.223 Wylde and a load of malarkey?

[BigBore44]

@Varminterror is right. He’s proved he’s right. He’s even shown you how to prove he’s right. If he hasn’t convinced you he’s right, that’s not on him.

 

[daniel craig]

@Varminterror is right. He’s proved he’s right. He’s even shown you how to prove he’s right. If he hasn’t convinced you he’s right, that’s not on him.

Lots of people have put up a lot of good info here. At least one (more bit at least one) mentioned the gains from .223wylde were insignificant. What do you believe when there is just as valid and legitimate information on either side, both supported well, that say different things? That’s why I’m still hesitant. I do appreciate your opinion though!

 

[SwampWolf]

Per Rock River Arms, Inc., regarding the merits of the .223 Wylde Chamber: "The .223 Wylde chamber was designed as a match chambering for semi-auto rifles. It will accommodate both .223 Rem. and 5.56 NATO ammunition. It is relieved in the case body to aid in extraction and features a shorter throat for improved accuracy."

 

[BigBore44]

Lots of people have put up a lot of good info here. At least one (more bit at least one) mentioned the gains from .223wylde were insignificant. What do you believe when there is just as valid and legitimate information on either side, both supported well, that say different things? That’s why I’m still hesitant. I do appreciate your opinion though!

“Marginal gains”. That pretty much defines everything about the shooting industry today. New guns, new cartridges, new optics. Nothing in the last 20 years is revolutionary except the new thermals maybe the Burris Eliminator. So if the Wylde provides marginal gains across the board, but particularly for match shooters, maybe that’s something to welcome.

 

[cfullgraf]

Here is a single data point.

I started shooting Service Rifle Competition with a stock Colt Match Target A2 AR-15. Sierra Bullets data used a Match Target for their testing and the muzzle velocity from my gun closely matched Sierra’s data.

After a few years, I bought a CMP Compass Lake Service Competition Rifle. The CLE chamber is a modified Wylde chamber and the rifle produced muzzle velocities about 10% faster than the Match Target using the same ammunition.

But, the Compass Lake produced smaller groups than I ever got with the Match Target.

Mark Donahue, a successful sports car racer in the 1960’s and 1970’s, said you follow what the leaders are doing in terms of pit stops or changing to wet tires during wet conditions, etc.

Similar concepts can be applied to shooting, use the same equipment as the top shooters are using. Those guys have figured out what works best. Why re-invent the wheel.

 

[jmorris]

There's no question that a tighter chamber than the US military AR chambers can improve accuracy.

I have to agree with assertion 100%. “Can” is not an absolute and allows for say shooting a case once, then not squishing it down, way under, chamber dimensions again for the next firing. After fire forming, any case that was “under” is a better match, I can prove this with some of the fired cases I have from beltfed toys.

Also “improve” is a qualitative word not setting a numerical value. So a tighter chamber might or might not improve the accuracy by some amount that could or could not be significant.

If we get that out of the way. Now we could ask what chamber reamer has the tighter chamber on a scale of 1-10 or 1-100, however many folks have had ground.

After that we can talk about what all could be run in a chamber cut with those reamers.

To the OP’s conundrum,

I was at work at the shop/range yesterday when I overheard a coworker telling a guy he’d be better off building an AR in 223wylde vs 5.56. In his mind, while a 5.56 chambering will shoot .223 a .223wylde chambering will provide more accuracy. To me, the way he explained it sounded like a bunch of marketing malarkey so I went home and did some research. I can’t find any empirical, scientifically tested evidence (just anecdotal) to support his claim.

I was always under the impression that the only real difference between 5.56 and .223 is that 5.56 is loaded “hotter” than 223 and thus has higher pressures.

If the guy’s intentions were to shoot 5.56 ammunition the .223 wylde reamer will remove more metal than a .223 Remington reamer, that SAAMI holds as unsafe for 5.56 ammunition.

 

[C-grunt]

Lots of people have put up a lot of good info here. At least one (more bit at least one) mentioned the gains from .223wylde were insignificant. What do you believe when there is just as valid and legitimate information on either side, both supported well, that say different things? That’s why I’m still hesitant. I do appreciate your opinion though!

"Insignificant gains" are still gains. What you find insignificant can mean the difference between winning or not in competition.

 

[CapnMac]

Most AR-15 barrels are not chambered by "gunsmiths". They are chambered by day labor. You get whatever chamber the person wielding the reamer is cutting that day.

Well, the day labor mostly carries the blanks to the reaming machine and loads them in. The lead machinist is on the hook for insuring that the tooling is to spec (alternately it goes to QC and how they gauge the product). Some machining centers will load 10 at a time, so there can be ten sets of tooling all cutting at once.

The process design will then determine if they go to, or come from the rifling machining center. And the various profiling machines as well. And the fixture making gas port bores.

There's a vast efficiency in using one machine per machining process. You get higher volume, and the ability to QC in between the steps.

 

[lsudave]

As a guy totally on the outside looking in as far as being an AR expert; and also having some understanding of physics AND marketing-
everyone posting here is correct.

The Wylde chamber is theoretically sound. It should be able to provide a bit better accuracy, if all other things are equal.
The counterpoint to that is most shooters won't be able to realize that. Those who can, will still need carefully selected and controlled ammo, as well as a properly constructed firearm.

For those claiming the "better manufacturers" don't or won't make claims just for marketing, that's nuts. Of course they will, as it's (as stated above) a valid theory. If you take 2 manufacturers of equal bearing, and 1 does it and the other doesn't, it could put that second group at a disadvantage.
The big qualifier, and I'm sure most reputable and knowledgeable folks would agree, is the advantage is NOT going to be a SIGNIFICANT increase, it's merely that last little tweak.

In other words, "a guy like me" probably won't be able to tell the difference. I find that online, it's kinda tough to get folks to admit that... I know some guys really are great marksmen. But a whole lot of us are generally quite happy to hit a beercan at any distance, and the improved closeness to a dead-center bullseye would usually be better attributed to some other variable.

 

[Varminterror]

Here’s something I would challenge to all of the “a guy like me can’t tell the difference” guys out there:

The Average suffers in difficulty moreso than The Exceptional.

When the average Joe grabs a rifle and starts reloading, common difficulties are more difficult for them to manage than they are for the expert. Specifically in this case, the common man will typically find more difficulty in determining a good-shooting factory load or in developing a great shooting handload with the 5.56 chamber than they will with a 223 wylde chamber. Sure, the common shooter might not be able to wring out the supreme raw precision potential for either barrel, nor would their application demand it, but when a specific chamber offers “more forgiveness” than does another chamber, the common shooter will have greater advantage than the skilled reloader who custom fits every aspect of their ammunition as second nature, negating the need for such forgiveness.

 

[alsaqr]

Well, the day labor mostly carries the blanks to the reaming machine and loads them in.

That's the way it works in large reputable production shops; other shops not so much.

While working in MA i sometimes ate Saturday breakfast with people who worked at Harrington Richardson/New England firearms. One was the hourly paid guy who did the chambering. That company also re-ground their reamers.

In about 2010 a friend and myself bought identical mid range priced AR-15 rifles. According to the maker those rifles were suitable for use with 5.56mm ammunition. My rifle worked great. First round of US military 5.56mm M855 ammunition fired in his rifle blew a primer. Rifle went back to the manufacturer who said it had "chamber problems".

'Encountering an undersized chamber in the real world is likely, especially if it was manufactured cheaply and with little quality control procedures. Among some companies, there is a definite “race to the bottom” which can result in subpar and unsatisfactory components. I now spend just a little more money on my guns and equipment, and get a lot more quality. If you would like to check your 5.56 chamber to see if it really is 5.56, order a .223/5.56? Gage from Michiguns..

5.56 vs .223 - What You Know May Be Wrong - LuckyGunner.com Labs

 

[Varminterror]

While working in MA i sometimes ate Saturday breakfast with people who worked at Harrington Richardson/New England firearms. One was the hourly paid guy who did the chambering. That company also re-ground their reamers.

How’d that work out for them? Do you suggest living on a business model so weak they were acquired by a distressed capital firm, then subsequently bankrupted and dissolved?

 

[alsaqr]

"Do you suggest living on a business model so weak they were acquired by a distressed capital firm, then subsequently bankrupted and dissolved?"

i suggest cost cutting measures at the corporate level, poor quality control and give a crap attitude caused once great company to cease to exist.

 

[Varminterror]

"Do you suggest living on a business model so weak they were acquired by a distressed capital firm, then subsequently bankrupted and dissolved?"

i suggest cost cutting measures at the corporate level, poor quality control and give a crap attitude caused once great company to cease to exist.

Marlin was able to buy H&R/NEF because they were floundering. Remington/Freedom was able to buy Marlin and its subsidiary H&R/NEF because they were still floundering. Cerberus is a distressed capital firm, they find failing companies and make money by liquidating them. If the old companies were so strong and proud before the capitalists got ahold of them, they wouldn’t have had to sell to the capitalists. The boats were underwater long before they were pillaged by shipwreck scavengers.

 

[alsaqr]

Cerberus is a distressed capital firm, they find failing companies and make money by liquidating them.

Yep, Cerebus loaded Remington down with debt and dumped the company.

 

[daniel craig]

"Insignificant gains" are still gains. What you find insignificant can mean the difference between winning or not in competition.

Very true

 

[SwampWolf]

I went to school in the era of “challenge the validity of your sources” and “critically evaluate information, the purpose of its existence, its origins and the motives behind the origins.”

What you're after, as I understand it, is to see empirical evidence to either support or refute the information you heard from your coworker. Nothing wrong with asking for real information and, just because you don't find the well-intentioned feedback from forum members adequate for you to draw an opinion, doesn't mean you're being obstinate or obtuse. I, too, haven't seen anyone "prove their point" yet but good arguments have been made.

What you want may not be possible in a practical sense. If enough rounds were fired and groups measured for accuracy; if enough chambers were tested for pressure and if enough money and personnel was available to do the testing, it's likely that real, irrefutable evidence could be established. The theories and corroborate evidence our members have explained make a lot of sense to me. I just think the empirical evidence you seek (and I'd too like to see), given the many variables that are in play, is way too impractical to achieve.

 

[twarr1]

My 2 cents
https://twarr1.blogspot.com/2013/02/223-caliber-vs-556-mm-definitive-article.html

 

[rust collector]

Part of the analysis has to be cost versus benefit. What does it cost to have the chamber reamed in the Wylde configuration versus the cost in 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO? We know that the NATO chamber emphasizes function and reliability even though accuracy is likely to suffer due to longer leade and reduced concentricity. Similarly, the 223 chamber is likely to be tightest and therefore most accurate, at the expense of reliable function and potential high pressure with hot loads. The Wylde chamber is one individual's attempt to reduce the downside for each of the alternatives. I don't believe there is much if any monetary cost in using that profile, and consequently little need or incentive to extensively test the theory. This is especially so when quite a few matches have shown that the Wylde chamber works well in a service type rifle. No miracle, but the incremental improvement that we all look for, and that benefits everyone at little or no cost. I am a believer, but as noted above, more probably depends on the operator and condition of the tooling and equipment than the chamber design.

 

[edwardware]

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

For instance:

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

This is wrong. LC 5.56 brass has greater internal volume than almost all of the commercial .223 brass I've measured.

The author has assumed that the volume offset between 7.62NATO and .308Win applies to 5.56NATO vs .223Rem. It doesn't.

 

[bfoosh006]

On paper, and when done correctly, a .223 Wylde offers potential advantages.
But... we all know barrels don't always follow what the paper says should work... otherwise someone would be able to make the perfect chamber / barrel everytime.

Then if you factor in the various manufacturers using their chamber reamers ( etc ) well past its practical life.. then your .223 Wylde chamber is god knows what.
As mentioned above, there are plenty of examples of out of spec chambers labeled .223 Wylde.

For me... but from a reputable barrel manufacturer, one that does good QC.

Doing so will probably increase your odds of a good shooting barrel... and you might see a tighter group. Again lots of variables in that.

Buy a lesser quality .223 Wylde chambered barrel... and it could be a toss up.. maybe you got someone using a new reamer, maybe not.

I have seen various ammo shot great out of NATO chambers... ( IE Federal .223 50gr TV )... and that stuff shouldn't have been so conistently 1MOA ish... bullet far away from the lands, bulk Federal Brass, and certainly no where near the QC like FGMM has. ( Cheapest I bought it for was $5.29/ 20rds )

To be honest, for most average barrels , I don't wonder about it.

From a high quality manufactuer ? I pay a little more attention... and mostly because I don't want a .223 Rem chamber. ( I shoot a lot of 5.56 pressure ammo ) I trust SAMMI and their testing.

So factor in the quality of the bullet / load used as well.

Is .223 Wylde malarkey ? ... I guess for me, it depends on who made your barrel, any form of real QC ?, or bulk production matters more to them ?... and how well your AR15 is assembled , in context to precision shooting.

And again... it looks like it "should" help... but how is anyone going to be able to check that reliably ?
You'll probably never notice a difference in an average AR15.... but, you might get lucky.

 

[BRatigan]

I built a custom AR with a 24inch Wilson Arms stainless steel, bull barrel in 223 Wylde. It has a 1 in 8 twist and it shoots the Sierra 69grain HPBT bullets into a ragged hole at 100 yards from the bench. I use 23.8 grains of H335. I shoot only that bullet and load combination. Its amazingly accurate.

 

[Varminterror]

Then if you factor in the various manufacturers using their chamber reamers ( etc ) well past its practical life.. then your .223 Wylde chamber is god knows what.

Which manufacturer is more likely than the other to run a reamer ragged to the point of producing chamber dims out of spec:

1) The manufacturer building match grade, competition ready barrels which sell at $300-600 each, and which will be assuredly placed in the hands of competent competitors or shooters who will have the knowledge and ability to wring out the barrel’s true potential, and who will be developing custom handloads and referencing ammunition fit to chamber, determining quickly any dimensional or performance issue.

or

2) The barrel manufacturer cranking out $75 tomato stakes as fast as they can, selling them to folks who want to make noise and won’t ever conduct any performance determination because the cheap ammo they use for blasting and the cheap rifle they built to eat it simply don’t need to meet any reasonable standard for precision to satisfy their application.

 

[HereOnly]

Once upon a time I shot a 5.56 x 45mm NATO shell out of my bolt action 223 rem rifle. I took note that the primer showed signs of excessive pressure. It spoke for itself.

So, I pulled the bullet and reduced the powder charge, reseated the bullet & got normal pressure signs on the primer.

DISCLAMER: I cannot recommend this practice, . . some powders don't like to be "reduced", (like good old 4831) & the powder I was dealing with was Un-Known.

 

[Rex in OTZ]

I had a early 1990's NEF handi rifle in .223 Rem.
As like above stated by HereOnly, I was purchasing commercial 5.56 reloads at the LGS.
I experenced extraction issues and bulged primers with 5.56 reloads in that singleshot.
Accuracy was not that wonderfull as I recall.
Afterwards I paid close attention to the brass headstamps which were mixed brands.
So various brands and different lots (Win/PMC, Milsurp, and Rem) case capacities can very widely for reloading.