InRange is supported by viewers like you: / inrangetv What is M193? How is it different than 223? Did you know that Eugene Stoner was heavily involved in the development of this cartridge? Is 556 safe in a 223 chamber? ...and more!
This a very complicated topic with a bunch of nuance. I have a few corrections, which do not change the overall conclusion or message here, but are worth mentioning: 5.56 is a NATO adopted standard, but that was done with M855, not M193 specifically. M193 does have a US standard and a standard in general (that appears to be accepted and adopted and manufactured in many countries) but, technically, "M193 NATO" isn't exactly correct...but not exactly wrong either, but not "official". SAAMI is the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, which is considered a standard in the US - they work together to make standards for civilians and cartridges, pressures etc. They are not, however, necessarily internationally recognized. The other institution which sets such standards is the CIP. The "Commission Internationale Permanente", is internationally recognized and their specifications apply in Europe, for example, while SAAMI does not. CIP standards and SAAMI specs are usually quite similar, but not necessarily identical.
I think the problem is if the bullet is pushed backwards into the case and causes a extra spike in pressure. Only should be possible with 75gr Balistic tip with C.O.L. More than 2.250”
This is the clearest explanation I have seen yet. I do like to nerd out on the details, but your "KISS" style of teaching is effective and understandable. Thank you for a video that we can share with shooters that are not as "nerdy" as some of us.
And its wrong. M193 as loaded by the Lake City for the M16 and M16A1 are the same as the 223 Remington. 223/5.56 loads specs for M855, M856 Tracer and now the rounds marketed as M193 NATO, which never existed in the military, are the ones that are different from the SAAMI specs.
I already knew the difference between these two cartridges when I clicked on the video. ( during my active duty days, I have shot more M193 and M855 than I care to admit.) With that said, you are among the very few content creators who actually explain the difference rather than just blindly repeat numbers off a spec sheet. While I'm here I would like to request a similar type of video on M855. In fact an entire set of videos on the likes of M118LR, M80 ball, M855A1 and mk262 would be really nice.
Best explanation of the differences 223 and 5.56 I have ever heard and I have ever heard in the 50 years that I have been shooting and building them! Good job Carl,
For anyone coming to the comments to ask about the .223 Wylde chambering, yes you can safely fire both 5.56, and .223 in that chambering. That’s part of the intention for the chambering and you may see better accuracy.
The Wylde chamber has tighter freebore than the 5.56x45 NATO chamber so tends to be more accurate. It was designed for match use with longer bullets that need to be hand fed into the chamber. Although its longer freebore is optimized for cartridges with too much bullet projection to fit into AR15 magazines, it also keeps pressure down with military 5.56x45 ammo. Many semi-auto sniper and precision rifles are chambered with the Compass Lake Engineering (CLE) chamber which has a shorter freebore like the 223, but a more gentle entrance into the rifling (1.5 degrees per side vs 3°10'36"). It tends to be a little more accurate with AR15/M16/M4 magazine-length cartridges but raises chamber pressures above the 5.56x45 NATO or Wylde chambers.
Yeah, and all the stupid ignorant RU-vid groupie parrot mouth talkers who never touched a real gun in their life like you believe 5.56x45 Blows up all guns with 223 chamberings but when shown reloading data that shows 223 + 5.56x45 is on the same page and the powder charge date exceeds all commercial and military powered charges it throws a Monkey wrench into all of your BS lies 5.56x45 can't be fired in 223 chambered gun. Just yesterday I was shooting 223 reloads I had the powder charges to the level when firing the cartridges, the primers are all flat and the firing pin indent in the primer was pushed back out showing excessive pressure and not once did these cartridges damage the AR 15 I have chambered the barrel using a 223 reamer from Pacific tool & gauge - if commercial or military ammo was loaded to this pressures it would be recalled. I have had when using a new powder never used before got way too much powder charges that when set off the pressure was so great it blew out the base of the cartridge and swelled the brass case to the chamber and still did not blow up the AR 15 making that bull shit lie 5.56x45 blows up 223 chambered even more of a lie. I am an advanced reloader since 1976 and a reloader of wildcat cartridge and builder of custom rifles and AR 10s in wildcat cartridges. I was shooting military surplus 5.56x45 in 223 chambers guns for some 30 years and not once did a Remington 700 Blow up or my own barreled AR 15s in 233 have blown up shooting Military 5.56x45 ammo because it is all Bull shit from dumb asses with little to no firearms experiences.
Lucky Gunner put pressure sensors in a few .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO chambered barrels, and found that 5.56 is perfectly safe in .223 Remington chambers. The chamber dimensions don't matter and the "it runs at higher pressure" comes from the two historically using different measuring methods. Now the military uses a test that's basically identical to SAAMI, and the pressure limits are the same.
Any reloading book dates would tell you this full of crap that 5.56x45 blow up 223 chambered guns is bull crap ! The max powder charges in 223 - 5.6x45 load data exceeds by far all commercial loadings and all Military loadings so where are the damaged and blow-up guns with 223 chambered guns? All of this BS of 5.56x45 blowing 223 chamber guns is propagated by stupid ass and ignorant RU-vid Groupie Parrot mouth Talkers. Another point to make is I own and many other shooters own AR 15s in 17 Remington with Higher pressure than 5.56x45 and 223 without the guns blowing up . All of my reloads have pressure so High the primers are flat when fired and again never blown up a gun yet. RU-vid is filled with liars and bull shitters!
@@immikeurnot The Lucky Gunner article is useful but actually states: " you are not likely to encounter major problems with limited amounts of 5.56 in a .223 rifle fired out of necessity or in an emergency. Doing so at a high volume for the long term is probably not a good idea. " The article also states "5.56 ammunition may be loaded to higher pressures than .223 ammunition" and "Given the same ammunition, 5.56 chambers will have lower pressures than .223 chambers." The 5.56 ammo did indeed produce higher pressures in all 3 rifles, just not enough to bother the author. He even admits that he has had 223 rifles that popped primers with 5.56 ammo. At the bottom of the article, the author even recommends avoiding 223 chambers in AR15's.
Important to know that even the M193 sold on thr civilian market from military production lines (Federal XM193, the various Winchester and IMI SKUs and lots that represent M193 contract overruns, etc.), what generally gets skipped is the waterproofing sealant because it's not necessary for civilian applications (and truly isnt that inportant for genuine military use cases, unless you have extreme mission requirements like diving below 10 meters with the ammo for a long infiltration swim, or storing it in an underwater cache for weeks).
In a country where some people take strong views on guns I am very surprised that there exists misleading sales information. In much of Europe the sellers would be prevented and fined, if they had ever been permitted to handle it in the first place.
@@myparceltape1169 In most of europe one just can not go up to the counter with just your drivers license and after a background check that usually takes no more than 10 minutes to walk out of the store with an AR-15. I doubt that you can order via the internet a 1000 round case of ammo also with no more ID than a credit card to pay for it. Weapons sold in the USA do not require proofing or proof marks either.
I just found a bunch of "RA" marked 5.56 in my stash recently and couldn't figure out who made it. For some reason Remington never came to mind so I was searching lists for foreign head stamps, lol
I bought some old ammo like that off of an OLD man...a widower, in his 90's... who was clearing out his stuff....his kids and grandkids(and great grandkids) had no interest in guns or shooting.....was sad, really. He had nobody to pass along any of his gun/reloading knowledge, of which he had LOTS!! This guy had a large 2 car garage space plus his powder shed out back. He gave me a bunch of stuff just for helping him organize some of it that he had sold, already. I sat and talked with him all day, and I took him to lunch...... He died a couple weeks later, before I could get back there.
I’ve noticed that when reloading Lake City brass the m193 marked brass is usually above 1.270” after resizing, Where as the .223 labeled brass is around 1.245”-1.255” after resizing. Both have crimped primer pockets.
Huh. You'd think the annealing would make the 5.56 stretch less (or is 5.56 brass OAL longer than .223? They're supposed to be the same, right?) .223/5.56 is probably the only round I own/shoot that I've never reloaded, so I don't know the specs off the top of my head like .308, .30-06, .338winmag, .44mag, etc, etc. Oh, and 9mm. Never hand loaded 9mm, though I really need to get dies for .223 and 9mm just in case.
Ooo a man of taste, what's your favourite 44 mag load? I'm going to be trying to run Reloder 7 and/or Vihtavouri N120 in a Marlin 1894 44 mag@@mfallen6894
@@mfallen6894 I have been reloading all my ammo since 1976 and I am a custom rifle builder using wildcat cartridges I have to make from another cartridges. There is so much bull shit lies when it comes to 223 & 5.56x45 ! I was shooting from a Rem 700 in 223 military surplus 5.56x45 for 30 years. I have reloading books where the load dates for 223 & 5.56x45 are on the same page and the top powder charges exceed by far all commercial & Military loadings making it the big lie 5.56x45 blows up 223 chambered guns. Every time I go to shoot here in the forest of the Pacific NW I am picking up brass - yesterday's shoot I picked up Lake city 5.56x45 brass and hordes of other 223 & Lake city brass & unknow where the brass was made, I already loaded some and when sizing and cutting for length there was zero difference in the cases length between 223 & all of the 5.56x45 brass I picked up. At times I try powders I've never used because of reloading supply shortages so I buy what I can get. When reloading some mixed bag of 223 & 5.56x45 brass found at forested shooting location can get too much power then see the pressure was so High the primer is flat, and the firing pin indent is pushed back out and the guns never blow up! RU-vid is full of lying Bull shit !
@@mfallen6894 Annealing is a process by which you soften metal. That makes it more malleable. It will dent and bend more easily, and it's less likely to break. But that means it's going to stretch more.
Sir, Again your work is so eye opening, knowledge beyond what i could even think about it. It is always with great pleasure that i watch and await for your videos. Than you to you, all the people whom support and help you. I want to say a special thank you to everyone out there that support and watch yoir videos as well.
I'm already well aware of the difference, or lack there of with these rounds however, this is hands down the the best explanation I've ever seen! No B.S, not drawn out into a 1hour video, straight to the point. Great video bud 👍
In the C.I.P. standard, unlike SAAMI, no distinction is made between 5.56 Nato and .223 rem. All rifles built according to C.I.P. can safely shoot 5.56 Nato and .223. The chambers and barrels are all made to 5.56 Nato specs. Countries where it is used C.I.P: Germany, Belgium, Chile, Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Austria, Russia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Arab Emirates
The specs on Hornady .223 55gr. FMJ vs. M193 are identical except for the tiny note that says the velocity on the M193 was tested out of a 20” barrel, while the .223 was out of a 24” barrel, even though both are ultimately measured at 3240 FPS.
6:15 Case Head separation has to do more of headspace of the barrel, and/or out of spec bolt. Annealing the case mouth & shoulder softens that area to simply prevent splitting. Annealing isn't done to the head of the case since hardening is ideal to prevent separation. Edit: 8:50 The 55 gr FMJ is more likely to come apart at the exposed base of the bullet when it turns forward. That is why yawing is important.
Brilliant. I think this is a question that a lot of us had and didn't realize it intell you broke it down to a clear and (point of fact) designed for example.
My understanding is that the steel helmets at 500 yards requirement is what they considered to be the most difficult requirement they had for the round's lethality. So by not being stopped by a helmet even at 500 yards, it can present a threat at the ranges they want a rifleman to be able to threaten enemies at.
On one hand I guess they might not have known how useless that requirement is, but then again they probably would have known that helmets aren't amazing at stopping "full" rifle rounds anyway, not because of power just because of size. Like, I'm pretty sure they knew by then a helmet wasn't much good against bullets, you wore it to protect your dome from shrapnel. It also seems kinda silly just in the context that body armour has now become standard issue to every soldier and in a way it was somewhat forward thinking. Though if you wanna criticize the record of 5.56mm against armor, that's more thinking than I'd care to put into that topic at the moment. IIRC 5.56mm hasn't been used much against anyone wearing armor on the level of the US military.
My guess is that it's less about armor penetration, and more about making sure it's still lethal at that range, even if eg the target is wearing heavy winter clothes. The real question is less why they wanted to make sure it could go through light protection at that range, and more why they wanted to try and make it useful at 500 yards at all.
@@amperzand9162 I figure its the same stupid zeitgeist that demanded everything have match-grade 800yd ironsights and no less than 30caliber for our big strong bois. Procurement somewhat divorced from what's actually effective. Then again I recall hearing the Fallout gun rants guy claiming he had to be ordered to use his red dot because he was a crotchety bastard and just wanted to use iron sights so sometimes the office guys know whats up like, red dots good.
I remember that some Mini14s back in the 80s were labeled 223 Remington and that you weren't supposed to use milsurp in them. Now you've cleared up why, thanks!
This isn't true, and it's tiring seeing people repeat it. The one and only Mini-14 you cannot use milsurp 5.56 in is the Target Model introduced in 2007, which has a tighter chamber, thumbhole stock, and harmonic adjustable barrel.
Great vid. I was aware of the velocity and annealing, did not know about the primer/case mouth sealant as most of what is sold as civilian M193 doesn't have it. Or if it does it's a clear sealant instead of the red/green/blue commonly seen in mil-surp ammo.
Is there any books that people can recommend that cover depth firearms and projectile design and the math that is used in such designs? I find this style of indepth firearms design really interesting.
Dude awesome content and info. being that I am a huge fan of 5.56/223, can you do some content on m855 and m855a1, and I think its called the mk262. also what is the heaviest supersonic cartridge that can be used in an AR15, with a 5.56nato or .223wylde chambering???
The penetrate a helmet at 500 yards is probably because that's about the extent of effective firing range for an infantryman without optics or even simple optics. It's also just a simple reference point to compare to.
It's also the real effective distance. It can kill for a long ways out, but the velocity at 500 is at the end of its effectiveness to create the infamous wound channels of the 5.56. I have a 20" barrel and the bullet drop past 500 is when I start aiming at clouds.
Also-standard practice for naval rifles on battleships was to design the gun to be able to penetrate the armor of the ship carrying it. I suspect bureau of ordinance took this concept and applied it to the infantry.
plus after action reports of earlier ww 2 and Korean wars showing survival rates of soldiers by bullets being deflected by the helmet liners inside the helmets. The idea was to have a round that would go all the way through and NOT get turned...Some cases had been photographed and been used as a basis for the standard.
@@panzerdeal8727 Wait, so they saw that soldiers survived more often when a bullet went in one side of the helmet, and bounced of the inside of the backside? And then came up with the go through an M1 helmet requirement off that? I'm a little confused by what you mean, and do you have a source for that?
@@sloppyfloppy79 But that comes from the requirement. The army asked for effectiveness at 500yds and so it is effective at 500yds and no more. If they asked for 300yds, it would be effective at 300yds and no more.
Another good one from Karl. One amendment that was correct early in the video and then the end short list was stated wrong is the Anneal aspect. Visible Anneal is the operative word(s) used early and was paraphrased to just "annealed" at the end. In fact all brass bottle neck brass cases are annealed. Its just polished off in a lot of ammo makers (some no) because it looks pretty. Military is required to show anneal (easy inspection). For those who anneal cases, if it polishes off you are at or below too much heat (good). If it does not polish off (sometimes a few polishing) then its overdone and has been to hot and permanently softened (it will still shoot and not horribly). You never ever want to get the case so hot the head end is heated up, that indeed will mess things up and a ruptured case is a given (that is any you do not anneal a whole case in an oven). An aside is Lapua makes a big deal their cases are annealed when in fact they simply do not polish them. Again all case shoulders/mouths are annealed to spec (more or less 750 deg but duration is important, you can anneal at 500 degree if done long enough but you also risk the case head)
i have pmc bronze 223 and pmc x tac5.56. and can't tell the difference between then when shooting. or looking at them with the exception that the xtac have a red primer sealant.
Only early Remington sporting rifles had the short free bore chambers that caused problems with GI 5.56 ammo, after that all commercial rifles extended free bore in their production rifles so there would be no problem shooting GI 5.56 M193 and it’s long Bullet. Remember seeing Remington ads in gun magazines warning about using GI ammo circa 1979ish
For precision target shooting I buy match grade 223 or 556, for that type of shooting what matters to me is the type of projectile and cost per round. For playing, plinking, or practice I shoot what ever decent brass cased, non-magnetic fmj, foreign or domestic manufactured 223 or 556 I can get the best bulk deal for. For HD/SHTF I keep a case and several mags loaded with Lake City Federal XM193, and my two go-to rifles are zeroed for it. I don't have any rifles chambered specifically for .223 Remington, they're either 5.56x45 NATO or 223Wylde.
Interesting! Do the more recent 62gn loadings have significantly different specs? I imagine the velocity will be a bit lower, but all the construction requirements would be the same?
The “special” round you are referencing was actually called the “.222 Remington Special,” which then became the .223 Remington. It competed directly against the 53 grain .224 Winchester E2 round in the Winchester Lightweight Military Rifle. The rounds were so similar that early ArmaLite AR-15s were actually tested with the .224 ammo to level the playing field in 1958 Infantry Board Testing at Fort Benning. There was also a SCHV round that goes by a few names, “.22 Experimental,” and “.224 Springfield” that I believe ultimately became the “.222 Remington Magnum.” It was made for the Springfield Armory SCHV submission.
I thought a case head separation separates towards the case head, or bottom half of the case. How could annealing at the neck prevent a case head separation?
Brownell's did a run of both over the last 6-8 years, but I don't think a lot of people bought them. The 15 was during the quad-rail and "DI sucks, piston is the way to go" days (I believe) and the AR-10 was just a few years ago. The latter was fairly priced and it was during the explosion of the LR308/AR10 popularity, so I really don't know why it didn't catch on. I learned of its existence after they announced they were d/c'ing it, and was always late to the party when they'd put new one's up.
IIRC, some NATO 5.56 from European manufacturers is not loaded to the US Military spec velocity. It's been so long since I looked at it, I don't remember which they were. We're way past the 'salad' days of cheap surplus 5.56 & 7.62 ammo.
The thing that always gets me in the specs the overall length is the same between 223 and 556 my personal thought was they gave a little more length for NATO so other countries that may not make the length shorter or longer it would still meet NATO spec,but I don't know in the 80's don't remember 5.56 ammo just alot of 223 Thanks for all of your insights happy Thanksgiving
Karl is educating us one more time on the joy of the smoll calibers compared to the good old 30-06s and so on. I would bow my head to you, but the no overlords rule prevents that, so i'll tip my hat in a sign of respect.
In my old Hodgdon load manual there are specs and load data for 222 Remington Magnum. The case size and OAL is larger but load data and pressure is less. Maybe a predecessor? Also I was told mil spec brass has less volume due to thicker case walls. Those crimped in primers are good for staying in. A pain to reload. You gonna pick up that brass?
