Hey! Don't give the anti-pun posters any more ammo. It makes me feel like a target!Yeah, any straight shooters here?
random speculation, not an expert here: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.
i will not ogive in to your puns, expect much blowback and a bottlenecking of your cyclic rate.Hey! Don't give the anti-pun posters any more ammo. It makes me feel like a target!
What is it with all these libruls pushing their so called "common sense" pun control?
They can try to pry my puns from my cold dead . . . brain?
Well shoot!i will not ogive in to your puns, expect much blowback and a bottlenecking of your cyclic rate.
Also, given their cyber extortion division, they actually make a profit as well... unlike the battlefieldRussia should've stuck with information warfare, they've done far more damaged funding internet trolls then they could ever do on the battlefield.
Audibly groaned at "pun control" to the extent that I had to explain these forums to my wife!Hey! Don't give the anti-pun posters any more ammo. It makes me feel like a target!
What is it with all these libruls pushing their so called "common sense" pun control?
They can try to pry my puns from my cold dead . . . brain?
Hey! Don't give the anti-pun posters any more ammo. It makes me feel like a target!
What is it with all these libruls pushing their so called "common sense" pun control?
They can try to pry my puns from my cold dead . . . brain?
random speculation, not an expert here:
Speed of which the powder burns, more gunpowder burning slower yields more velocity for the .223 with less chamber pressure.
NATO 5.56: boat tail nature of the 5.56 round results in better ballistics, steel tip under the FMJ puts the weight farther back in the bullet. Powder burns quicker to retain more velocity when fired from short barreled weapon.
When sold in the US, there are frequent warnings not to put NATO 5.56 in a .223 rifle.
The biggest difference seems to be in the head spacing and the forcing cone. Head spacing is how the shoulder of the bullet sits against the head of the barrel. Forcing cone is the cone that the squeezes the bullet into the threads of the rifling as it goes into the barrel. The full metal jacket part of the NATO round is slightly larger and harder then what .223 was designed for. When the NATO round is put into a .223 chamber, the pressures generated to force bullet into the groves is far in excess of the original specification of the .223 round.
There were numbers and words but... yeah...We could and maybe should have a different thread for this. 5.56 is (generally) loaded a bit hotter. There are 223 spec equivalents of some 5.56 loads and they have a bit less velocity. Almost all 223 and 5.56 loads are boat tail. 5.56 when compared bullet to bullet gets a bit better ballistics just from being a bit faster. The thickness of the metal jacket is irrelevant, even solid copper bullets can be fired safely. The chamber pressure between a 223 and a 5.56 is very similar, well within a safe variation in most rifles.
And you can add to that, most 223 marked semi autos are not actually cut with a 223 chamber, but with a 5.56 chamber. They are marked 223 for legal reasons, some for export, some for import. Some countries don't allow "military calibers" like 5.56, but civilian 223 is safe of course.
5.56 will not blow up a 223 gun, in most cases it will be fine, some it will be hard on the gun, and in some rare cases it may be overpressure enough to back out primers, pierce primers, cause sticky ejection, etc.
We could and maybe should have a different thread for this.
Would someone please list the bullet points on this controversy?
random speculation, not an expert here:
Speed of which the powder burns, more gunpowder burning slower yields more velocity for the .223 with less chamber pressure.
NATO 5.56: boat tail nature of the 5.56 round results in better ballistics, steel tip under the FMJ puts the weight farther back in the bullet. Powder burns quicker to retain more velocity when fired from short barreled weapon.
When sold in the US, there are frequent warnings not to put NATO 5.56 in a .223 rifle.
The biggest difference seems to be in the head spacing and the forcing cone. Head spacing is how the shoulder of the bullet sits against the head of the barrel. Forcing cone is the cone that the squeezes the bullet into the threads of the rifling as it goes into the barrel. The full metal jacket part of the NATO round is slightly larger and harder then what .223 was designed for. When the NATO round is put into a .223 chamber, the pressures generated to force bullet into the groves is far in excess of the original specification of the .223 round.
Will do, sorry for the off topic.We could and maybe should have a different thread for this. 5.56 is (generally) loaded a bit hotter. There are 223 spec equivalents of some 5.56 loads and they have a bit less velocity. Almost all 223 and 5.56 loads are boat tail. 5.56 when compared bullet to bullet gets a bit better ballistics just from being a bit faster. The thickness of the metal jacket is irrelevant, even solid copper bullets can be fired safely. The chamber pressure between a 223 and a 5.56 is very similar, well within a safe variation in most rifles.
And you can add to that, most 223 marked semi autos are not actually cut with a 223 chamber, but with a 5.56 chamber. They are marked 223 for legal reasons, some for export, some for import. Some countries don't allow "military calibers" like 5.56, but civilian 223 is safe of course.
5.56 will not blow up a 223 gun, in most cases it will be fine, some it will be hard on the gun, and in some rare cases it may be overpressure enough to back out primers, pierce primers, cause sticky ejection, etc.
Communications degree from Trump University?
After a week of smashing gains, not as much news from the front. Russia is still grinding out small gains in the East, so even with the losses they are still attacking. Down South still all positional warfare.
I guess, until suddenly it isn’t again.