5.56 when my FAC says .223

[Foxyboy43]

It seems my memory worked this time - exceedingly rare and something to be savoured…

“The round has erroneously come to be known as the "7.62mm Russian" (and is still often referred to as such colloquially), but, according to standards, the R in designation (7.62×54mmR) stands for "rimmed", in line with standard C.I.P. designations.”.

 

[the prowler]

Wiki is wrong on this one, as the .22 Hornet has no metric counterpart. The 5.6 x 35R is the '5.6 x 35R Vierling' which isn't the same.

I think we've had every iteration and variation of the .223/5.56x45 legality thread over time. The 5.56mm is the metric equivalent of the .223 Rem.
Everyone should know that as this is the most common calibre on the planet.
The NFLMS system the police use to print FACs has the " .223 Rem/5.56x45 " dual designation hardcoded within it. If a .223 is authorised then " .223 Rem/5.56x45 " should be printed on Part 1 automatically. There's no need to ask for both.

The only other imperial cartridge with an accepted metric equivalent is the .308 Win, which is also hardcoded in NFLMS as " 7.62mm x 51/.308 ".
The Home Office Guidance makes it quite clear that .223 is also 5.56mm, and the .308 is also 7.62 x 51mm. How can anyone get this wrong?

No other 7.62 has an imperial equivalent , so 7.62 Russian (which can be .308" or .311") is 7.62 x 54R.

My fac still says 224cal. Which is handy as I have two 223remington rifles. Both sako85. Hunter and ss laminate

 

[SpikeD]

Wiki is wrong on this one, as the .22 Hornet has no metric counterpart. The 5.6 x 35R is the '5.6 x 35R Vierling' which isn't the same.

I think we've had every iteration and variation of the .223/5.56x45 legality thread over time. The 5.56mm is the metric equivalent of the .223 Rem.
Everyone should know that as this is the most common calibre on the planet.
The NFLMS system the police use to print FACs has the " .223 Rem/5.56x45 " dual designation hardcoded within it. If a .223 is authorised then " .223 Rem/5.56x45 " should be printed on Part 1 automatically. There's no need to ask for both.

The only other imperial cartridge with an accepted metric equivalent is the .308 Win, which is also hardcoded in NFLMS as " 7.62mm x 51/.308 ".
The Home Office Guidance makes it quite clear that .223 is also 5.56mm, and the .308 is also 7.62 x 51mm. How can anyone get this wrong?

No other 7.62 has an imperial equivalent , so 7.62 Russian (which can be .308" or .311") is 7.62 x 54R.

The table that states "cartridge" in the HO guide indeed does have .223/5.56 and 7.62mm*51/.308" but it's full of questionable others:
the 6.5*55/.256, well the .256 is generally referring to the .256" Mannlicher or 6.5x53R so a completely different cartridge.
the 7mm/.275" is trying to lump in the 7x57mm and the .275" Rigby that dimensionally are the same but the .275" boxes state only to be fired in rifles chambered for this cartridge. It's loaded to higher velocities than the original 7x57 and not considered safe for early 7x57 rifles.
The .375" is that Winchester?, H&H or the .375" Mannlicher? They aren't the same and this is true for .416" cartridges, in essence I wouldn't rely on that list.

The problem you face as a FAC holder is that those issuing / regulating the law aren't subject matter experts and may not understand that the .223/5.56" are of the same dimensions and will fire but they aren't the same cartridge nor is the .308"/ 7.62*51 there are differences especially in case construction. I concur that it would be handy if in those cases it was printed as .223"/5.56 automatically but it often isn't. Different forces have different interpretations as do different RFD's. In modern times it's better to be explicit rather than rely on what was commonly acceptable in the past.
A good point was raised about reloads using different head stamps, I have this with my .318" Nitro, I make the cases from .270" brass, the onus is on me to prove that the round I'm showing the FEO is a .318"
The bottom line is it's your certificate that could be at risk so minimise the opportunity for any ambiguity.

 

[User00044]

pretty sure 5.56 creates over pressures fired in a 223 rem chamber - The dimensions are different as is uk proof i think ? There is a tonne of info on this matter straight on google i recon

.223 Remington

SAAMI max pressure 55,000psi

CIP max pressure 62,366psi (uK and Europe)

5.56×45 Nato

SAAMI max pressure 62,366psi

I should have added a caveat to my original post , "use with caution ".
From memory , the exact pressures weren't, the main difference in the chambering is the longer freebore in the 5.56 and a slightly different leade angle. The ammo dimensions are the same. The theory , I believe , was the longer freebore allowed lower start up pressures and negated the need for cleaning to a greater extent when using a higher round count . The idea behind the Wylde chambering was to redress the balance somewhat , again from memory.
I've read and watched a variety of comparisons in the past and none provided a definitive answer . So , yes the chambering spec is different and if using 5.56 NATO ammo should be done with caution if used in a CIP .223 chambering .

 

[Heym SR20]

If my memory serves me correctly most military cartridges are not stamped with cartridge, but just with date and manufacturers mark. In most military there is the pistol / submachine (9x19), the little rifle 5.56 Nato), the marksman / machine gun (7.62 Nato), sniper (338 Lapua) and heavy machine (50 cal M2) all easy enough to tell the difference in the dark.

In sporting cartridges there are so many variations that headstamps are pretty mandatory.

These days in the UK how much military surplus ammo is there available?

As calibre / cartridge authority, years ago I applied for a 7mm. I wanted the ability to get left handed rifle in any of the various 7mm calibres and eventually bought a 7x65R. No fuss, no bother

About six years ago I did the same with gaining permission to acquire a .22 Centrefire. I happened upon a heavy barrelled .223 Remington in a well known gun emporium. Did all the paperwork, sent it off to the Police and thought no more of it.

A few weeks I had a sgt in the Firearms Licencing on the phone demanding why I had acquired a rifke for which I had no authority to acquire. In his eyes a 22 centrefire was not a 223 Remington. After about 45 minutes of going round in a circle that 22 centrefire is a catch all for all the 22 centrefire calibres of which the 223 rem is one, No its not its a 223 centrefire, he agreed that the best way forward was for him to process a variation for me to get a 223.

Meanwhile the RFD had a similar meeting with said individual at which tea and biccies were not forthcoming.

 

[Bowland blades]

.223 Remington

SAAMI max pressure 55,000psi

CIP max pressure 62,366psi (uK and Europe)

5.56×45 Nato

SAAMI max pressure 62,366psi

I should have added a caveat to my original post , "use with caution ".
From memory , the exact pressures weren't, the main difference in the chambering is the longer freebore in the 5.56 and a slightly different leade angle. The ammo dimensions are the same. The theory , I believe , was the longer freebore allowed lower start up pressures and negated the need for cleaning to a greater extent when using a higher round count . The idea behind the Wylde chambering was to redress the balance somewhat , again from memory.
I've read and watched a variety of comparisons in the past and none provided a definitive answer . So , yes the chambering spec is different and if using 5.56 NATO ammo should be done with caution if used in a CIP .223 chambering .

well that's simply too much to risk and i would advise others not to . There is lots of info about saying yes you can shoot 223 through a 5.56 but dont shoot 5.56 through a 223

 

[Bowland blades]

If my memory serves me correctly most military cartridges are not stamped with cartridge, but just with date and manufacturers mark. In most military there is the pistol / submachine (9x19), the little rifle 5.56 Nato), the marksman / machine gun (7.62 Nato), sniper (338 Lapua) and heavy machine (50 cal M2) all easy enough to tell the difference in the dark.

In sporting cartridges there are so many variations that headstamps are pretty mandatory.

These days in the UK how much military surplus ammo is there available?

As calibre / cartridge authority, years ago I applied for a 7mm. I wanted the ability to get left handed rifle in any of the various 7mm calibres and eventually bought a 7x65R. No fuss, no bother

About six years ago I did the same with gaining permission to acquire a .22 Centrefire. I happened upon a heavy barrelled .223 Remington in a well known gun emporium. Did all the paperwork, sent it off to the Police and thought no more of it.

A few weeks I had a sgt in the Firearms Licencing on the phone demanding why I had acquired a rifke for which I had no authority to acquire. In his eyes a 22 centrefire was not a 223 Remington. After about 45 minutes of going round in a circle that 22 centrefire is a catch all for all the 22 centrefire calibres of which the 223 rem is one, No its not its a 223 centrefire, he agreed that the best way forward was for him to process a variation for me to get a 223.

Meanwhile the RFD had a similar meeting with said individual at which tea and biccies were not forthcoming.

You might have added its actually 224 not 223 and the 222 also the 22 hornet can be a 223 or a 224 etc etc . LOL
Its a mess really , but its all stuff folks need to know

 

[User00044]

well that's simply too much to risk and i would advise others not to . There is lots of info about saying yes you can shoot 223 through a 5.56 but dont shoot 5.56 through a 223

Thought this was interesting , I found other information that stated CIP increased the Pmax to match the 5.6 to allow its use .

 

[Bowland blades]

Thought this was interesting , I found other information that stated CIP increased the Pmax to match the 5.6 to allow its use .
View attachment 329723

What they are saying is it seems there is no difference in their chamberings in oct 2021 . The fact is however is you can shoot 223 in 556 but not the other way around as a general thing and CZ wont stand on and compensate your family if you kill yourself in the process of doing this in America ?
Very reassuring indeed ! Think i would be feeding the correct rounds into the correct chamber personally

 

[ContinShots]

Sorry to comment on an oldish thread, but I put down 223/556 on my FAC and I was told in no uncertain terms by the FEO that I couldn't do that and they were two different things. I explained to him that they're basically the amae cartridge, just with a slight different pressure, but he want having any of it. I had also asked for a slot for 223/556 to give me options, but again, the answer was no. All that despite a club friend having 223/5.56 on his FAC for both rifle and ammunition. There is obviously difference in opinion between forces and FEOs, which is rather frustrating! I may well try to get 223 Wylde and then a variation for 5.56 to supplement 223 when I next ask for a new slot.

 

[Bowland blades]

Sorry to comment on an oldish thread, but I put down 223/556 on my FAC and I was told in no uncertain terms by the FEO that I couldn't do that and they were two different things. I explained to him that they're basically the amae cartridge, just with a slight different pressure, but he want having any of it. I had also asked for a slot for 223/556 to give me options, but again, the answer was no. All that despite a club friend having 223/5.56 on his FAC for both rifle and ammunition. There is obviously difference in opinion between forces and FEOs, which is rather frustrating! I may well try to get 223 Wylde and then a variation for 5.56 to supplement 223 when I next ask for a new slot.

Nowt so daft as those that dont know their own job

 

[Heym SR20]

This is an old thread, and probably somewhat academic.

In the old days the military would release out of date ammunition onto the civilian market as surplus, and this could be purchased cheaply and used for target shooting.

Given the Ukranian pretty much all the stockpiles of ammunition have gone eastwards - certainly all the stuff getting close to its use by date, as well in date ammo. And military ammo production is at full tilt just keeping up with demand.

And isn’t most 5.56 now with steel cored bullets and hence section 5 - in effect prohibiting civilian ownership and use.

 

[Bowland blades]

This is an old thread, and probably somewhat academic.

In the old days the military would release out of date ammunition onto the civilian market as surplus, and this could be purchased cheaply and used for target shooting.

Given the Ukranian pretty much all the stockpiles of ammunition have gone eastwards - certainly all the stuff getting close to its use by date, as well in date ammo. And military ammo production is at full tilt just keeping up with demand.

And isn’t most 5.56 now with steel cored bullets and hence section 5 - in effect prohibiting civilian ownership and use.

Yet they are trying to make us all swap to steel shot eh, LOL !

 

[the prowler]

they are the same calibre but it depends on who is selling it and what their view is.
I have 223/556 to solve any issues as I used to have the same issue with 22 rimfire... some would sell WMR to me, some would not.

Mine says 224cal

 

[antsa]

A part of the problem is definitions and the use of incorrect terminology. Most of us make the mistake of mixing up calibre with chambering. For example there are many 22 CF chamberings and all use the same calibre projectile - the .224" diameter. Again, the 30 calibre projectile, diameter .308" is used in multiple chamberings.

This mix-up trumps even our otherwise favourite here on the forum: heads and heads.

If we forum members can't get it right how can we expect Constable Plod to?

Just my two cents

Cheers

 

[Laurie]

And isn’t most 5.56 now with steel cored bullets and hence section 5 - in effect prohibiting civilian ownership and use.

That issue was put to bed a long time ago with the MoD and Home Office ruling that the SS109 / M855 5.56 round and equivalents are not armour piercing therefore legal for target shooting. IIRC Australia, maybe New Zealand too, took the opposite view so at the time of the NATO adoption of 5.56mm, the former ROF Footscray intended to produce an Aussie civilian legal lead-core bullet version, but nothing much came of it. For that matter, if it were deemed as such, there would be no service rifle matches on Bisley Ranges involving members of military units and their issued kit as armour-piercing ammunition is prohibited on all ranges in the NSC complex.

Cheap surplus 5.56 may have long gone (way, way before Ukraine), but vast quantities of newly made 5.56mm mil-spec copies were sold at commercial prices by ammunition factories including our own BAe RORG until the company took a decision to only sell to governments. I can also remember using Brazilian Magtech brand M855 some years ago which Viking Arms imported. I'm sure there are suppliers around even in these times of shortage, not to mention many thousands still in ammo cabinets from pre-Ukraine times as many 5.56 straight-pull AR shooters have large ammunition allowances and buy in bulk. Nearly all mil-spec 7.62X39mm ball ammo is also steel cored, but I don't suppose Barnaul and similar have survived the sanctions on imports from Russia even if they are still supplying civilian markets.

 

[west_meon]

Having tried 5.56mm in my .223, I would advise the OP to save his money. Rifle was zeroed at 100m, using Norma factory ammo, and consistently shot groups of 3/4 inch. Swapped to 5.56 for cheap plinking, and the the group expanded to 4 feet at 100m and you were lucky to hit the board, let alone the target! checked with a rifle smith, and was told the NATO 5.56 was designed for shorter barrels and higher twist rates (?), and so did not suit my 20" T3. Gave the rest of the 5.56 away, and stuck to the Norma!

 

[kenbro]

To the OP...

I doubt in fact that any commercial ammunition for stalking or use for hunting (therefore with an expanding bullet of whatever style) will be in anything BUT boxes marked .223 Remington or casings headstamped .223" or .223" Rem or similar. Now the connected question is would an RFD sell you ammunition headstamped 5.56mm where your FAC says .223" Remington?

The same arises (although less so now as it isn't really much used outside of users of old military rifles) if an RFD would sell you 7.92 Mauser ammunition on an FAC for an 8x57 or 8mm Mauser. Back in the day it was never an issue. Nowadays of course most Nazi 7.92 Mauser ammuntion is s5 so it is a moot point. But yes before the Tory "armour piercing ammunition" ban I bought such 7.92 Mauser and also, indeed, 7.92mm BESA ammunition for use in an 8x57 stalking rifle I once owned in the early 1980s.

So yes a commonsense RFD should sell you ammunition for target use. But as you say do be aware that pressures are different!

The shooting catalogues are not exactly full of rifle cartridges with two names or alternative names but yes, there's .244 Remington and 6mm Remington, there's .303 British and (I'm looking at some fired cases) 7.7mm but as things have become less confused the 7.7mm designation by some nations of the .303 British has gone into history. True if anyone wants one I'll be listing them on SD Classifieds later this week and of course the classic USA vs Europe .25ACP aka 6.35mm, .32 ACP aka 7.65mm and .380 ACP aka 9mm Kurz.

Hope it helps! And whilst I'm here as a kid, as a teenager as someone on my age twenties, thirties and even forties it was always just ".303" never this American imported naming of ".303 British"!

Don’t forget the .303 Savage.
Ken.
Ps. Anyone wanna buy a 99?

 

[Laurie]

Having tried 5.56mm in my .223, I would advise the OP to save his money. Rifle was zeroed at 100m, using Norma factory ammo, and consistently shot groups of 3/4 inch. Swapped to 5.56 for cheap plinking, and the the group expanded to 4 feet at 100m and you were lucky to hit the board, let alone the target! checked with a rifle smith, and was told the NATO 5.56 was designed for shorter barrels and higher twist rates (?), and so did not suit my 20" T3. Gave the rest of the 5.56 away, and stuck to the Norma!

That'll almost certainly have been a rifling twist rate issue. The standard SAAMI specification for 223 Rem is one turn in 12-inches, whilst current 5.56 with its long 62gn bullet requires 1 in 9 (just gets away with 10"). Current NATO spec assault rifles and many civilian ARs use a still faster 1 in 7" twist. With a 1 in 12" 223 barrel, it is true 'hardly hit a barn door' ammo.

The original US spec M193 5.56 military round going back to the Vietnam war era used a much shorter 55gn FMJBT bullet and performs OK in almost every 223 sporting rifle. The original M16A1 rifle and its variants used the 1 in 12" twist as with most standard sporters. In the USA, commercial M193 pattern ammunition still sells in vast quantities as cheap factory plinking fodder for 223 Rem users in all rifle types.

 

[25 Sharps]

Having tried 5.56mm in my .223, I would advise the OP to save his money. Rifle was zeroed at 100m, using Norma factory ammo, and consistently shot groups of 3/4 inch. Swapped to 5.56 for cheap plinking, and the the group expanded to 4 feet at 100m and you were lucky to hit the board, let alone the target! checked with a rifle smith, and was told the NATO 5.56 was designed for shorter barrels and higher twist rates (?), and so did not suit my 20" T3. Gave the rest of the 5.56 away, and stuck to the Norma!

This is probably down to shooting bullets in a 1:12 that are too heavy so too long to stabilise. Nothing to say the Op does not have a 1:8 or 1:9 .223 which will work fine.