|
Post by Justin on Oct 24, 2013 23:56:21 GMT -5
In the late 1950's Armalite contracted Remington to develop a new cartridge to replace the 7.62x51 (.308 Winchester) as the standard small arms cartridge for NATO. When it was first created it was called the .222 Remington special. But to prevent confusion because of all the .222 caliber rounds it was renamed the .223 Remington. After the U.S's adoption of the M16 in 1963, the .223 had finally made into in military service. The military round was designated as the 5.56x45. The rounds that were first used by the U.S had a 55 grain projectile and were known as the M193. After the 7.62x51 had been the NATO standard round for some years, NATO set out to replace it. They were looking for something that was small, light, and fast, something like the 5.56. In 1977 the 5.56 was adopted as the NATO standard cartridge, but not the U.S's 55 gr M193 round, a Belgian version that had a 62 gr bullet called the SS109 or M855 as we know it here in America. The M855 was less likely to fragment and had better penetration than the M193. DIFFERENCES
Some people say there is a huge difference between 5.56 and .223, but there aren't as many as you may think. The Main difference between the two, is the PSI each can handle. The .223 has a maximum pressure rating of 55,114 psi, the 5.56 has a maximum of 62,366 psi. Another difference between them is the chamber leade(The distance between the mouth of the cartridge and the rifling in the barrel), the 5.56 has a longer chamber leade than the .223. Similarities The casing used by these rounds are identical, and the bullet diameter is .224 on both of them.
|
|
|
Post by Rohn on Oct 25, 2013 7:50:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the lesson Jason. I had planned on buying a .223 a couple of months ago but $$ kept it from happening. Instead I bought my LC9 that I reported on already. I would like to have a .223 for hunting predators with and may possibly get one sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D. on Oct 25, 2013 18:04:40 GMT -5
Good History Justin.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Oct 25, 2013 18:33:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the lesson Jason. I had planned on buying a .223 a couple of months ago but $$ kept it from happening. Instead I bought my LC9 that I reported on already. I would like to have a .223 for hunting predators with and may possibly get one sometime. You're welcome Rohn. I would say .223 would be perfect for predator hunting. I've been planing on going coyote hunting with my AR for a while now. I just can't seem to find the time for it. Justin
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Oct 25, 2013 21:48:42 GMT -5
Thanks. I did my homework on it. What I would really like to do is a ballistic test on the 5.56. You can buy ballistic gel mixes online that you can mix yourself. That would be cool. Justin
|
|
|
Post by Matt D. on Oct 28, 2013 16:37:09 GMT -5
I don't think you could see much results with the .223. It would probably go through anything you shot with it.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Oct 28, 2013 21:26:48 GMT -5
You're right it would zip right through it. Most people use a hollow points or V-max's.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D. on Oct 29, 2013 13:38:04 GMT -5
I think it would still go right through. .223 is a mean little round .
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Oct 29, 2013 18:56:28 GMT -5
Yeah but even a 9mm hollow point will go through 20 inches of ballistic gel.
The main purpose of the gel is to simulate a real wound cavity.
|
|
|
Post by Danilo on Feb 19, 2021 10:49:07 GMT -5
Somebody necessarily help to make severely posts I'd state. That is the first time I frequented your web page and to this point? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this particular publish amazing. Great activity! www.turnkeylinux.org/user/1421458 Customized Composing Providers buy custom essay online buy custom essay online
|
|