This $hit is getting old, the chamber was enlarged and chrome plated to prevent jamming starting in 1967.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...6reamerjpg.jpg
Printable View
This $hit is getting old, the chamber was enlarged and chrome plated to prevent jamming starting in 1967.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...6reamerjpg.jpg
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?????
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. 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:
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.Quote:
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??
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/o...1/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?
Wow, this turned into a mess.
Texa Solo - Like I said earlier, watch out for crimped primer pockects and you will be ok.
All I have to contribute is that chili most definitely does not contain beans.
Personal attacks can be worded many ways.
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/o...ehardness2.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
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
:argue: :deadhorse: :frusty:
+1Quote:
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.
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.
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
Below is from MIL-C-9963F it states the pressure requirements in cup and psi that YOU refuse to believe. If you don't believe my cut and paste then just look up MIL-C-9963F for yourself. 52,000 cup = 55,000psi and please note the army also tells you both pressures are in pounds per square inch.
MIL-C-9963F
15 October 1976
MILITARY SPECIFICATION
CARTRIDGE, 5.56MM, BALL, M193
3.7 Chamber pressure.
3.7.1 Measurement by copper-crush cylinder.-The average chamber pressure
of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall not exceed
52,000 pounds per square inch (PSI). The average chamber pressure plus
three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall not exceed 58,000 PSI.
3.7.2 Measurement by piezoelectric transducer.-The average chamber
pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall not
exceed 55,000 PSI. The average chamber pressure plus three standard
deviations of chamber pressure shall not exceed 61,000 PSI.
Last I checked the library was also full of books filled with bad or incomplete information yet are being portrayed as "the truth" and "complete history". Some of them are even books pertaining to science and history. *gasp* I also know for a fact that most self-proclaimed 'forum giants' are also self-proclaimed know-it-alls who generally have zero first-hand experience or knowledge on the subject, but they feel they're experts on the subject because they read it in a book once and in a few different forum threads.
Now I suggest you all start playing a little nicer with one another, cuz if you don't I can promise that you won't like my solution to the problem.
And sometimes books and documentation are all you need to prove a point, military 5.56 brass is made from a higher quality brass. The cases can't be made thicker because it would cause a internal capacity problem therefore it is made with a better grade brass. The military also loads to a higher pressure than commercial .223 and the base harness and design is important at higher pressures, and the last thing you need is a primer popping out of an AR15 in a match and jamming the trigger group.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...1/hardness.jpg
Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069
Vickers Hardness Measurements of the M855
Cartridge Case Base
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497469
That release shows a hardness comparison between military cases that did, and did not drop primers. There is no comparison to ANY other brass.
That is an internal QC report. They wanted to see if a dropped primer was due to a difference in hardness. The answer was no, the differences that did exist were normal lot-to-lot variation; Which they noted as the brass having "Large Standard Deviations".
While that is interesting, all it does is list the range that military cases are spec'd at, but NOT what commercial is spec'd at.
**Update***
I just got off the phone with several companies.
Gary @ Hornady said,
They shoot for 0.001" thicker walls on 5.56 stamped brass, for a minor reduction in internal capacity. However no difference in annealing or brass stocks.
Zak@ Nosler said,
They only sell 223 stampings, but just size, chamfer, etc whatever comes in.
Jeff@ Remington,
Who reminded me several times that NATO does not follow the SAAMI guidlines, said they use the same brass stock and the same build specs.
Still not a definitive "spec range", however seems to follow my assertion that there is no difference.
Now if the contention is that: There COULD be 2 different specs, then yes there COULD.
The more rational approach(in terms of mass production) to the issue is to only use one spec that will satisfy the requirements of both applications, and get away from all of the production changes, and lot issues.
The QC report "Vickers Hardness Measurements of the M855 Cartridge Case Base" is part of a larger study to see if the military 5.56 cartridge case can lightened or made from lower grades of brass and hardness. (go back to commercial standards)
The answer is NO, the military 5.56x45 is loaded to higher pressures and the military chamber has a larger base diameter than the commercial .223
The military case has higher standards than commercial brass and the moderator at AR15.com has reference material located there and also states the brass is a higher quality and has higher quality manufacturing standards.
The link below shows photos of the higher standards for military Lake City cartridge cases and why the QC report was done. Federal is the same company and part of ATK who manufactures the ammunition at Lake City to military standards.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_6/42_Reloading.html&page=3
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...Picture039.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...hardness-b.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...ehardness2.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...sshardness.jpg
I agree that there COULD BE 2 specs. But I can't find that THERE IS; for the production issues I already listed.
What you just posted says someone suspected that given there was no standard in the mid 60's, there COULD have been a connection. Fine enough conclusion to draw. But that is an unsupported conclusion, and still not evidence of two separate specs.
An interesting tell in the photo is this quote:
"In his eagerness to be heard at last, and with the benefit of hindsight, Dr. Carten's CASE History consisted largely of scathing but not entirely fair criticisms".
The AR-15 link you posted is a general page. If they are a reference for you, let's work with that. Use your link and click on the "Faq" tab, you get here:
http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=406
Where you scroll down a tad and they tell you this:
Q: What is the difference in 5.56X45 NATO and .223 Remington brass? I can't find dies for 5.56 NATO cartridges.
A: The brass for both catridges is identical (except for the primer crimp in the military surplus brass), the chambers are slightly different. The throat of a 5.56X45 chamber is slightly longer than the SAAMI standard for .223 Remington. Refer to the Ammo Oracle for more details. Buy dies for .223 Remington.
That reference confirms that the brass indeed IS the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigedp51
:) It sort of seems like you're confused as to exactly what your position/argument on the pressure issue is. When you decide whether you think that the SAAMI, CIP, and NATO specs are just 3 different ways of expressing the same thing _or not_, that'll probably help you formulate your thoughts better.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigedp51
Have fun with this. :)
All that it confirms is there are no 5.56x45 reloading dies and the cases have the same basic dimensions. During the height of the Gulf War when Lake City could not manufacture enough ammunition the military only purchased 5.56 ammunition from the Israelis and Winchester because they were the only ones who could make the cartridge cases to mil-spec standards. As shown in my earlier links standard Winchester grade brass was not as hard in the base web area as Lake City brass in the QC analysis testing. BUT Winchester had been running the Lake city plant before ATK and had made mil-spec ammo before.
Can't we all just get along and come to an agreement to just disagree