i have only shot about 100 rounds of remington 55 gr, but it was pricey where i bought it, about .50 a bullet. what ammo do u recommend and where is the best place to buy it, cabelas has 1000 bullets for $400, but that is alot of cash to drop at one shot

You might want to check out this site -- Ammo Engine.

http://www.ammoengine.com/find/index?last_firearm_id=rifle&last_caliber_id=223_Remington_5_56x45mm&firearm_id=rifle&caliber_id=223_Remington_5_56x45mm&search[sort]=1&search[group]=4

It links to most of the big guys and allows you to compare cost per round.

great sight, so what ammo would u recommend. i mean hiw much better is remington than wolf because at $400 for 1000 thats .40 and i see there are a few brands for that price and under i just never heard of them.

Well, I tend to use Prvi M193 stuff. However, I know many people that use Wolf stuff--however, you should know that it is a pretty dirty round, so expect to do more cleaning.

You might want to consider getting a .22 upper and shoot the cheap .22 rounds.

not sure how a round is dirtier than the other but it sounds like i should prob just stick to remington, what are some other brands people are using, i have a 15 22 for plinking, need practice on this rifle for coyote hunting next week.

Ammunition - .223/5.56

Cope's Distributing

I've been using XM193 5.56x45 with a 1/9 barrel and have nothing bad to say about it. $8/20rds and $249/800rds @ my local shop. Wolf, Tula etc. are dirtier and run steel cases like most russian stuff rather than brass.

I have heard that the steel rounds are really hard on the extractor. Is this true?

And I agree. The Wolf rounds are very dirty. It takes me at least twice as long to clean my AK after a day at the range.

But, the rounds that I buy, 7.62X39 rounds are less than .27 cents per round, so I don't mind a little extra time cleaning.

Not sure it would be worth it on an AR.

PhilH

General and special purpose on the tactical side:

Tactical entry use subsonic with suppressors > Extreme Shock - The World's Most Advanced Ammunition

Tactical supersonic use with or without supprerssors > Extreme Shock - The World's Most Advanced Ammunition

On a side note: You folks with handguns for personal defense or home defense, and you folks with duty related carry, this is what you want > http://www.extremeshockusa.com/cgist...d=2166748.5052 I can gurantee you this will stop them when the more common stopping rounds will not. I mix it with Federal Hydra-shock, 1 round federal/one round extreme/federal/extream/federal/ etc.....

On the general use, qualification, range practice, and plinking, side:

Don't get that Cabells stuff, way over priced. You can get a 990 round case for $ 259.99 which means that 1000 round Cabella case is charging you $1.00 a round minimum for 10 rounds in that case, and over all about $0.40 per round.

General use, range, general carry, qualification, and plinking, top of page > The Armory: 223 Ammunition, ammo, Remington, Winchester, Corbon, S&B, PMC, Aguila, Wolf, - look at the '223 Remington (5.56x45mm) 62 gr FMJSCBT SS109 ATI Ammo 990 Round Case' - on sale- 990 round case for $259.99 (about $0.23/round) - Good, accurate and will shoot less than 1 MOA as advertised, a little dirty but no where near as dirty as the Wolf ammo.

TRUTHS; NOT MYTHS:

1. Most M&P15's will shoot just about anything.
2. Steel case ammo is NOT HARD on your extractor.
3. Lacquer or Polymer on the steel case CAN NOT MELT OFF the case and gum up the chamber.
4. Steel does not expand as well as brass, and doesn't seal the chamber as well. Therefor, some carbon/powder blowback goes around the case and makes it a little dirtier. Don't be like the "Macho men" who go 500-1000 rounds without cleaning their rifle.
5. If you aren't into marksmanship, long range competition, and/or reloading, then steel case ammo is an excellent alternative. $3.50-$4.00 per box in bulk is excellent.
6. Those who disagree with this, unfortunately drank the cool-aid and don't know what they're saying. Or, they don't know how to maintain their rifle.

Will EVERY RIFLE on the planet work perfectly with EVERY AMMO on the planet? No it won't. But it's not just steel case ammo. I know plenty of "INDIVIDUAL" pistols and rifles that have issues with certain brass ammo. Doesn't mean the ammo or the weapon are bad. Just not compatible. If your rifle doesn't like Wolf ammo, try a different manufacturer like silver bear, mfs, etc... And NO, not all russian steel case ammo is built by the same company.

Anyway; go to WALMART and pick up some Tula ammo. It costs $4.97 for a box. Pick up a few boxes and go try it out. Maybe go to a local gun shop and buy a different brand of russian. If your rifle likes it; and it probably will, because 99% of all M&P15's will shoot anything; then go online and buy that steel case ammo in bulk.

FWIW: I bought a brand new M&P15OR for christmas. It's been exactly 2 months now, and I have approximately 800 rounds of ammo through it. 700 of those rounds have been steel case ammo. MFS, Tula, Barnaul, herters (cabelas) and silver bear. The steel case is a much softer and thinner steel than any of the steel in your rifle. If that cheap steel in the case is stronger than your rifle's steel, then your rifle has a MAJOR problem.

A defective lacquer coating can gum up under heat and use. For example, some Brown Bear ammo was pulled due to a defective lacquer coating. We test fired close to 2,000 of the defective coating rounds before we figured out that the defective lacquer was gumming up and getting into the weapons causing the repeated jams and cycling problems, manufacturer acknowledged the issue to us after they tested the same lot.

Although for quality coatings it generally does not melt off, it can flake off and mix with some lubricants to form a gummy residue that can lead to problems if left in the weapon over repeated firing sessions and the weapons not cleaned. However, a cleaning usually removes it and it does not cause a problem. Some coatings don't even flake and are good quality. Lacquer coatings vary as to quality, simply because something says that lacquer coated rounds don't cause a problem does not mean that you will never experience a problem with a lacquer coated round.

Its like anything else, it can go bad and cause a problem.

I, as well as others, have intentionally taken lacquer and polymer coated brass and hit them with a butane and propane torch. Nothing melted off. And it's very unlikely that your chamber can get as hot as a torch. Not saying that some defective lacquer coating didn't break free and stick to the side of the chamber. But it definitely didn't melt. But if you think your chamber can and did get hotter than a torch, then I don't know what to say.

I've gone through thousands of rds of brown bear 7.62 and have never had a problem, though I clean after each session. Reciever will fill up with red flakes but I will sometimes go through 500-600 rds in one outing and have yet to have a malfunction of any kind. I've always chalked it up to an sks being built to fire those kind of rounds. But then that's the only firearm I've used russian ammo in.

Those are the flake types of which I spoke, but the ones your seeing might be the bullet sealant and thats normal for that type of ammo. You clean after a session so most likely you will not have a problem. We did have a problem with that group we fired, but the lacquer coating was defective and acknowledged by the manufacturer as being defective.

The heat test by applying a torch to the lacquer is not valid testing for the overall weapon use. Other things contribute to the lacquer degradation as well....wear from cycling, the quality of the coating, even the type of lubricant used, just not only heat as the heat is really only a small part of the overall cycle. So just applying heat to it and not seeing it melt away and saying that its all good to go is not the only thing that needs to be done. A defective coating can gum up pretty bad, the coating on the rounds we tested was defective, we removed numerous gummy lumps about half the size of a corn kernal, sort of like small bb's, where it had mixed with carbon residue.

People always refer to "melting away", well no, it doesn't "melt away" like a piece of plactic melting. A lacquer coating has to be some pretty stout stuff to not be affected by heat or sudden mechanical abrasion. It can and does flake off under weapon firing conditions, those flakes when combined with lubricants can form a gummy residue and cause problems if left in the weapon for repeated firings over time. Like I said before, if you clean then you generally have nothing to worry about.

A defective coating only needs a little bit of heat for it to become sticky or gummy, chamber induced heat does not need to be that great for it to happen either. The rounds we had with the defective coating, when the case extracted you could feel the stickiness of the lacquer immediately when the case was ejected (before it cooled completly) and you could tell there was something different with ejecting after a few rounds and thats because the case was basically sticking to things so the ejection was a little different, we even saw a few times where the ejected case would hit the deflector and "delay" there for just the slightest bit and you could tell something wasn't right, thats how sticky it got. That stickiness was the lacquer giving away under the stress of firing and was left in the chamber from round to round and built up until the BCG was affected and slowed slightly in its cycle which led to malfunctions of course. Because the steel casing is a little loose when fired and does not seal as well as a brass casing, each firing allowed more blowback into the chamber, which carried gummy residue into other parts of the chamber and into the BCG. When the group finally stuck back at the half way point in its cycle we stopped the test, removed the bolt, and it actually stuck to an open hand upside down for a few seconds it was so sticky. It was OK for those weapons though because they were weapons for testing anyway and would eventually be fired-to-destruction. In my own weapons I would not use lacquer coated ammo, and we don't use it, or steel casings, in 5.56 tac weapons.

As for steel cases, they don't seal sufficiently to form a good gas seal like brass does and thats what the 5.56 mil-spec chamber tolerances were intended for - a brass casing that sealed when fired. The steel casing not sealing tightly as brass causes a build up of carbon between the casing and chamber that is in excess of that normally expected for the weapon tolerances, evetually leading to malfunctions, and of course cleaning on a regular basis between sessions helps out. The tolerances are pretty close on a 5.56 mil-spec chamber for a narrow taper wall 5.56 mil-spec round. Russian and East bloc weapons were designed with looser tolerances just so they could use steel cased ammo, our american spec'd weapons are closer tolerances and when that carbon build up happens from the steel casing gas seal thing it can cause problems. Anyway, the 5.56 mil-spec chambering was intended for a brass casing that sealed suitably (which is the reason we don't use steel casings in our tac weapons). This is the reason that steel cased ammo like Wolf or the others appear to be more dirty, because of the lack of that seal there is more stuff that gets blown back into the chamber area. However, I think Wolf switched to a polymer coating which helps with the sealing thing some but doesn't completly eliminate it. Although the weapon fires and cycles with steel cased ammo, with steel cased ammo the weapon is not really firing in spec for the chamber tolerances because the chamber isn't sealed properly by the steel cased round upon firing.

The red flakes you are seeing, is NOT the same lacquer that the case is coated in. The lacquer the case is coated in, is to prevent it from rusting and/or corroding. The red you see, is the sealant around the primer pocket and at the throat of the case where the bullet sits. It's designed to keep the moisture out of the bullet, where the powder is. You will ALWAYS get the red flakes in your gun. No way around this. Except on the "Newer Ammo", they simply don't seal the primer pocket or throat of the case. This has absolutely nothing to do with the lacquer on the case itself. As for taking care of it; that's simple: "CLEAN THE RIFLE AFTER USE".

As for the steel ammo not fitting fitting in a 5.56 chambered weapon properly, this is simply wrong. No, steel cases don't seal like a brass case. But this has nothing to do with a "Proper" 5.56 chamber. Explain that to the saiga, galil, ak74, and numerous other rifles chambered in military 5.56 that shoots steel ammo almost 100% exclusively. Yes, american rifles tend to be tighter tolerances; this however has nothing to do with the steel case ammo. You are also incorrect that the carbon build up will "EVENTUALLY" cause malfunctions. No it won't. Not cleaning the rifle will; but not the carbon buildup. The bottom line is: If you use steel case ammo; clean the damn thing. I've had quite a few .223/5.56 rifles that have shot in the 10's of 1000's of steel case ammo.

Now; where some people complain about short stroking and similar, is usually on mil-spec rifles with a heavy buffer. Mil-spec means 5.56. The military doesn't shoot .223. 5.56 has higher gas pressure. That, plus the right heavy buffer/spring, and it operates properly. If you are shooting .223 that happens to be significantly less pressure than the 5.56, and you have a heavy buffer/spring, you may have issues with short stroking and not ejecting/feeding properly. Many weapons like the S&W M&P15 have given up on "Some" Mil-Spec standards, because they prefer that the weapon work properly with what it's going to shoot. Most people shoot .223 ammo; not 5.56. So many manufacturers of weapons, will over-gas the gas system. This allows the rifle to chamber with damn near any ammo that you shoot through it. And because the majority is .223 ammo and not 5.56, this is perfect.

Anyway; each weapon is unique. Some don't like a particular brand of ammo. "Steel or Brass is irrelevant". I've seen some weapons that don't like certain brass ammo. Anyway; if your rifle can shoot steel case ammo, then there is absolutely no reason not to shoot it. Simply clean the rifle when you're done shooting it. There is going to be more carbon deposits in the chamber area than with brass ammo. It will not cause any problems or lead to any malfunction if you clean the gun.

+1 for sound reasoning and information.

You couldn't prove it by me. And even if it was, I could care less....the cost of an extractor is recovered in the first couple of boxes of steel cased ammo. (about $12 to $15 for a new one)

I've been shooting nothing but steel cased ammo for the past year in my M&P15 OR. When I go to a training class, I even shoot Hornady's steel cased Training ammo.



I think it is....the last batch I bought at Cabela's cost me 18 cents a round (including tax). If you think 27 cents a round is worth it....I guess 18 cents a round would really be worth it?
Not sure it would be worth it on an AR.

__________________
Stu

The flakes I saw were the lacquer (actually kinda more brownish looking but red enough). I know what the sealant looks like, that is expected for this brand of ammo. This was not the sealant. You wern't there, so please don't tell me what I saw. I've been doing weapon testing, selection, and tactical use for the last 30 years almost now, with government/military/and now civilian law enforcement. I know unacceptable/defective ammo when I see it. I am not incorrect that the carbon build up can cause malfunctions, you are incorrect in assuming that it can't. You do not need to lecture me on cleaning weapons, i've tested and used literally thousands of all types over the years both american and foreign, some under the most critical of conditions, I think I know a little about cleaning. I even acknowledged that if you clean on a regular basis you should be fine with the steel cased.

This was the lacquer, it was defective, it was acknowledged by the manufacturer as being defective and being the lacquer. Chemical testing revealed it as the lacquer. I'm pretty sure it was the lacquer. Yet your going to tell me that what I saw was not the lacquer?

The issue with steel cases has been tested time and again, the issue exists plain and simple, and trying to wish it away by saying lots of people do it does not mean its not there. You can use what ever ammo you want, i'm not disputing your right to do so. But please don't tell me what I saw and the results of the testing, you wern't there and you don't know.

There is a big difference between using steel case ammo exclusively simply because you want to do so, and it meeting specs. Any weapons manufacturer can say or recommend that, its popular to do that with some grades of weapons. It does not mean that simply because a bullet goes down the bore that everything is all peaches and cream. The mil-spec 5.56 chamber was intended to shoot brass, simply using steel case in it and it working does not mean all the specs are met, because they aren't. The fact that someone can make a steel cased ammo and it works doesn't mean anything. The 5.56 can shoot the SAMMI spec'd .223 but even though you might get away with it you really should not shoot NATO 5.56 in a .223 SAMMI spec'd only weapon, that is enough in its self to outline there is a reason for specs. The steel cased ammo, wolf for example, meets SAMMI specs but it does not meet NATO 5.56 specs and thats what the mil-spec 5.56 chamber is toleranced for - NATO 5.56. Simply because a SAMMI spec steel cased round happens to work also does not mean it meets the mil-spec NATO 5.56 specs. So no, the steel cased round might appear to "fit", and it does physically based upon size, but not firing characteristics for which the mil-spec 5.56 chamber tolerances are intended.

S&W marks the barrel of the OR model weapon with 5.56, not 5.56/.223 or just .223 (maybe they have barrels marked both ways for the OR model, I have not checked into it to make sure but mine is marked 5.56). They mark it that way for a reason, and not just for liability reasons. Its because the weapon was spec'd for 5.56. Sure, you can shoot .223 in it, but its not a recommended practice to shoot NATO 5.56 in weapons marked only .223. In other words, one does not imply the other, and its incorrect to assume it does. Some manufacturers mark their weapons '5.56/.223' but thats not really saying anything, all it says is what we already know, that you can shoot .223 in a 5.56 mil-spec chamber but that does not mean steel cased ammo meets the tolernace specs on firing in the mil-spec chamber regardless of how many people use the steel cased. And of course the manufacturer is going to say the steel cased is recommended, especially with weapons that have their origin with foreign based companies in countries where steel cased ammo is plentiful, or if the steel cased ammo is popular, why wouldn't they as they need to market also to make sales, and part of that is appealing to those that want to do it on a budget and the steel cased just happens in many cases to be cheaper. So yeah they are going to recommend it, but it doesn't mean its in firing specs for a mil-spec 5.56 chamber, it just happens to work. There is one reason, among many, why the majority of ammo for 5.56 on the market is brass cased, its because the manufacturers know the 5.56 mil-spec chamber was intended to use brass. Sure, it could be made specifically for steel, but it isn't. Even the east block countries acknowldge the difference in the steel cased ammo, and as a result their military weapon tolerances are not as tight as american tolerances to account for that difference and the carbon build up, they even know the issues that excess carbon build up between the chamber and the round can cause from steel cases because they know they don't seal that well so they have looser tolerances to account for it so the weapon keeps working. Yet your trying to tell me that the whole east block was wrong, that their whole arms industry for military small arms was wrong?

I never said that my rifle could not shoot steel case, i'm sure it would, I said that I would not use it in my weapons. We don't use it in 5.56 spec'd tac weapons because of legal liability issues. If the ammo is outside the specs for the weapon then the weapon is legally considered not in spec, and if a shooting happens with it and the out of spec ammo is used then the shooting, although justified, could be ruled as "unlawful" because the weapon was technically not in spec at the time with the steel cased ammo. The reason it would not be in spec is because its a known fact that the steel cased ammo does not seal properly per the specs for the 5.56 tolerances and that is backed by years of lab testing that proves it.

Wolf ammo, for example, added the polymer coating in an attempt to solve the sealing issue with the steel case. The ploymer, in theory, is supposed to tighten up the seal some (although it doesn't really make it all the way). If there was not an issue then why does the manufacturer acknowledge it with changing the coating? Its just not corrosion because the lacquer would take care of that and be eaiser and cheaper to use. Its because they knew the issue existed, and they had to market to the american market, and to those who posess american made weapons in other parts of the world as well, so this is their solution to do that. Wolf even acknowledges that the polymer coating is their solution for this issue.

These were test weapons we tested with and I gave the results of that testing, no i did not give all the pictures, pressure tests, charts, emails back and forth with the manufacturer, record of phone calls with the manufacturer, their letter of acknowledgement and their own test results confirming, and test results from the lab, but yeah, i'm pretty sure it was lacquer. It was defective lacquer like I already said. I believe a weapon should be in spec when it fires and the ammo should match the platform in all respects, that goes for every thing from the shooter to the ammo. When I resource a weapon I expect everything to be in spec, i've learned the valuable lessons from the past of what happens when its not. I could probably run 50% ethanol in my vehicles too, but it it would not meet the specs for a gasolene only engine even if it did work and does not mean its correct for the vehicle just because it runs.

I'm not debating if the ammo should or should not be used, just stating fact born out by testing by not only myself but many others as well over the years, and every time substantiated by new testing that shows the same results, and acknowldged by manufacturing practices in countries that developed the weapons to specifically use the steel case (the soviet and east block), and in a way the steel cased ammo manufacture for the subject ammo their self when they say it meets SAMMi specs and in some cases going to the expense and cost of changing the coating just to solve the issue. You sound like I hurt your feelings or something. Go and shoot steel cased to your hearts content.

And you weren't there when BeginningofTheEnd mentioned his red flakes, so don't automatically assume it was the lacquer, and not the sealant.

Dragon: You said +1 for Sound Reasoning and information; to fox's statement of: "In my own weapons I would not use lacquer coated ammo, and we don't use it, or steel casings, in 5.56 tac weapons". My question is: "What is the "Sound Reasoning" that you are referring to".

I am not saying that anyone must or should use steel case ammo. Each weapon is unique in it's individuality. But the opposite opinion of "Steel ammo sucks" (Paraphrased) is equally wrong. In all the years of listening to people talk about steel case ammo; especially in their AR's, I have found that many of them (NOT INCLUDING YOU OR FOX) is simply repeating what they've heard. They have 0 experience with shooting steel case ammo. Also; the majority of the so called damage or harm supposedly coming from using steel case ammo is almost non-existent. Basically, they claim a broken extractor or similar act on the steel case ammo; when in fact, the extractor could have broken, and probably would have, even with using brass case ammo.

Point is: People are free to shoot whatever ammo they want to. They are free to spend as much or as little money as they want to on their ammo. Just like they are free to spend $600-$2600 on the AR that they are shooting. But if you take all the PRO steel case ammo experiences, and compare them to the CON Steel case ammo experiences, it appears that there's been many more positive experiences with the ammo than negative. "Unless you're a Bushmaster owner; then there appears to be a disproportionate amount of negative experiences".

Oh yeah...
AIM Surplus Home

I've been using Wolf for a long time. Here's a photo of lacquer coated Wolf ammo. The application could not be less uniform if they tried. The drip edges can be felt with a fingernail. I'm guessing this is what Foxtrot and Christcorp are debating as to flaking off "brownish looking".

I've put thousands through my Bushmaster with zero hiccups... cleaning after each shooting session.

I have read others caution that after firing a good amount of steel case to not shoot brass until cleaning the chamber to avoid getting a stuck case. The reason being that steel case does not seal well which can create buildup in the chamber... brass expands more than steel and if the chamber is overly dirty from shooting steel then the brass case can get stuck.

That build up, thats exactly how the ones we tested looked.

Yeah, if you shoot brass after shooting a bunch of the steel cases the brass can become stuck.

Some manufacturers use a "modified" chamber intending to target the "steel case" users also, yet advertise mil-spec 5.56. Thats not always true and the general public does not know and think they are getting a true mil-spec 5.56 chamber when in reality the chambering is a "modified" chamber type that is not really mil-spec, but for advertising purposes under advertising laws it is. At least one of the manufacturers Christcorp mentioned does this. If you tear them completly down and start measuring you find they are close but most likely just over the outer limits of the mil-spec in areas. But they have to do that in order to "recommend" a specific ammo like some of them do. If they recommended the steel cased ammo for a true 5.56 spec chamber, if something were to happen, doesn't matter what it is, the first thing thats going to come up in court is the company created a hazardous weapon by endorsing the use of ammo that did not operate within the specifications and it doesn't matter that thousands use the ammo or not, either a weapon is operated in specs or its not and there is no grey area.

I've never seen any manufacturer RECOMMEND a particular ammo. I've seen some say NOT to use certain ammo; but never endorsing a particular ammo.

As for if a weapon is mil-spec or not, I think is a totally different subject. This is a "s&W" specific forum. As such, that is what is generally implied. But I consider Mil-spec, when it comes to civilian rifles like the AR, to be quite a bit overrated. And that's even after spending 21 years in the military dealing with Mil-Spec. Not one of my hunting rifles are "Mil-Spec" compared to a 1903 springfield or similar. Yet; my hunting rifles are a lot more accurate than any AR. Do I care if my barrel is 1:7 twist and 4150 steel instead of 1:9 and 4140? No. I don't shoot 70+ grain bullets and my 1:9 is chromed; so it isn't important to me. Same with the BCG. Do i really care if it's an M16 FA bcg instead of an AR15? No. I don't shoot full auto and the AR15 bcg has proven to be quite reliable. If by chance the chamber was modified to accurately fit steel case ammo; would that bother me (Because it's not mil-spec)? Not at all, as long as the rifle was still reliable, dependable, and accurate.

The point is; I bought an M&P15OR for a number of reasons. Quality manufacturer; quality parts; reliable; not plastic; eats any ammo you feed it; iron/red-dot open sights get me an acceptable group; nice trigger pull; etc... Do i care if it's 100% mil-spec. nope; not in the least. Except for 2 other true military rifles, the rest of my weapons are not mil-spec and they function perfectly.

No people are free to not shoot steel case ammo if they want. They are free to shoot it. I shoot around 400 rounds of .223 a month. I'd rather spend $80 doing that at $4 a box than $200 for $10 a box. Every rifle is unique. If a person tries steel case and it works good in their rifle, then they have a very good financial option here to shoot steel case. It will save them a lot of money and it will work fine.

FWIW: I have a 20 year old frankenstein AR that was built before steel case ammo became popular. I know for a fact that the various manufacturers who built the individual components had no idea of building their parts with steel case ammo in mind. And that frankenstein will eat steel case ammo perfectly every time. And when I'm done shooting my 300-400 rounds in an afternoon, I clean the gun (10 minutes of time), and it ready for next time. And there is no premature wearing or defects in the weapon because of steel case ammo.

Notice that I put "recommend" in quotes. Their endorsement and encouragement of the use of the steel case is the same as recommendation. For example, I know for a fact that calling one of them and asking about using <name of ammo with held here> steel cased ammo will yield "Sure you can, it works fine.", thats an endorsement, and at the same time they will tell you the chamber is 5.56 mil-spec. That is a gross contridiction, and a manufacturer de-facto recommendation of a specific ammo.

The point is not if someone cares about mil-spec or not. The point is that if it is mil-spec 5.56 chambered then steel cased ammo, of the types wev'e been speaking, is not in spec for for a 5.56 mil-spec chamber. So although it might not matter to you personally, the fact remains that the steel cased ammo of which we have been speaking is not a spec round for the mil-spec 5.56 chamber and nothing is going to change that no matter how many people use the steel cased ammo or even how much you say you have used.

Mil-Spec being a different subject or not is a matter of point of view, however, even though its a point of view thing the basic fact still remains even then that the steel cased ammo of which we have been speaking is still not a spec round for the mil-spec 5.56 chamber. So it does not matter what the point of view is on the steel cased, its still not going to be spec'd for the mil-spec 5.56 chamber and no matter how many rounds of the steel cased you put down range it will still be firing out of spec for a mil-spec 5.56 chamber.

My Bushmaster is marked "CAL .223-5.56MM"

I have seen the M&P15 marked "CAL 5.56 MM"

Well; most manufacturers recommend AGAINST using "Reloaded" ammunition. Many even say it voids their warranty. Now; we know they only say this to cover their [Edited phil], but they say it none the less.

And while we're at it, .223 ammo is NOT MIL-SPEC 5.56. .223 is lower pressure and thinner walled. The chamber of a .223 is also a shorter leade and shorter headspace. The dimensions of the steel case .223 is the same as the brass counterpart. So; unless you're going to argue that a 5.56 rifle should ONLY shoot 5.56 ammo and NOT .223 ammo; saying that it isn't chambered for steel doesn't cut it. Now; the steel case don't have the same expansion properties as brass. As such, there are the carbon/powder blowback that cause a dirtier/grittier chamber. But if .223 ammo ISN'T MIL-SPEC, and is totally condoned to be shot out of a 5.56 mil-spec barrel/chamber; then i have no idea what your point is about steel case ammo not being mil-spec. Neither is .223 ammo.

My M&P is marked 5.56

The .233-5.56 just tells us what we already know that you can shoot .223 in a 5.56 mil-spec chamber, its not an indication of a modified chamber. The modifed are done to account for the steel case in a mil-spec 5.56 chamber. Thats a pretty standard marking for BushMaster, the chamber is actually 5.56 mil-spec though at least on some of their models i've looked at in the past. But you reminded me of something I did want to take a look at from BushMaster.

You're going to have to list the rifles that are chambered for 5.56 and are modified specifically for steel case ammo. And once you list them; tell me how you know they've been modified for steel case ammo.

And then, assuming you are correct about these specially modified chambers that are set up to accept steel case ammo; what exactly would be the problem with that??? Does it make the 5.56 ammo you do shoot LESS accurate? Something negative to the .223 ammo??? So; while you're at it, list which ones have been "Modified" and also what the difference in dimensions are between a brass .223 and a steel case .223. Also, the difference in dimensions between brass 5.56 and steel case 5.56. (Yes, there is such thing as steel case 5.56).

Anyway; it's obvious that S&W M&P15 MUST have a modified chamber, considering most of them never have any issues shooting steel case ammo. And it's obvious that many Bushmasters must not have a modified chamber, because many of the individuals who say they've had issues with steel case ammo also mention their Bushmasters. Obviously not all. Anyway; if you know for a fact that certain chambers are modified, I'd like to see a list of which manufacturers do this, and what the spec difference is. Especially the spec difference between the actual ammo itself. I know the difference between .223 and 5.56. I want to know the difference in dimensions between brass .223 and steel case .223.

You still don't get the point - ITS THE SEALING UPON FIRING OF THE STEEL CASE THAT MAKES IT NOT FIRE IN SPEC FOR THE MIL-SPEC 5.56 CHAMBER - NOT The SIZE OF THE ROUND. THE MIL-SPEC 5.56 CHAMBER TOLERANCES EXPECT A SEAL WHEN FIRED AND THAT COMES FROM THE BRASS CASE BECAUSE IT EXPANDS TO THE EXPECTED TOLERANCES AND THE STEEL DOESN'T - THATS WHY THE EXCESS BLOW BACK HAPPENS AS THAT SEAL IS NOT THERE - EVEN BRASS .223 SEALS BETTER - DUH!.

Your demanding and ordering now? Are you off your medication or something?

Now your simply outside the bounds of discussion. I'm not going to continue to participate in what seems to be a need just for you to argue instead of discuss, trying, it seems, to purposely to miss the point and twist things around. Your obviously too attached to steel case ammo and this has obviously become some sort of emotional crusade or issue for you, but what ever it is you are wayyyyyy to attached to this subject. Maybe you have stock in one of the ammo manufacturers or something. Go shoot your steel case, be happy with it, even if it is not firing in spec for the mil-spec 5.56 chamber.

Enough....

Thread Closed