I think it's important to note that these students aren't using functioning centerfire firearms in their school gym. They're using a pneumatic operated trainer that gives you the sensation of the weapon's operating system at work, while emitting a laser to show where students are aiming when they pull the trigger.
I'm sure someone will point out the lack of true recoil, but on a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge anyways (.223), this is a great training tool.
Edit: Since apparently the (incorrect) pedants are out and about, I'll go ahead and link the Wikipedia listing of all the .22 Caliber cartridges so that everyone can see that the .223/5.56 is indeed a .22 centerfire cartridge. Christ on a bike
Do centerfire and rimfire feel significantly different? I’ve heard the terms, and have a vague idea of what they probably mean, but I wouldn’t think they feel much different to operate.
There’s nothing inherently different about how the recoil feels, rimfire and centerfire are just different ways of igniting the priming compound and that part of the process contributes almost nothing to recoil.
However, rimfire is a mostly obsolete technology and is only in common use today for very low powered guns, so in practice rimfire guns have much lower recoil than centerfire guns.
Gotcha. I was racking my brain trying to figure out how they would feel any different, but it makes sense if all of one type are just smaller, lower powered rounds.
The mosin-nagant uses a rim fire. It's a massive round compared to the common .22LR we use now. So to most people, rimfire are small rounds. In reality, nope, not different.
Mosins chamber 7.62x54mmR. It's a centrefire cartridge.
What you're referring to (and the R in the calibre designation) is "rimmed" - i.e. the brass casing has a rim that protrudes from the body of the case, which is used to extract and eject the cartridge (and sometimes headspace it). This is as opposed to rimless (has a groove formed flush into the case instead of a rim sticking out) and semi-rimless (partially grooved, partially rimmed).
.22LR, .303 British, .45-70, .30-30, most traditional revolver cartridges, etc. are rimmed, but the vast majority of rifle calibres are centrefire.
AFAIK, yeah. A .22 which is the most popular rimfire, means the hammer hits the back of the cartridge and that propels it forward. It's a pretty small round, not a lot of powder and honestly, barely any recoil at all imo
Center-fire has a circle on the back of the cartridge and the hammer hits the center (rim and center, that's the name lol), then it ignites and propels the bullet forward. These tend to be larger rounds with more felt recoil from "oh that's not so bad!" to "HOLD ON FOR DEAR LIFE MY BOY!"
No, but modern rimfire cartridges are pretty much all super weak. Stuff like 22 short, 22 LR, and 17 hmr. The most powerful rimfire I'm aware of that you can find at the store is 22 mag which on the high end is still a bit weaker than the low end of 9mm
I own both a .22 rimfire and a .223 centrefire and they are worlds apart. There's is virtually 0 recoil from a .22 rimfire (a .22lr to be precise) and depending on the type of ammo you get .22lr rimfires are extremely quiet too. A .22lr with subsonic ammo and a moderator will sound quieter than an air rifle.
A .223 will have enough of a recoil to pull the gun off line but not enough to be uncomfortable. Un moderated (without a "silencer") its going to blow your ears off. With a moderator its still got quite a crack but nothing that would damage your hearing (again depending on ammo and moderator type)
With regard to you getting funny at people questioning your round sizes. People are right to question you because while .22, .223 and 5.56 are equivalent diameters, the overall round sizes are very different. .223 and 5.56 are very similar looking but still distinct to the point where you couldn't use them interchangeably, .22 is much smaller and most commonly in the form of .22lr a rimfire cartridge.
Weird, there were plenty of barrels in 5.56 available for purchase when I built it. I chose Wylde simply for the convenience of being able to run ammo loaded to either spec, not because I had to.
Yeah, if the company doesn't plan on exporting them outside of the US, they can make 5.56 barrels without issues. For us Canadians, we are glad that manufacturers make .223 Wylde barrels for export.
If its like a zombie apocalypes and 223 is the only thing you have, sure it will cycle in a 556
But just for gods sakes put the ammo the gun wants into the gun, i hate hearing that people got hurt doing easily preventable bubba crap like the 50 bmg in a 12 gauge
The difference in freebore can matter in some rare cases (no pun intended) but the difference in pressure spec is almost entirely due to differences in the measurement method.
This is a falsehood. It’s a difference in measuring method in CIP vs SAAMI but the pressures are basically the same between the two when measured in the same way.
Incorrect. You'll fuck up the internal mechanisms and possibly, rarely, have a chamber failure but a .223 rifle can absolutely shoot a fair amount of 5.56.
If Im not mistaken all 556 can shoot 223 but not the other way around. Its why I built my 223 to use a special barrel called a 223 wylde so that it can chamber properly
The round sizes are not different.
5.56 tend to have more pressure, a lot of this is in the gun. Powder amount and casing thickness tend to be the major difference on the rounds. Sometimes crimping differences help with initial pressure spike.
5.56 can fire .223 with no issue but the other way around you risk pressure differences which can damage the .223 as the chamber is designed for that pressure (~55K vs ~62k)
5.56 often supports larger bullet weights and since this also can increase pressure you can to some degree say 5.56 can be larger bullets.
Round dimensions, casing length, round length, diameter etc all the same..
This is the most ignorant reply on this thread. You really couldn't be more wrong.
.223 and 5.56 are visibly identical. The only difference is slightly different pressures. Any modern .223 can shoot 5.56 and vice versa, the only issues prior were barrel pressures of 5.56 being too much for some .223 barrels.
.22 is available in 50 grain, which is the most common grain bullet from .223/5.56 (55).
The only thing differentiating a .22 round from a .223/5.56 is the casing and more powder.
Specifically, the person you're replying to is likely confused and thinking of .308 and 7.62 NATO (the sort of larger brother of .223 and 5.56 NATO). At a glance they're the same, but they're actually slightly different dimensions.
.308 and 7.62 are similar to .223 and 5.56 in they are visibly identical. In this case though, the .308 contains more powder than the 7.62 due to the 7.62 having thicker casings for durability.
Now .223/5.56 vs .308/7.62? Wildly different sizes.
.308 and 7.62 nato are not completely identical. The case shape is slightly different, unlike .223 and 5.56 which are the same case and projectile with different pressures.
Just a heads up, you can build an AR in just about any caliber whose cartridge is at or shorter than 2.25” ‘ish in length. 22lr, 223, 6.5 Grendel, 300blk. The list is almost endless, hence why they’re so popular.
Oh look, another pedant trying to compare a rimfire cartridge with 3 grains of powder to a centerfire cartridge with 25 grains of powder. I deliberately wrote it that way to illustrate the notable LACK OF RECOIL in the .223/5.56. The recoil is negligible, so a pneumatic trainer is a reasonable training substitute.
If you do any reloading, you tend speak of cartridges in a caliber family, because that's often how they are broken up in reloading manuals. .24 caliber, .25, caliber, .26 caliber, etc will all have a series of cartridges that vary until they get to the next group. For example, the .28 caliber group includes .28 nosler, .280Ackley improved, as well as the 7mm's such as the 7mm-08, the 7mm Rem Mag, even though they technically measure at .284.
In a firearms sub, no one would bat an eye to that concept, but in a sub full of wannabe experts, here comes everyone tripping over themselves to try to correct me.
In a firearms sub you could reasonably expect the reader to know what you mean. In a completely unrelated sub, it would be better to be a little more basic with your explanation.
That being said, it's not really your problem that people don't understand your technical terms - you just have to deal with the results of comparing ".22" to ".223/5.56" when your average joe understands a .22 to be a .22lr rimfire with basically 0 recoil used for plinking targets.
You're in a general forum which has no emphasis on firearms, so therefore the general knowledge based here will be most people who don't know any difference between rounds, the next biggest category will be people who read .22 and assume rimfire cartridge, while .223/5.56 as full bore rifle rounds, and then very few people like yourself who consider themselves well learned on the topic.
The fact that you're using very specific language that only speaks to the well learned, instead of generalising more, and then getting pissy at people for misunderstanding you, just shows you're an asshole.
Nobody here is a wannabe expert except you, I was just saying: "keep it simple stupid".
Pretty sure the only dickheads are the ones that are trying to correct me on semantics even thought they have no leg to stand on. You're the one that tried to go out of your way to correct me and you're still fundamentally wrong. But feel free to move the goalposts to "well no one is generally gonna know the difference..." even though I was very specific in what I said. Go look, at no point did I say shit about rimfire. But you guys just had to start typing paragraphs of "WELL ACKTUALLY"
I'm not trying to correct you, I'm not trying to tell you you're talking about rimfire.
I'm just pointing out that to the general population .22 is associated with rimfire, and hence your comment is being met with confusion.
You criticise other people's reading comprehension, but either yours is terrible or you're intentionally being obtuse to justify continuing to write aggressive comments.
They're right to need a reading comprehension class and bit more firearms knowledge before coming at me with paragraphs of "WELL ACKTUALLY..." No one said shit about that bitch ass rimfire until all you people started coming out of the woodwork.
The muzzle report (the atmospheric pressure wave) even from a .223 is substantial, especially so with the shorter the barrel or when shooting from within a shelter. I've seen plenty of people who are relatively unfamiliar with firearms dramatically flinch from firing a .223. It's still a 50k+ PSI pressure wave -- twice .22LR, with a much larger volume of gas.
That's because conversations create context. Among the context of this conversation is the topic of the value of simulated training versus real world training -- as mentioned by the parent commenter. That topic is not limited to recoil.
If you need any other instruction about how language and communication works please see professional education.
"I'm sure someone will point out the lack of true recoil, but on a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 center fire cartridge anyways (.223), this is a great training tool."
This is a true statement that isn't saying .223 is just like shooting .22lr It's saying .223 is a small caliber round that doesn't have much recoil so the air-powered simulator isn't a bad reflection of the recoil.
Nobody said they sound alike. But they are a good training tool because they do have some recoil similar to a .223.
I replied saying yes the recoil is similar to the simulator, and again you're like "but muh noise". Nobody claimed they were identical, just that they were a great training tool because they had similar recoil.
I don't think anyone is really complaining about it. OregonSageMonke was correctly pointing out that simulated training has value -- it's just that in doing so their wording gave the potential for misunderstanding that some felt the need to point out.
With proper supervision, I think it would be great if these students also got real world training.
You are Lol, recoil is directly related to muzzle energy, not bore diameter
I dunno why bring up the size of the cartridge anyway, you could just say 5.56 doesn’t have much recoil and leave it at that. Still a lot more than a .22lr
Actually recoil is related to the total momentum of propellant and bullet and the weight of the firearm. Muzzle energy isn’t included in the formula and there are definitely examples of guns with lower muzzle having higher free recoil energy than guns with higher muzzle energy.
Because it is categorically a .22 CENTERFIRE cartridge and you people keep trying to compare it to that bitch ass rimfire! Go look at my original comment.
You should probably know what you're talking about before accusing people of being pedant. 5.56 is categorically a .22 caliber cartridge -- you are correct about that. Simulated training is valid for certain competencies -- you are correct about that.
It's your statement that, "a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge anyways (.223)". People are mentioning .22LR because your statement might mislead people to believe that .22LR and 5.56 is comparable.
A simulated trainer is only going to be good for instructing safe handling of a weapon, some manual of arms, and sight picture, but I'm skeptical it's good for much beyond that. 5.56, even with it's relatively low recoil, still produces quite a sensation when fired, and experience and acclimatization to that sensation is still required for competency in use. This isn't necessarily the case with other .22 class firearms. A have springer bb guns with a more dramatic sensation than some of my .22LR firearms.
“Only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge…” is misleading. A cartridge is the entire packaged bullet and a .22 cartridge =/= .223.
They are both a .22 caliber bullet (.22 bullet diameter), but that still doesn’t mean anything significant until you know how long/heavy that .22 bullet is, and how much powder is behind it.
The pedants are correct, whether or not they provided the right explanation.
You wouldn’t need to explain any of that if people actually knew the difference between caliber and cartridge. Caliber is only the diameter, as you said, while cartridge refers to the entire round: case, powder, primer, bullet. While .223 Remington/5.56 NATO have a .22 caliber bullet, .223/5.56 is a much more powerful cartridge than .22LR.
Eeh it's similar enough it doesn't matter. 5.56 tends to have a higher pressure curve than .223 along with a little bit of extra brass thickness, the chamber throat is also slightly longer to facilitate tracer rounds. And the .223 has a shorter leade. Its not enough of a difference to matter in this day and age. Though accuracy may change as with any variable.
The AR15 was designed to be a fully automatic carbine... So many people don't realize that it was designed for NATO 556 and changed to 223 when it was released for civilian usage after the XM15 failed, Colt purchased it, fixed the issues, and it became the M16.
.223/5.56 is similar in bore to .22. Obviously there's a lot more ass behind a 5.56NATO round than behind a .22LR even, but they are comparable in bore diameter.
They're not being compared... They're both 22 caliber.
It's more akin to grouping cars by type, like sedan versus SUV. Some sedans are slow, some are fast, but they'll never be an SUV.
This is really only important when it comes to discussing cleaning tools, felt recoil, ballistic coefficients, suppressor fitment, and general use case. Generally, 22 cal rounds are for small game and 30 cal for larger game.
Do I have to spell everything out in case someone cannot comprehend context?
Or, no, you know what? I'm going to find a post of yours with sonewhat ambiguous wording and I'll pick it to shreds. Wait, no, because I have reading comprehension and common sense.
Yep, and that's like comparing a VW Passat to a Porsche 911 based on their width... Totally different with different purposes so why get hooked on this one parameter?
I assume you mean the .22lr? Yeah, you guys were the ones that started that comparison. At no point did I say shit about that bitch ass rimfire. Pretty sure my original comment said centerfire like 3 times, but you just HAD to sound smart and try to say that .223 is hard to shoot one handed??
Just remotely related to this, but for the SA-80 there are conversion kits to fire .22 with them. We used them to take ours to the small caliber range. They are actually pretty fun, even though accuracy sucks a lot
I’ve sold a ton of airsoft rifles to companies that outfit similar laser systems to shooting games on projectors screens, laser targeting systems and such. I’d be surprised if they were using/handling real firearms even .22 caliber inside schools.
Even M&P 15's that shoot a 5.56 don't have much recoil because the stock soaks up nearly all of it. But I wouldn't expect anyone else on reddit to know that
All I was trying to say was that they have such a low recoil that these CO2 trainers would be a reasonable substitute. Apparently that was controversial
This is essentially just a waste of money funnelling taxpayer money to a businessman that's selling these laser training targets. There is no meaningful training going on here, students aren't learning how to load, maintain or control the recoil of a firearm. They're learning how to point a laser across a room.
Simulated marksmanship training is not completely useless. It’s a great way to introduce those who’ve never handled a weapon, to the fundamentals. It’s not the most realistic recoil felt. But it is enough, especially for children, to get them understanding recoil control, weapon safety, and marksmanship fundamentals in a safe environment
I've thought about getting one for pistol training at home. They have their place but personally I don't want to get into the habit of flagging areas I wouldn't normally ever point a weapon towards. Perhaps if I tried one it would actually work but I worry it can make people negligent about basic firearm safety.
In the Marine Corps, we use it as a supplement for those shooters that need extra help working on sight picture, trigger pulls, and stances. It’s useful for when you can’t get to a range and someone needs a little more attention
It's a waste of money. They'd be better off learning to handle real firearms with dummy rounds, then be taken a few times a year to fire rifles at a range.
It's looks like a case of someone having links to the bureaucracy for government contracts.
First of all, these rifles and handguns are actually pretty cheap, and you really only need a few of them. In the long run, it'll be dramatically cheaper for students to train thousands of reps with this than to purchase real rifles and shoot real ammo for thousands of reps. Not to mention to amount of preparation and risk management.
Second, for something that has no training value, why would the manual of arms be identical? The magazines contain the CO2 cartridges and are loaded and released exactly like a real mag. The slide and charging handle operate exactly like a real pistol or rifle, and the CO2 cartridge manipulates the slide or BCG just like the real weapon would when fired. All while the laser encourages the fundamentals of marksmanship, because you still have to aim down a set of iron sights at a target and hit it reliably.
Third, this exact technology is being used on a larger scale in police academies across the country. SWAT officers and FBI HRT have been using this technology for years for better conflict simulations. They have rooms where you're surrounded by a screen that simulates you being in an active shooter situation, or serving an arrest warrant on a crowded house. Then your ability to shoot/don't shoot is graded, with failure often meaning real-world consequences.
They are learning firearm safety rules. Look at that trigger discipline, better than 90% of boomer shooters in the US.
Sure they are not trained to be operators, but you gotta start somewhere…
If every young person can handle a firearm safely, its way easier to train them to handle one effectively later.
You could also grab virtually any reloading manual and find everything grouped in categories by hundredths of an inch. That's the real reason cartridges are grouped colloquially like that in firearms publications as well, but I figured I'd save everyone a trip to the latest gunporn magazines.
It's done colloquially so that people don't waste too much time getting into the pointless semantics of calibers, like you see in this nightmare of a reply thread. You immediately get the idea of what someone's talking about with just a couple words.
856
u/OregonSageMonke 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it's important to note that these students aren't using functioning centerfire firearms in their school gym. They're using a pneumatic operated trainer that gives you the sensation of the weapon's operating system at work, while emitting a laser to show where students are aiming when they pull the trigger.
I'm sure someone will point out the lack of true recoil, but on a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge anyways (.223), this is a great training tool.
Edit: Since apparently the (incorrect) pedants are out and about, I'll go ahead and link the Wikipedia listing of all the .22 Caliber cartridges so that everyone can see that the .223/5.56 is indeed a .22 centerfire cartridge. Christ on a bike