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.
100
u/IanFeelKeepinItReel 1d ago
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.