5.56 / .223 brass difference?

[earl39]

Ed you are good at picking and choosing to fit your point of view but why didn't you show this little graph from the article you referenced.

http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx8/earl1958/avg-chamber-pressure1.png

if the image worked it shows a 5.56 chamber with higher pressure than the 223 chamber. Yes i have read the article before and just for good measure i read it again so maybe you should reread it.

If you read it really close the arthor says that only under extream conditions of bare minimun chamber dimensions would a dangerous situation arise. He also states thta this condition can arise in both the 223 chamber and 5.56. As to your freebore comment you should look at the reamer prints also listed in your referenced article. One of the 5.56 reameres show a freebore of 0.025. As stated in your choice of material not all chambers are the same. And as for your tire gauge only showing psi i am glad you have one that old that the kids have not found a way to break or lose. Mine shows psi and kpa (i think it is kpa at least as i am not looking at it).

[bigedp51]

If you want honest chronological info about the cartridges history, AND the weapons it fires in; try this:
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
Here are some of the highlights from this source, in rebuttal to your claims.

1 - Maybe, however the headspace is NOT longer; the leade is longer. The original chamber had the exact same throat, read about the meeting with Remington below. It also had a 14 twist, then 12 twist, and then.... you get the idea.
In fact American Rifleman wrote an article on the AR15 in May 1962, proposing that they changed from the 14 TO the 12 twist. They had a brief over-winter test that showed poor bullet stability. During congressional hearing during that month, the USAF was asked to rebuke that magazine article. McNamera signed off on the change to a 12-twist in July '63.

2 & 3 - The "testing phase" was was so long, which powder do you mean? April 63 they were using IMR-4475.
Secretary Vance submitted a memo to McNamera, titled "Standardization and Procurement of the AR-15 Rifle" in which was specifically stated that ammo should be procured competitively from commercial sources.
Sept. '63 - Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball, M193 was officially type-classified. It spec'd a Rem designed bullet @ 3250 fps with IMR-4475 to 52,000 psi. Ohlin complained about that powder and some case specs. Rem also about the case, and wanted to bump the pressure limit by 1K. Federal wanted an extra 1K psi above Rem.
Dec. 63 The USAF gets lots of ammo with WC846, which is your claim. 846's usage had nothing to do with fill volume. It had to do with it being already available, and meeting the spec, period. Unfortunately in Frankford's 8th memo, the one outlining the "fouling issues" came from commercial lots of IMR-4475...OOppps. The primers ultimately came into question for containing Antimony Sulfide, and Calcium cillicide.
Jan. '64 - the big 3(Ohlin, Rem, Federal) met with the army to talk powder and pressures. Rem claimed the army mis-read the original print, so the chamber was THEN changed. There is also a pressure waiver for M193 ammo. THAT is where the individual cartridge pressure of 60,000psi came from; NOT the average operating pressure. Under that waiver a million rounds were authorized. Testing was ALSO done with: CR-8136, HPC-10.
April 64' Both CR-8136 & WC-846 are authorized for use. In 65 so was EX-8208-4, and later 8208M.
Sept. 64 - Frankford did a study on the case specs. That was completed in October. No metalurgical controls or changes were deemed needed.

4 - That nifty glued strain gauge is a very well established, and accurate system. If you read the article referenced, the author consulted ammo manufacturers about his method; and was told it was sound.

5 - Probably so does your thermometer, neither of which is concerning the issue, nor helpful to it.

I'm glad your book was entertaining to you, but it doesn't seem to be the complete history of the cartridge and weapon systems.

I should go watch the Democratic Convention it would be far more entertaining but........................

1. The base diameter of the 5.56x45 chamber is .002 bigger than the .223

2. The Base-to-Shoulder length is .004 longer on the 5.56 than the .223

3. Therefore the 5.56x45 military chamber is fatter and longer and you don't know what your talking about in your number 1

4. Who cares what the NRA has to say about the M16.

5. The winter test and other test were delaying actions by the Army because they didn't want the M16 rifle and wanted to keep the M14 and the Springfield Armory open for M14 production. In testimony before Congress Remington stated they were told by the Army to make defective 5.56 ammunition to delay and hold up Colt M16 production and a contract award.

6. Remington could not produce IMR-4475 in the quanities needed and still keep the strict pressure and velosity standards set by the Army. If the velocity requirements had been dropped 50 fps the Remington powder would have passed the production requirements. Because of this the Army used the same reclaimed ball powder used in the M14 rifle and ball powder has a higher loading density.

7. In September 1966 the Frankfort arsenal did a requirement study on case hardness controls and gave the ammunition manufactures six months to adjust their production lines. This came about because of case extraction difficulties in Viet Nam. (you are cherry picking and editing your answers to make yourself look good and are not telling the whole truth)

8. That "nifty glued strain gauge" was calibrated with a factory loaded cartridges, of which NONE of the ammunition manufactures would give him their chamber pressure readings. Quote: "Of the manufacturers that responded, none informed me that my maximum pressure results were inaccurate (although they were understandably reluctant to disclose their proprietary data)." Again you are being misleading and trying to fool the readers of this posting for your own gain by misquoting what was actually said.

9. I said nothing about a thermometer, I said my TIRE PRESSURE gauge was calibrated in psi and not cup or some silly metric standard.

10. And my books are the complete two volume set on the history of the M16 rifle and not misleading quotes from a webpage called "the gunzone" and a subsidiary of WIKI. And your postings were far less educational and entertaining than watching the Democratic Convention. When do you think you will drop all your red white and blue balloons and supply more misquotes and misinformation?
Have a real nice day

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/wylde223.jpg

[bigedp51]

Ed you are good at picking and choosing to fit your point of view but why didn't you show this little graph from the article you referenced.

http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx8/earl1958/avg-chamber-pressure1.png

if the image worked it shows a 5.56 chamber with higher pressure than the 223 chamber. Yes i have read the article before and just for good measure i read it again so maybe you should reread it.

If you read it really close the arthor says that only under extream conditions of bare minimun chamber dimensions would a dangerous situation arise. He also states thta this condition can arise in both the 223 chamber and 5.56. As to your freebore comment you should look at the reamer prints also listed in your referenced article. One of the 5.56 reameres show a freebore of 0.025. As stated in your choice of material not all chambers are the same. And as for your tire gauge only showing psi i am glad you have one that old that the kids have not found a way to break or lose. Mine shows psi and kpa (i think it is kpa at least as i am not looking at it).

What the flip does this have to do with .223/5.56 cartridge cases and brass quality, you were the one asking about chamber pressures and having a hard time understanding the different pressure measuring equipment. Are you flipping dense or just like to argue.

The .223 is rated at 52,000 cup or 55,000 psi and the chart shows the pressure is OVER the rated chamber pressure for the .223 exceeding it at 62,000 psi. WHY ARE YOU EVEN POSTING when you are so far out in left field it no longer matters what you ask or post.

Get a grip and TRY to understand what is being said.

[MZ5]

NATO EPVAT testing is the exact same testing method that the European CIP uses and are one in the same and both pressures are measured at the case mouth.

No, it is not the same, though this fallacy is WIDELY reported. CIP has NEVER measured pressure at the case mouth, excepting for rimfires. See the information from Hartmut Broemel at this location (http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2641524/Re_CUP_vs_PSI_in_5_56_NATO#Post2641524)


When asked about pressures in a earlier posting I listed SAAMI 52,000 cup, SAAMI tranducer 55,000 psi and European CIP (NATO EPVAT) 62,000 psi. These three pressures are the exact same pressure measured by different means and standards.

No, they are not. The different equipment and different methods will yield different pressure numbers for the exact same shot.


That nifty pressure differential you referred to was taken with a strain gauge glued to the barrel and used a commercial cartridge as a pressure reference calibration point.

What the hell are you talking about? See above.

[MZ5]

1. The base diameter of the 5.56x45 chamber is .002 bigger than the .223

2. The Base-to-Shoulder length is .004 longer on the 5.56 than the .223

3. Therefore the 5.56x45 military chamber is fatter and longer and you don't know what your talking about in your number 1

Uh... what? Where are you getting this from? I'm looking at all 3 case (SAAMI's 223 Rem, CIP's 223 Rem, and NATO's 5.56x45mm) drawings and these dimensions are identical. Same body diameter at both the 'base' (web immediately forward of the extractor groove) and the shoulder, same head-to-shoulder length, and same case head diameter. There is the allowance for a 0.001" diameter difference across the diameter of the tapered end/face of the rim, which has nothing to do with either the size, capacity, nor taper of the case.

Now, if you're using that reamer dimension diagram to try to extrapolate brass/cartridge dimensions, then I can see where you might make incorrect assumptions. However, to reiterate for clarity: Cartridge dimensions are identical.

[bigedp51]

Uh... what? Where are you getting this from? I'm looking at all 3 case (SAAMI's 223 Rem, CIP's 223 Rem, and NATO's 5.56x45mm) drawings and these dimensions are identical. Same body diameter at both the 'base' (web immediately forward of the extractor groove) and the shoulder, same head-to-shoulder length, and same case head diameter. There is the allowance for a 0.001" diameter difference across the diameter of the tapered end/face of the rim, which has nothing to do with either the size, capacity, nor taper of the case.

Now, if you're using that reamer dimension diagram to try to extrapolate brass/cartridge dimensions, then I can see where you might make incorrect assumptions. However, to reiterate for clarity: Cartridge dimensions are identical.

This $hit is getting old, the chamber was enlarged and chrome plated to prevent jamming starting in 1967.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/223-556reamerjpg.jpg

[bigedp51]

No, it is not the same, though this fallacy is WIDELY reported. CIP has NEVER measured pressure at the case mouth, excepting for rimfires. See the information from Hartmut Brummel at this location (http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2641524/Re_CUP_vs_PSI_in_5_56_NATO#Post2641524)

No, they are not. The different equipment and different methods will yield different pressure numbers for the exact same shot.

What the hell are you talking about? See above.

From your same link a poster wrote the following, and a link to a forum posting is NOT proven data.

"Quote:
CIP has NEVER measured any pressure at case mouth

VihtaVuori believes otherwise.

Since I also consider H. Broemel to be expert in this area, I am unable to resolve which is correct."

NATO EPVAT testing
Pressure recorded in NATO design EPVAT Barrel with Kistler 6215 Transducer or by equipment to Commission Internationale Permanente pour l’épreuve des Armes á Feu Portatives (C.I.P.) requirements.

And I'm not going over the pressure equivalents between cup, psi and CIP again because you don't understand them.

And what the hell are YOU talking about, post some established written facts or stay home. And WHAT does this have to do with the military using higher quality brass when making 5.56x45 NATO cartridge cases?????

[MZ5]

Right, the next posted identified a discrepancy, and declared that he was uncertain what to think. Then Hartmut (why is VASTLY experienced with NATO & CIP's pressure testing) explained VihtaVuori's article's mistake right after that.

To repeat: _NATO's_ standard measures pressure at the case mouth, even if they will accept a different transducer equipment as a fall-back. CIP and SAAMI measure along the case body. Pressure at the case mouth is different than mid-body. In fact, there is a pressure gradient from the breech to the bullet base the entire time the projectile is in the barrel.

As far as pressure 'equivalents,' there's a nice paper discussing the correlation between the max pressure standards that SAAMI has set here (http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf). Note that the paper is not from firing tests, rather it is simply a statistical examination of the numbers SAAMI has chosen. One must rely upon SAAMI to have done the back-to-back firings which caused them to set the numbers where they did. There is a correlation between the two, of course, but it's not so simple as 'PSI = CUP times x' (though that'll get you in the general ballpark, with a decent level of confidence). There's a nice chart in there that shows clear examples of how it is NOT a simple mathematical model in the case of SAAMI, and that's to be expected since the two methods aren't measuring the same thing, copper crushers do not account for time, and copper crushers are not exactly highly repeatable. CIP's method _does_ appear to have been a case of assigning a mathematical relationship and then arbitrarily setting the psi standard, vs. comparison firings of all cartridges, but I'm not absolutely certain. CIP's tighter correlation may be partly due to the fact that their transducers penetrate the case, just as the copper crushers do, whereas SAAMI's do not.

There was a nice comparison test of SAAMI vs. CIP methods & tools, using 9mm Luger ammo, done by one of the major pressure labs (Lapua's, I think?), wherein they ran pressure tests SAAMI's way & then CIP's way on the same ammo lot. The average pressure numbers are a bit different, despite the fact that the ammo was identical. This is to be expected since SAAMI uses a conformal transducer (meaning it matches the shape of the chamber) that does not penetrate the case, whereas CIP uses a different type of transducer which does not conform to chamber shape, and which does penetrate the cartridge (a hole is drilled into the cartridge, not just the chamber, for CIP testing).

So, if you would like to stick with the assertion that NATO-spec ammo's brass composition is different and better, it'd probably be simpler if you stuck to that. The O.P. asked:

Is there any reason why I can't load the 5.56 brass to .223 specs and use it in my #10PH with it's .223 chamber??
The answer is a very simple "no." I know you meant to reinforce that the answer is "no," but for the sake of clarity you might want to consider actually saying it next time. Once a couple of you got to arguing, and you got to posting the same old erroneous stuff about CIP vs SAAMI vs NATO pressures and pressure measurements, we started down the path that got us to where we are now. Hopefully everyone is _somewhat_ better informed now as to the different ways in which SAAMI, CIP, and NATO measure pressure with piezo transducers, and also the fact that the three methods will yield somewhat different numbers for the same shot.

[bigedp51]

I'm going to try again, apparently my two dyslexic fingers are not getting the point across. If I load a fictitious box of .223 ammunition and go to the H.P. White testing laboratory and have my box of ammo tested here are the results

SAAMI .223 pressure readings using the copper crusher, 52,000 cup

SAAMI .223 pressure readings using the transducer method, 55,000 psi

Then if I jump on a jet to the U.K. and have my box of ammo tested using the European CIP method.
CIP transducer method will be 62,000 psi

My ammunition is all the same pressure "BUT" these three methods produced three different pressure readings.

SAAMI 52,000 cup = SAAMI 55,000 psi = 62,000 psi European CIP

As you can see below its perfectly safe to put 32 psi in your tires but if you put 220 MPa in your tires they will blow up and kill everyone in a 300 yard radius. "OR" 52,000 cup = 55,000 psi take your pick.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/saamicip.jpg

Now take your finger below and read the .223 Remington line and read the four different pressure "method" readings for the SAME EXACT PRESSURE.

Cartridge Pressure Standards

http://kwk.us/pressures.html

Quote, "you got to posting the same old erroneous stuff about CIP vs SAAMI vs NATO pressures and pressure measurements"

Dear MZ5, how do you like your Crow served, hot or cold?

[Jamie]

Wow, this turned into a mess.

Texa Solo - Like I said earlier, watch out for crimped primer pockects and you will be ok.

[darkker]

Dear MZ5, how do you like your Crow served, hot or cold?

Wow... Nice personal attack.
That really speaks volumes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

All I have to contribute is that chili most definitely does not contain beans.

[bigedp51]

Wow... Nice personal attack.
That really speaks volumes.

Personal attacks can be worded many ways.



I'm glad your book was entertaining to you, but it doesn't seem to be the complete history of the cartridge and weapon systems.



There is no difference in brass

My two volume set contains the complete history of the M16 rifle with a chapter on the case hardness problem and what was done about it, and YOU decided to be insulting. ALL 5.56 military brass MUST be made of a higher quality of brass by mil-spec standards and you stated "There is no difference in brass". And then you said my book "didn't seem to be the complete history of the cartridge and weapon system.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/casehardness2.jpg

5.56x45 cartridge brass MUST meet mil-spec standards and is a higher quality standard than commercial cartridge case brass.

Your crow will be served cold darkker and will be covered in a bitter sauce.
Bon Appetit and enjoy

[M.O.A.]

cant we all just get along here ;-}

[bigedp51]

cant we all just get along here ;-}

The author Louis L'Amour who wrote "How The West Was Won", "Hondo" and the "Sackett" series once said that the old West was a very polite place. And if you insulted someone, hands were slapping leather.

The biggest problem most forums have are midgets setting at their computers pretending to be giants. When you quote printed material and are told that you are wrong by these midgets, then hands start slapping the keyboard.

The winner is the one with the best factual printed material.

"All the information in the world is printed in books and all you have to do is read".
Attila the Hun

[Jamie]

The author Louis L'Amour who wrote "How The West Was Won", "Hondo" and the "Sackett" series once said that the old West was a very polite place. And if you insulted someone, hands were slapping leather.

The biggest problem most forums have are midgets setting at their computers pretending to be giants. When you quote printed material and are told that you are wrong by these midgets, then hands start slapping the keyboard.

The winner is the one with the best factual printed material.

"All the information in the world is printed in books and all you have to do is read".
Attila the Hun

Problem is, none of this has anything to do with the what the OP asked. All he wanted to know was if he could use it. Yes, he can, plain and simple.

This is not directed solely at you, it is for all involved in creating this mess.

[thomae]

:argue: :deadhorse: :frusty:

[MZ5]

Quote, "you got to posting the same old erroneous stuff about CIP vs SAAMI vs NATO pressures and pressure measurements"

Dear MZ5, how do you like your Crow served, hot or cold?

LOL! You'll have to come up with some first, since what you're proposing doesn't work out that way, but thanks for playing!

[wbm]

Problem is, none of this has anything to do with the what the OP asked. All he wanted to know was if he could use it. Yes, he can, plain and simple.

+1

Saw another chart similar to the one posted on page one where lots of 223 brass were weighed and compared. Interestingly enough the brass with the smallest SD was the Winchester. Not to suggest that it is better than the Lapua but interesting nevertheless.

[M.O.A.]

i read some where that the win. brass was just as good as the lapua brass if not better. but thats just hear say .

but i have had no problems with ith yet