NATO 5.56 or .223 for AR15?

By NATO do you mean .308?

I wouldn't think of shooting hogs with a .223.

the .308 would be 1000000000 times better as a pig gun.

 

Maybe i misunderstand.. the 5.56 is the same as the .223.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Ah nevermind

 

Wow. I never knew that.

 

I have an AR15, Doublestar lower and have always shot .223 out of it. Very accurate and usually cheaper and easier to find than 5.56mm ammo...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Don't waste your $$ on a AR-15, go to a M14 "long distance is the next best thing to being there! "

 

You should use two different kinds of bullets, with the two different AR-15's.


With the old AR-15, (Vietnam era), you use a 55 grain 5.56/.223 bullet. The barrel twist, is 1/12

With the new AR-15A2, (Reagan era), you use a 62 grain 5.56/.223 bullet. The barrel twist, is 1/7

You may also find a 1/9 barrel twist, that is also used by some countries.




You can use 55 grain bullets in the new AR-15A2. You should NOT use 62 grain bullets, in the old Vietnam Era (triangular forestock) AR 15.

afaik, the NATO round, is just a standard full metal jacket 62 grain bullet. It is supposed to be a standard, for all the NATO countries to be on the same page, as far as weapons procurement. The NATO countries, should use the same standard bullet weight (62 grain) and barrel twist (1/7).

At this time, you still have some NATO countries, that are not even using .223 weapons. I believe both Greece and Turkey, use license copies, of the German Hk G-3, in .308.

 

Hey Rob,

If it is a question as to one or the other get the rifle chambered for 5.56mm. You can safely shoot the .223 Rem. in the rifles chambered for 5.56mm but not the other way around. Has something to do with the throat of the barrel, on the .223 rifles, not being able to handle the increased pressure from the 5.56mm round.

Although, I have to say, I don't think that I have ever seen an AR that is stamped for .223 only. Seen lots of ones that say 5.56mm and lots that say 5.56/.223Rem but never one that is stamped .223 only.

 

the NATO rounds are just standardized military rounds for NATO countries... 5.56mm is .223 inches and the original 5.56 NATO round came from the .223 Remington cartridge. 7.62 X 51 NATO is a Winchester .308, just the NATO country standardized version so that all participating countries would have similar ammunition on the battle field.

The NATO round has thicker brass in the shell casing and the NATO round has a higher chamber pressure... Rifles specificially chambered for the 5.56 NATO round are different only in that they have a longer chamber lead before the rifling starts in the barrel. Using a .223 Remington Cartridge in a 5.56 NATO gun works just fine but won't be as accurate as the correct round and going the other way will cause excessive wear in a .223 chambered rifle because of the pressure difference, NATO having a higher pressure round.

As far as which one is better? If you are in close quarters, who cares? 30 feet isn't going to make a difference... Over a few hundred yards or on the battle field where you need penetration and knock down power, the 5.56 NATO round would be prefered. For home defense, it won't matter at all..

As my father found out in Vietnam, the .223 is useless in dense forest, the bullets would ricochet all the while the NVA and their Russian AK-47's shooting 7.62's would come clean through the Bamboo and take you out... He tossed his M16 for the M14 but most of his time when he was on the ground was spent behind the sites of an Enfield 30.06 and a high power scope..

 

I have seen a few older Colts with the little thin pencil barrels that are only stamped with .223, they seem to be the exception though.

 

I've had an HK93 for over 30 years. I've shot a lot of different types of ammo including handloaded .223.

The biggest differences have been reliability. Some brands and types tend to "stovepipe" occasionally. I am not a big fan of the steel cased Wolf ammo.

Perhaps Eric (Ammoman) will express an opinion.

 

What would the purpose be in building it yourself? Hobby? Price? Spec out parts yourself? Were you thinking of buying a complete upper and then building just the lower or were you going to build it all from the ground up? It's a lousy time to try and build your own rifle as post election panic buying has cleaned out the popular online dealers and some have jacked up prices a bunch.

I have had excellent performance from the Sig556, it has been 100% reliable with all types of ammo. It eats steel cased Wolf and all those other laquer coated varieties with no problems. Cleaning consists of squirting it with some WD40 after about 500 rounds to rinse some of the black crud out of it.

 

Were you gonna drive up to Model 1 or order stuff from them online? I'm kind of curious what they might have available. I'm gonna start a thread in Rossa to discuss further

 

Found the answer to my curiosity elsewhere..... Model 1 reportedly has about a 9 week backlog

 

Most of the big online outfits have seen record sales in the last week, unless you want to pay a serious premium I doubt you would be able to get any of the builders to have you one by Thanksgiving. Most of the decent deals on quality rifles have been bought out already from what I have seen. If you want a rifle in the next few weeks your best bet would be to find a local chain store and see if they have any left. Around TX that means places like Academy, Sportsmans Warehouse and Cabelas. The Academy near me had a bunch of ARs and other black rifles last week, they are down to one Bushmaster when I stopped by earlier today. Regular gun shops might have more stock but the prices won't be as good.

 

Rob, You're welcome to blast the countryside with either one of these, until you figure out what you want. SIGs don't make cool sproinging noises
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ronr,

How would you rate the two different scopes? One vs the other and why.

 

I'm working from memory, I haven't messed with these in a while, so my details may be a little off.

They are both good for precision shooting. Both rifles are capable of good accuracy, so I wanted that type of optic. Both optics are pretty rugged. There are even stories of the EOTech having a broken lens, but with enough glass left that the laser reticle still had a usable image.

I like the EOTech over other red dot scopes because it has a smaller dot (1 moa) versus 2-4 moa for others. It also has the larger circle around the dot for quick shooting, like for hogs or competitions. No magnification on this optic. Since it's a laser reticle, it's good for bright or low light conditions. Brightness is adjustable. I can also use my iron sight rights through the optic if my batteries die, without using folding sights. They do have a separate magnifier available now if you wanted to use this type of optic and also want some magnification.

The Trijicon has a more precise triangle reticle and 1.25 to 4 magnification. This rifle has a high quality barrel with a "match" chamber (Wylde) and bolt/carrier group, so I wanted a better optic. The reticle has a radioactive light source for low light conditions, and it lights up during the day using an ambient light collector. If the optic failed, I have a quick release LaRue mount to remove the scope, and then pop up the iron sights. You can't use the sights through this type of optic (cowitness), so I'd rather have them folded up out of the way.

 

You should cover both bases: AR-15 and AR-10(for the hogs)

 

How much do you want to spend and how concerned are you with the weight of the rifle? I'm in the market for an AR as well (F-chat group purchase?? ) and like Les Baer and Noveske. Both would be overkill for the casual plinker, though.

He must have been using jacketed bullets.