I would think the argument really irrelevant for most of us. Only way I can afford to stock up is bulk boxes of XM193
Wow..Did'nt know that...But then again before i sunk my last boat with a Mini 14 in it...It did not know that either...Stupid Ruger...lol
I verified the difference between 5.556X45 and .223Rem the hard way when I had my TC Contender pistol - shot any .223 just fine - tried some 5.56, and it locked up the action when fired. Not good.
Have never had one moment of trouble with either. Have shot them interchangeably and even in the same mag. Same with 308/'51. Have heard this controversy for 20 years. Might be a problem for some but not for me.
I bought some White box 45gr JHP @ 3600 for the occasional nuisance coyote at the wood line or ~30 yards. YMMV, but I've shot 223 in a 5,56 chamber and all I noticed was a change in accuracy for the worse. That AR shoots sub moa so changes are easy to spot. As the modified chambers (Wylde, Noveske) promise better accuracy using either .233 or 5,56, my results prove their promise. Short, or long chambers will vary. Mine has no problems. I trade emails with a friend who has the same issues as you did. Ours are first model TCs from the early 1970s and we bought the barrels the same day. Same as many, he discovered the problem when 5,56 was inexpensive. http://glocktalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1229836.html This thread at Glocktalk and other firearms sites point to YMMV with TC's. TC's are too consistently accurate to say their chamber dimensions vary.
I concur. My Stag arms AR-15 shoots either just fine. Even mixed mags no problems. I am currently shooting American Eagle 55 grain fmj. Its cheap ammo and the accuracy is fine. Never had a jam or failure. I just bought three boxes of pmc .223 . I have a training session coming up in August.
It is rare to have any issues using .223 marked ammo issues in a 5.56 marked firearm. The other way around I usually the issue and even then it is not common. Improvise, Adapt, Modify, and Overcome. FTM/PTB
I didn't post this as anything other than passing on information--the Monkey bills itself as an "information archive." I wasn't condoning a particular approach because quite frankly, I don't have enough experience with guns that are just .223. I do have a mini-14...had it since 1982-3? I've never had a problem shooting 5.56...but, I don't shoot it that often either. All of this talk though does beg the question: "Why make a round so similar, yet with enough differences so that it affect accuracy. You'd think they'd all go 5.56 instead of .223. Imagine if this were a computer technology.... I think VisuTrac's assessment is accurate and would add that bulk 5.56 ammo is much cheaper than boxes of .223.
Why is really rather simple; they were developed by different groups at the same time, working from general information instead of one set of prints. The first commercial version was the .222 Magnum. You mean like Windows and Mac ?
No...I was thinking more like .xls and xlsx....basically anything that has a parser and deprecated specs.
pretty much all AR variants(different brands)are 5.56 not .223. The market is flooded with this style rifle with more manufactures than you can shake a stick at. The problem often occurs when a person buys a non-AR type rifle. Then you just have to be careful that's all. Improvise, Adapt, Modify, and Overcome. FTM/PTB
It's 2012 and weiners are still arguing over Remington 223 and 5.56x45 NATO? After SHTF, while you are arguing, some kid with a single-shot .22 will take you out. Chamber in 5.56 NATO and shoot either, if Rem 223, then stick to 223, simple. Damn! Grow a pair! Quit waiting for someone else to tell you the facts. Is this a survival board, or how many pansies can whine to each other?
Sorry to be gruff, but I was talking to one of my paraplegic buddies and I am sick of whining Mall Ninjas. Yeah, I sucked back a little Scotch. God, I miss my buds....
