Was there a reason that Ruger made the RAR that take's AR mag in .223 and not 5.56...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Was there a reason that Ruger made the RAR that take's AR mag in .223 and not 5.56...

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:01:08 AM EDT

like the earlier model 6965 with the crappy rotary mag?

I don't get the change.

It's been making me hold off on getting the model 26965.

I would get a Mossberg but the horror stories about them make them a no go.

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:11:47 AM EDT

[#1]

The dimensions of .223 Remington and 5.56X45 ammunition are identical.

The only difference that can be made with a pedantic argument is .223 Rem ammunition loaded with heavy bullets not found in common 5.56X45 issue ammunition, such as 80 grain to 90 grain target bullets.

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:23:24 AM EDT

[#2]

Hmmm.

I seen a couple guys on YT say they can't close the bolt on 5.56 rounds.

Also, SAMMI disagree's with you.

SAAMI SafetyReminder

The main reason being that a barrel marked as chambered
in 223 Remington will have a shorter throat into the rifling than a
“5.56” barrel which will cause increased pressure when the “5.56”
ammunition is fired in it.

View Quote

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:33:19 AM EDT

[#3]

There has to be some difference in the chamber causing that problem. The only dimensional difference in true .223 Rem and 5.56X45 chambers should not cause a chambering issue. SAMMI and the 5.56X45 chamber drawings confirm this.

The chamber throat is not the length for the neck in the chamber. The 5.56X45 chamber has a long throat partly as mitigation against high pressure by allowing the bullet to start moving before contacting the rifling.

Were these stock guns?

Cartridge and chamber dimensions:

5.56 chamber:

I can't find an image in my media here, and can't find one on the web that can be linked directly. A simple search will turn up numerous drawings that compare the chambers. The Ammo Oracle is also a resource everyone should read.

Let's see if this link to the Ammo Oracle works:

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_diff.html

If not, look under the Ammo Forum FAQ tacked links.

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:45:06 AM EDT

[#4]

none of this addresses the OP's question concerning the MAGAZINE which i believe is nonsensical (5.56 vs .223 mag differences = none)

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:46:39 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Hmmm.

I seen a couple guys on YT say they can't close the bolt on 5.56 rounds.

Also, SAMMI disagree's with you.

SAAMI SafetyReminder

View Quote

Do you understand that SAAMI warning?

Edit: Sorry, thought this was GD.

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:46:59 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
none of this addresses the OP's question concerning the MAGAZINE which i believe is nonsensical (5.56 vs .223 mag differences = none)

View Quote

I addressed it directly in my first response, then answered the comment about youtubers.

Posted: 6/17/2018 11:59:09 AM EDT

[#7]

Were these stock guns?

View Quote

Yes.

Posted: 6/17/2018 1:14:56 PM EDT

[#8]

The continued distinctions are a bit bizzare. Seemingly no one is making a semi-auto gun in .223, and the strength of typical bolt actions make it a non-issue.

Posted: 6/17/2018 6:12:37 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
The continued distinctions are a bit bizzare. Seemingly no one is making a semi-auto gun in .223, and the strength of typical bolt actions make it a non-issue.

View Quote

This

Posted: 6/17/2018 8:22:00 PM EDT

[#10]

556 v 223 is a chamber issue. I won't buy a firearm that has a 223 chamber! Bolt action or otherwise

Posted: 6/23/2018 10:41:58 AM EDT

[#11]

My 26965 is marked 5.56 NATO on the barrel. The Ruger site lists it as .223, but on another forum where this issue was brought up a Ruger rep said the chamber is 5.56 on the RAR.

Now if this is actually the case or not I can't say. Shoot Ruger a message, OP. They respond very quickly.

Posted: 7/10/2018 7:30:53 PM EDT

[#12]

I’ve had my Mossberg MVP Patrol 5.56 since it was first released. No issues with it at all. The rifle out of the box, is a tack driver. And groups tightened up even more when I slid it into the MDT chassis.

I think Ruger has a marketing oops going on. Someone has gotten the specs for the rifles screwed up on the website. Give Ruger a call or shoot them an email.

Quoted:
like the earlier model 6965 with the crappy rotary mag?

I don't get the change.

It's been making me hold off on getting the model 26965.

I would get a Mossberg but the horror stories about them make them a no go.

View Quote

Posted: 7/10/2018 7:54:21 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
I’ve had my Mossberg MVP Patrol 5.56 since it was first released. No issues with it at all. The rifle out of the box, is a tack driver. And groups tightened up even more when I slid it into the MDT chassis.

I think Ruger has a marketing oops going on. Someone has gotten the specs for the rifles screwed up on the website. Give Ruger a call or shoot them an email.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Firearms-1/i-pLnRnN4/1/b5b530a1/L/IMG_3788-Edit-L.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
I’ve had my Mossberg MVP Patrol 5.56 since it was first released. No issues with it at all. The rifle out of the box, is a tack driver. And groups tightened up even more when I slid it into the MDT chassis.

I think Ruger has a marketing oops going on. Someone has gotten the specs for the rifles screwed up on the website. Give Ruger a call or shoot them an email.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Firearms-1/i-pLnRnN4/1/b5b530a1/L/IMG_3788-Edit-L.jpg

Quoted:
like the earlier model 6965 with the crappy rotary mag?

I don't get the change.

It's been making me hold off on getting the model 26965.

I would get a Mossberg but the horror stories about them make them a no go.

If Mossberg would have made at least one or two variants with a 1:8 or 1:7 twist they would have a even bigger chunk of that market. I had heard they finally offered one with the faster twist but I haven’t stayed informed.