Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AzMaN

Starting up reloading

Recommended Posts

as i stated in my post:

" i think the problem here is more the case of firing .357 in .38 (or for the challenged) a higher powered through a lower specificated weapon.

 

as such the little rant there is pointless.

i would suggest you read the posts you are replying to properly.

 

you are obviously oblivious to any advice given and quite happy to go against the general consensus of opinion.

 

a weapon is tested at overpressure to ensure it functions at normal pressure safely.surely it must make sense that just because it can take the pressure once/twice or three times it MAY not do so over time?

safe shooting all.

Share this post


Link to post

Taken from winchester ammo themselves....

 

There are a lot of questions about these two cartridges. Many people think they are identical - merely different designations for commercial and military. The truth is that, although somewhat similar, they are not the same and you should know the differences before buying either cartridge.

 

•The cartridge casings for both calibers have basically the same length and exterior dimensions.

 

•The 5.56 round, loaded to Military Specification, typically has higher velocity and chamber pressure than the .223 Rem.

 

•The 5.56 cartridge case may have thicker walls, and a thicker head, for extra strength. This better contains the higher chamber pressure. However, a thicker case reduces powder capacity, which is of concern to the reloader.

 

•The 5.56mm and .223 Rem chambers are nearly identical. The difference is in the "Leade". Leade is defined as the portion of the barrel directly in front of the chamber where the rifling has been conically removed to allow room for the seated bullet. It is also more commonly known as the throat. Leade in a .223 Rem chamber is usually .085". In a 5.56mm chamber the leade is typically .162", or almost twice as much as in the 223 Rem chamber.

 

•You can fire .223 Rem cartridges in 5.56mm chambers with this longer leade, but you will generally have a slight loss in accuracy and velocity over firing the .223 round in the chamber with the shorter leade it was designed for.

 

•Problems may occur when firing the higher-pressure 5.56mm cartridge in a .223 chamber with its much shorter leade. It is generally known that shortening the leade can dramatically increase chamber pressure. In some cases, this higher pressure could result in primer pocket gas leaks, blown cartridge case heads and gun functioning issues.

 

•The 5.56mm military cartridge fired in a .223 Rem chamber is considered by SAAMI (Small Arm and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) to be an unsafe ammunition combination.

 

Before buying either of these two types of ammunition, always check your gun to find what caliber it is chambered for, then buy the appropriate ammunition. Most 5.56mm rounds made have full metal jacket bullets. Performance bullets - soft points, hollow points, Ballistic Silvertips, etc. - are loaded in .223 Rem cartridges.

 

Firing a .223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56mm-chambered gun is safe and merely gives you slightly reduced velocity and accuracy.

 

However we do not recommend, nor does SAAMI recommend, firing a 5.56mm cartridge in a gun chambered for the .223 Rem as the shorter leade can cause pressure-related problems.

 

Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition

East Alton Illinois

 

futher sites state that they never had problems, but it also warns of the difference in batch lots of ammo with regard to case thicknessess col etc.., and it only takes one round to blow the bolt back in your face....

 

If someone wants to run the risk, just consoder the consequences....... is it really worth the gamble.....????

 

 

Snap.

Share this post


Link to post

History lesson coming up, and remember that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

At the start of the Vietnam War the US forces were all armed with M1 rifles in 7.62 x 51 NATO. The US Air Force were using Vietnamese soldiers as air base guards, and these were little guys who had problems coping with the recoil. At the same time, the US Army were finding the M1 a clumsy lump in jungle conditions. (Ask Deker about stalking with a big long barrelled gun.) The US Government set up a program with Remington to develop a lighter round which could be fired from a smaller gun. They came up with the .223 Rem. This was a bit underpowered for the Army, so they increased the charge to produce the first 5.56 x 45 mil spec round. At this point in time, there was no problem with using mil spec 5.56 in civilian guns proofed for .223. The mil spec bullet was a 55gr FMJ spitzer.

 

Scroll on to 1977, and the trials to decide on the standard round for NATO forces, which were still using the 7.62x 51. The British entry was the 4.85-5.56, and for the first part of the trials it shot the shit out of the 5.56, due to having a much higher Ballistic Coefficient. The Americans didn't like this at all, and LO AND BEHOLD FN came up with a new 5.56 with a much heavier charge and using a 63gr spitzer, which was, obviously, longer than the 55gr. Although the British 4.85 was still performing better in all the trials, the gain was so slight that it was decided to go with the 5.56, as so much tooling up existed for production. The "new" 5.56 was and is a very different proposition fronm the original. It is loaded to much higher chamber pressure and takes a bullet which can block the leade on a civilian .223. Using this round in a gun proofed for .223 is, I say again, seriously dumb.

 

I used the analogy of skating on thin ice earlier on this thread. Jonathan, you can only drown once. You can only get your stupid head blown off once so why not minimise the risk? .223 ammo in a .223 proofed gun is safe. 5.56 in a .223 proofed gun could lead to a closed coffin ceremony.

 

Just to confuse the issue still further, NATO are now trying a 72gr bullet with a still heavier charge to improve long range performance. Any volunteers to put that through a .223?

 

Ric

Share this post


Link to post

as i stated in my post:

" i think the problem here is more the case of firing .357 in .38 (or for the challenged) a higher powered through a lower specificated weapon.

 

as such the little rant there is pointless.

i would suggest you read the posts you are replying to properly.

 

you are obviously oblivious to any advice given and quite happy to go against the general consensus of opinion.

 

a weapon is tested at overpressure to ensure it functions at normal pressure safely.surely it must make sense that just because it can take the pressure once/twice or three times it MAY not do so over time?

safe shooting all.

 

I did read it. As you rightly point out putting a .357 mag round in a .38 special cannot be done so the point is redundant. My comment was regarding what people think about using .38 spec in .357 Magnums? People have clearly said that you should never use any type of ammo that is not stamped on the gun yet using .38's in a .357 gun is well appceted practice.

 

Yes, this is true. But even lots of shooting with proof loads aren't likely to mak a rifle explode into pieces. Also, as pointd out, revolvers have six or eight proof rounds through them.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post

History lesson coming up, and remember that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

At the start of the Vietnam War the US forces were all armed with M1 rifles in 7.62 x 51 NATO. The US Air Force were using Vietnamese soldiers as air base guards, and these were little guys who had problems coping with the recoil. At the same time, the US Army were finding the M1 a clumsy lump in jungle conditions. (Ask Deker about stalking with a big long barrelled gun.) The US Government set up a program with Remington to develop a lighter round which could be fired from a smaller gun. They came up with the .223 Rem. This was a bit underpowered for the Army, so they increased the charge to produce the first 5.56 x 45 mil spec round. At this point in time, there was no problem with using mil spec 5.56 in civilian guns proofed for .223. The mil spec bullet was a 55gr FMJ spitzer.

 

Scroll on to 1977, and the trials to decide on the standard round for NATO forces, which were still using the 7.62x 51. The British entry was the 4.85-5.56, and for the first part of the trials it shot the shit out of the 5.56, due to having a much higher Ballistic Coefficient. The Americans didn't like this at all, and LO AND BEHOLD FN came up with a new 5.56 with a much heavier charge and using a 63gr spitzer, which was, obviously, longer than the 55gr. Although the British 4.85 was still performing better in all the trials, the gain was so slight that it was decided to go with the 5.56, as so much tooling up existed for production. The "new" 5.56 was and is a very different proposition fronm the original. It is loaded to much higher chamber pressure and takes a bullet which can block the leade on a civilian .223. Using this round in a gun proofed for .223 is, I say again, seriously dumb.

 

I used the analogy of skating on thin ice earlier on this thread. Jonathan, you can only drown once. You can only get your stupid head blown off once so why not minimise the risk? .223 ammo in a .223 proofed gun is safe. 5.56 in a .223 proofed gun could lead to a closed coffin ceremony.

 

Just to confuse the issue still further, NATO are now trying a 72gr bullet with a still heavier charge to improve long range performance. Any volunteers to put that through a .223?

 

Ric

 

And how many cases have their been of .223's blowing up due to someone using 5.56mm ammo in it?

 

Also, why does the CiP use identical specifications for both cartridges? CiP specs for both are higher than SAAMI specs 62,000 PSI as against 55,000 PSI.

 

Why do people think that every gun maker who makes .223 rifles make them with fast twists? It's primarily because people want to shoot current 5.56mm ammo in which needs it to stabilise the bullet. Manufacturers know damn well that people buy them for this purpose.

Edited by JonathanL

Share this post


Link to post

As they say in the trade ... whatever.

 

if you want to advocate doing what is warned about by gun manufacturers, SAAMI, and ammo manufacturers, go right ahead. You'll probably be OK - there are good tolerances in most firearms and you will likely stay lucky. Hopefully we won't read about when you stop being lucky.

 

Me, I'll stick to 223 in a 223, and I will load it to get accuracy and firearm life, as that's the way to get the best out of the guns I spent my hard-earned on.

 

I think you're being bloody stupid, and nothing will change that opinion, so we will agree to disagree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

As they say in the trade ... whatever.

 

if you want to advocate doing what is warned about by gun manufacturers, SAAMI, and ammo manufacturers, go right ahead. You'll probably be OK - there are good tolerances in most firearms and you will likely stay lucky. Hopefully we won't read about when you stop being lucky.

 

Me, I'll stick to 223 in a 223, and I will load it to get accuracy and firearm life, as that's the way to get the best out of the guns I spent my hard-earned on.

 

I think you're being bloody stupid, and nothing will change that opinion, so we will agree to disagree.

 

And this is the whole point - you won't change your mind no matter what evidence is presented to you.

 

SAAMI aren't gods, they do get stuff wrong you know. Google SAAMI and their specifications for the 6.5x55 Swedish round. They are a commercial organisation representing gun makers and are not independent and unbiased. Why do you think that it's only US companies that you hear this stuff from? It's because they are all represented by SAAMI. How come the CiP aren't issuing warnings if this practice is so dangerous?

Share this post


Link to post

When I did my degree, the very first thing they told us - 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

 

This is the case here. Ultimately, the main rule of ammo that I, and those I've ever known, was brought up with is that you use the ammo which is for the calibre stamped on the barrel.

 

Personally, if there is any doubt (there is) as to the safety of something like that, I'll let someone else do it.

 

I'd consider using 5.56 in my .223s IF someone else put about a thousand rounds through both of them and it all worked well.

 

Then I'd want to know how it grouped, and if that was stellar too, then I'd consider it.

 

Am I willing to take a punt with what my rifle manufacturer says is dangerous? Nope - what is the bloody point?

 

I don't think anyone has said it will definitely blow something up, just that 5.56 is loaded hotter than 223 proof and thus there is potentially a danger. Given that this is a FACT, why should I look to change my opinion?

Share this post


Link to post

Wasnt this originally about reloading not 5.56 in a 223?

 

 

I agree,it's totally gone off subject.I reload for my .223 and for my.22 hornet and have found better consistancy and it's cheaper than factory fodder.Besides,I ENJOY it.

 

Alan :thumbs:

Edited by Alan108

Share this post


Link to post

History lesson coming up, and remember that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

At the start of the Vietnam War the US forces were all armed with M1 rifles in 7.62 x 51 NATO. The US Air Force were using Vietnamese soldiers as air base guards, and these were little guys who had problems coping with the recoil. At the same time, the US Army were finding the M1 a clumsy lump in jungle conditions. (Ask Deker about stalking with a big long barrelled gun.) The US Government set up a program with Remington to develop a lighter round which could be fired from a smaller gun. They came up with the .223 Rem. This was a bit underpowered for the Army, so they increased the charge to produce the first 5.56 x 45 mil spec round. At this point in time, there was no problem with using mil spec 5.56 in civilian guns proofed for .223. The mil spec bullet was a 55gr FMJ spitzer.

 

Scroll on to 1977, and the trials to decide on the standard round for NATO forces, which were still using the 7.62x 51. The British entry was the 4.85-5.56, and for the first part of the trials it shot the shit out of the 5.56, due to having a much higher Ballistic Coefficient. The Americans didn't like this at all, and LO AND BEHOLD FN came up with a new 5.56 with a much heavier charge and using a 63gr spitzer, which was, obviously, longer than the 55gr. Although the British 4.85 was still performing better in all the trials, the gain was so slight that it was decided to go with the 5.56, as so much tooling up existed for production. The "new" 5.56 was and is a very different proposition fronm the original. It is loaded to much higher chamber pressure and takes a bullet which can block the leade on a civilian .223. Using this round in a gun proofed for .223 is, I say again, seriously dumb.

 

I used the analogy of skating on thin ice earlier on this thread. Jonathan, you can only drown once. You can only get your stupid head blown off once so why not minimise the risk? .223 ammo in a .223 proofed gun is safe. 5.56 in a .223 proofed gun could lead to a closed coffin ceremony.

 

Just to confuse the issue still further, NATO are now trying a 72gr bullet with a still heavier charge to improve long range performance. Any volunteers to put that through a .223?

 

Ric

 

And how many cases have their been of .223's blowing up due to someone using 5.56mm ammo in it?

 

Also, why does the CiP use identical specifications for both cartridges? CiP specs for both are higher than SAAMI specs 62,000 PSI as against 55,000 PSI.

 

Why do people think that every gun maker who makes .223 rifles make them with fast twists? It's primarily because people want to shoot current 5.56mm ammo in which needs it to stabilise the bullet. Manufacturers know damn well that people buy them for this purpose.

 

Do you fancy being the first? I don't.

Share this post


Link to post

When I did my degree, the very first thing they told us - 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

 

Something about not being able to proove a negative?

 

There's a chap on a certain wildfowling forum who reckons Eley don't know enough/anything about shotgun ballistics!

 

As long as the thread starter is not going to take notice of posts that 'appear' to be suggesting we ignore advice from established sources then job done!

Edited by rjimmer

Share this post


Link to post

Howdie all, ive got my ticket through for me .223 now, and have found the one i want.

 

now i intend to reload (for the cheapness of it) i have been given 100 remington cases that currently have the old primers in them. i was looking at geting the lee's breech lock challenger kit, is this all i will need for reloading ?

 

Get the Lee Challenger kit for starters, then you can keep the lightweight Challenger press for seating the bullets, when you have later bought heavier press(Lee do a heavier one) for the resizing job. That way you can load one cartridge at a time instead of doing a batch of resizing and then having to change the dies for seating the bullets. http://www.peterlawman.co.uk/reloading.php

Most people like RCBS powder scales!

Share this post


Link to post

When I did my degree, the very first thing they told us - 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

 

This is the case here. Ultimately, the main rule of ammo that I, and those I've ever known, was brought up with is that you use the ammo which is for the calibre stamped on the barrel.

I hear what you are saying re: evidence but by the same token, surely you were told not to blindly accept evidence simply because it is in print and from an alleged good authority? Evidence had to be considered and questioned in order that you know what you are beinbg told is correct. SAAMI get stuff wrong and are not an independent testing body. They are a manfacturers representative body, not a regulatory one, they exist for the benefit of the US gun industry and therefore have vested interests at sake. The CiP is independent andf perform a regulatory duty but they don't publish warnings in relation to .223/5/5.56mm.

 

As an engineer you should be able to evaluate the evidence for your self. Yes, peak pressure for 5.56 according to SAAMI is higer but that's because 5.56mm ammo specs are set by NATO and their EVAP test is NOT the same as the SAAMI one. It measures pressure at a different point in the chamber, the throat, which is the point of highest pressure. SAMMI measures pressure the head of the case where significantly lower pressures are created. In reality therefore, the pressures for .223 and 5.56mm are in fact the same. The CiP pressure speces are IDENTICAL for both rounds, both service and proof.

 

 

Again, the rule of only using the type of ammo stamped on the barrel is repeated. I've produced numerous examples where using ammo with different marking to the gun is perfectly acceptable yet people simply repeat this "rule" they have learned when it clearly isn't correct in all circumstances. Do you reallynot believe that .38 special is unsafe in a .357 magnum?

 

 

Personally, if there is any doubt (there is) as to the safety of something like that, I'll let someone else do it.

 

There isn't any doubt in reality. The only people saying this are the Americans (SAAMI).

 

I'd consider using 5.56 in my .223s IF someone else put about a thousand rounds through both of them and it all worked well.

 

Happens all the time. I know plenty of people who have put manmy thousands of rounds of 5.56 through .223 marked rifles withgout problem at all. A chap I know only ever shoots military ammo in his .223, it's the reason he ordered it with a fast twist barrel. This is why millions of rounds of military surplus ammo is sold every year. Go to any range at the weekend and loads of club members will be using military ammo in .223 rifles.

 

Then I'd want to know how it grouped, and if that was stellar too, then I'd consider it.

 

Am I willing to take a punt with what my rifle manufacturer says is dangerous? Nope - what is the bloody point?

 

Yeah, and gun makers tell you not to shoot reloads either but millions of people do. Do you go about telling people they're irresponsible for using them?

 

I don't think anyone has said it will definitely blow something up, just that 5.56 is loaded hotter than 223 proof and thus there is potentially a danger. Given that this is a FACT, why should I look to change my opinion?

 

More than one person on here has said in no uncertain terms that it's very likely to blow a rifle up - references to people getting their heads blown off by an exploding rifle were made. This simply does not happen.

Share this post


Link to post

Howdie all, ive got my ticket through for me .223 now, and have found the one i want.

 

now i intend to reload (for the cheapness of it) i have been given 100 remington cases that currently have the old primers in them. i was looking at geting the lee's breech lock challenger kit, is this all i will need for reloading ?

 

Get the Lee Challenger kit for starters, then you can keep the lightweight Challenger press for seating the bullets, when you have later bought heavier press(Lee do a heavier one) for the resizing job. That way you can load one cartridge at a time instead of doing a batch of resizing and then having to change the dies for seating the bullets. http://www.peterlawman.co.uk/reloading.php

Most people like RCBS powder scales!

 

I bought the Lee Anniversary kit and the Lee dies for .223 and .22 Hornet, the only extras that I bought were the case trimmer,and the tool for chamfering the case,plus a set of calipers off evilbay for a fiver.does the job for me. Oh,should have mentioned the tumbler that was a prezzie.

 

Alan :boogie:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×