This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .223 Remington article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Firearms Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Terminology

How do you pronounce ".223 Remington"? "Two–twenty-three Remington"? "Two-two-three Remington"? "Double-deuce cubed"? Any citations? 98.202.116.244 (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Most peeps refer to it as two-twenty-three or two-two-three. Add rem or remington as you like. It's all good.[reply]

Question?

Does anyone else think that, in present form, this page may as well just be a redirect? Stiletto Null

Probably, but not me. It would be nice if "chamber throat" were properly explained, with a diagram showing how .223 differs from 5.56x45.

?

What's the deal with the plug for Barrett at the end? Totally random and out of place.

Merge with 5.56 NATO

Oppose - I don't think they should be merged. They aren't completely the same. To put them in one article would suggest that they are. Maybe some revising of each article is in order, such as maybe the 5.56 article should cover military uses and history in that regard, and this article should cover civilian uses and history in civilian light. Then both articles should have a blurb about comparison between the two, each focusing on it's own merits over the other (if that makes sense). Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, each article seems to be right on with the military vs. civilian angles mentioned above. Still vote no merge. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although they are similar they are different. Having them together could confuse people. I think having them separated is a better choice

Skrasis Mar. 6, 2007

Oppose - Although for the most part they are the same cartridge, the military and civilian load differences and uses should be sufficient to keep the two articles separate. --Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Despite the SAAMI trying to validate their bureaucratic existence by asserting that 5.56 NATO is "unsafe" to shoot in 223 Remington firearms, most sportsmen will maintain that they're basically the same cartridge with different names, certainly never heard of interchangeability causing unintended injury (perhaps a split brass that didn't fully eject). SAAMI is also the number one cause of confusion about the military 308 Winchester rounds, +/- 10,000 PSI big deal, most any rifle a person is likely to encounter is already designed to fire both types of ammunition without issue (i.e. a Bushmaster XM15 or a Mini-14), saying there is a difference is what's confusing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.6.196 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these two articles should either be merged or more emphasis placed on the fact that the only difference between these two cartridges is in the way saami and cip choose to describe the same thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.171.7 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm cartridges are different only in the sense that 5.56 cartridge casings are usually thicker (with slightly less internal capacity for gun powder) and are usually loaded with longer heavier bullets. The really big difference is that a rifle barrel chambered for .223 will often be throated and rifled for bullets in the 45 grain range, while a rifle barrel chambered for 5.56mm will be throated and rifled for heavier bullets, 55 grain or even heavier. Evem more confusing is that many .223 rifle barrels are throated and rifled for ammunition loaded to 5.56 specifications so those rifles can be used with either ammunition. The gross similarities and minor differences are such that the articles should be merged. .223 and 5.56 are (generally) interchangeable (with warnings). There are some .223 barrels very tightly throated that might be a problem with 5.56 loaded with very long heavy bullets. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the .223 Remington is not the 5.56 NATO. But is it the same as the 5.56x45mm M193 ball cartridge? If it is the exact same, then this article should be named 5.56 mm M193 (or something similar) I think, since the military has fired many, many tens of millions of these bullets from all those M16A1 rifles and its derivatives.Mytg8 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE - While both cartridges may have the same dimensions they are different. Some firearms manufacturers do differentiate these cartridges in their firearms. The Ruger Mini-14 is an example. The Mini-14’s that are .223 Remington Ranch and Tactical rifles have the 5.56 NATO chambers and will fire both cartridges but the Target Mini-14 is only chambered in .223 Remington. Ruger’s own instructions are specific that 5.56 NATO ammunition should never be fired from the Target models. There is also a difference in the chamber dimensions for each cartridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.2.174.62 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The ″.223 Remington versus 5.56 mm NATO″ section explains these chamberings are not the same.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Okay, I know my guns and all, but why put a picture of 5.56x45mm cartridges in an M16 STANAG magazine and specifically differentiate the difference between .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO in the caption and put the picture in the .223 Remington page? --Chinese3126 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a photo of an actual .223 if you want to use it, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:22LR-9-45-223-3006-12gu-LipGloss.jpg

I don't have any Nato rounds for comparison though, maybe use this photo and the one already on the page? I'll leave it up to y'all to decide, rather than messing up the page myself.

ElizaBarrington (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beltway Snipers

Is this the same bullets used from Bushmaster XM15 in the DC Sniper case by Muhammad and Malvo? —KpoT (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Goodyear Eagle the same tire driven by Mario Andretti? That's roughly equivalent to the question you are asked. The XM15 is chambered for the 5.56x45 mm cartridge; this is a higher pressure cartridge dimensionally similar to the .223 Remington, and a .223 Remington cartridge will function in a 5.56x45 mm chamber, though the inverse is not a safe combination. Note, however, that I'm talking about cartridges, not a bullets. The term "bullet" correctly refers to only the projectile itself; the same .223 inch diameter bullet could be fired from any of a very large number of cartridges, assuming sufficient case capacity, overall length, and rifling twist to handle a bullet of any given size. scot (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for quick response. So which DID they use in the DC Sniper case? --KpoT (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rifle was a "post-ban" AR-15 type rifle, an XM-15 model made by Bushmaster. I'm not sure what ammunition was used (I'm not sure that was ever released by the police), but it was a 5.56mm rifle, which means it can fire both the military spec 5.56mm ammunition, as well as most of the .223 Remington loadings available commercially (.223 loads with lightweight bullets may not produce enough pressure at the gas port to reliably cycle the AR-15's action). And, just FYI, the media was wildly incorrect in calling the rifle a "high powered sniper rifle"; the following shows why.

The AR-15 family of rifle is very inherently accurate for an autoloading design, since the direct impingement gas system doesn't provide any lateral loading on the barrel. A good, off the shelf AR-15 is capable of holding shots within a 1 to 2 inch circle at 100 yards, with a good shooter and careful ammunition selection. On the other hand, modern sniper rifles are hand built and tuned to shoot groups half that size or smaller (since snipers generally shoot at very long distances, where accuracy errors are magnified much more). Sniper rifles also use high magnification telescopic sights with provisions for compensating for bullet drop at long ranges. Muhammed and Malvo used a no-magnification red dot sight and took shots at 50 to 100 yards; the only reason they weren't immediately caught, shooting at such short range, is because they were using the car trunk as a giant improvised suppressor to hide the visible signature and muffling the sound of the muzzle blast. That couldn't muffle the sonic boom of the supersonic bullet, but if they'd chosen to use a pistol-caliber carbine, it would have provided sufficient accuracy and power for 100 yard shots, and provided less muzzle blast and no sonic boom. See the De Lisle carbine article for more information on a highly effective, short range military sniper rifle, used by British Commandos.

The .223 Remington and 5.56mm, which are very similar ballistically (the difference is that one is governed by the civilian SAAMI and the other by NATO, so there are slight differences in chamber dimensions and maximum pressure) and are by no means "high powered"; in fact, the .223 Remington is considered barely adequate for hunting deer-sized game, and is illegal for that use in some states (where 6mm, or .243 inches, is the minimum size). The 5.56mm military load is probably the least powerful military rifle cartridge the US has ever had--ignoring the .30 Carbine, which was an early personal defense weapon intended to replace pistols in some applications. The military 5.56mm loading generates about 1,300 ft lbs. of energy; compare this to the 7.62mm/.30 caliber load it replaced, similar to that used by most militaries from the 1890s to the 1950s, at around 2,400 ft lbs. of energy, or even the .45-70, more than a century old, at 1,700 ft lbs. scot (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative answer! Thank you! Much appreciated! --KpoT (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.95.241.57 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Criminals use what is available. Ban this round and they will use another. Ban them all and help the black market grow.[reply]