So it's basically the same diameter, with less gunpowder?
I remember installing satellite in homes, and thinking those were .22 knockoffs, until I bought my two.
.223?
Not smaller, just lower pressure?
5.56 and 223 remington are not meaningfully different. You can make some educated guesses with rifles that were only/mostly made in certain calibers. I doubt you see much 6.8 SPC in Ukraine.
Guess it could be 300 blackout as well, though the precision of the observation was not the real point of that post .
yOU CAN FIRE A 223 ROUND IN A 5.56 WEAPON, BUT i WOULD STRINGLY ADVICE NOT DOING THE OPPOSITE.
Fuck, my caps lock was on and I'm too lazy to retype.
I really disagree, there are almost no 223 chambered rifles in which 5.56 will cause problems. Especially semi-autos.
So it's basically the same diameter, with less gunpowder?I wouldn't worry about it on a bolt gun. I think it comes down to age with semi-autos. Modern rifles shouldn't care too much about the slightly different pressures or throat length, definitely won't care if you're running something chambered in .223 Wylde. .223 chambers can still handle 5.56x45 pressures far as I know.
TBH, I think that you too are rather naïve and I suggest you read Catherine Belton's very well researched book on the subject of Russia's largely covert infiltration, interference and utilization of other country's resources and institutions.There's a difference, though, between 'spies' and fifth-columnists. That is, between people who pass on valuable information and those with power in a nation whose actions are intended to serve the interests of a foreign nation.
Furthermore, I think for the latter category it's a blurry line between those whose motivation is explicitly to aid that foreign country and those who just happen to have a self-interest that partially coincides with those of that country. Which brings it back to the German dependence on Russian gas supplies.
Trying to connect it to the simple transactional case of 'spies' being paid for information, seems to be over-simplifying the situation, to me.
In much the same way that conspiracy-theorists do - when they conclude that political outcomes must be the results of explict conspiracies organised consciously, rather than the concequences of different groups each pursing their self-interests.
Hitler and Stalin made a pact early in WW II.The Soviets and the Nazis were never that different.
On August 23, 1939–shortly before World War II (1939-45) broke out in Europe–enemies Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union surprised the world by signing the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, in which the two countries agreed to take no military action against each other for the next 10 years.
I'm no expert in Sino-Russian relations but my intuition concerning this is that China has no current appetite for colonial expansion (as something greater than economic and political influence) other than sucking Taiwan back under it's wings and even that to me seems iffy. Russia has a long history of warfare with its neighbors and Russians dying on the battlefield is nothing new. China suffered during WW II from Japanese imperialism. They have nuclear weapons and a huge population and impressively expanding industrial base, so they could go to war but their problems are rough and sundry and adding a war I figure is something they want to avoid. That's very unlike Russia, who have been actively and militarily trying to reestablish their dominance in eastern Europe and hoping and scheming to supplant the USA as dominant world power.I'm certain you are wrong. China is also a nuclear power. Also in a better spot with regard to weapons and supplies, Chinese designs are now better than Russian designs, and they wouldn't be drawing from unreliable unmaintained Cold War left overs. Also, money and functioning infrastructure.
Add in numerical superiority and none of the morale problems that plague Russians fighting for, it equals Russia getting it's ass kicked. Again.
China is seeking economic colonialism, not war, in the east amongst the 'Stans.I'm no expert in Sino-Russian relations but my intuition concerning this is that China has no current appetite for colonial expansion other than sucking Taiwan back under it's wings and even that to me seems iffy. Russia has a long history of warfare with its neighbors and Russians dying on the battlefield is nothing new. China suffered during WW II from Japanese imperialism. They have nuclear weapons and a huge population and impressively expanding industrial base, so they could go to war but their problems are rough and sundry and adding a war I figure is something they want to avoid. That's very unlike Russia, who have been actively trying to reestablish their dominance in eastern Europe and hoping to supplant the USA as dominant world power.
So it's basically the same diameter, with less gunpowder?
I remember installing satellite in homes, and thinking those were .22 knockoffs, until I bought my two.
Mostly agree except I can't imagine Putin listening to Modi. Inwardly he's arrogant and figures he doesn't need to listen to anybody. Espionage, power politics, kleptocracy, political and literal assassination, authoritarianism, armaments and war are all he understands. He'll smile in your face while planning to stab you in the back. I think the odds of him controlling Russia in ~3 years are not high. This war will be his undoing, if his failing health doesn't do it first.China is seeking economic colonialism, not war, in the east amongst the 'Stans.
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India told President Vladimir V. Putin on Friday so wisely told Putin today, "“I know that today’s era is not of war.”
Let's all hope Putin is not Trump and will listen.
I will say this. Don't underestimate Putin's hold on the levers of power in Russia. If he changes course, the blowhards on Russian TV will disappear, almost miraculously.
When the Generals tried to take over, all it took was Yeltsin standing on a tank for them to cut bait and cease. This is endemic in the Russian psyche, from the Czar through Stalin, what subservience bred in the bone over time will do to a people, craven subservience and fear and watch your damn back.
As for China and Taiwan, time and geography is on their side and they know it. Down the line, a suffocating blockade maybe, but they will never invade . . . because they know the same thing Modi just told Putin.
5.56 mm = 0.2188976 inch
A 223 round is slightly larger than a 5.56 mm round.
Russia calls on loyalists to commit "partisan acts" throughout NATO countries.
I'd say terrorism, but they did not explicitly call it that.
Seems Rashists are afraid of African Americans.
I'm certain you are wrong. Even with their lack of battle experience, China is also a nuclear power. Also in a better spot with regard to weapons and supplies, Chinese designs are now better than Russian designs, and they wouldn't be drawing from unreliable unmaintained Cold War left overs. Also, money and functioning infrastructure.
Add in numerical superiority and none of the morale problems that plague Russians and it equals Russia getting it's ass kicked. Again.
"You forgot these. Catch."
Do you even own guns?
Russia calls on loyalists to commit "partisan acts" throughout NATO countries.
I'd say terrorism, but they did not explicitly call it that.
Don't worry Russian prisoners will be there at any moment in T-55s to fulfill the promises of the mighty Russian state.
Is it though? I just imagine the acceptable tolerances, the complexities of the machineries that produces the hardware… It’d be fucking weird to have a separate factory setup for each… But am not in the know, so…5.56 mm = 0.2188976 inch
A 223 round is slightly larger than a 5.56 mm round.
Would someone please list the bullet points on this controversy?I dont understand how 5.56 has higher chamber pressures but .223 supposedly has higher velocities at every stage of the ballistic trajectory. Also 5.56 has flatter trajectory and less drop with same weight and slower velocity? Does not compute. Like at all.
Would someone please list the bullet points on this controversy?
Would someone please list the bullet points on this controversy?