andyo5
Member
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.
Thanks.
Reloading data for 5.56 Nato (not .223 Remington)
- Thread starter andyo5
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
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.
Coastie762
US Veteran
The Western Powder loading guide contains both .223 and 5.56mm pressure loads using Accurate and Ramshot powders.
MichiganScott
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
5.56 will have higher pressures in 5.56 brass as it is thicker.
As mentioned service rifle data is what you seek.
David R
Member
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.
Everyone says military brass is thicker. Ever weigh them?
David
scooter123
Member
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
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
Damn Yankee
Member
Here's a site you might get some info from.
Duplicating NATO cartridges (cloning) - 223 / 5.56 / 9mm reload central database
Duplicating NATO cartridges (cloning) - 223 / 5.56 / 9mm reload central database
gregintenn
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
Last edited:
gregintenn
Member
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.
forestswin
Member
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!
Last edited:
Clark B
Member
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.
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.
forestswin
Member
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??
Those statements are there mainly to cover their own A$$. 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
DWalt
Member
"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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Status
