Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/7/2007 8:44:48 PM EDT
My friend says that it was origionally made for hunting(varmint). I dont think that it was, but then again...........I dont know. Thanks for any input
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:46:34 PM EDT
The .223 is derived from .222 Remington which was a Varmint cartridge.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:47:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ak4784:
My friend says that it was origionally made for hunting(varmint). I dont think that it was, but then again...........I dont know. Thanks for any input


Yes, he would be correct.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:47:04 PM EDT
Q. What is the history behind the development of the .223/5.56mm round?

Studies of the fighting in WWII determined that most of the infantry fighting took place at distances under 200 yards, and those figures have not changed much in modern conflicts.(1) This was a revelation at the time and a controversial one, as ever since the development of smokeless powder, the long distance capabilities of military rifles had been stressed. It was common for rifles designed in the 1890s through the 1940s to have sights adjustable out to 1,000 or even 2,000 yards, and often not having an adjustment below 200 or 300 yards. Obviously, there was a discrepancy between the design of these rifles and how they were most often used.

Following WWII, the US military decided it needed a select-fire, detachable-magazine rifle. (The WWII-era M1 Garand had originally been designed with a detachable magazine, but at the time, the military decided they were a liability for a standard, front-line infantry rifle and had the M1 redesigned.) During this period during the late 40s and early 50s, many nations were experimenting with smaller-caliber rifles that were controllable in full-auto and allowed more rounds to be carried. The US military insisted on a 30 caliber rifle, though, and merely shortened the existing .30-06 Springfield (7.62x63mm) round to create the 7.62×51mm round, which Winchester released commercially as the .308 Winchester. The US also forced this round onto the newly-formed NATO, over protests that it was too much cartridge, would require rifles to be too heavy, and wouldn't be controllable on full auto. The first point is arguable, but the last two were certainly true. Still, the US military, having determined that the Belgium-designed FN FAL was a better rifle then the domestic M14 (a modified M1 Garand), chose the M14 anyway. Such is politics.

The M14 program was a political minefield and during the early 1960s, minor US involvement as "advisors" in the southeast Asian country called Vietnam was beginning to escalate. It didn't take long before the Vietnam expansion, coupled with manufacturing problems with some M14 contractors, resulted in too many soldiers and too few M14s. The military initially pulled WWII M1 Garands out of storage and pressed them back into service, but these long, heavy rifles were poorly suited to the jungle environment of Vietnam. During this time, Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite, the armament division of Fairchild Aircraft, had designed a rifle called the ArmaLite Model 10, or AR-10, which was chambered in the current NATO round of 7.62×51mm. Though the AR-10 was produced too late to enter the M14 competition, ArmaLite hoped to sell the AR-10 to foreign militaries.

Meanwhile, there was a faction of the US Military and the Congress which supported the idea of a lightweight, select-fire rifle firing a mid-power, small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) cartridge. After seeing the ArmaLite AR-10, they discussed their desire for a scaled-down model. ArmaLite engineers Jim Sullivan and Bob Fremont scaled down the AR-10 to fit the hot varmint cartridge of the day, the .222 Remington. During some preliminary military testing, it was decided that the .222 Rem wasn't quite powerful enough. Though the .222 Remington Magnum existed and had the power they were looking for, the severe shoulder angle would have prevented positive feeding in a semi-auto, and so it was decided that the best solution was to lengthen the .222 Rem case. The result was the 5.56×45mm cartridge, designed by G. A. Gustafson, which Remington released commercially as the .223 Remington. This cartridge has virtually identical ballistics as the .222 Mag and, over time, the wide availability of .223 guns and ammo has lead to the demise of the .222 and .222 Mag cartridges.

The AR15 was initially adopted by the Air Force, but the need for rifles for soldiers heading to Vietnam gave the "medium-power cartridge" supporters an opening and the AR15 rifle was hastily procured, initially as a one-time purchase. Continued problems with the M14 program lead to the official adoption of the AR15, which was given the US military designation "M16."

Courtesy of Ammo Oracle
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:51:59 PM EDT
So it was based off a hunting round, but that origional hunting round wouldnt cut it, so they made a new round for military purposes? So it wasnt origionaly made for hunting but to operate in a NEW military rifle. Is my line of thinking incorrect? Not being a smart ass, but I dont see where it(223) was origionaly a hunting round!
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:58:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ak4784:
So it was based off a hunting round, but that origional hunting round wouldnt cut it, so they made a new round for military purposes? So it wasnt origionaly made for hunting but to operate in a NEW military rifle. Is my line of thinking incorrect? Not being a smart ass, but I dont see where it(223) was origionaly a hunting round!


I suppose you could say that specifically, 5.56 was designed as a military round, and Remington marketed a civilian version as .223 Rem.

Link Posted: 10/7/2007 9:10:13 PM EDT
Designed for hunting people maybe? (That bad guys)
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 9:38:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 1:24:43 AM EDT
Ok. Im sticking with my way of looking at it. Both ways arnt really wrong tho.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 1:31:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 1:32:28 AM EDT by mattja]
Great detail here

Detail on the .222, that is.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:32:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By ak4784:
So it was based off a hunting round, but that origional hunting round wouldnt cut it, so they made a new round for military purposes? So it wasnt origionaly made for hunting but to operate in a NEW military rifle. Is my line of thinking incorrect? Not being a smart ass, but I dont see where it(223) was origionaly a hunting round!


I suppose you could say that specifically, 5.56 was designed as a military round, and Remington marketed a civilian version as .223 Rem.



This is probably the best answer.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:10:55 AM EDT
Yes it is a hunting round.

Plenty of deer fall to Neck shots form a .223 oe 5.56 every year.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:19:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcooper:
Yes it is a hunting round.

Plenty of deer fall to Neck shots form a .223 oe 5.56 every year.


I saw a deer yesterday a guy shot with a 22-250. The poor deer had 7 holes in him, several in the neck at least 1 in the back.Seems like a waste to me . Not much left to eat and the deer probably didn't die quickly. shot placement is key especially with small calibers.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:36:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fatboy79:

Originally Posted By mcooper:
Yes it is a hunting round.

Plenty of deer fall to Neck shots form a .223 oe 5.56 every year.


I saw a deer yesterday a guy shot with a 22-250. The poor deer had 7 holes in him, several in the neck at least 1 in the back.Seems like a waste to me . Not much left to eat and the deer probably didn't die quickly. shot placement is key especially with small calibers.


Bingo!

I saw yesterday that one of this months shooting publications has an article about .22 caliber bullets for deer hunting. I've taken deer and antelope with a .223 and I've seen others taken with the .223. All were clean one shot kills. The guy who put seven holes in a deer with the 22-250 would probably done the same with a 30-30 and has no business shooting anything but paper untill he learns how to put a bullet where it counts.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:37:31 AM EDT
Made for hunting long pig.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 5:39:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fatboy79:

Originally Posted By mcooper:
Yes it is a hunting round.

Plenty of deer fall to Neck shots form a .223 oe 5.56 every year.


I saw a deer yesterday a guy shot with a 22-250. The poor deer had 7 holes in him, several in the neck at least 1 in the back.Seems like a waste to me . Not much left to eat and the deer probably didn't die quickly. shot placement is key especially with small calibers.


I saw the same think once with a .300 Wmag

5 shots

we wrapped the small amount of usable meat in 1 single page of newsprint

Shot placement is always the key
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:27:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fatboy79:

Originally Posted By mcooper:
Yes it is a hunting round.

Plenty of deer fall to Neck shots form a .223 oe 5.56 every year.


I saw a deer yesterday a guy shot with a 22-250. The poor deer had 7 holes in him, several in the neck at least 1 in the back.Seems like a waste to me . Not much left to eat and the deer probably didn't die quickly. shot placement is key especially with small calibers.


That guy is not a hunter. He is a fucking asshole who should be beaten with his rifle until he gets how cruel it is to shoot a deer over and over again like that. If you can't kill it with the first or second shot, then don't shoot dumbass.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:34:08 AM EDT
Bullet construction is what matters, not caliber. Typical bullets in big game calibers have heavily tapered jackets. Varmit bullets have thin, untapered jackets.

Most .224" diameter bullets are of the latter type. Most big game bullets are of the former type.

Now when you use a .224" bullet that is made for big game hunting, the difference between a .223 Rem and a .243 Win is nil.

All of you hung up on the 100 grain bullet and 1000 Ft*lbs of energy need to take a close look at BULLET CONSTRUCTION and comparable wounds. Try the Swift 75 grain .224" bullet at ~2800 FPS on deer.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 6:41:23 AM EDT
.223 was designed to wound, not kill.

The plan was to shoot one deer, then have 2 other deer have to help carry him to the veterinarian. This would take 3 deer out of the woods with 1 shot.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 7:06:21 AM EDT
I've shot deer before with .223 (Actually several types of 55 grain and 75 grain 5.56 and .223 ammo).

All have been one shot stops except for one where I put a round in a doe's head just to be sure and that was from a .38.

Its all about shot placement. If you shoot a deer in the gut with a .30-06 it'll probably still run around and I've seen them do. I usually go for the base of the neck with an AR or .223 rifle and it works damn near every time if I do my part.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 7:10:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
The .223 is derived from .222 Remington which was a Varmint cartridge.



[Mr. Mom] .222 .223 Whatever it takes. [/Mr.Mom]
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:22:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:
.223 was designed to wound, not kill.

The plan was to shoot one deer, then have 2 other deer have to help carry him to the veterinarian. This would take 3 deer out of the woods with 1 shot.



+1

That's also why it tumbles in flight and 'keyholes' it's wounded victim.
Top Top