Is M193 safe to shoot in .223 chambers?

[danez71]

This is the only relevant fact that anyone has brought up throughout this entire discussion. Actually, nobody brought it up, I had to search through the source and find it myself

No... it was brought up several times. You just didn't accept the perfectly acceptable terminology used.

And the fact that Ruger said dont do it is also a relevant fact as well... you just didn't accept the perfectly acceptable terminology they used.

I linked the source for you and paraphrased because I couldnt copy and paste.

Sorry/not sorry, I couldn't provide it on a silver platter for you.

You're welcome.

Your graciousness of the efforts by many here is duely noted.

 

[UrbanHermit]

No... it was brought up several times. You just didn't accept the perfectly acceptable terminology used.

And the fact that Ruger said dont do it is also a relevant fact as well... you just didn't accept the perfectly acceptable terminology they used.

I linked the source for you and paraphrased because I couldnt copy and paste.

Sorry/not sorry, I couldn't provide it on a silver platter for you.

You're welcome.

Your graciousness of the efforts by many here is duely noted.

There is nothing acceptable about using ambiguous, unofficial terminology with tools and weapons that can be lethally dangerous to the user and bystanders if misused, and if you think there is then I hope I never find myself anywhere near you at a shooting range.

 

[danez71]

There is nothing acceptable about using ambiguous, unofficial terminology with tools and weapons that can be lethally dangerous to the user and bystanders if misused, and if you think there is then I hope I never find myself anywhere near you at a shooting range.

Seems every one understood except you, not me

It was you that was saying it was acceptable because of your lack of understanding and unwillingness to listen to those that do understand, not me.

It was/is you, not me, that was embarking down a path of danger that could jeopardize others at the range because of your inability to understand that others did and your unwillingness to listen to those that do understand and provided you with adequate sources accepted in the industry and created by SAMMI.

You're welcome.

 

[UrbanHermit]

Seems every one understood except you, not me

It was you that was saying it was acceptable because of your lack of understanding and unwillingness to listen to those that do understand, not me.

It was/is you that was embarking down a path of danger that could jeopardize others at the range because of your inability to understand that others did and your unwillingness to listen to those that do understand and provided you with adequate sources accepted in the industry, not me

You're welcome.

Okay, next time I see a box of ammo that says "5.56 military" I won't use it.

 

[12Bravo20]

Okay, next time I see a box of ammo that says "5.56 military" I won't use it.

And that right there IS the correct answer!!!!!!!!

Just like we have been saying all along.

 

[CapnMac]

1. The Chamber difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO is the result of the 62 grain steel core round of 1980. This does not preclude the possibility of chamber differences between .223 Remington weapons and military weapons from prior to 1980, but I have not seen any evidence of this.

2. The M193 round was loaded to pressures at or below the pressure limits for .223 Remington during the entirety of it's history. I've seen nothing showing otherwise, nor have I seen anything suggesting that it's pressures were measured in a different chamber.

On Number one, that difference has to do with US (SAMMI) and European (CPI) standards groups coping with starting with two sets of preferences & pressure differences.

All of which dates back to the 60s and the SS1xx series of European standardized ammo, which significantly predates the "larger than 55gr" military projectiles.

DoD adopted the .223 remington "as is" under the internal designation of 5.56x45mm. Later, much later, actually, they adopted SS109 ammo as part of STANAG compliance with our own allies.

As heavier rounds, and penetrator core ammo was adopted--in the 80s, a generation, 20 years', into .223/5.56 development, the rounds have had all manner of adjustments to pressures and chamber fit tolerances. (Which is the "why" of Number two.)

All of this brouhaha is why the .233wylde was trotted out, it was meant to be "the great compromise" which erased the differences. But, the world largely ignored the Wylde, as the existing standards were "good enough." (There are issues in Europe, where Proof Houses are involved, in legally labeling and testing arms.)

As to reference sources, well, you'd need a séancé to ask Eugene Stoner, but Jim Sullivan is still around. And, he's pretty clear on this stuff, having seen it through.

As to trusting wiki, it might be germane to note that the qualifications to be a wiki editor are not that steep (and I am one) but their standards for actually editing articles is middling abysmal (I've tried to correct a number of them, with cross-referenced data and citations).

"Heavy" loadings and "longer loaded" bullets are generally civilian, not military, so they are more likely to be labeled ".223" as a general rule. Military loadings are meant to fit STANAG chambers, those scant thousandths shorter.

Really, for Number Two, above, military ammo is often under-pressure in comparison to other rounds, and that's from having larger Standard Deviations in the Acceptance specifications. And for needing to be suitable in a huge range of potential weapons. NATO STANAG has to work in L85A3, HK 417, G36, FAMAS (for a while yet), M-4, M-16Ax, M-249, and a rather large number of AK variants for new NATO members like Poland.

 

[UrbanHermit]

And that right there IS the correct answer!!!!!!!!

Just like we have been saying all along.

In fact, I've never seen a box of ammunition chambered in "5.56 military" in my life, so I guess it will be very easy to avoid.

 

[Coop45]

I wondered about thus like everyone else so I asked CZ and they told me to go for it. No problems.

 

[UrbanHermit]

On Number one, that difference has to do with US (SAMMI) and European (CPI) standards groups coping with starting with two sets of preferences & pressure differences.

All of which dates back to the 60s and the SS1xx series of European standardized ammo, which significantly predates the "larger than 55gr" military projectiles.

DoD adopted the .223 remington "as is" under the internal designation of 5.56x45mm. Later, much later, actually, they adopted SS109 ammo as part of STANAG compliance with our own allies.

As heavier rounds, and penetrator core ammo was adopted--in the 80s, a generation, 20 years', into .223/5.56 development, the rounds have had all manner of adjustments to pressures and chamber fit tolerances. (Which is the "why" of Number two.)

All of this brouhaha is why the .233wylde was trotted out, it was meant to be "the great compromise" which erased the differences. But, the world largely ignored the Wylde, as the existing standards were "good enough." (There are issues in Europe, where Proof Houses are involved, in legally labeling and testing arms.)

As to reference sources, well, you'd need a séancé to ask Eugene Stoner, but Jim Sullivan is still around. And, he's pretty clear on this stuff, having seen it through.

As to trusting wiki, it might be germane to note that the qualifications to be a wiki editor are not that steep (and I am one) but their standards for actually editing articles is middling abysmal (I've tried to correct a number of them, with cross-referenced data and citations).

"Heavy" loadings and "longer loaded" bullets are generally civilian, not military, so they are more likely to be labeled ".223" as a general rule. Military loadings are meant to fit STANAG chambers, those scant thousandths shorter.

Really, for Number Two, above, military ammo is often under-pressure in comparison to other rounds, and that's from having larger Standard Deviations in the Acceptance specifications. And for needing to be suitable in a huge range of potential weapons. NATO STANAG has to work in L85A3, HK 417, G36, FAMAS (for a while yet), M-4, M-16Ax, M-249, and a rather large number of AK variants for new NATO members like Poland.

That basically sums up what I've come to believe here.

Nonetheless, I'll probably avoid shooting anything that says "5.56" on the box unless I'm left with no other option.

 

[UrbanHermit]

I wondered about thus like everyone else so I asked CZ and they told me to go for it. No problems.

My understanding is that the European CIP system does not even distinguish between 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Remington. Like everything in the gun world, only Americans are having this problem. We can't have full auto weapons or suppressors or anything else that is freely passed out in Europe, and apparently we can't even get straight answers as to what ammo we can shoot.

 

[CapnMac]

Nonetheless, I'll probably avoid shooting anything that says "5.56" on the box unless I'm left with no other option.

That's probably what Ruger would recommend, since it lists the RARP as ".223"
The goofy part is that .223 labeling can be found on some real oddball loadings, 70+ gr projectiles.

 

[Jim Watson]

SAAMI says .223 Rem is MAP 55000 psi, a 55 gr bullet at 3215 fps instrumental at 15 feet.
Remington claims 3240 fps for their commercial ammo.

TM 43-0001-27, 1994 says 5.56mm Ball, M193 is 52000 psi, a 56 gr bullet at 3250 fps at 15 feet.
Also 5.56mm Ball, M855 is 55000 psi for a 62 gr bullet at 3025 fps at 78 feet from muzzle. Note the old chronograph setup with Start at 3 feet and Stop at 153 feet, midway between is 78 ft.
Remington says 3260 fps, which seems like a lot but that is with a thin skinned commercial bullet, not hardball with a steel insert.

What I don't know is, was the Army still using crusher gauges and calling the result "psi" in 1994 as used to be done? The DoD is not a member of SAAMI and does not play in CUP.

Just to show how different standards can be, CIP Ptmax for .223 Rem is 4300 bar = 62366 psi.

Awright, those are published numbers, I have a few Internet Recollections. They are just what I READ, don't take me to task over it.

Somebody once said the military chamber not only had a longer leade to give the bullet a running start (and also to be sure to clear the nose of a bullet struck with a longer or blunter nose than usual - never can tell what your "allies" will share with you) but also had a little bevel on the neck/shoulder angle to kind of funnel the tracer bullet down in case its cavity expanded upon firing.

Somebody once got up several barrels with different advertised chamber designs, .223, 5.56, "Match," Wylde, etc., and cast them. Measured dimensions were wildly different with a lot of overlap, so you would not know what you were really getting.

Me?
My only acquaintance with surplus ammo is some Malaysian surplus of nominal M193 specs. It shoots fine in all my rifles, whichever caliber stamp. But most of it, I have pulled the FMJ and replaced it with a JHP or JSP for better accuracy, "Mexican Match."

 

[UrbanHermit]

That's probably what Ruger would recommend, since it lists the RARP as ".223"
The goofy part is that .223 labeling can be found on some real oddball loadings, 70+ gr projectiles.

And they ship the thing with AR mags.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

From SAAMMI's Frequently asked questions page:


Can I use 5.56x45mm, 5.56 or 5.56 NATO ammunition in a firearm chambered for 223 Remington (223 Rem)?

NO!

It is not safe to shoot “5.56” “5.56 NATO” or “5.56x45mm” (“5.56”) ammunition in a firearm with barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. 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 may cause increased pressure when the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm.

However, it is safe to use SAAMI-compliant 223 Remington ammunition in firearms with a barrel marked as chambered in “5.56.”

If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your firearm, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.


Can I use 223 Remington ammunition in a firearm chambered for 5.56?

Yes.

It is safe to use SAAMI-compliant 223 Remington ammunition in firearms with a barrel marked as chambered in “5.56.”

However, it is not safe to shoot “5.56” “5.56 NATO” or “5.56x45mm” (“5.56”) ammunition in a barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. 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 may cause increased pressure when the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm.

If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your rifle, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.
[/QUOTE]

My big take away from SAAMI FAQ on 5.56 v .223 is this:
If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your firearm, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.

At one point in time back in the 1960s .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm with 55gr bullet were essential the same.
That was when the U.S. SAAMI set the standard commercial specs for .223 Remington.
Since then, NATO has been wildcatting 5.56x45mm and pushing the envelope.

_ Is the barrel throated to handle bullets heavier than 55 grains?
_ If using bullets heavier than 55 grains, is the rate of twist of the rifling correct to give accuracy?
_ If shooting .223 commercial cartridges in a 5.56 autoloading rifle with a heavy floating firing pin, are the primer cups thick enuf to reduce the risk of slamfires?[/I]

 

[UrbanHermit]

SAAMI says .223 Rem is MAP 55000 psi, a 55 gr bullet at 3215 fps instrumental at 15 feet.
Remington claims 3240 fps for their commercial ammo.

TM 43-0001-27, 1994 says 5.56mm Ball, M193 is 52000 psi, a 56 gr bullet at 3250 fps at 15 feet.
Also 5.56mm Ball, M855 is 55000 psi for a 62 gr bullet at 3025 fps at 78 feet from muzzle. Note the old chronograph setup with Start at 3 feet and Stop at 153 feet, midway between is 78 ft.
Remington says 3260 fps, which seems like a lot but that is with a thin skinned commercial bullet, not hardball with a steel insert.

What I don't know is, was the Army still using crusher gauges and calling the result "psi" in 1994 as used to be done? The DoD is not a member of SAAMI and does not play in CUP.

Just to show how different standards can be, CIP Ptmax for .223 Rem is 4300 bar = 62366 psi.

Awright, those are published numbers, I have a few Internet Recollections. They are just what I READ, don't take me to task over it.

Somebody once said the military chamber not only had a longer leade to give the bullet a running start (and also to be sure to clear the nose of a bullet struck with a longer or blunter nose than usual - never can tell what your "allies" will share with you) but also had a little bevel on the neck/shoulder angle to kind of funnel the tracer bullet down in case its cavity expanded upon firing.

Somebody once got up several barrels with different advertised chamber designs, .223, 5.56, "Match," Wylde, etc., and cast them. Measured dimensions were wildly different with a lot of overlap, so you would not know what you were really getting.

Me?
My only acquaintance with surplus ammo is some Malaysian surplus of nominal M193 specs. It shoots fine in all my rifles, whichever caliber stamp. But most of it, I have pulled the FMJ and replaced it with a JHP or JSP for better accuracy, "Mexican Match."

If the Wylde thing actually worked I don't know why they would even keep making .223 barrels.

 

[UrbanHermit]

From SAAMMI's Frequently asked questions page:


Can I use 5.56x45mm, 5.56 or 5.56 NATO ammunition in a firearm chambered for 223 Remington (223 Rem)?

NO!

It is not safe to shoot “5.56” “5.56 NATO” or “5.56x45mm” (“5.56”) ammunition in a firearm with barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. 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 may cause increased pressure when the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm.

However, it is safe to use SAAMI-compliant 223 Remington ammunition in firearms with a barrel marked as chambered in “5.56.”

If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your firearm, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.


Can I use 223 Remington ammunition in a firearm chambered for 5.56?

Yes.

It is safe to use SAAMI-compliant 223 Remington ammunition in firearms with a barrel marked as chambered in “5.56.”

However, it is not safe to shoot “5.56” “5.56 NATO” or “5.56x45mm” (“5.56”) ammunition in a barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. 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 may cause increased pressure when the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm.

If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your rifle, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.

This should have been on page one.

The problem of course is that the M193 load appears by all accounts to be SAAMI compliant .223 Remington ammunition. This whole thing is like saying you can shoot deer, as long as they aren't ungulates, quadrupeds, bucks, does, or animals, other than that deer are in season.

 

[CapnMac]

And they ship the thing with AR mags.

Well, you can load AR mags, even STANAG ones, with ammo way over max LOA and they will "fit." The ammo might not chamber, but it will fit the mags.

The difference in chamber dimensions is only a few thousandths of an inch, that's hundredths of a millimeter. This is nothing like trying to get .222 or 22-250 into a 223 firearm.

 

[someguy2800]

In practice there are some 223 barreled rifles that have the throat cut to the original short 1960's 223 chamber specs, and if you try to cram certain 5.56 loadings into it, it jams the bullet into the rifling which causes an increase in chamber pressure and can potentially be bad. One case that's been mentioned already which I can corroborate from person experience is handi rifles chambered in 223. I used to have one and I once tried to shoot some FMJ 5.56 ammo that someone had gave me and on shutting the action it would jam the bullet into the rifling. Shooting it resulted in a flattened primer. After investigating by putting in another one and trying to eject it showed the engraving marks on the bullet.

But there are lots and lots (probably hundreds) of different manufactures who have made 223 barrels, and lots and lots (also probably hundreds) of different .223 and 5.56 loadings that have been produced. These manufacturers don't all use the same reamers or forging mandrel to make these chambers, so in the real world some throats are long, some are short, some are larger in diameter, and some are tighter. Some put longer throats in them because they know people are going to shoot 5.56 nato in their 223 rifle. Likewise not all bullets from different manufacturers and different weights have the same profile and distance of the ogive to the case mouth. This is something handloaders regularly test and observe when making ammunition and they make specialized tools for measuring it. Anyone that has handloaded for a variety of rifles can tell you they are not all the same chamber dimensions so if anyone claims to be able to tell you your rifle's chamber is long or short or large or small enough for a certain loading from a certain manufacturer without measuring the freebore then they are an idiot. If you think that you can know without measuring it for yourself you are also mistaken. If you are unable to measure for yourself or are not inclined to do so then I would suggest following the manufactures recommendation.

 

[UrbanHermit]

In practice there are some 223 barreled rifles that have the throat cut to the original short 1960's 223 chamber specs, and if you try to cram certain 5.56 loadings into it, it jams the bullet into the rifling which causes an increase in chamber pressure and can potentially be bad. One case that's been mentioned already which I can corroborate from person experience is handi rifles chambered in 223. I used to have one and I once tried to shoot some FMJ 5.56 ammo that someone had gave me and on shutting the action it would jam the bullet into the rifling. Shooting it resulted in a flattened primer. After investigating by putting in another one and trying to eject it showed the engraving marks on the bullet.

But there are lots and lots (probably hundreds) of different manufactures who have made 223 barrels, and lots and lots (also probably hundreds) of different .223 and 5.56 loadings that have been produced. These manufacturers don't all use the same reamers or forging mandrel to make these chambers, so in the real world some throats are long, some are short, some are larger in diameter, and some are tighter. Some put longer throats in them because they know people are going to shoot 5.56 nato in their 223 rifle. Likewise not all bullets from different manufacturers and different weights have the same profile and distance of the ogive to the case mouth. This is something handloaders regularly test and observe when making ammunition and they make specialized tools for measuring it. Anyone that has handloaded for a variety of rifles can tell you they are not all the same chamber dimensions so if anyone claims to be able to tell you your rifle's chamber is long or short or large or small enough for a certain loading from a certain manufacturer without measuring the freebore then they are an idiot. If you think that you can know without measuring it for yourself you are also mistaken. If you are unable to measure for yourself or are not inclined to do so then I would suggest following the manufactures recommendation.

Will do.

 

[CapnMac]

M193 load appears by all accounts to be SAAMI compliant .223 Remington

Ah, see, just because ammo is designated to 5.56 specification does not mean it has to meet the exact chamber or pressure dimensions. It can be less.
Ammunition loaded to .223 with function quite sufficiently in a 5.56 loading (or chamber).

Chamber-throat-dimensions

Cartridge dimensions (note that the deck diameter is 0.002"/0.05mm different):

 

[someguy2800]

Will do.

Just to be clear, its not enough to just confirm that the bullet doesn't jam the rifling, what you really need to know is what is the freebore dimension with your specific ammo is. A quick google search returns M193 being made and sold by Winchester, IMI, Federal, Frontier, and of course there is still military surplus stuff floating around. There is no guarantee that all of these are the same.

 

[entropy]

That supports the idea that pre and post NATO chambers are different from one another.

Duh.

I don't have one, but I know I heard it somewhere. If it's wrong, then show me that M193 was or is loaded to pressures in excess of maximum pressures for .223 Remington in the same chamber using the same testing method. That's basically the Holy Grail here.

See, there's our quandry. You heard something somewhere, we (12Bravo20, Slamfire and myself) actually worked with M193 and M855 ammo, and in my case what I 'heard' was very in-depth history of the development of the M16 series rifle and the ammo for it, in lectures in Armorer School. Things that are not in Wikipedia. My personal experience with M193 and M855 ammo in civilian arms is limited to AR's, which of course have 5.56 chambers, and .223 H&R Handi-Rifles, which results matched 12Bravo20's, as well as many others.

The performance and safety of the M855 round in .223 Remington chambered rifles does not seem to be relevant to this discussion.

Agreed. It is not safe.

So if gun stores, sporting goods stores, and department stores across the country have shelves full of European SMG ammo, and people have been using it interchangeably with conventional 9mm Luger ammunition for decades, and you are a firearms manufacturer and you are producing a 9mm pistol that can't handle European SMG ammo, then you should put "do not use European 9mm SMG ammo" in the manual and probably the slide stamp as well. You shouldn't put some vague warning that just says "don't use the wrong ammo" (right next to the warnings that say don't use handloads and don't disassemble or modify the gun), nor should you say to not use a type of ammunition that you are referring to using your own made up term which the reader will not be able to conclusively define.

Actually, the reboxed ammo had had such warnings on it, as did IMI 9mm, which was loaded hot for Uzis, and also sold commercially. Those who did not read and heed the warnings had problems ranging from malfunctions to damage to the gun, usually the slide cracking.

I have a box of the Federal XM193 stuff and a couple boxes of Winchester White Box M193. Neither box has the word NATO anywhere on them, and the M193 round appears to be .223 Remington ammunition, not 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. Does it qualify as "5.56 Military" ammunition? I guess I'll have to email the guy from SAAMI to find out what he was thinking when he invented that term. I'm just guessing that it does. I'll probably just sell the ammo to the next frustrated mall ninja I see.

From my personal experience with both rounds, the XM193 was hotter than WWB M193, and both were hotter than my 2800 fps 55 gr. handloads using BL-C(2), a powder developed as a commercial substitute for W 748. (Obviously before Hodgdon started producing Win. powders.) That load approximated commercial 'plinking' ammo in .223.

Lol *** is a "handi-rifle"? Sounds like some off brand beater that would have all kinds of problems.

The Harrington & Richardson Handi-rifle is based on H&R's Topper shotgun. The .223 Remington is at the top end velocity and pressurewise of rounds it can 'take'. M193 and M855 are above that, thus the sticking rounds and actions popping open. A bolt action would usually have rounds sticking in the chamber, but since the chamber area on most .223 bolts, particularly sporter barrels, isn't as stout as the chamber area of the Handi-rifle (it is the same diameter as the 12 ga in the same area, but has a much smaller hole.) damage to the rifle and shooter is more likely.

You're a 'gun guy' and you don't know what a Handi-Rifle is?

How do you know that the latter load exceeds .223 Remington specs? Everything I've read suggests otherwise.

That's because you're assuming that the round initially adopted as the M193 was the same throughout it's history, and it was not. The initial loading was still hotter than the .223 standard as adopted. The pressure would increase with the change to W 748; it is a faster burning powder. Faster burning powder+ short leade= higher pressure. I have reloaded for over 50 years, I know this to be true.

That is precisely the point that I have been making repeatedly. People keep saying that you can't shoot 5.56 NATO in .223, then I keep replying that M193 is not 5.56 NATO.

M193 is not 5.56NATO. 5.56NATO is M855. .223 Remington is not M193. I has been described erroneously as "5.56 Military" by unknowing people, and yes this includes the SAAMI Technical Writer you quoted.

Short course; Govt. adopts a round using the .223 case, and different primer, powder and bullet which results in a ".223 Magnum", if you will. It exceeds .223 SAAMI specs. It is named M193. The rifle for it, the M16, initally has a 1:14 twist rate, perfect for the IMR powder tested in it. The Army switches out the powder because DuPont cannot supply the amounts they want. The promises made that the rifle does not need cleaning are still believed. This is shortly before VN, so the negative impact of that is not realized until soldiers are dying in the field because their rifles failed. Cleaning kits were not initially issued. After emergency measures are taken to get cleaning equipment to the troops, a review of this results in a change of powder. (again) It also results in some changes to the M16 that result in the M16A1. This cartridge, still called M193 after two powder changes that result in faster burning powders, (and thus when fired in .223 chambers higher pressures) is the same round I was issued for my M16A1 in 1984. Those rounds are potentially unsafe in a rifle chambered in .223.

There is nothing acceptable about using ambiguous, unofficial terminology with tools and weapons

I have almost exclusively used correct terminology and nomenclature, and yet this seems only to confuse you further.

 

[Coop45]

My understanding is that the European CIP system does not even distinguish between 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Remington. Like everything in the gun world, only Americans are having this problem. We can't have full auto weapons or suppressors or anything else that is freely passed out in Europe, and apparently we can't even get straight answers as to what ammo we can shoot.

Lawyers

 

[taliv]

Six pages for this? Geez