Does anyone know of a reliable source of reloading data for 5.56 Nato loads? I have found data for .223 Remington, but they are not actually the same cartridge. The 5.56 allows higher pressures.
Thanks.

The Nosler #7 and Hornady #9 reloading manuals have a separate section for 5.56mm service rifle.

Accurate Arms powder data: Load Data « Accurate Powders use with current production powder.

__________________
S&WHF 366

The Western Powder loading guide contains both .223 and 5.56mm pressure loads using Accurate and Ramshot powders.

Both Nosler and Barnes provide 5.56 NATO data on-line.

It's been my experience that you can get chronographed NATO level velocities with some of the newer powders like CFE223 and AR-Comp without NATO level pressures. Notice I typed "chronographed", not the velocities that you see in print that are supposed to be what the velocity of NATO ammo is.

Strange how you will only fined 223 Rem dies and not 5.56.

5.56 will have higher pressures in 5.56 brass as it is thicker.

As mentioned service rifle data is what you seek.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Everyone says military brass is thicker. Ever weigh them?

David

I've weighed Lake City brass and it averaged 92 grains. Also weighed some 223 cases with a GFL head stamp and those were 100 grains. Kind of puts that myth about NATO cases being thicker to shame doesn't it? Lesson here is you shouldn't believe what you read on the Net and shouldn't repeat it without checking. Just about every time I've checked something being circulated on the Net I discovered that information was completely WRONG.

Perhaps they are not. But was it determined where the actual weight was on the case? Maybe it was the case head?
But weighing one or two brands certainly is not "statistically valid"

So a post on the SW Forum would be right in there with what "you read on the net"

Bearing Arms.223 Remington vs. 5.56 NATO: What You Don't Know Could Hurt You - Bearing Arms

These are 223 Rem:

223 Rem + 223 AI Cartridge Guide

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Here's a site you might get some info from.
Duplicating NATO cartridges (cloning) - 223 / 5.56 / 9mm reload central database

The latest edition of Hornady's reloading manual has a pretty good section of 556 data.
Personally, I'm happy in the 223 range. If I feel a need for more than that, I'll go get out a bigger rifle.

Weighing and comparing 2 cases does not prove anything regarding wall thickness.
How is that weight distributed throughout the case? If you weigh yourself how much weight is your leg or stomach your arm, water, muscle, fat???

These articles say they "may" be thicker. But granted so many brands, lot numbers, year made etc will throw in so many variables,it is hard to be definite. One would need the equipment to measure the wall thickness of a large sample size of many different brands, Just as some handgun brass is thicker than others of the same caliber.


American Rifleman | .223 Remington Vs. 5.56: What's in a Name?

Attached Files

223VS556.pdf (244.8 KB, 139 views)

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Case capacity is what matters.
The difference in 223 and 556 chambers is the length and angle of the leade or throat. Cases are interchangeable.

Yes, the chamber in the rifle. 5.56 is different than 223

Ye old saying shoot a 223 in a 5.56, but not a 5.56 in a 223 do to pressure. The debate remains on if 5.56 is structurally heavier in the case walls.But that debate as mentioned has gone on for a long time. As mentioned above there are so many brands and variables case lots etc that who knows. I always believed the walls to be thicker/stronger but perhaps not?? SAAMI can set standards for 223 but not NATO 5.56.

Look at the 6mmBR and that is 223 Rem and the variables in case capacity.

Weight of the case does not provide any info other than one weighs more, maybe the weight is the case head.?

Yes, once the cases are sized and trimmed use them in 223 chamber or 5.56. Still not sure I would load service or 5.56 pressure data in a 223 marked case.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

whether the cases are interchangeable or not because of its geometry isn't as important as the correct load data and the correct firearm and staying within max pressures for each caliber.

the OP is looking for load data references for 5.56 and is rightfully noting there is a difference with the .223 that we as reloaders need to consider.

from the article Rule3 references (American Rifleman - I'd consider them as "good" source), the 5.56 is designed for higher pressures than the .223

and

to make matters more confusing - the pressures are measured in different locations on the cases and by different methods - so they can't even be compared.

further down in the article it states the 5.56 has a longer throat and different throat angles - both are said to have an effect on pressure - so it would be prudent to keep 5.56 loads in 5.56 stamped brass and .223 loads in .223 stamped brass
that way if the 5.56 case being used does have thicker walls - it can handle the increase in pressure from the decreased volume and different chamber throats


what's key here is SAAMI considers shooting 5.56 in a .223 " an unsafe ammunition combination"

stay safe - its a sport!

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

How many years is it going to take to dispel this myth? This dead horse has been beat into hamburger by now. Been reloading 5.56 for a long time and I don't even separate my brass anymore. 7.62 & .308- yes, 5.56 & .223 nah.

I would doubt "this myth" will ever be dispelled until SAAMI rescinds their warning or companies like Hornady remove statements in their manual like "Reloaders, especially former M1A/308 shooters, are cautioned not to load 5.56 x 45mm beyond the AR-15's operating range lest case, barrel, and receiver life will be sacrificed.

hmmm, I wonder why these statements are still out there

is there any published material out there from reputable experts that counters SAAMI's warning??

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

Those statements are there mainly to cover their own *****. Ok we get it... They aren't identical But it is generally a difference in firearms that create an "unsafe" pressure excursion. I mostly consider the problem exists with military ammo in a commercial chamber. I may be different but I never load to absolute max vels and pressure...and will submit to y'all that the "average" tactical shooter doesn't either. The only true 223 chambered firearm I have is a 14 inch Contender. The others are a pair of Bushmasters in 5,56. As far as the statement above to not load beyond the AR 15s operating range... DUH pretty self explanatory. I don't load 30-30 past the operating range of my old M-64 Winchester either. This subject has been beaten past the dead horse stage LOL I have seen as much variation in chambers of every day hunting rifles over the years of repairing guns

"Weighing and comparing 2 cases does not prove anything regarding wall thickness."

It absolutely does. Two cases of identical weight also have exactly the same internal volume. Lighter cases have more internal volume than heavier cases. Think on it awhile - you'll figure it out.

Part of the pressure issue of .223 vs 5.56mm involves the throat dimensions. The leade of the .223 chamber is longer than the standard military 5.56mm chamber, and the bullet gets more of a running start and the peak pressure is lower. That is also why the peak chamber pressure in a military barrel is higher.

By the way, the methods used to determine the peak chamber pressures of military 5.56mm and commercial (SAAMI) loads are different. The NATO EPVAT pressure measurement method used for the 5.56mm measures pressure at the case mouth.

If you're going for 5.56mm pressures, you might want to consider going with CCI #41 primers. They're the mil-spec primer and allegedly have thicker cups to cope with the pressure.

On the case wall thickness thing, it may well differ between makers-unless there is a SAAMI spec for same. (I measured the capacity of a statistically significant number of Federal and LC brass and found no difference.) The cartridge was SAAMI standardized at a particular pressure. However, the original spec didn't allow for the obsolete method the military uses to chronograph small arms ammunition. As a result, the ammo supplier had to jack up the pressures to make the mandated velocity.

Just a little FYI LC and Federal are one and the same so they should be pretty much identical. I very much doubt Federal would make 2 distinct cases for essentially the same ammo. And there will always be a bit of difference with cases from any other manufacturer. And yes the first iteration of military ammo didn't make the grade so they had to bump pressures to get more velocity. The original working pressures were supposedly 222 and 222 mag pressures

The anneal of FC headstamped brass is different than the anneal of LC. Charges that the LC handles without issue will enlarge FC primer pockets. High Power shooters usually will not touch FC brass because it's only good for a couple of loads. It's irritating to prep brass and have to toss them shortly.

As best practices for reloading require reducing powder charges and working your way back up if any component is changed, whether the change is powder lot, bullet, or primer, I fail to see the purpose of most of this thread.

Always assume there is a difference until proven otherwise.

This thread was started by me to find 5.56x45 loading data, but morphed into something else after the first few posts.

Personally I think you are right..but looking for loading data from people on the net when all the info is right there at your fingertips from all the powder makers?? Uuummm Think I'd trust the load data from companies first and foremost. And we are talking more of a chamber differenc in the context that the OP brought up rather than loading data itself. Sticking a bullet up against the rifling Will change everything for the most part. Not dissing you..just pointing out the obvious. I happened to do that with a 22-250 round once. A fairly mild round locked the bolt right up with a longer seated bullet. Scary

As far as the annealing of military brass it has been required mainly IIRC for longer term ammunition storage. I seem to remember reading of a change implemented in the 1919-1920 era.. High intensity ammo and brass cracking. But that was at a time when our gummit wasn't involved in all this world policing stuff and ammo was stored for 15-20 yrs or more. Just an observation

The purpose of this thread is no different than that of any other thread. I suppose we could have just said look in a manual or look online from the powder companies but what fun is that?

All threads must be sidetracked and become a debate, ie railroad them

Is HP 38 really Win 231?

Are Federal primer pockets really weak?

I hear Remington brass is very thin

Dillion is the greatest press in the whole World.

Does the LFCD really bite?

Advise or Advice"

Hamburger is not really made from Ham, so how can it be made from a Dead Horse?? It would be HorseBurger then.

So much info so many myths.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Actually, ATK (used to own Federal, Speer, CCI and a slew of other brands-now spun off into Vista Outdoors) currently has the contract to operate the US Government owned Lake City Ammo Plant (You can see this on the Orbital ATK website). All the machinery, tooling, standards and specifications, etc belongs to Uncle Sam. So, the Federal ammunition products are not produced on the same equipment as Lake City ammunition and never were. (Historical note: back in the 1960's, Olin/Winchester had the contact to operate the plant. Their use of ball powder in early 5.56mm ammo created massive problems.)

However, since a whole slew of folks make both .223 or 5.56mm, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have two sets of stamping dies for case forming, along with separate gauges and inspection standards. It'd be a liability nightmare. Folks who don't make both might show differences.

I'm not following the logic behind how weighing cases tells anything about any dimensions within the case - such as case wall thickness. Sure a heavier case has more material - but where is it? Notice the tapers and thicknesses varying along the case length and the thickness of the case at the bottom near the primer hole and how thin it is in the middle of its length. How can that be accounted for from weighing cases?

Here's a drawing showing the full geometry of the 5.56mm case. The web is supposed to have a thickness of 0.200". From what I have read, the bottom of the case is beefed up here because of the higher pressures in that region. I cut open an R-P .223 case and that web is 0.170" - not 0.200".
Just extrapolating here - but I'd think difference in depth would translate to differences around the radius and up the taper towards the middle of the case

The trim length allowed is 0.010" in comparison.

See Distribution Statement on drawing - Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited




I haven't found any update on current case geometry, if its changed, but I'd assume when people associate thicker cases with 5.56mm - this is probably what they are referring to.

The revision dates go up to 2001

sorry about beating on a dead horse, and my part of the hi-jacking I know how that's done - but this topic is new to me!

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

"I'm not following the logic behind how weighing cases tells anything about any dimensions within the case - such as case wall thickness."

And indeed case weight will not tell you about case wall thickness in various locations. But it will tell you everything about case volume. That is why bench rest shooters will weigh every case and segregate them into groups of near-identical weight - to get consistent case volume. They do the same with bullets. And they also cut consistent case neck wall thickness - all to get more consistency.

Actually, some Lake City-manufactured brass is loaded at Federal's Anoka MN plant, or at least it used to be.

A few years back there was a real shortage of mil spec ammo. There were a few companies making military ammo for the gummit. It had to meet mil specs. Guarantee ya all cases were not the same...but velocities pressures were all very similar...and guarantee ya there was a LOT of 5.56 ammo burned in 223 chambers. And by the way..I happened to weigh LC and Federal cases from the same time frame and they are statistically the same. As far as benchresters and cases.. It is truly amazing to me. They uniform everything...weight length necks primer pockets flash holes etc etc...then most use THROWN powder charges rather than weighed individually. yeah ball powders etc but there is always a bit of variation. Also...it really is amazing to me how well those guys can shoot. I have some of that old Thunderbird powder the BRs loved and was lucky to be under .6 inches..consistently. Still...much better than angle of ground hog..or even Angle of P Dog. My ol 1951 722 Remington still shoots better than I can. I ran a few military rounds over the chrono and some 223 also...through the 14 inch Contender both 55 gr FMJs...not enough difference to hang yer hat on. in fact the mil spec LC was just as consistent as commercial. Must be the chamber

The official specification for Lake City's finished 5.56mm case weight is 89 to 95 grains. It's virtually certain that production case weights are held to a tighter tolerance.

Quite a few .233 sporting rifles have had their leades cut slightly longer to get more freebore, and there is a throat reamer made for that purpose. Midway sells it: PTG Uni Throater Hand Throating Reamer 22 Centerfire High Speed Steel

A little expensive for a single gun, but I think there are cheaper ones available, also some places rent them. http://4-dproducts.com/displayitem.p...9&tname=rental

91.7 gr avg..LC 91.4 Fed...avg also. That Contender chamber is purely stock. Never needed or want to do a chamber cast. my most accurate factory loads are actually LC mil spec ammo... older 55 gr FMJs. But it shoots most everything under 70grs pretty well.

I have recently measured the total water capacity of several 223/5.56 cases that were fired in my military surplus barrel. I averaged 10 cases FL sized w/o depriming, trimmed to 1.75", champhered in/out, weighed and then filled to the top of the neck and weighed again.

After determining total water capacity, I measured several aspects of the bullets I use and determined by calculations the water displacement based on seating depth (including boat tail). This became the Useful Case Capacity (Ucc).

Shown below is the summary and you can see that most US 223 and 5.56 are pretty close to being the same. Foreign brass, especially milsurp, is often heavier and has less capacity (but not all- look at Hirtenberg).



I then tested several of these with the same load and found that the heavy DNL produced significantly more velocity across my chrono out of both the 20" and 16" barrels. I also tested different primers.

My baseline ammo for testing milsurp and OEM loads included LC-09, LC-76, DNL, Hirtenberg, Win Q3131A, PMC and S&B. My baseline handload was AA-2230 with 55FMJ, LC-09 & CCI-450. Those results are in another chart for a range report I am putting together, but I'll share this data now.

Lot of work to do that. Thank you.

Then you fail to see the purpose of the internet.
I don't consider a thread successful until it is locked and somebody gets dinged!
Then and only then has it achieved internet nirvana.

__________________
Forum consigliere

I have always heard the military cases were thicker in the shoulder to stand up being slammed through automatic guns. But I confess this is just what I have heard and I don't know anything for a fact.

I also keep hearing it argued that the 5.56 and the 223R are different. I have held each in my hand and they look the same. I have fired both from all three of my 5.56/223 rifles (early AR, two CZ bolt guns) and I be darned if I can detect any difference. If there are any pressure/velocity differences I suspect they are minute in nature.

Or am I wrong? Really, what's the velocity difference between a commercial 223R load and a military 5.56 load? Is it enough to matter?

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Probably the same as the difference between a European sparrow and an african swallow

__________________
Forum consigliere

Then you are proposing they are vastly different? Everyone knows the African swallow is stronger!

Bring out your dead (horse)!

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

Clearly the SAFE answer is Yes and No You opened another can of worms. The OP was about brass. Per this site, the 5.56 is loaded to a higher pressure and the chambers are different. Now after it is shot and resized and trimmed then it can be loaded to whatever. I am leaving it at that

This is not my answer but the 6mmBR site is pretty reliable.

223 Rem + 223 AI Cartridge Guide



.223 Remington vs. 5.56x45--Chambering and Throat Considerations
Is the .223 Remington the same as the 5.56x45? The answer is yes and no. There ARE differences between the .223 Remington as shot in civilian rifles and the 5.56x45 in military use. While the external cartridge dimensions are essentially the same, the .223 Remington is built to SAAMI specs, rated to 50,000 CUP max pressure, and normally has a shorter throat. The 5.56x45 is built to NATO specs, rated to 60,000 CUP max pressure, and has a longer throat, optimized to shoot long bullets. That said, there are various .223 Remington match chambers, including the Wylde chamber, that feature longer throats. Military 5.56x45 brass often, but not always, has thicker internal construction, and slightly less capacity than commercial .223 Rem brass.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

According to the testing I have done, using my 20" 1:9 milsurp barrel;
o- 5.56 55 gr M193 milsurp ranges from 3150 to 3250 fps but is usually in the 3200 fps area.
o- Commercial is all over the place but the 55 FMJ often ranges from 2900 to 3100 with Winchester Q3131A in the 3300-3350 realm

In a 16" barrel you lose about 200-300 fps

o- 5.56 62gr M855 is usually 3050 fps thru my chrono.

I have chronographed a few US commercial .223 55 gr FMJ
loads and several various 5.56 55 gr FMJ loads out of my
16" Colt AR and although there are differences between
makes of both there is normally at least 200 fps difference
between 223R and 5.56. There seems to be a simple way
to handload to 5.56 specs to me if you own a chronograph.
At least with 55 gr bullets. After chronographing 5.56 ammo
from your rifle simply load 55 gr handloads with an
appropriate powder to a velocity that is about the same as
the referenced 5.56 ammo. Some years ago before there
were as many powders to choose from W748 was most
often used in the articles I read. It's still a fine choice
because it has the burn rate that means you will run out
of case capacity in the 5.56 with 55 gr bullets and in the
.308 with 150 gr bullets before you will reach dangerous
pressure levels. The older articles I read listed 27.5-28.0
grs of 748 with 55 gr bullets as close to 5.56 ballistics.

I have come to the conclusion that there was NO difference between the .223 and 5.56 rounds until the internet came along
I have a Mini 14 which shoots anything I have ever been able to fit into the chamber. It doesn't read the internet so apparently it doesn't know there is a difference.

__________________
Forum consigliere

...and if it's like mine, you can't hit a barn with it whilst standing in the hallway.