.223 Wylde and a load of malarkey?

There's no question that a tighter chamber than the US military AR chambers can improve accuracy. That can be 223Wyld, the Noveske chamber, various 5.56 match reamers etc. Some of those chambers are combat reliable, others are not (Wylde is not intended to be). The different accuracy-oriented chambers are tight in different dimensions. The Wylde, as previously posted, has a tight throat.

If you're a good shot shooting from a stable position in a rifle with an acceptable trigger, yes, it matters.

I’m in the process of building an upper to use in NRA AR Tactical competition. I went with a Wylde chamber for a couple of reasons:

1. The Proof carbon barrel I wanted was in stock and already chambered in .223 Wylde

2. It had the free bore necessary for me load 80.5 Berger Fullbores, which is the bullet I intend to load for this rifle

daniel craig said:

Basically there is a lot info on the web, some is good. Some is not.

Click to expand...

No offense, but it seems like you've basically made up your mind that anything that doesn't support your opinion is "bad" and everything else is good. That makes discussion sort of pointless.

daniel craig said:

You’re points are good and I don’t disagree. I just don’t see the evidence they’re using for their conclusions and I like evidence with claims.

Click to expand...

“That which we know in the world is larger than what we can prove.”

Or frankly, we know more than we NEED to prove empirically. I don’t need to pee on the electric fence to know it’s a bad idea. I don’t need to measure the impedance of my dingus nor the conductivity of my urine, nor do I need to repeatedly measure the wattage discharged into myself just to KNOW I don’t want to pee on the electric fence.

• We know jump matters.
• We know freebore diameter and length matter.
• We know competitors (which many of us are) can use and have used anything under the sun, and we know the Wylde is heavily favored over 5.56 chamber.
• We know forgiveness and versatility go a long ways for developing precision loads, and we know the 223 wylde chamber is more forgiving and versatile.

I’ve never seen a hydrogen atom, but I know it exists. I’ve never been shocked while peeing on an electric fence, but I know I shouldn’t do so.

I always wondered what the difference was one caliber vs. The other.
But you have the cartridge difference as well.
.223 REMINGTON VS. 5.56 NATO WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?


the 5.56 case has thicker brass walls to handle higher pressures and, therefore, has less interior volume than the . 223 case. This is especially important to reloaders because the powder loads are affected by these different case capacities. Always check your Reloader's Guide when preparing these cases.
https://www.topbrass-inc.com/blogs/news/223-remington-vs-5-56-nato-what-s-the-difference

I think of military brass as constructed to withstand use in military arms that might be more brutal operation than encountered in civilian use.

Rex in OTZ said:

I think of military brass as constructed to withstand use in military arms that might be more brutal operation than encountered in civilian use.

Click to expand...

I would point towards many instances of users discovering various eras of brass or that from various manufacturers do not meet this old generality people accept about NATO brass. “Thicker, heavier, harder, tougher” are always the attributes assigned to nato stamped brass, but guys actually handing the brass have shown various eras and manufacturers of NATO brass have produced brass which have been “thinner, softer, lighter, and less durable” than other civilian counterparts.

Rex in OTZ said:

I think of military brass as constructed to withstand use in military arms that might be more brutal operation than encountered in civilian use.

Click to expand...

It's Lapooey Brass or nothing, and everything else just pales in comparison!!! :lolz:

Varminterror said:

I would point towards many instances of users discovering various eras of brass or that from various manufacturers do not meet this old generality people accept about NATO brass. “Thicker, heavier, harder, tougher” are always the attributes assigned to nato stamped brass, but guys actually handing the brass have shown various eras and manufacturers of NATO brass have produced brass which have been “thinner, softer, lighter, and less durable” than other civilian counterparts.

Click to expand...

I have certainly seen the variability in NATO 7.62 brass to know not to trust the conventional wisdom on it.

Nature Boy said:

I have certainly seen the variability in NATO 7.62 brass...

Click to expand...

"NATO," much like everything else purchased in bulk by some institution nowadays...

...also implies "order fulfilled by the lowest bidder!"

:lolz:

So it boils down to the wylde chambering being like what Ruger did for the Mini-14?

Varminterror said:

I would point towards many instances of users discovering various eras of brass or that from various manufacturers do not meet this old generality people accept about NATO brass. “Thicker, heavier, harder, tougher” are always the attributes assigned to nato stamped brass, but guys actually handing the brass have shown various eras and manufacturers of NATO brass have produced brass which have been “thinner, softer, lighter, and less durable” than other civilian counterparts.

Click to expand...

That has been my experience when comparing 223 and 5.56 brass. I have seen 223 brass that is thicker than NATO stamped 5.56 brass and visa versa.

Well, if the stream is in continuity, your feet are grounded and the pulse is present, it will shock you. Know this first hand, upon that occasion the muscles in your body will force the stream to be broken and you will check to see if there is a hot wire on the other side of a barbed wire fence during daylight, prior to relieving yourself in the darkness.

We know that jump matters because everything matters to some degree. Some combinations do better with no jump, bullet seated deeper into the case as the bolt is closed and others do better with another amount that is not zero.

You keep wanting evidence that will sway you one way or another despite others convinced. That means YOU have to get all three and test yourself. Beats pissing on an electric fence as far as having fun goes...

daniel craig said:

Even the article you posted said there’s really no significant difference in results. I also have a problem with their testing methods. They used two different rifle manufacturers and two different ammo manufacturers. In order for this to be a well done experiment you really need to use as close to the same items as possible… You know control as many variables as possible… So they would need to use the same rifle manufacturer with the same model, just with the different chambers as well as the same ammunition manufacturer for both calibers.

Without doing the aforementioned things you can’t even expect to have much of a worthwhile experiment in my opinion because it’s just too many other variables in there.

Click to expand...

The correct way to do it would be the shoot a few dozen groups with a .223 chamber, then ream the throat to Wylde dimensions and shoot a few dozen more.

That way everything is the same except the throat dimensions . . . .

Rex in OTZ said:

the 5.56 case has thicker brass walls to handle higher pressures and, therefore, has less interior volume than the . 223 case.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's the SAAMI line. It's also the word put out by brass sellers. But it ain't true.

Not to mention the charts you can find showing that case weight is not a good indicator of case volume, which is a puzzlement to me.

I have been advised that internal capacity of .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO vary between manufacturer and between lots by the same manufacturer.
And I should not assume that 5.56 NATO is always more robust because of NATO specs requiring 5.56 to withstand rough handling in full auto weapons.

The best I can assume is that not all .223 Remington case are alike, not all 5.56 NATO cases or alike, so be careful reloading mixed casings no matter what the headstamp.

It might also matter what load you were testing. A 40 gr bullet loaded to mild 223 pressure up to a 90 gr loaded to 556 +P+ pressure.

lysanderxiii said:

The correct way to do it would be the shoot a few dozen groups with a .223 chamber, then ream the throat to Wylde dimensions and shoot a few dozen more.

That way everything is the same except the throat dimensions . . . .

Click to expand...

daniel craig said:

Yep

Click to expand...

But not really...

Walk down a beach. Step in the sand. Circle around and walk back on the same footprints... you’ve stepped in the same places, so it’s the same, right? Nope. Experimental design proves it’s impossible - your footprints weren’t there the first time, and they were the second time.

We know (and many have proven many times empirically) that shooting causes wear AND that the multivariate system of a statistically valid group requires exceptionally high round counts to produce anything meaningful. So effectively, reaming the throat or rechambering the same barrel is a meaningless exercise - by the time you fired enough rounds to establish the baseline, you’ve changed the barrel sufficiently to have introduced a new independent variable which influences the results significantly.

Equally, the experimental basis proposed is flawed: the hypothesis contends the 223 wylde chamber is more reliably accurate than the 5.56 spec chamber, whereas the proposed design would only work to rethroat a 223 Rem chamber to 223 wylde.

And of course, the qualitative observation is not an individualized phenomenon. Nobody (with any sense) disagrees that given a properly developed load matched to each of the 3 chambers could have just as viable opportunity to come out on top if tested one by one by one. But on the whole, a macro scale, it’s readily observed that 223 wylde chambers are more prone to shoot better than 5.56 chambers. The evidence base for this is massive - many, many guys start out shooting 5.56 chambers in competition, but over generations, it was realized certain attributes started winning over others, and the losers deservedly fall out of favor. Nobody has done an exhaustive study because the scale and scope is too large - but remains a massive body of evidence in front of us which supports the hypothesis as valid.

If you’re the guy willing to buy a hundred barrels, design a statistically valid round count to perform the “same barrel test,” maybe chamber half for 223 wylde first then set back and reream to 5.56, and the other half to 5.56 then set back and reream to 223 wylde, and fire thousands of shots just to learn for yourself what competition shooters have already taught us, then by all means, spend that money... even simply buying 10-20 barrels of each chamber from the same maker will take thousands of rounds to prove out... for what? To learn that freebore length and diameter and bullet jump matter? To learn that tighter chambers shoot better than those looser? I’d rather see that money spent on cancer research, personally, or on children’s educational programs - at least then it would bring SOME value...

Here's a good article to read on the differences between 5.56 and .223.

It's more than just the cartridge...it's how the chamber is designed, too.

Here are a couple good reads:

https://ultimatereloader.com/2018/08/05/223-vs-5-56-facts-and-myths/

https://exclusive.multibriefs.com/c...ween,withstand the increased pressure, while .

Lets think about this on the simple level. Do you think a looser chamber is going to shoot better, in general, than a tighter chamber? Accuracy comes from consistency. A looser chamber will allow more bullet movement off axis before engaging the rifling.

Also to say that some of the best barrel makers on the planet all got together and decided to spew the same marketing "malarky" is a bit odd. Bartlien and Krieger aren't used by winning competitors because they chamber barrels to "good enough, it's all just marketing anyways" standards.

Varminterror said:

But not really...

Walk down a beach. Step in the sand. Circle around and walk back on the same footprints... you’ve stepped in the same places, so it’s the same, right? Nope. Experimental design proves it’s impossible - your footprints weren’t there the first time, and they were the second time.

We know (and many have proven many times empirically) that shooting causes wear AND that the multivariate system of a statistically valid group requires exceptionally high round counts to produce anything meaningful. So effectively, reaming the throat or rechambering the same barrel is a meaningless exercise - by the time you fired enough rounds to establish the baseline, you’ve changed the barrel sufficiently to have introduced a new independent variable which influences the results significantly.

Equally, the experimental basis proposed is flawed: the hypothesis contends the 223 wylde chamber is more reliably accurate than the 5.56 spec chamber, whereas the proposed design would only work to rethroat a 223 Rem chamber to 223 wylde.

And of course, the qualitative observation is not an individualized phenomenon. Nobody (with any sense) disagrees that given a properly developed load matched to each of the 3 chambers could have just as viable opportunity to come out on top if tested one by one by one. But on the whole, a macro scale, it’s readily observed that 223 wylde chambers are more prone to shoot better than 5.56 chambers. The evidence base for this is massive - many, many guys start out shooting 5.56 chambers in competition, but over generations, it was realized certain attributes started winning over others, and the losers deservedly fall out of favor. Nobody has done an exhaustive study because the scale and scope is too large - but remains a massive body of evidence in front of us which supports the hypothesis as valid.

If you’re the guy willing to buy a hundred barrels, design a statistically valid round count to perform the “same barrel test,” maybe chamber half for 223 wylde first then set back and reream to 5.56, and the other half to 5.56 then set back and reream to 223 wylde, and fire thousands of shots just to learn for yourself what competition shooters have already taught us, then by all means, spend that money... even simply buying 10-20 barrels of each chamber from the same maker will take thousands of rounds to prove out... for what? To learn that freebore length and diameter and bullet jump matter? To learn that tighter chambers shoot better than those looser? I’d rather see that money spent on cancer research, personally, or on children’s educational programs - at least then it would bring SOME value...

Click to expand...

Today who i has the primers for that much testing?
I tested the NATO brass and disproved it. Just like many of the members on here. It gave me more faith in their input.
I don't need to test 223 Wylde vs 5.56. because I've seen too many extremely good results from them.
5.56 seems to take a lot more trial and error for similar results.

Chuck R. said:

On average your co-worker is correct.

The Wylde chamber is a compromise between a 5.56 NATO and a .223. While cartridge dimensions are the same the chambers are different with different lengths of throat. The Wylde was designed to have enough lead to safely handle NATO pressure while decreasing the amount of bullet jump and increasing accuracy potential.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/what-is-223-wylde/

Any AR15 I put together with accuracy in mind I use a Wylde chamber VS 5.56.

Click to expand...

This matches what my guy explained when he built an AR for me. my guy builds great rifles and mine is very accurate. Most importantly it functions flawlessly.