What is M193?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- InRange is supported by viewers like you:
/ inrangetv
What is M193?
How is it different than 223?
Did you know that Eugene Stoner was heavily involved in the development of this cartridge?
Is 556 safe in a 223 chamber?
...and more!
This a very complicated topic with a bunch of nuance. I have a few corrections, which do not change the overall conclusion or message here, but are worth mentioning:
5.56 is a NATO adopted standard, but that was done with M855, not M193 specifically. M193 does have a US standard and a standard in general (that appears to be accepted and adopted and manufactured in many countries) but, technically, "M193 NATO" isn't exactly correct...but not exactly wrong either, but not "official".
SAAMI is the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, which is considered a standard in the US - they work together to make standards for civilians and cartridges, pressures etc. They are not, however, necessarily internationally recognized. The other institution which sets such standards is the CIP. The "Commission Internationale Permanente", is internationally recognized and their specifications apply in Europe, for example, while SAAMI does not.
CIP standards and SAAMI specs are usually quite similar, but not necessarily identical.
😂🤙🏽
Degrees of neck. It's like talking with twins. "What do you mean, hard to tell us apart? I have the faintest scar you ever saw on my elbow!"
My wife is a twin. Only her and her sister and her mom think that they aren't identical
@@jonathanschubert9052 You've been married how long? Still can't tell them apart? Never tell your wife this, lol
I think the problem is if the bullet is pushed backwards into the case and causes a extra spike in pressure. Only should be possible with 75gr Balistic tip with C.O.L. More than 2.250”
They grew up with each other
Good excuse when kiss the wrong one
This is the clearest explanation I have seen yet. I do like to nerd out on the details, but your "KISS" style of teaching is effective and understandable. Thank you for a video that we can share with shooters that are not as "nerdy" as some of us.
Amen!
Cause I really enjoy crayons😅
Agreed
And its wrong. M193 as loaded by the Lake City for the M16 and M16A1 are the same as the 223 Remington. 223/5.56 loads specs for M855, M856 Tracer and now the rounds marketed as M193 NATO, which never existed in the military, are the ones that are different from the SAAMI specs.
I already knew the difference between these two cartridges when I clicked on the video. ( during my active duty days, I have shot more M193 and M855 than I care to admit.) With that said, you are among the very few content creators who actually explain the difference rather than just blindly repeat numbers off a spec sheet.
While I'm here I would like to request a similar type of video on M855. In fact an entire set of videos on the likes of M118LR, M80 ball, M855A1 and mk262 would be really nice.
That picture of Stoner holding the AR 10 wearing a suit with a bowtie and a buzz cut is one of the coolest pictures ever I love it.
You just know his wife would greet him with a martini when he got home
1950s engineer for sure
👍
For anyone coming to the comments to ask about the .223 Wylde chambering, yes you can safely fire both 5.56, and .223 in that chambering. That’s part of the intention for the chambering and you may see better accuracy.
The Wylde chamber has tighter freebore than the 5.56x45 NATO chamber so tends to be more accurate. It was designed for match use with longer bullets that need to be hand fed into the chamber. Although its longer freebore is optimized for cartridges with too much bullet projection to fit into AR15 magazines, it also keeps pressure down with military 5.56x45 ammo.
Many semi-auto sniper and precision rifles are chambered with the Compass Lake Engineering (CLE) chamber which has a shorter freebore like the 223, but a more gentle entrance into the rifling (1.5 degrees per side vs 3°10'36"). It tends to be a little more accurate with AR15/M16/M4 magazine-length cartridges but raises chamber pressures above the 5.56x45 NATO or Wylde chambers.
Yeah, and all the stupid ignorant TH-cam groupie parrot mouth talkers who never touched a real gun in their life like you believe 5.56x45 Blows up all guns with 223 chamberings but when shown reloading data that shows 223 + 5.56x45 is on the same page and the powder charge date exceeds all commercial and military powered charges it throws a Monkey wrench into all of your BS lies 5.56x45 can't be fired in 223 chambered gun.
Just yesterday I was shooting 223 reloads I had the powder charges to the level when firing the cartridges, the primers are all flat and the firing pin indent in the primer was pushed back out showing excessive pressure and not once did these cartridges damage the AR 15 I have chambered the barrel using a 223 reamer from Pacific tool & gauge - if commercial or military ammo was loaded to this pressures it would be recalled.
I have had when using a new powder never used before got way too much powder charges that when set off the pressure was so great it blew out the base of the cartridge and swelled the brass case to the chamber and still did not blow up the AR 15 making that bull shit lie 5.56x45 blows up 223 chambered even more of a lie.
I am an advanced reloader since 1976 and a reloader of wildcat cartridge and builder of custom rifles and AR 10s in wildcat cartridges.
I was shooting military surplus 5.56x45 in 223 chambers guns for some 30 years and not once did a Remington 700 Blow up or my own barreled AR 15s in 233 have blown up shooting Military 5.56x45 ammo because it is all Bull shit from dumb asses with little to no firearms experiences.
Lucky Gunner put pressure sensors in a few .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO chambered barrels, and found that 5.56 is perfectly safe in .223 Remington chambers.
The chamber dimensions don't matter and the "it runs at higher pressure" comes from the two historically using different measuring methods. Now the military uses a test that's basically identical to SAAMI, and the pressure limits are the same.
Any reloading book dates would tell you this full of crap that 5.56x45 blow up 223 chambered guns is bull crap !
The max powder charges in 223 - 5.6x45 load data exceeds by far all commercial loadings and all Military loadings so where are the damaged and blow-up guns with 223 chambered guns?
All of this BS of 5.56x45 blowing 223 chamber guns is propagated by stupid ass and ignorant TH-cam Groupie Parrot mouth Talkers.
Another point to make is I own and many other shooters own AR 15s in 17 Remington with Higher pressure than 5.56x45 and 223 without the guns blowing up .
All of my reloads have pressure so High the primers are flat when fired and again never blown up a gun yet.
TH-cam is filled with liars and bull shitters!
@@immikeurnot The Lucky Gunner article is useful but actually states: " you are not likely to encounter major problems with limited amounts of 5.56 in a .223 rifle fired out of necessity or in an emergency. Doing so at a high volume for the long term is probably not a good idea. "
The article also states "5.56 ammunition may be loaded to higher pressures than .223 ammunition" and "Given the same ammunition, 5.56 chambers will have lower pressures than .223 chambers."
The 5.56 ammo did indeed produce higher pressures in all 3 rifles, just not enough to bother the author. He even admits that he has had 223 rifles that popped primers with 5.56 ammo.
At the bottom of the article, the author even recommends avoiding 223 chambers in AR15's.
Helmets were the only armour anyone wore, so it's like saying: "armour penetration at 500 yards".
Best explanation of the differences 223 and 5.56 I have ever heard and I have ever heard in the 50 years that I have been shooting and building them! Good job Carl,
Probably the best explanation of differences between 556 vs 223 rem without being a hr long mumbo jumbo
Great job !!
And just to add more complexity you have .223 wyld which is basically just a tighter 5.56 chamber
Interesting. I just found one round of m193 head stamped RA 65. Remington Arms 1965. So it's really early m193
I just found a bunch of "RA" marked 5.56 in my stash recently and couldn't figure out who made it. For some reason Remington never came to mind so I was searching lists for foreign head stamps, lol
I bought some old ammo like that off of an OLD man...a widower, in his 90's... who was clearing out his stuff....his kids and grandkids(and great grandkids) had no interest in guns or shooting.....was sad, really. He had nobody to pass along any of his gun/reloading knowledge, of which he had LOTS!! This guy had a large 2 car garage space plus his powder shed out back.
He gave me a bunch of stuff just for helping him organize some of it that he had sold, already. I sat and talked with him all day, and I took him to lunch......
He died a couple weeks later, before I could get back there.
Important to know that even the M193 sold on thr civilian market from military production lines (Federal XM193, the various Winchester and IMI SKUs and lots that represent M193 contract overruns, etc.), what generally gets skipped is the waterproofing sealant because it's not necessary for civilian applications (and truly isnt that inportant for genuine military use cases, unless you have extreme mission requirements like diving below 10 meters with the ammo for a long infiltration swim, or storing it in an underwater cache for weeks).
If it is not they should not label it so. This is just an easy question.
In a country where some people take strong views on guns I am very surprised that there exists misleading sales information.
In much of Europe the sellers would be prevented and fined, if they had ever been permitted to handle it in the first place.
@@myparceltape1169 market is the best control, LIBERTY. And Liberty and Europe can't stay in the same frase.
@@myparceltape1169 In most of europe one just can not go up to the counter with just your drivers license and after a background check that usually takes no more than 10 minutes to walk out of the store with an AR-15. I doubt that you can order via the internet a 1000 round case of ammo also with no more ID than a credit card to pay for it.
Weapons sold in the USA do not require proofing or proof marks either.
All of my m855 are sealed with tar
Way to kick off the holiday arguing by dragging out the internet's oldest gun debate. 👏👏
Up next......9mm vs. .45!!!
“ revolvers v semi autos . Time for a rethink ? “
In the C.I.P. standard, unlike SAAMI, no distinction is made between 5.56 Nato and .223 rem. All rifles built according to C.I.P. can safely shoot 5.56 Nato and .223. The chambers and barrels are all made to 5.56 Nato specs. Countries where it is used C.I.P:
Germany, Belgium, Chile, Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Austria, Russia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Arab Emirates
the difference between the two ammunitions is simply a measurable difference so that the two products could be distinguished and you didn't have boxes shipping with both in them... and literally nothing else, not even the chamber pressure bullshit in the last 25 years either
"steel helmet at 500 yards" means "able to put down an uppity american population that has decided its current government needs to die" its kinda like english dubbed kung-fu once you get used to it
because quite literally the only near-peer enemy the US Military has is the US Population
its ALL .224
On PMC ammunition, they do have seperate .223 and "XP193" and from chrono I have seen, they do perform differently.
Yes the X-Tac load is mil spec ammo packed for civilian use. The Bronze line is just.233 ammo
I’ve noticed that when reloading Lake City brass the m193 marked brass is usually above 1.270” after resizing, Where as the .223 labeled brass is around 1.245”-1.255” after resizing. Both have crimped primer pockets.
Huh. You'd think the annealing would make the 5.56 stretch less (or is 5.56 brass OAL longer than .223? They're supposed to be the same, right?)
.223/5.56 is probably the only round I own/shoot that I've never reloaded, so I don't know the specs off the top of my head like .308, .30-06, .338winmag, .44mag, etc, etc. Oh, and 9mm. Never hand loaded 9mm, though I really need to get dies for .223 and 9mm just in case.
Ooo a man of taste, what's your favourite 44 mag load? I'm going to be trying to run Reloder 7 and/or Vihtavouri N120 in a Marlin 1894 44 mag@@mfallen6894
@@mfallen6894 I have been reloading all my ammo since 1976 and I am a custom rifle builder using wildcat cartridges I have to make from another cartridges.
There is so much bull shit lies when it comes to 223 & 5.56x45 !
I was shooting from a Rem 700 in 223 military surplus 5.56x45 for 30 years.
I have reloading books where the load dates for 223 & 5.56x45 are on the same page and the top powder charges exceed by far all commercial & Military loadings making it the big lie 5.56x45 blows up 223 chambered guns.
Every time I go to shoot here in the forest of the Pacific NW I am picking up brass - yesterday's shoot I picked up Lake city 5.56x45 brass and hordes of other 223 & Lake city brass & unknow where the brass was made, I already loaded some and when sizing and cutting for length there was zero difference in the cases length between 223 & all of the 5.56x45 brass I picked up.
At times I try powders I've never used because of reloading supply shortages so I buy what I can get.
When reloading some mixed bag of 223 & 5.56x45 brass found at forested shooting location can get too much power then see the pressure was so High the primer is flat, and the firing pin indent is pushed back out and the guns never blow up!
TH-cam is full of lying Bull shit !
you sound like a man after my own heart!!! pick it up...load it up...SEND IT!!@@Lure-Benson
@@mfallen6894 Annealing is a process by which you soften metal. That makes it more malleable. It will dent and bend more easily, and it's less likely to break. But that means it's going to stretch more.
Everybody asks WHAT is M193, nobody asks HOW is M193
Is there any books that people can recommend that cover depth firearms and projectile design and the math that is used in such designs? I find this style of indepth firearms design really interesting.
Christopher Bartocci (Author) Armorer's Manual AR15/M16/M4 Family of Weapons Paperback -
I love these videos. InRange is slowly and methodically dismissing decades old myths/fudd lore. Please never stop
spoken like the true Elmer Fudd that you are......
Finding out all the writers for the gun magazines I read were fools
those writers wrote everything they were told to write....@@tomhenry897
So all those people that think 556 is some kind of super bullet, dont understand ammo any better than "AR 15s destroy the meat of the deer" Joy from The View. Wonder how it feels to be in the same boat as Miss Joy...
6:15 Case Head separation has to do more of headspace of the barrel, and/or out of spec bolt. Annealing the case mouth & shoulder softens that area to simply prevent splitting. Annealing isn't done to the head of the case since hardening is ideal to prevent separation.
Edit: 8:50 The 55 gr FMJ is more likely to come apart at the exposed base of the bullet when it turns forward. That is why yawing is important.
sounds like the "logic" of issuing S&W 686 in .357 cal. But ".357 cal ammo is too powerful, so we issue 158 grain .38 cal ammo."
Sir,
Again your work is so eye opening, knowledge beyond what i could even think about it.
It is always with great pleasure that i watch and await for your videos. Than you to you, all the people whom support and help you.
I want to say a special thank you to everyone out there that support and watch yoir videos as well.
Army: Can your bullet penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards?
Anyone sensible: Can your soldiers see a steel helmet at 500 yards, let alone hit it with their rifle?
The M16 never got the volley sights it was originally intended to have. 😉
....ask any old Marine....
Thank you for doing this, Mr. Kasarda.
The penetrate a helmet at 500 yards is probably because that's about the extent of effective firing range for an infantryman without optics or even simple optics. It's also just a simple reference point to compare to.
It's also the real effective distance. It can kill for a long ways out, but the velocity at 500 is at the end of its effectiveness to create the infamous wound channels of the 5.56. I have a 20" barrel and the bullet drop past 500 is when I start aiming at clouds.
Also-standard practice for naval rifles on battleships was to design the gun to be able to penetrate the armor of the ship carrying it. I suspect bureau of ordinance took this concept and applied it to the infantry.
plus after action reports of earlier ww 2 and Korean wars showing survival rates of soldiers by bullets being deflected by the helmet liners inside the helmets. The idea was to have a round that would go all the way through and NOT get turned...Some cases had been photographed and been used as a basis for the standard.
@@panzerdeal8727 Wait, so they saw that soldiers survived more often when a bullet went in one side of the helmet, and bounced of the inside of the backside? And then came up with the go through an M1 helmet requirement off that? I'm a little confused by what you mean, and do you have a source for that?
@@sloppyfloppy79 But that comes from the requirement. The army asked for effectiveness at 500yds and so it is effective at 500yds and no more. If they asked for 300yds, it would be effective at 300yds and no more.
A long time ago I was told, "listen to your rifle" it will say "I'm 556, I can shoot a mix. Or, I'm a 223 I shoot only me."
Patrolling the mojave almost makes you wish for nuclear winter.
My understanding is that the steel helmets at 500 yards requirement is what they considered to be the most difficult requirement they had for the round's lethality. So by not being stopped by a helmet even at 500 yards, it can present a threat at the ranges they want a rifleman to be able to threaten enemies at.
On one hand I guess they might not have known how useless that requirement is, but then again they probably would have known that helmets aren't amazing at stopping "full" rifle rounds anyway, not because of power just because of size. Like, I'm pretty sure they knew by then a helmet wasn't much good against bullets, you wore it to protect your dome from shrapnel.
It also seems kinda silly just in the context that body armour has now become standard issue to every soldier and in a way it was somewhat forward thinking. Though if you wanna criticize the record of 5.56mm against armor, that's more thinking than I'd care to put into that topic at the moment. IIRC 5.56mm hasn't been used much against anyone wearing armor on the level of the US military.
My guess is that it's less about armor penetration, and more about making sure it's still lethal at that range, even if eg the target is wearing heavy winter clothes. The real question is less why they wanted to make sure it could go through light protection at that range, and more why they wanted to try and make it useful at 500 yards at all.
@@amperzand9162 I figure its the same stupid zeitgeist that demanded everything have match-grade 800yd ironsights and no less than 30caliber for our big strong bois. Procurement somewhat divorced from what's actually effective. Then again I recall hearing the Fallout gun rants guy claiming he had to be ordered to use his red dot because he was a crotchety bastard and just wanted to use iron sights so sometimes the office guys know whats up like, red dots good.
Brown plastic furniture, partying like it's 1959!
Only early Remington sporting rifles had the short free bore chambers that caused problems with GI 5.56 ammo, after that all commercial rifles extended free bore in their production rifles so there would be no problem shooting GI 5.56 M193 and it’s long Bullet. Remember seeing Remington ads in gun magazines warning about using GI ammo circa 1979ish
i want to know more about the rifles, i’ve seen the retro ar10, but didn’t know they made a ar15 version
They don't anymore.
There are some parts left at Brownells, but not much.
There might be some being passed around in Ireland.
Brownell's did a run of both over the last 6-8 years, but I don't think a lot of people bought them. The 15 was during the quad-rail and "DI sucks, piston is the way to go" days (I believe) and the AR-10 was just a few years ago. The latter was fairly priced and it was during the explosion of the LR308/AR10 popularity, so I really don't know why it didn't catch on. I learned of its existence after they announced they were d/c'ing it, and was always late to the party when they'd put new one's up.
@@myparceltape1169 I well played sir
IIRC, some NATO 5.56 from European manufacturers is not loaded to the US Military spec velocity. It's been so long since I looked at it, I don't remember which they were. We're way past the 'salad' days of cheap surplus 5.56 & 7.62 ammo.
what was that mental muzzle device on that pic of Eugene Stoner???
British requirements were 500 yards penetration of steel helmet, 1951 rifle test. EM2.
NATO XM193 is my XBox screen name!!
I always thought they design the M193 and M855 to go through a Russian steel helmet?
I mean, they probably didn't have a few hundred russian spec helmets to hand for testing. Also the different between a US helmet and a Russian helmet of the time wasn't all that much, really just steel domes back then.
@@alexisborden3191
Yeah, that's possible.
In aggregate, this is fantastic and answered questions I have had for a long time.
And 5.56 tends to have harder primers than 223
My bolt action struggles with light strikes on 5.56.
Runs flawless on 223. 👍
Great explanation of questions ive had on the 193....thanks
People like to argue the hell out of semantics just so they can be right on some minute detail. This is good info.
i have pmc bronze 223 and pmc x tac5.56. and can't tell the difference between then when shooting. or looking at them with the exception that the xtac have a red primer sealant.
Dude awesome content and info. being that I am a huge fan of 5.56/223, can you do some content on m855 and m855a1, and I think its called the mk262. also what is the heaviest supersonic cartridge that can be used in an AR15, with a 5.56nato or .223wylde chambering???
Is it round or just circular? Yes.
First view. Terrific! Best explanation I’ve heard. Thanks.
Super technical and excellent breakdown!
so how does it relate to the 223 wylde chamber???
I noticed he didn't want to open that can of worms.
The 223 Wylde chamber is made with the external dimensions and lead angle found in the military 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge and the 0.2240 in (5.69 mm) freebore diameter found in the civilian SAAMI .223 Remington cartridge.
So it's basically a hybrid of the 2 chamber designs. 5.56 chamber body and .223 freebore.
Awesome video!! Hoping for the same video for M855, M80, etc.
Great vid. I was aware of the velocity and annealing, did not know about the primer/case mouth sealant as most of what is sold as civilian M193 doesn't have it. Or if it does it's a clear sealant instead of the red/green/blue commonly seen in mil-surp ammo.
Did you say US or UN steel😊
I'm already well aware of the difference, or lack there of with these rounds however, this is hands down the the best explanation I've ever seen! No B.S, not drawn out into a 1hour video, straight to the point. Great video bud 👍
You may actually see tighter groups with 5.56 in a 223 chamber.
A difference in 3,000 psi is almost negligible.
That said, always fire ammo your gun is chambered for, even if it's identical.
7:26 to 7:55. Yeah. Sounds like Winchester White Box 55 grain. The 20 round boxes. Lol.
Very informative! Thank you!
As for the fetish for steel helmet penetration, I just bought a Chinese M-88 steel helmet. Looks like a PASGET Kevlar except it is steel. Steel helmets are still in production even in 2023. Further, the Russian Army are still issuing the old steel SSh-68 (Russian: СШ-68 [стальной шлем образца 1968 года/stalnoy shlyem], English: SSh-68 steel helmet model 1968) today in 2023 or even airsoft helmets when better can't be found. In the 1950s the SSh-68 was the most likely helmet for US Soldiers to encounter on the battlefield. This requirement was a measurable objective standard. Now with modern body armor, that may be why the US Army is changing calibers.
That is a complex topic.
This should resolve the confusion over this. That said PMC Bronze is not M193 and should not be compared. Past 300 yards the deviation is significant.
And to make things even more fun in europe cip test for .223 chamber
is still proofed with 5.56 pressures. So in that logic it makes sense why
pretty much any ammo is marketed as .223rem and true 5.56 is
nonexistent. So every cip proofed gun should be able to take
5.56 ammo whitout issues.
Other example like typical 9x19mm fmj is generally loaded to nato spects
by default. So i would guess pistols are also made to handle those bit
hotter loads. American counterparts seems to be loaded bit milder
when compared to bullet weight and muzzle velocities.
This is something that I've always been curious about. What is wrong with 7.62×51 Even in a light rifle.
The recoil is not that bad?
In my old Hodgdon load manual there are specs and load data for 222 Remington Magnum. The case size and OAL is larger but load data and pressure is less. Maybe a predecessor?
Also I was told mil spec brass has less volume due to thicker case walls. Those crimped in primers are good for staying in. A pain to reload.
You gonna pick up that brass?
Thanks. If you run out of content ideas, a similar video on 762 NATO vs 308 Win would be appreciated
Nicely explained Carl. Getting my old brain to remember it will be the challenge.
This is why I download Karl's and similar videos as handy reference. Also, you never know when funny fellahs are going to pull a nasty.
Not forgetting that the original US load was made with a heavier bullet as a result of the NATO trials and that UK ammo operates at the other end of the tolerance for operating pressure from US ammo and won’t be reliable in the M4
OK- differences in the chamber cut in 5.56 or commercial. 223 Rem. Have you looked at the "Wildey" chamber, that is supposed to handle both? Is it a different design, or is it simply cutting a mil-spec chamber in a commercial barrel? And does it make a performance difference in the cartridges, if it is really a third chamber spec? Inquiring minds, etc...
The only difference in the chambers is the length. .223 is a shorter chamber, 5.56 is a longer chamber, .223 Wylde is a compromise in between.
Does anybody really make just .223 chambering on barrels anymore.
Anyone love 223 Wylde
M193 is a great round!
patrolling the mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
I wonder, how would the pressure from a 5.56 M193 in a tight-fitting .223 chamber compare to a .223 proof round in the same chamber?
Never does any 5.56x45 fired in 223 chambered guns every blow up the guns or damage them.
Reloading data for 5.56x45 & 223 in many reloading books is on the same page with max powder charges exceeding any and all commercial & Military 5.56x45 loaded ammo.
I believe the military requirement is for visible evidence that the necks were annealed (ie no final case polish after the anneal step). I think most modern cases are annealed after swaging the shoulder and neck.
but if the M193 ammo is loaded with 55gr bullets, and not using longer bullets such as 69gr, 75gr, 77gr, then you should not be close to the lands in a 223 chamber right (due to the bullet ogive)?
Correct, the M16, M16A1, and Colt SP1 have SAAMI .223 chambers and will run M193 spec (Lake City, CBC, etc.) ammo just fine
I remember that some Mini14s back in the 80s were labeled 223 Remington and that you weren't supposed to use milsurp in them. Now you've cleared up why, thanks!
This isn't true, and it's tiring seeing people repeat it. The one and only Mini-14 you cannot use milsurp 5.56 in is the Target Model introduced in 2007, which has a tighter chamber, thumbhole stock, and harmonic adjustable barrel.
M193 is 556 loaded to military powder spec, crimped primer and sealed
Que the New Vegas quotes because people saw brown plastic on an AR.🙄
Is it bad I put walnut furniture on my BRN-15?
And the Winchester contestant used .222 Remington Magnum
I have Used a throat reamer on my personal tools to ensure they can handle any issue military ammo.
Is it just me or are there none of the links mentioned in the description?
He's got the Feminazgul shirt out again!
As my comment seems to have not been posted, (probably because of the links to standards) here it is again. You will have to look up the websites yourselves now I am afraid.
SAAMI is NOT "The international organisation for civilian cartridge designations" It is a US gun trade institute that makes up its own, voluntary, standards for its US members to use. The clue is in the name: The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute. There IS an INTERNATIONAL organisation for civilian cartridge designations. It is called CIP. It has fourteen nations as members, the USA is not one. SAAMI founded in 1926. CIP founded in 1914.
SAAMI standards are not necessarily the same as CIP ones.
TH-cam tends to censor posts with firearms-related links.
@@charliefoxtrot5001 These were links to standards. I think it was more that they were links rather than what they were to to be honest but it's hard to know what they do censor as it seems so arbitrary.
I’ve been sticking to PPU & IMI M193.
2:23 ..ugh, the *thirty fifth* report on the project. Wow, nothing if not thorough.
Is ar 10 my favority the kalashmikov american
Thanks for explaining that can of worms
Waal, Dang!! Even I felt like I understood! Good accomplishment!!
I feel like the odd man out, as with everything I've shot, I've seen better terminal performance out of M855. Which runs entirely contrary to popular internet opinion.
M193 and M855 are both poor in terminal performance in comparison to other rounds, like MK262 Mod 1 or any LE round produced by Federal, Speer or Hornady.
Karl is educating us one more time on the joy of the smoll calibers compared to the good old 30-06s and so on. I would bow my head to you, but the no overlords rule prevents that, so i'll tip my hat in a sign of respect.
I’ll freely admit I religiously stick to single brands and SKUs of ammo and frequently chrono, re-chrono, and re-verify zero to ensure that I notice any sort of lot-to-lot inconsistency before it bites me in the scoreboard… But I do recognize it’s more of a personal ritual rather than something that affects more than just the slimmest, almost imperceptible margin of competition performance beyond 300 yards.
Got a box of random ammo from a gentleman, found a single .222 cartridge. Had no idea it was rare. Wish I knew what happened to it. It probably got shot on accident. I thought I put it aside.
It's not rare, it's still manufactured, just not as common as 223.
Carl flexing with the german 5.56.. the pmc bronze is some decent stuff too IMHO accuracy wise.
The “special” round you are referencing was actually called the “.222 Remington Special,” which then became the .223 Remington. It competed directly against the 53 grain .224 Winchester E2 round in the Winchester Lightweight Military Rifle. The rounds were so similar that early ArmaLite AR-15s were actually tested with the .224 ammo to level the playing field in 1958 Infantry Board Testing at Fort Benning.
There was also a SCHV round that goes by a few names, “.22 Experimental,” and “.224 Springfield” that I believe ultimately became the “.222 Remington Magnum.” It was made for the Springfield Armory SCHV submission.
I prefer IMI M193, their ammo is awesome.
This begs the question: is there any difference between XM193 and M193? I have seen both marketed and fired both. I presumed that there was no difference, and on the practical level there may be. Or maybe there *is* a difference? Why market something as "XM193" vs. "M193"? The "XM" designation implies "experimental", and in this context would seem to imply some difference in velocities, pressure, or powder. I honestly do not know.
So a couple of questions.
With m193 being the nato spec we can assume all of the bullets will probably be of a particular design and the ogive of every bullet will be uniform
.223 isnt going to be like that, even with bullets of the same weight. A 55gr fmj from seirra isnt going to be identical to a 55gr from Hornady. How does this jive with the tighter .223 chamber? What about longer, heavier bullets in .223? Shouldnt that be a surefire way to overpressure a 223?
Are all .223 chambers cut identically?
Theres a super interesting article published by Lucky Gunner. They took a selection of .223 barrels and 5.56 barrels and rigged them to test the pressure generated with different loads. Its been a few years since i read it but they found that "some" 5.56 barrels would make more pressure with .223 than "some" .223 varrels firing 5.56. The conclusion being that even mfg cuts their chambers just a little bit different.
I would imagine .223 reloaders are exceeding the pressures that 5.56 would generate onbthe regular
I've found specifically the PMC Bronze line to be near identical in point of impact to Federal M193.
But every brand is vastly different. The "M193" designation is almost meaningless.
Always test your ammo. 👍
The hill i will die on in one video so i dont have to type it out fabulous
Great video. What is the difference between say Federal XM193 and PMC XP193 both are 5.56 rounds. I was thinking maybe a difference in velocity.
I have a Saiga 223 that's marked ".223Rem" on the side, but according to the forums, it's really a 5.56NATO spec chamber because as a civilian manufacture rifle, they can't put 5.56 on it. I have no way of confirming that, other than it's a quality AK, and not to worry about it.
When I started looking qt the AR -15 style rifles I was told to use M193 ball ammo for practicing and defense so that's all I've ever used, except when hunting of course. I have never bought or shot any M855 green tip ammo.