Thread: 223 or 5.56

If you had read the link you would realise that it is fine to fire 223 in 5.56 so perfectly acceptable to sell and market 223ammo as suitable for both and mark a 5.56 chamber as 5.56 and 223 but not the other way around this is the point.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

If you had read the link you would realise that it is fine to fire 223 in 5.56 so perfectly acceptable to sell and market 223ammo as suitable for both and mark a 5.56 chamber as 5.56 and 223 but not the other way around this is the point.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

That would work if it was marked 5.56 (223) but it chambered in .223 and also takes the 5.56x45. If I am reading that properly that is the other way around.

Originally Posted by timattalon

That would work if it was marked 5.56 (223) but it chambered in .223 and also takes the 5.56x45. If I am reading that properly that is the other way around.

How do you know which it is chambered in?
From a manufactures point of veiw it would be safest to ream everything to 5.56 lead no matter what is stamped on the barrel.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

How do you know which it is chambered in?
From a manufactures point of veiw it would be safest to ream everything to 5.56 lead no matter what is stamped on the barrel.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

That would make sense, It could be a similar situation to shotguns where you can use a 3" magnum in a shotgun chambered for 3.5" but you cannot do the other way around. But I would have thought they would have labelled the barrel 5.56 (223 if that was the case. But as long as I know I can use both it becomes moot what they have done. In this situation I know the manufacturer also makes larger calibres and apart from the chamber and diameter of the bore there is no other external changes to the rifles action etc so the action and barrel are capable of handling much larger calibres and pressures so perhaps for them it is a non issue.