I realize that, which is why I figured I could ask for some elaboration and get a reasonable chance of an informative replay. But the quote you provided is a handwaving argument, stating four times that the systems are different, without ever stating what those differences are. So I ask again if you can elaborate. The requirements of the SAAMI procedure are readily available online: http://www.saami.org/Publications/206.pdf. I can’t find a complete copy of the NATO AC/225 document that standardizes test procedures, but through several references to it I see that a different transducer is specified by the different orgs. It is interesting to note that the British Defense Ministry allows NATO small arms ammunition test methods to be replaced by the equivalent CIP method. So if CIP and NATO methods are comparable, why isn’t SAAMI? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So why hasn't someone tested 5.56 using the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method? Look above.
I have read the "above" and I understand that the Mil spec calls for a different testing method for 5.56. My point is this: Since the civilian market has been flooded with rifles chambered for 5.56 why not test 5.56 using civilian methods so we can have some SAAMI approved numbers to work with?
Edit to add: In other words, create a SAAMI spec for 5.56. This post below is something different entirely . . . 
Quoted:
Don't argue with Molon, just do as the Tier Snobs order you to do: Buy only from the, lets have some dramatic reverance music in the back ground, "CHART." Only a barrel in 1/7 twist, chrome lined, and from ONLY an approved vendor/maker such as BCM, Colt, or Noveske will do. Don't argue with Molon, if you shoot one single round of NATO spec ammo in any barrel not marked 5.56NATO not only will you die a most horrible death but your entire family and 100 future generations of your family will parish horribly!!!!!!! If you have any doubts about your barrel's makings post a clear pic of it here so that Molon can give you the O.K. before shooting. If your barrel has no markings at all then you should run for your *#@!% life after melting it down. Maineyack, I can't tell if you are supporting Molon or mocking him. I guess it is also possible that you find all the technical detail and scientific data too difficult to understand, and have given up trying in frustration. Your response above suggests that you disagree with him on many topics at a very emotional level, but have no logical rebuttal to anything he says. Am I reading you wrong? You can PM me if you don't want to trash this valuable thread with noise. I am sure the other readers would appreciate that. Molon, Thanks again for all of your hard work to explain complicated concepts in ways that even I can understand. As always, it takes great skill to make the difficult appear easy. We are all in your debt. |
|
Yup, my reply to Molon's data was sarcastic.
He takes a chamber reamer comparison chart put together by ar15barrels.com. Takes the tightest Clymer .223 reamer sizes and magically comes up with a bunch of disasterous numbers generated by Ned Christianson's test, a smithy and machinist (and probably a salesman par-exilance) who just happens to sell his own line of reamers and guages. Molon HIMSELF!!! told us all to NOT!!!!! hold him to EXACT!!! numbers, that they were just GENERALIZATIONS!!!!! Testing worse-case scenerios is all well and great. Al Gore makes one heck of a living doing it. In the real world how many billions of XM193 rounds have been zapping little critters all over the planet out of how many tens of thousands of rifles with whatever .223 Remington reamed chambers? Shoot, ARF.COM is THE clearing house for any and all kinds of bad news. If any firearm out there chambered in .223 Remington were to ever kaboom while firing any civilian available 5.56NATO ammo we'd all have pics within seconds. I asked the tight chamber kaboom question a few months ago in the Reloading forum. Got a single post of one poped primer and one video of a couple of nitwits destroying a rifle with 300 rounds of continuous full-auto fire. The poped primer was in a Rem. 700. Another Rem. 700 owner posted that his rifle loved XM193s, shoots houndreds of rounds of the stuff with no problems. Savage 110 and CZ owners too. Federal Cartridge Co. lists their Lake City XM193 stuff to average 55,000 psi with a velocity of 3,165 fps. They used a 5.56 mm, 20" test barrel and advises that it be fired only in "standard 5.56 mm chambers. Do not use in non-standard 5.56 chambers." Does that meen that your barrel has to be marked "Standard 5.56 mm" to fire Federal's XM193 ammo? How many "non-standard" 5.56 mm chambers are out there? Molon keeps refering to "minimum spec. .223 Remington chambers." Just what does that meen? And how many of those are out there? Do Ned Christianson's 5.56 reamers meet Federal's criteria for "standard?" I agree with several other posters, SAAMI would do very well to standardize. And no, I DO NOT ADVISE anyone to do anything stupid. |
|
BroncoMafia,
I did not say "WHY hasn't anyone tested 5.56 ammo with the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method to generate data for M193/M855 in .223 chambers." I am sorry if I did not communicate clearly, but do not miss-quote me. I did not say anything about .223 chambers. When I speak of testing 5.56 and developing a SAAMI spec I am talking about not only the ammo but the chamber also. If I understand correctly SAAMI specs are specifically for the round and chamber designed for that round. If we had a SAAMI spec for 5.56 we could compare SAAMI pressure numbers with milspec pressure numbers- apples to apples so to speak. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, my reply to Molon's data was sarcastic. He takes a chamber reamer comparison chart put together by ar15barrels.com. Takes the tightest Clymer .223 reamer sizes and magically comes up with a bunch of disasterous numbers generated by Ned Christianson's test, a smithy and machinist (and probably a salesman par-exilance) who just happens to sell his own line of reamers and guages. Molon HIMSELF!!! told us all to NOT!!!!! hold him to EXACT!!! numbers, that they were just GENERALIZATIONS!!!!! Testing worse-case scenerios is all well and great. Al Gore makes one heck of a living doing it. In the real world how many billions of XM193 rounds have been zapping little critters all over the planet out of how many tens of thousands of rifles with whatever .223 Remington reamed chambers? Shoot, ARF.COM is THE clearing house for any and all kinds of bad news. If any firearm out there chambered in .223 Remington were to ever kaboom while firing any civilian available 5.56NATO ammo we'd all have pics within seconds. I asked the tight chamber kaboom question a few months ago in the Reloading forum. Got a single post of one poped primer and one video of a couple of nitwits destroying a rifle with 300 rounds of continuous full-auto fire. The poped primer was in a Rem. 700. Another Rem. 700 owner posted that his rifle loved XM193s, shoots houndreds of rounds of the stuff with no problems. Savage 110 and CZ owners too. Federal Cartridge Co. lists their Lake City XM193 stuff to average 55,000 psi with a velocity of 3,165 fps. They used a 5.56 mm, 20" test barrel and advises that it be fired only in "standard 5.56 mm chambers. Do not use in non-standard 5.56 chambers." Does that meen that your barrel has to be marked "Standard 5.56 mm" to fire Federal's XM193 ammo? How many "non-standard" 5.56 mm chambers are out there? Molon keeps refering to "minimum spec. .223 Remington chambers." Just what does that meen? And how many of those are out there? Do Ned Christianson's 5.56 reamers meet Federal's criteria for "standard?" I agree with several other posters, SAAMI would do very well to standardize. And no, I DO NOT ADVISE anyone to do anything stupid. What ever dude. Lay off the energy drinks and lighten up. Your personal sarcasm is just that. No one else here finds it amusing. its enough molon go's out of his way to post this info. If you dont like it move on to GD. Thanks Molon. |
|
Quoted:
BroncoMafia, I did not say "WHY hasn't anyone tested 5.56 ammo with the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method to generate data for M193/M855 in .223 chambers." I am sorry if I did not communicate clearly, but do not miss-quote me. I did not say anything about .223 chambers. When I speak of testing 5.56 and developing a SAAMI spec I am talking about not only the ammo but the chamber also. If I understand correctly SAAMI specs are specifically for the round and chamber designed for that round. If we had a SAAMI spec for 5.56 we could compare SAAMI pressure numbers with milspec pressure numbers- apples to apples so to speak. Thanks for clarifying your point ew22hba. I understand now that you want 5.56 ammo tested in 5.56 chambers with the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method to generate data that allows a direct comparison of the pressures experienced between 5.56/5.56 and .223/.223. That data would presumably validate Molon's hypothesis that the difference in chamber allows the 5.56 ammo/5.56 chamber combo to remain at safe pressures. Of course, the next logical step would be to find out what 5.56 did in a .223 chamber with the with the SAAMI transducer or copper crusher method. It seems I was just skipping ahead unless you would have no interest in that data. That is of course the point of the entire thread, that 5.56 ammo/.223 chamber is declared unsafe by ammo and barrel manufacturers because the combination creates dangerous pressure spikes. Why would you NOT want that data? To my other point about why I believe this testing will not be performed and a SAMMI spec for 5.56 as you are asking for will not be created . . . To do that would require testing that the manufacturers have no incentive to perform. How would that benefit them? Where is the opportunity for profit? If there is no business case for the investment, you may as well be sending letters to Santa Claus to get your wish. 
|
|
Quoted:
Yup, my reply to Molon's data was sarcastic. He takes a chamber reamer comparison chart put together by ar15barrels.com. Takes the tightest Clymer .223 reamer sizes and magically comes up with a bunch of disasterous numbers generated by Ned Christianson's test, a smithy and machinist (and probably a salesman par-exilance) who just happens to sell his own line of reamers and guages. Molon HIMSELF!!! told us all to NOT!!!!! hold him to EXACT!!! numbers, that they were just GENERALIZATIONS!!!!! Testing worse-case scenerios is all well and great. Al Gore makes one heck of a living doing it. In the real world how many billions of XM193 rounds have been zapping little critters all over the planet out of how many tens of thousands of rifles with whatever .223 Remington reamed chambers? Shoot, ARF.COM is THE clearing house for any and all kinds of bad news. If any firearm out there chambered in .223 Remington were to ever kaboom while firing any civilian available 5.56NATO ammo we'd all have pics within seconds. I asked the tight chamber kaboom question a few months ago in the Reloading forum. Got a single post of one poped primer and one video of a couple of nitwits destroying a rifle with 300 rounds of continuous full-auto fire. The poped primer was in a Rem. 700. Another Rem. 700 owner posted that his rifle loved XM193s, shoots houndreds of rounds of the stuff with no problems. Savage 110 and CZ owners too. Federal Cartridge Co. lists their Lake City XM193 stuff to average 55,000 psi with a velocity of 3,165 fps. They used a 5.56 mm, 20" test barrel and advises that it be fired only in "standard 5.56 mm chambers. Do not use in non-standard 5.56 chambers." Does that meen that your barrel has to be marked "Standard 5.56 mm" to fire Federal's XM193 ammo? How many "non-standard" 5.56 mm chambers are out there? Molon keeps refering to "minimum spec. .223 Remington chambers." Just what does that meen? And how many of those are out there? Do Ned Christianson's 5.56 reamers meet Federal's criteria for "standard?" I agree with several other posters, SAAMI would do very well to standardize. And no, I DO NOT ADVISE anyone to do anything stupid. Shoot the messenger much? Molon is reporting and clarifying what industry manufacturers position is on a topic that has been confusing for many many people. You are ranting that it is all bad science because the sources are not authoritative enough and the data is incomplete. Yet YOU offer absolutely NOTHING in the way of better sources or new data to fill the gaps that seem to frustrate you so much. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Comparing Molon to Al Gore is over the line. What the hell are you thinking? (edited: I see now you were saying Ned C was like Al Gore, not Molon, right?) Molon has done more to educate readers about .223/5.56 ammo than any other single poster on the board (not counting DocGKR). Why don't you add some constructive value instead of wailing about how imperfect it is? Gaps in Molon's threads are often filled as new data becomes available. Are you willing to do what it takes to be the source of any new data to improve it? Are you willing to do what it takes to create your own BETTER alternative thread? I don't know if this will motivate you to do something constructive, but from the way you are acting, I doubt you care enough about the other people on this board to follow either of those paths. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there is no business case for the investment, you may as well be sending letters to Santa Claus to get your wish. Nichonator is sarcasm intolerant. He will not tolerate sarcasm. If you don't like it move on to GD. All praise be to...oops.  You should take your own advice. Please remember that this is a Technical Forum. |
|
Quoted:
He takes a chamber reamer comparison chart put together by ar15barrels.com. Nothing that I’ve posted in this thread was “put together by ar15barrels.com.” This shows that you are either: a) a liar, or b) clueless. Which is it? Quoted:
. . . .magically comes up with a bunch of disasterous numbers generated by Ned Christianson's test, a smithy and machinist (and probably a salesman par-exilance) who just happens to sell his own line of reamers and guages. Ned Christiansen is one of the most honorable men that I have ever had the privilege of dealing with. The pressure figures provided by Mr. Christiansen are not “magic”. They are a matter of fact, (something that you fail miserably at.) Ned Christiansen also knows more about AR-15s that you could ever hope to. If you doubt that, post your above snide comments about him over on M4carbine.net. Ned Christiansen posts there under his own name. Let's see how long it takes for you to: a) have your ass handed to you, and/or b) get your account locked. The moderators on that website don’t tolerate ignorant trolls posting BS in the technical forums. Quoted:
Molon HIMSELF!!! told us all to NOT!!!!! hold him to EXACT!!! numbers, that they were just GENERALIZATIONS!!!!! If you’re going to reference my statements, have the balls to do it correctly, instead of taking my words out of context. It is quite clear, for anyone to go back and see in my original post, that my statement was referring specifically to the graphs that I posted and not to the pressure figures from Ned Christiansen. I also very clearly stated that the graphs were posted as a demonstration of concept. From my first post: “The following is just a generalization to demonstrate the concept. DO NOT hold me to the exact numbers as they are not correct and they ignore the difference due to the different methods used to measure chamber pressure.” It was also quite clear in my first post that the pressures figures from Ned Christiansen were a matter of precise fact and no amount of obfuscation on your part can change that. Quoted:
Testing worse-case scenerios is all well and great. Al Gore makes one heck of a living doing it. Testing “worse-case scenarios” is EXACTLY what firearms and ammunition safety is all about. Your sarcastic reference linking firearms and ammunition safety to Al Gore is just another example of your ignorant trolling in a technical thread and demonstrates your cavaliear attitude pertaining to firearms and ammunition safety. Quoted:
How many "non-standard" 5.56 mm chambers are out there? For someone who seems to think that he knows so much more about the current subject than the rest of us, you have a very poor knowledge base of the matter. The Wylde chamber is a “non-standard 5.56mm chamber. The Noveske Match Mod 0 is also a “non-standard 5.56mm chamber.” Krieger’s 5.56 Match chamber is another. Quoted:
Molon keeps refering to "minimum spec. .223 Remington chambers." Just what does that meen? You readily shoot your mouth off in a technical forum, yet you lack the most basic understanding of the subject matter. It’s a very simple concept. Specifications often have tolerances defined in minimum and maximum values. The chambers in SAAMI test barrels adhere to the minimum values. |
|
Quoted:
Don't argue with Molon, just do as the Tier Snobs order you to do: Buy only from the, lets have some dramatic reverance music in the back ground, "CHART." Only a barrel in 1/7 twist, chrome lined, and from ONLY an approved vendor/maker such as BCM, Colt, or Noveske will do. Don't argue with Molon, if you shoot one single round of NATO spec ammo in any barrel not marked 5.56NATO not only will you die a most horrible death but your entire family and 100 future generations of your family will parish horribly!!!!!!! If you have any doubts about your barrel's makings post a clear pic of it here so that Molon can give you the O.K. before shooting. If your barrel has no markings at all then you should run for your *#@!% life after melting it down. What a pathetic waste of bandwidth. Immature, childish and irrelevant posts like yours, that are full of falsehoods and devoid of factual data, are the reason that this website is referred to as “The Inquirer” of firearms websites. You seem to have difficulty grasping reality, so let me help you with that. The subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with “tier snobs”, “The Chart” or the purchasing of barrels from "approved" manufacturers. Since I never posted any statements in this thread like you alluded to in your above post, your delusions exist only in your small mind. |
|
Has anyone used the Pacific Tool & Gauge $66.00 5.56 Throat and Neck reamer with any success?
It would be a rather cheap solution and a considerable cost savings for reaming a .223 cal chamber out to 5.56 NATO if that is what the cut on the "5.56 cal." option is. |
AR Sponsor