An argument at work between to knuckle head buddies ensued on why there wasnt a pistol in 5.56nato so that personnel who didnt carry a
M-16 could carry something with same ammo.
I argued that an AR pistol or other semi-automatic where the magazine is  forward of the pistol grip is just too large almost the same as a carbine.
So one asked why didnt they make a revolver in 5.56nato I and anothr guy argued size and pressure issues. plus noise, recoil etc.
I just couldnt imagine a 5 or 6 shot revolver in 5.56 nato with a 3 inch barrel...Its just not practical....back me up guys

Bottlenecked cases will not work in a revolver.  Upon firing, the shoulder would be set forward, locking the cylinder.  Revolver cartridges are usually straight-walled and after firing, will move forward and allow rotation.  The only exception would be the recent .22 Hornet.  This is a lower pressure cartridge and probably has enough spring-back to allow cylinder rotation.  

Well it might be a fun shooter, but from a practical standpoint, you have to wonder why.  For a .223/5.56 to fragment properly, its got to remain above 2400fps or so (someone correct me if I have the numbers wrong).  With a 3" barrel, I don't even think it'll even break 2000 at pointblank range, so whats the point?  Blinding flash and deafening noise?  For that short of a barrel, you might as well use a .22

Plus, if you got the setback fixed, there would still be exessive forcing cone erosion and flame cutting of the top strap. These were the two reasons Ruger discontinued their SRM model Blackhawk in .357 Rem Maximum.

That .223 has just got to have more gasses to do more damage than the .357 Max.

.223, or even 5.56mm NATO pistol is a novelty item.  Giant size and just a fast .22.

Thanks...good strong point with information to back up the view...this is why I love AR15.com