Posted: 11/17/2013 8:02:01 AM EDT
|
The .222 Remington seems to do everything the .223 does (including feed in an AR). Why was a completely different cartridge created for the AR15? |
|
Quoted:
The parent case of the .223 is the .222. Quoted:
Quoted:
If I remember my history right... 222 has a different parent case then 223 back in the development cycle. Then I am completely wrong. Time to do some reading. |
| I passed up A chance to buy a .222 Colt AR about 8? years ago for A reasonable amount. Most were made for export possibly to get around the "military caliber" ammo bans some countries had. I didn't want to be scrounging up .222 ammo with the price difference. Wasn't long after that AIM had a big sale on some .222 ammo they got in................story of my life. |
|
Basically it was a multi-million dollar military attempt to reinvent the wheel instead of just using off the shelf ammo already known for it's accuracy? |
|
Quoted: I passed up A chance to buy a .222 Colt AR about 8? years ago for A reasonable amount. Most were made for export possibly to get around the "military caliber" ammo bans some countries had. I didn't want to be scrounging up .222 ammo with the price difference. Wasn't long after that AIM had a big sale on some .222 ammo they got in................story of my life. |
|
Quoted:
.222 Remington Special.  Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I remember my history right... 222 has a different parent case then 223 back in the development cycle. .222 magnum .222 Remington Special. You Sir, are correct! (I had to read it out of the Shooter's bible guide to cartridges} 
|
|
Quoted:
The parent case of the .223 is the .222. .222 Remington Magnum Quoted:
Quoted:
If I remember my history right... 222 has a different parent case then 223 back in the development cycle. This. |
|
Taken from the link above: "The Infantry Board extends the original 300 yard "ideal" to 400 yards in order to pacify certain CONARC members, and once again to 500 yards, to insure acceptance at the Pentagon. The finalized request calls for a 6 pound, select-fire .22 caliber rifle with a conventional stock and a 20 round magazine. The proposed chambering has to penetrate the issue steel helmet, body armor, and a .135" steel plate at 500 yards, while maintaining the trajectory and accuracy of M2 ball from a M1 rifle, and equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine." .222 wouldn't meet the new parameters set, so they have to beef it up some. |
|
Impressively detailed. |
|
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY.
Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. |
|
Quoted: Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. |
|
Quoted:
FTW Guess some throat erosion issues would arise. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is America son. If .222 is good, .223 is better. And .224, which is what the rounds actually are, is even better! .224 Weatherby Rocket! FTW Guess some throat erosion issues would arise. Performance costs money. Barrels are consumables, just like bullets, brass, and powder. I've been wanting to make a .22-243 and nitride the barrel. I think that'd stave off the worst for a while. |
|
Quoted:
Performance costs money. Barrels are consumables, just like bullets, brass, and powder. I've been wanting to make a .22-243 and nitride the barrel. I think that'd stave off the worst for a while. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is America son. If .222 is good, .223 is better. And .224, which is what the rounds actually are, is even better! .224 Weatherby Rocket! FTW Guess some throat erosion issues would arise. Performance costs money. Barrels are consumables, just like bullets, brass, and powder. I've been wanting to make a .22-243 and nitride the barrel. I think that'd stave off the worst for a while. Can't imagine that on FA 
|
|
Quoted: Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. For the same reason .38 Super is commercially loaded to .38 ACP specs. Illiterate people with old guns. |
|
Quoted:
You make commercial ammo for the lowest denominator. Some bubba would put it in a 50 year old gun not able to handle it and then sue. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. Which is why most commercial .45 Colt ammo is weaker cowboy loads. |
|
Quoted: Which is why most commercial .45 Colt ammo is weaker cowboy loads. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. Which is why most commercial .45 Colt ammo is weaker cowboy loads. |
|
Quoted:
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. Not all .223 rifles can fire 5.56 safely. |
|
Quoted:
Not all .223 rifles can fire 5.56 safely. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. Not all .223 rifles can fire 5.56 safely. I don't believe that. That rumour was started by Ruger apparently some years ago and has long since been rectified |
|
Quoted: Then I am completely wrong. Time to do some reading. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I remember my history right... 222 has a different parent case then 223 back in the development cycle. Then I am completely wrong. Time to do some reading. I thought this was GD. Isn't reading for Faggots? |
|
It's not a rumor. I've seen the effects of it. Quoted:
I don't believe that. That rumour was started by Ruger apparently some years ago and has long since been rectified Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. Not all .223 rifles can fire 5.56 safely. I don't believe that. That rumour was started by Ruger apparently some years ago and has long since been rectified |
|
Quoted:
You make commercial ammo for the lowest denominator. Some bubba would put it in a 50 year old gun not able to handle it and then sue. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to steal the OP's thunder here but I would like to know why it exists TODAY. Why not just make all .223 to 5.56 specs? I get that there is a cost economy issue and various varmint/hunting loads but why not keep the pressure maximums the same instead of lowering them and then calling the downloaded rounds standard. Kind of like 7.62x51 and .308. .308 is a higher pressure thus higher power round and that makes sense and they are not mostly not interchangeable unless specified. I don't get how the weaker loading became the default. That is exactly my point 5.56/.223 didn't exist until it was developed for the military, just like .308. There shouldn't be any outdated out of spec rifles if there had never been a distinction between .223 and 5.56 from SAAMI. |
| A somewhat interesting article that is tangential to this topic: http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/ |