.223 vs 5.56

you seriously couldn't have just googled this? what the actual fuck is this world coming to?

>>32491426
I read contradictory information, friend :^)

No need to be upset

>>32491426
Hey man, it's a weapons board, dude's just trying to learn.

Well to answer the question, yes. A 5.56 chambered rifle will fire both .223 and 5.56, but a .223 rifle will not fire 5.56. Same goes for a 7.62 NATO will fire .308 but a .308 shouldn't be fed NATO rounds.

>>32491469
Correction, a .223 rifle will fire 5.56 but it's not recommendable.

>>32491469
>Same goes for a 7.62 NATO will fire .308 but a .308 shouldn't be fed NATO rounds.
No it doesn't

To make shit more confusing, .223 wylde will fire 5.56 fine as well.

>>32491415
depends on how they cut the chamber on the .223
90% will be fine saigas and minis are marked 223 but will shoot 5.56 perfectly fine of course there are 223s actually cut to the tightest 223 spec and those will explode so dont fire 5.56 out of anything marked 223 unless youve done research. target guns are exceptionally ammo sensetive. i know i said mini14s will shoot 556 but the target model wont.. because the target model is precise.

>>32491426
At least it's fucking weapons related unlike most of the shit on here.

>>32491469
Actually a rifle chambered for 308 will in fact shoot 7.62nato because 308 is a higher pressure round while the nato is standardized.

>>32491498
Just as much bullshit as >>32491469

They're simply different standards. Traditionally, 5.56 can handle .223 but not vice versa, but with modern guns they're pretty much interchangeable. A 5.56 gun will theoretically perform worse with. 223, but you're sort of splitting hairs at that point.
You could always just get a .223 Wylde chamber that's outright designed to shoot both.

>>32491502
He's right dumbass.
>>32491486
You don't make any sense.
>>32491469
You're right on the 5.56vs.223 but wrong on the 7.62vs.308
>>32491498
Good job.

A 7.62 rifle will handle .308, but .308 is a hotter load. Fucking google this shit, assholes.

>>32491415
.223 is fine firing 5.56 as most barrel manufacturers cut their chambers with more room to avoid a KB with hotter rounds. The only time 5.56 has damaged a .223 chamber was during SAAMI testing using their super tight chambers. Numerous studies have been done that show that not only will 5.56 not KB a proper .223 chamber, it won't even probably adversely effect it. More problems have been created from not having a standard 5.56 chamber than anything

>>32491527
308 and x51 are so close in pressure specs they are considered the same.
Maybe follow your own fucking advice and do some real research before commenting.

>>32491469

lol, let me know when your 7.62 rifle blows up in your face when you shoot .308 out of it

File: fuckum8.jpg (43KB, 700x391px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x391px

>>32491543
Except that's fucking wrong, you retard.
I don't remember an average of 62,000 PSI being so close it's considered the same as an average of 50,000 PSI.

>>32491609
Do you understand the difference between CUP and PSI?
How about the differences in measurement techniques used between SAAMI, CIP, NATO and, the US military?

File: 14e.jpg (202KB, 971x1079px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 971x1079px

>>32491623
Ay, you win, cuz no I don't. All I know is my PTR and FAL both handle .308 but Uncle Google says it's not recommendable.

>>32491415
Kinda related, but the Daewoo K-1, while able to fire both .223 and 5.56 NATO, loses accuracy with the latter. I believe it is due to the barrel having a different rifling. The K-2 suffers from no adverse effects from firing either round.

While the South Korean military is slowly replacing its stockpiles of .223 with the K100(5.56), the loss of accuracy for the K-1 is not seen as important given that its intended role is to be a PDW/carbine for vehicle crews, radio carriers, and officers. (It replaced the M3 grease gun)