Is M193 safe to shoot in .223 chambers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UrbanHermit

member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
242
The Wikipedia article for .223 Remington states that M193 is a military designation for .223, and that the 5.56 NATO was developed from the .223. This implies that M193 ammunition is not 5.56 ammunition and should be safe to shoot in .223 rifles, because it literally is .223 ammunition. This defies the wording on ammo boxes labelling M193 as 5.56 ammunition and/or the consensus that 5.56 ammunition is not safe to shoot in .223 chambers. Is Wikipedia wrong? I'm growing very tired of the contradictory information I keep encountering in researching this subject.
 
for me and my rifles I interchange them, I believe the 5.56 is typically loaded with a heavier bullet making it a tad bit longer than tje .233, and I think the 5.56 is loaded to a higher chamber PSI 62,500 vs 55,000 for the .223.

someone that has forgotten more than I have ever know about these cartridges while chim in shortly and will share the knowledge.
 
Blackbeard 44 said:
for me and my rifles I interchange them, I believe the 5.56 is typically loaded with a heavier bullet making it a tad bit longer than tje .233, and I think the 5.56 is loaded to a higher chamber PSI 62,500 vs 55,000 for the .223.

someone that has forgotten more than I have ever know about these cartridges while chim in shortly and will share the knowledge.
Click to expand...

I was specifically referring to "M193" ammunition that is loaded with 55 grain bullets. This subject is very confusing. Some sources suggest that this ammunition is 5.56 ammunition, others suggest that it's .223 ammunition. I know that the 62 grain "M855/green tip" ammo is 5.56 and is not recommended for civilian rifles that say ".223" on the barrel. It's the 55 grain M193 stuff that is turning up contradictory search results.
 
These discussions never end in a consensus. I think Wiki is technically wrong. It is 5.56, not 223, but.... I did some research and found that MOST civilian M193 sold is not loaded to the same specs as what they issue to the military. It SHOULD have an X in front of it to designate this. XM193 is correct for civilian versions. But many companies load the ammo and leave the X off the box.

My thoughts, 30-06 ammo over the last 100+ years has been loaded to very different pressures and velocities. Some modern factory and hand load data will send a 150 gr bullet out the muzzle 400 fps faster than the original loads.

Over the last 100 years the tolerances in rifle chambers for 30-06 have varied considerably. Some are a tight fit, some a little loose.

According to the load data 5.56 CAN be loaded to a little higher pressure than 223 is allowed to be loaded. That doesn't mean any of it is loaded right to the max.

Chambers for 5.56 rifles have looser tolerances than those stamped 223. In theory a 5.56 loaded to max pressure that ends up in a 223 chamber cut to the minimum specs MIGHT end up a little over pressure.

We could have at least 3 different designations for 30-06 ammo based on how it has evolved over the years. Many factory and most handload data for 30-06 shouldn't be used in semi-auto rifles. Even in bolt rifles it isn't unusual to see rounds on the hotter end of the scale end up in tight chambers and cause problems.

In the real world we actually see far more issues with 30-06 vs 30-06 than we do with 223 vs 5.56.

Conventional wisdom says that if it is stamped 5.56 either is OK. If it is stamped 223, then only 223 should be used. But I use them interchangeably for the most part. The only potential issue I can see is hotter 5.56 loads in a semi-auto 223 chamber could cause reliability problems or even damage the rifle. Exactly the same thing that happens when hot 30-06 loads are fired in semi-autos. But I know of no one making a semi-auto with a 223 chamber. Older Ruger Mini-14's used to have 223 chambers.

I have a bolt gun stamped 223 that has had more 5.56 fired through it than 223.
 
To make matters even more confusing, the Wikipedia article for 5.56 NATO states that the cartridge designation specifically refers to SS109, SS110, and SS111 cartridges, and does not mention M193. Then it lists pressures for M193 as being less than current max SAAMI pressures for .223 Remington. The stated velocity on boxes of M193 ammo is the same as boxes of .55 grain .223 ammo, implying that pressures are likely the same. All of this suggests that M193 and .223 are interchangeable. Yet, when you pick up a box of 55 grain ammo that says "M193" on it, it also says "5.56", not ".223".

So is M193 a 5.56 load or a .223 load? Something like this shouldn't be so hard to figure out, and it's very concerning that it is.
 
On all the ammo cans of M193 I opened, was stenciled "5.56", not ".223".
The Rifle I and my unit shot them from, M16A1's were called "Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1" , as it says on my equipment issue card in front of me.
M193 was the issue 5.56 ball ammo until M855 took it's place, then M855A1, then others, (Mk 262, etc.)
I believe this indicates M193 is 5.56, not .223

Now for the practical;
In most rifles the are chambered .223, 5.56 mm is safe to shoot. You may experience sticky extraction, and flattened primers. I had an H&R Handi-Rifle in .223 that would would not always eject M913 or M855 ball ammo. My reloads would pop right out.

This explains the difference between .223 and 5.56 very visually:

223 vs 5.56.jpg

Now, I'll just sit back and

deer eating popcorn.gif
 
I know for a fact that shooting M193 ammo in a H&R Handi-Rifle will cause issues. I did that one time and knew instantly. Due to true M193 being hotter then 223, the M193 round popped the action open on my Handi-Rifle.

So yes on rifles with a true 223 chamber that is on the tight side will have over pressure issues when using true M193 ammo loaded to military specs. Whit that said now days most manufacturers will make their 223 chambered rifles with a bit looser chamber to help prevent this issue.
 
entropy said:
On all the ammo cans of M193 I opened, was stenciled "5.56", not ".223".
The Rifle I and my unit shot them from, M16A1's were called "Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1" , as it says on my equipment issue card in front of me.
M193 was the issue 5.56 ball ammo until M855 took it's place, then M855A1, then others, (Mk 262, etc.)
I believe this indicates M193 is 5.56, not .223

Now for the practical;
In most rifles the are chambered .223, 5.56 mm is safe to shoot. You may experience sticky extraction, and flattened primers. I had an H&R Handi-Rifle in .223 that would would not always eject M913 or M855 ball ammo. My reloads would pop right out.

This explains the difference between .223 and 5.56 very visually:

View attachment 1023497

Now, I'll just sit back and

View attachment 1023501
Click to expand...

I understand the throat thing. My understanding is that this developed in response to the 62 grain ammunition of the 80's. Pressures and ballistics for M193 are identical to .223 ammunition according to several sources, and Wikipedia flat out says that M193 is another name for .223 Remington. If this is true, that means that it is safe to shoot in .223 Remington chambers, in turn meaning that it is false that one cannot shoot 5.56 in .223 chambered rifles. Unless the NATO designation strictly refers to the 62 grain and newer loads? The long throat was apparently necessitated by the long steel-core 62 grain green tip bullet. Meaning that the older 55 grain ammunition did not necessitate any difference from .223 chambers? Very confusing, very contradictory.
 
12Bravo20 said:
I know for a fact that shooting M193 ammo in a H&R Handi-Rifle will cause issues. I did that one time and knew instantly. Due to true M193 being hotter then 223, the M193 round popped the action open on my Handi-Rifle.

So yes on rifles with a true 223 chamber that is on the tight side will have over pressure issues when using true M193 ammo loaded to military specs. Whit that said now days most manufacturers will make their 223 chambered rifles with a bit looser chamber to help prevent this issue.
Click to expand...

This(https://web.archive.org/web/20040209030852/http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html) says that M193 pressure is 53000 psi. That's 2000 psi LOWER than SAAMI max psi for .223. unless it's measured differently by the military? I know you're trying but I'm still confused. Maybe your rifle just had issues?
 
For example, look at this(https://www.midwayusa.com/product/102295415) Federal "5.56" ammo. The box does not say "NATO" on it, and the ballistics are identical to the same bullet weight in .223. Then look up .223 on the internet and you get sources saying that M193 is just the military term for .223 Remington. Everything suggests that this ammunition is identical to .223 Remington ammunition, but it says "5.56" on the box and people say not to shoot 5.56 in a .223. Then other people say they're interchangeable. Then people mention the throat difference, but that was apparently designed to accommodate 62 grain steel core bullets. I don't know what conclusion to draw here.
 
UrbanHermit said:
I understand the throat thing. My understanding is that this developed in response to the 62 grain ammunition of the 80's. Pressures and ballistics for M193 are identical to .223 ammunition according to several sources, and Wikipedia flat out says that M193 is another name for .223 Remington. If this is true, that means that it is safe to shoot in .223 Remington chambers, in turn meaning that it is false that one cannot shoot 5.56 in .223 chambered rifles. Unless the NATO designation strictly refers to the 62 grain and newer loads? The long throat was apparently necessitated by the long steel-core 62 grain green tip bullet. Meaning that the older 55 grain ammunition did not necessitate any difference from .223 chambers? Very confusing, very contradictory.
Click to expand...

Get off the absolutism. If this, then not that, is not applicable here.

UrbanHermit said:
Is that the little cross?
Click to expand...

Yes. Not all "5.56" is created equal. I don't recall seeing the NATO stamp on any issue M193, and the 855 did have it.

So, 243winxb has come up with the most succinct way to put it.

243winxb said:
To make it simple, don't shoot ammo that has the NATO marking on the case head in a 223 chambered rifle.
Click to expand...

12Bravo20 said:
I know for a fact that shooting M193 ammo in a H&R Handi-Rifle will cause issues. I did that one time and knew instantly. Due to true M193 being hotter then 223, the M193 round popped the action open on my Handi-Rifle.

So yes on rifles with a true 223 chamber that is on the tight side will have over pressure issues when using true M193 ammo loaded to military specs. Whit that said now days most manufacturers will make their 223 chambered rifles with a bit looser chamber to help prevent this issue.
Click to expand...

I had the exact same experience. Mine worked just fine with 55 gr. handloads at @ 2900, but hotter than that they'd stick, and Federal M193 would stick and pop the action open.
 
entropy said:
Get off the absolutism. If this, then not that, is not applicable here.



Yes. Not all "5.56" is created equal. I don't recall seeing the NATO stamp on any issue M193, and the 855 did have it.

So, 243winxb has come up with the most succinct way to put it.





I had the exact same experience. Mine worked just fine with 55 gr. handloads at @ 2900, but hotter than that they'd stick, and Federal M193 would stick and pop the action open.
Click to expand...

So M193 is not 5.56 NATO? Then why are there boxes of ammo that say both on it? And if it is 5.56, how is this possible given that 5.56 was invented AFTER M193?
 
danez71 said:
Over the last couple of years, he's made several similar comments.
Click to expand...
So M193 is not an army designation for .223 Remington as Wikipedia claims? What cartridge is it then? It seemingly cannot be 5.56 NATO, because that wasn't invented until almost 20 years later.
 
UrbanHermit said:
This(https://web.archive.org/web/20040209030852/http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html) says that M193 pressure is 53000 psi. That's 2000 psi LOWER than SAAMI max psi for .223. unless it's measured differently by the military? I know you're trying but I'm still confused. Maybe your rifle just had issues?
Click to expand...

SAAMI and the military do NOT measure chamber pressures using the same methods. And yes a true M193 loaded to military specs will have a higher pressure than civilian loaded 223 rounds. That is a known fact.

Here is some reading for you to do.

https://ballistictools.com/articles/5.56-vs-.223-myths-and-facts.php

https://gunsmagazine.com/up-on-ars-2/saami-vs-nato/

https://blog.westernpowders.com/201...56x45mm-military-nato-cartridge-and-chambers/

As mentioned if the ammo is marked as 5.56 and has the NATO symbol on it, then it is NOT recommend to shoot it in a gun chambered for 223 only, especially if it is a tight chamber.
 
12Bravo20 said:
SAAMI and the military do NOT measure chamber pressures using the same methods. And yes a true M193 loaded to military specs will have a higher pressure than civilian loaded 223 rounds. That is a known fact.

Here is some reading for you to do.

https://ballistictools.com/articles/5.56-vs-.223-myths-and-facts.php

https://gunsmagazine.com/up-on-ars-2/saami-vs-nato/

https://blog.westernpowders.com/201...56x45mm-military-nato-cartridge-and-chambers/

As mentioned if the ammo is marked as 5.56 and has the NATO symbol on it, then it is NOT recommend to shoot it in a gun chambered for 223 only, especially if it is a tight chamber.
Click to expand...
That was what I suspected. I'm still confused though as to how M193 could be 5.56 when it predates the 5.56.
 
jmr40 said:
...If it is stamped 223, then only 223 should be used. But I use them interchangeably for the most part.
Click to expand...

A LOT of european-origin black guns change from 5.56 stampings when issued, to .223 for import because apparently they think .223 is what americans call it. SAME chamber, for sure, people have cast them and measured.

US-origin sporting/hunting rifles (bolt actions, etc) are often serious about .223 and 5.56 can cause issues.

So I tend to say for all mag-fed self-loaders the two are interchangeable, but other guns not so much. It's just annoying.


.223 Wylde is different indeed.
 
Both barrels are tested above what current pressures are for birth calibers.
Only thing that might happen with shooting 5.56 in a .223 is increased barrel wear.
I don't worry about it.
 
M193 was not call "5.56 NATO", nor was it called ".223" , except by some gun writers and reloading manual round histories. The correct terminology for M193 is "Cartridge, 5.56mm, M193 ball"

.223 Remington can have many different weight bullets and velocites. M193 is the standard for one particular loading of the .223 cartridge using a 55 gr. FMJ bullet, hardened primers (CCI #41 is the commercial equivalent) and a powder charge to produce 3250 fpr at 52000 psi.

From :uhoh: Wikipedia:

In September 1963, the .223 Remington cartridge was officially accepted and named "Cartridge, 5.56mm ball, M193." The specification includes a Remington-designed bullet and the use of IMR4475 powder which resulted in a muzzle velocity of 3,250 ft/s (991 m/s) and a chamber pressure of 52,000 psi.[5]

So it is more correct to say that Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball, M193, is one particular loading in .223 Remington.

Same with Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, Model of 1906; It is one particular loading in the caliber of .30-06. It is the parent loading of a group that includes 125 gr varmint loads all the way up the 220 Moose rounds.

Does this help?

UrbanHermit said:
That was what I suspected. I'm still confused though as to how M193 could be 5.56 when it predates the 5.56.
Click to expand...

Because as I have repeatedly pointed out, when the round was first adopted, the military used metric terminology for it, which is 5.56mm. 5.56 mm NATO, (or just 5.56 NATO) is a different standard. 62 gr. bullet of a particular construction, which resulted in the need to increase leade to reduce pressures. Still the same primer, and powder to achieve 3010 fps at 55000 psi.

OK, in metric (European) nomenclature, the caliber is call 5.56x45. In traditional US/English nomenclature, the caliber is called .223 Remington. The various standard rounds have different nomenclature defined by the era they were introduced. (Note Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, Model of 1906 is quite different from Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball, M193. [Adopted in 1963] Different times.)
 
shoobe01 said:
A LOT of european-origin black guns change from 5.56 stampings when issued, to .223 for import because apparently they think .223 is what americans call it. SAME chamber, for sure, people have cast them and measured.

US-origin sporting/hunting rifles (bolt actions, etc) are often serious about .223 and 5.56 can cause issues.

So I tend to say for all mag-fed self-loaders the two are interchangeable, but other guns not so much. It's just annoying.


.223 Wylde is different indeed.
Click to expand...

I'm getting a Ruger Bolt Action that is advertised as being chambered in .223. It accepts AR-15 magazines. Nothing in the manual or web listing states that 5.56 ammunition should not be used. The FAQ states that 5.56 can be used in the Mini-14, but says nothing about the any other rifle model.

On the one hand, it is common sense that one should only use ammunition that reflects the stamp on the rifle barrel.

But on the other hand, it is ludicrous for a major company like Ruger to produce a .223 rifle that can't use 5.56 ammo and not explicitly warn people about this in bright red letters somewhere knowing that the two cartridges are subject to so much confusion in the consumer market. It would be ludicrous to design such a rifle to accept AR magazines. There's also the fact that there is ammo floating around that says "5.56" but without the "NATO", and it says M193. When you look up M193, what you read is that this is another name for .223 Remington, and it predates the 5.56 NATO. The velocity is the same as .223 Remington.

But it says "5.56" on the box. I guess it's "5.56 Remington". Or maybe it's "5.56 Xtreme body violator tactical ninja xpress".

Elmer Keith was smart enough 100 years ago to lengthen the case of the .38 outdoorsman so that people wouldn't have these issues. I wonder where that kind of common sense has gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1
  • Locked
Best combat 5.56mm load????
Replies
17
Views
6K
Onmilo
Onmilo
U
  • Locked
.223 REM. vs. Wylde
Replies
21
Views
3K
entropy
entropy
C
  • Locked
Can a Mini-14 safely eat 5.56mm?
Replies
5
Views
1K
diesel83
D
andrewdl007
  • Locked
5.56 in a .223 Ruger Ranch Rifle
Replies
19
Views
6K
Carl N. Brown
Carl N. Brown
C
  • Locked
Help needed with Oly Arms chambering question
Replies
10
Views
2K
Mike Hull
M
Back
Top